Merchant Services Manager (Harare)

Library Technical Assistant

Assistant Binder

Broadcast Technician

Research, Innovation and Industry Linkage Officer (RIILO)

Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) Officer

Procurement Officer

Intellectual Property Management Officer

Research Officers x2

Business Development Officers x2

Innovation Lead (Engineering)

Innovation Lead (Arts & Creative Industries)

Innovation Manager

Public Health Specialist: Prevention, Care & Treatment (Harare)

Driver (Kariba)

Relief Drivers x8

Business Intelligence Analyst (Harare)

Contact Centre Agent-1 (Harare)

Switchboard Operator (OMAO) (Harare)

Procurement Manager (Bulawayo)

Auditor - ICT & Internal Control (Harare)

Legal Officer (Harare)

Auditor (Harare)

Director General (Harare)

The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) has announced the list of community and campus radio stations granted licenses to operate. We present BAZ’s statement below.
The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe would like to announce that it has licensed three (3) more Community Radio Stations. The licences have been issued to the following applicants:
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>Beitbridge – Shahe Community Broadcasting Association (License/Coverage Area – Beitbridge and Shashe)</li>
<li>Chiredzi Rural Communities Development Initiative Trust trading as Avuxeni FM (License/Coverage Area – Chlkombedzi, Chiredzi, Rutenga, Mahenye and Malipati)</li>
<li>Lyeja-Nyayi Development Trust (License/Coverage Area – Hwange and Victoria Falls)</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Furthermore, the BAZ has also issued Campus Radio licenses to the following academic institutions.
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>National University of Science and Technology</li>
<li>Lupane State University.</li>
<li>Harare Polytechnic College.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
After licensing, the stations should be operational within 18 months failure of which the licenses will be automatically revoked as stipulated by the Broadcasting Services Act.
For further details, contact us on:
Tel: 0242 443465-67

Pindula News

FULL LIST: Community & Campus Radio Stations Licensed

The Minister of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services, Monica Mutsvangwa, said that the government is “working very hard” to open up the airwaves.
Speaking before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Information, Media and Broadcasting Services, Mutsvangwa said that the government intend to issue six licences before the end of this year. She said:
<blockquote>The Second Republic is working very hard to make sure we open the airwaves, freedom of expression is very important, we have very educated people and we need those people to release their energies and bring new ideas on board which will take this country where we want it to be as a people.
We are working very hard to ensure that we are also able to license a number of players to bring that variety.
It is important and the Broadcasting Services Act which is being amended will enable BAZ to issue licences to several partners so that we give variety to our people.
We are hoping that this will be possible in 2019 and we can actually issue like six licences.</blockquote>
Mutsvangwa was accompanied by Secretary in the ministry, Nick Mangwana, Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe chief executive Obert Muganyura and his ZBC counterpart Patrick Mavhura.
The country has only one Television station (ZBCtv) whose quality of programming leaves a lot to be desired.
In the past 39 years, the government has steadfastly refused to give broadcasting licences to private players.
Observers have attributed this reluctance to the government’s desire to control the airwaves for propaganda purposes.
<h4>More: <a href="https://www.herald.co.zw/govt-to-open-airwaves/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Herald</a></h4>

6 Broadcasting Licences To Be Issued Before Year-end - Mutsvangwa

Information, Media and Broadcasting Services Secretary Mr George Charamba said Government is making a second invitation to those interested in establishing commercial radio stations in outlying areas such as Beitbridge.
He said this during a Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) outreach programme on digital migration held in Beitbridge. Said Charamba:
<blockquote>We are making a second invitation to those interested in having commercial radio stations, especially in areas like Beitbridge which serves as a gateway to the country and the Sadc region. This kind of approach is that you have a special radio station which is resident, which identifies with local activities, culture and economic activities and assuming the character of the community that it serves.</blockquote>
More: <a href="https://www.herald.co.zw/govt-re-aligns-content-budget/">Herald</a>

Govt Invites Applications For Commercial Radio Stations

The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) has granted Zimbabwe Newspapers a television broadcasting licence. This comes at a time when the Zimpapers Group had already set up Zimpapers Television Network (ZTN) as a production house.
Zimpapers Group Chief Executive Mr Pikirayi Deketeke revealed that they applied for a broadcasting licence after realising that media was no longer about print. Said Deketeke:
<blockquote>As a fast thinking business, we carried out surveys. We looked around at what regional competitors and global players in the same business were doing. Kenya, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia were some of the markets we looked at. It became obvious that media was no longer just about newspapers and print products even though they remain important. We realized that digital was becoming big. We also realized that broadcasting was also a profitable avenue for distribution of our content. We then thought long and hard about how we could tap into that.</blockquote>
More: <a href="https://www.herald.co.zw/zimpapers-gets-tv-licence/">Herald</a>

