Legal officers, like anyone else, can be swayed by public opinion. That is precisely why it is often said that court matters should not be openly debated while proceedings are ongoing. Justice is not a matter of personal inclination—it is a higher, almost sacred principle that law officers are sworn to uphold. A miscarriage of justice remains one of the gravest wrongs imaginable.
The media’s role is to inform. Yet, when it spreads falsehoods, it should be condemned, because accurate reporting is crucial to fair legal outcomes. In an uneducated society, people can be made to believe almost anything. In Zimbabwe, mainstream media has long been treated as the ultimate source of truth, even when it is wrong—an arrangement that began with government control of Zimbabwe Newspapers, ZBC, and their subsidiaries. On paper, the judiciary appears capable. In practice, the media exercises far greater influence over justice.
Government power has been bolstered not by law but by biased coverage that sensationalises events or downplays injustice. The judiciary is widely believed to be influenced by the ZANU-PF government and state media, which promote a one-party narrative. This media dominance is one reason public discussion of active court cases is often discouraged. True justice should be guided by constitutional provisions, not by media bias or popular sentiment.
The most dangerous feature of any legal system has always been precedent, which can gradually erode the authority of the Constitution—the very document meant to serve as the supreme guide of governance. The popularisation of the 2017 coup reinforced the perception that, in Zimbabwe, the media holds more power than the judiciary.
Even when Emmerson Mnangagwa lost to Nelson Chamisa in the 2018 elections, the Malaba-led Constitutional Court’s ruling appeared heavily shaped by narratives pushed through the media, particularly ZBC TV. We also witnessed individuals with massive social media followings promoting a particular narrative, exploiting a misinformed public.
While some recognised this as a miscarriage of justice, most accepted the court’s decision as flawless. This stems from a common habit of respecting the rule of law without insisting on justice. The former often focuses on court rulings, while the latter insists on the principle of justice itself. Courts are run by individuals who, like anyone else, can be swayed by particular perspectives or media-driven narratives.
Even the world’s most powerful governments are not immune to media influence. Consider the turmoil surrounding the 2020 US election, when Donald Trump’s Twitter account was suspended. It happened because his posts were gaining traction in shaping public opinion, even around false narratives. Some accused him of spreading falsehoods, but ultimately, public perception, not the truth on the ground, was what mattered.
Americans are fortunate to have a constitutional framework that separates institutions from government. In countries considered to have weak institutions, the media overshadows everything, leaving the judiciary effectively powerless. In the US example, the election outcome could have been compromised had the media been fully controlled by the government. Yet even with strong institutions, Donald Trump remained influential, leading to his overwhelming success in 2024. In my view, Trump’s victory was not due to superior ideas but to marketing skill, with the media—and influential social media voices—playing a decisive role.
In Zimbabwe, the media was suspected of being used to present Douglas Mwonzora as the rightful MDC leader, even when the situation simply did not add up. It felt more like slick public relations than sound legal reasoning—his legitimacy packaged and sold to the public while the real state of affairs was ignored. Even now, many confidently refer to his legal confirmation as leader of the MDC, while Chamisa’s supporters appeared to step back, perhaps to seem respectful of the law.
It does not require deep legal expertise to see that such flawed processes rarely deliver true justice. Given the votes Chamisa secured in 2018, what better sign of legitimacy is there than overwhelming public backing? Yet the captured media swept this aside and even played down the unresolved six-million-dollar fraud allegations against Mwonzora. The chaotic MDC-T Extraordinary Congress of 27 December 2020 was likewise glossed over by mainstream outlets, making its outcome seem acceptable. In reality, the MDC constitution had been breached in 2014, stripping Chamisa’s ascension.
While the Supreme Court may have been correct to point out irregularities, that ruling had ultimately been overtaken by events. The Court itself admitted its judgment was moot. The real issue with the unfair ruling becomes clear when comparing the handling of the 2014 MDC-T judgment with how the courts either mishandled or ignored the chaotic December 2020 MDC-T Congress. This reflects a glaring miscarriage of justice.
Consider the bias in the handling of the 2014 Congress ruling: the same courts had already allowed Thokozani Khupe’s party to register as MDC-T for the 2018 elections. Had Khupe won, MDC-T could have formed a government without MDC Alliance supporters. But court rulings carried the assumption that Khupe lost because of the 2014 irregularities. Meanwhile, Chamisa was forced to use the same courts, citing election irregularities, suggesting that the MDC Alliance could have been declared the winner without legal obstacles.
Since both factions led separate, legally recognised parties in 2018, what justified the Supreme Court in handing Chamisa’s party over to Khupe? Common sense suggests that Chamisa’s leadership of the MDC Alliance was irreversible, given the moot judgment. Even if biased, the ruling was not legally enforceable beyond future reference—yet it was used to dismantle the MDC Alliance. This raises serious concerns about the direction of justice in the country.
The MDC constitution itself was said to empower the National Council to handle urgent legal matters outside of Congress when necessary. How the Supreme Court determined its delivery remains the mystery of all time. The real question an unbiased court ought to have considered was who, between Nelson Chamisa and Thokozani Khupe, commanded popular support.
Under normal conditions, courts are expected to be impartial and not aligned with any political party when delivering judgments. In the MDC-T leadership case, the simple majority that favoured Chamisa ought to have carried the day. That is how functional democracies operate. Chamisa’s mandate had been confirmed by over two million voters in the 2018 elections, to say nothing of the May 2019 MDC Alliance Congress that ratified his presidency.
All of this has led many to feel that Zimbabweans, including judges, may value money more than integrity. While the country can be described as rich in mineral and agricultural resources, it is weakened by unethical leaders who cannot be trusted on legal matters. The issue lies not only with judges but with a broader culture that seems to prize wealth above dignity—a deeply disappointing truth.
Foreign investors should be drawn to the quality of the people, not merely to the nation’s natural wealth. The country’s true value rests in its people, not in its minerals. While motivational speakers urge young people to be entrepreneurial, few inspire them to value themselves above the accumulation of money. This raises a troubling question: if those entrusted with justice can be so easily swayed, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen?
Justice is a noble ideal, but when legal officers twist it for personal gain, the nation is in trouble. For those unaware of a higher moral authority, nothing may seem amiss, yet this mindset drags humanity toward animalistic behaviour. There is no real justice when entrepreneurs are celebrated for their wealth, fine homes, and luxury cars without regard for fairness or integrity. This, even media professionals have observed, is the breeding ground for corruption.
Too many pursue wealth as the sole measure of success, undermining the very essence of justice. How far a country can advance when money is valued above human dignity is anyone’s guess. This distorted vision of the judiciary has crippled Africa, regardless of where such falsehoods originated. The unshakable truth is that a person’s worth far surpasses the vehicle they drive or the house they own. What is often seen as adding value frequently ends up taking it away.
“In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor. About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. … ‘Please come at once!’ Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them. Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, ‘Tabitha, get up.’ She opened her eyes and, seeing Peter, she sat up.” (Acts 9:36-40, NIV)
This Scripture reminds us of the true meaning of human worth. Dorcas may not fit the usual image of a businesswoman, but she embodied work that genuinely served others, revealing her true business worthiness. She devoted herself to helping those who could never repay her, and her miraculous resurrection proves that no good deed goes unrewarded—in this life or the next.
In a world fixated on monetary gain, Christianity can seem less appealing because it focuses on lifting others up rather than exalting oneself. A person’s worth is not measured by self-benefit. Jesus taught His followers to give quietly, avoiding the lure of public praise. His words caution against seeking admiration from people at the expense of the reward that comes from above.
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-4, NIV)
Jesus urged His disciples to steer clear of corruption, warning against the urge for flashy material displays or the desire for public recognition of good deeds. True dignity flows from humility, not from showcasing one’s virtues. The stories of Dorcas and the Good Samaritan were not told to inspire acts performed for applause but to reveal deeper truths about human worth. People are inherently good, created in God’s image, and raising good children is among the greatest contributions one can make. Real worth lies in what we do for others, not in what is done for us. Sadly, some seem lifeless long before their physical death, making their funerals feel empty. A meaningful life benefits others without placing burdens on them.
Today, courts face accusations of bowing to the state—a charge difficult to dismiss without noting media complicity. State-run outlets like Zimbabwe Newspapers, ZBC, and their subsidiaries dominate the mainstream, while so-called private media, though branded as independent, remain under government sway. Run by profit-driven owners, private media often put business interests ahead of public service.
What can stop them from being corrupted by a government that flaunts cash at will? While many believe private media is fundamentally different from state media, that assumption can be misleading. In a struggling economy, avoiding corruption is exceedingly difficult, and it is unrealistic to think that private media houses—or even individual journalists—are entirely free from it.
Politically sensitive cases are often quietly buried, with court rulings shaped by narratives pushed through the media. Social media clashes have, at times, exposed government double standards, prompting an aggressive push for constitutional changes. In Zimbabwe, it has become difficult to imagine that there is a strong opposition capable of resisting ZANU-PF-driven constitutional amendments. Corruption has taken hold, boosting presidential powers while the media makes everything appear harmless.
Compared to silencing the press, capturing the judiciary is less impactful because popular journalists openly take money to spread harmful messages. The media ends up legitimising sweeping presidential authority, with many in the industry prioritising profit over integrity. If the media remained truly free, even a dictator would feel uneasy—though honest dictators are rare, with perhaps Paul Kagame of Rwanda standing out as one of the few who might justify such behaviour.
Good governance begins with a free press, followed by a sound justice system. Opposition parties can protest and complain about excessive presidential powers, but without freeing the media, it is a waste of effort. In a corruption-ridden country, money is used to manipulate even well-meaning politicians. Even if executive powers are reduced, restricting the media still leaves the marks of dictatorship.
At present, social media appears to be doing fairly well. False information certainly exists, but such lies can be punished through existing legal mechanisms without the need for special legislation. A person with a clear conscience is not easily harmed by falsehoods.
State media should not be entirely government-owned; information should be raw yet as ethical as possible. In a healthy democracy, publishers, like anyone else, should be free to support political parties of their choice, provided they act ethically. True freedom comes from having multiple, legally recognized media outlets. Profits should arise from ethical practices, not shady ones—and this is possible when we embrace the greater good.
Zimbabweans should be independent while remaining aware of how their actions affect others, just as the lives of others affect them. The one-person-one-vote principle works best when everyone first respects themselves and then extends that respect to others. It all begins with valuing human dignity above money. The judiciary should be senior to the media, not the reverse.
Through an undignified media, some struggling mothers are misled into believing that good parenting means showering children with gifts. In truth, the best parenting comes from instilling strong values—such as the spirit of serving others. These lessons can be taught in many ways, even through humble work like housekeeping.
What truly matters is serving meaningfully, according to one’s resources and background. This mindset should also be embraced by media professionals, who ought to see themselves as public educators. It is heartbreaking when talented writers are corrupted into spreading propaganda, turning Zimbabwe into a global laughingstock.
The root of this problem lies with the media. Chasing wealth should never outweigh building the nation through responsible reporting. While many blame the courts for failing to deliver justice, it often begins with the flow of information. Honest reporting can guide judges toward just outcomes; when the media spreads falsehoods, it paves the way for judicial error. At the bottom, every human being intrinsically possesses the capacity to recognize fair justice.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilisation, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, relieving those who have witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions, leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book to be a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99