Zimpapers Gets TV Broadcasting Licence

The government through the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) has granted three broadcasting licences to Econet Media. The three licences are for Web Casting, Video On Demand and Content Distribution.
The Content Distribution Licence is quite significant as it will allow Kwese TV to operate legally since the new <a href="https://news.pindula.co.zw/2018/01/13/kwese-tv-risks-pulled-zimbabwe-econet-cuts-ties-dr-dish/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">broadcaster cancelled its contract with Dr Dish</a>. When Kwese TV came onto the market last year, it was initially using Dr Dish’s licence until <a href="https://news.pindula.co.zw/2018/01/27/kwese-tv-terminated-contract-dr-dish-mnangagwas-son-law/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">the two companies fell out and parted ways</a> leaving Kwese without a broadcasting licence. The notices for the licences were published in state media and read as follows:
<hr/>
ECONET MEDIA SERVICE LICENCE
TAKE NOTICE that ECONET MEDIA has been awarded a Broadcasting Service Licence by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe in terms of Section 10 of the Broadcasting Services Act (Chapter 12:06).
Details of licence are as follows: 
1. Type of licence: ………………..Web Casting License #WS0001 
2. Licence area:……………………. National 
3. Applicant’s Head Office:…79 Livingstone Avenue Harare
<hr/>
ECONET MEDIA SERVICE LICENCE
TAKE NOTICE that ECONET MEDIA has been awarded a Broadcasting Service Licence by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe in terms of Section 10 of the Broadcasting SerVices Act (Chapter 12:04
Details of licence are as follows: 
1. Type of licence: ………………..Video On Demand License #VODS0001 
2. Licence area:……………………. National 
3. Applicant’s Head Office:…79 Livingstone Avenue Harare
<hr/>
ECONET MEDIA SERVICE LICENCE
TAKE NOTICE that ECONET MEDIA has been awarded a Broadcasting Service Licence by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe in terms of Section 10 of the Broadcasting Services Act (Chapter 12:06).
Details of licence are as follows: 
1. Type of licence: ………………..Content Distribution License #CD0003 
2. Licence area:……………………. National 
3. Applicant’s Head Office:…79 Livingstone Avenue Harare
<hr/>

Econet Media Granted Three Broadcasting Licences

Speaking after touring the proposed Maphisa digital broadcasting transmission yesterday, Information, Media and Broadcasting Services Mr George Charamba said cabinet has approved the merger of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) and the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) into a single regulatory authority.
Said Charamba:
<blockquote>The rationale behind merging BAZ and Potraz is simple; we are dealing with an industry that has been reconfirmed by technology and we talking of technological convergence in an area that historically has been distinct. With merging we will not have any wall between the two entities. It means as you regulate the telecoms you must be mindful of what is happening in the broadcasting so the best way would be to have one regulatory authority so that decisions are done in a way that encompasses the whole sector.</blockquote>
More: <a href="https://www.herald.co.zw/baz-potraz-to-merge/">Herald</a>

Potraz, BAZ To Merge

6 April 2018
Chief Executive Officer
Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation
Chief Executive Officer
ZIMPAPERS Limited T/A Star FM &amp; Diamond FM
Chief Executive Officer
AB Communications (Pvt) Ltd T/A Zi FM; Hevoi FM &amp; 98.4 Midlands FM 
The Chairman
Ray of Hope (Pvt) Ltd t/a Ya FM 
Chief Executive Officer
 Fairtalk Communication pvt, Ltd T/A Breeze FM es Skies Metro FM 
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Kingston Holdings (Pvt) Ltd t/a Capitalk FM &amp; Nyami Nyami FM
BROADCASTING OF FAITH AND TRADITIONAL HEALING ADVERTISING  CONTENT 
Please kindly be advised that the Authority has observed with concern the use of broadcast stations as platforms for advertising faith and traditional healing powers and the use of scientifically untested methods of treatment and healing by certain individuals and churches to the socluding the u. unverifiable testimony,.
This observation by the Authority is supported by numerous complaints by members of the public to the Radio and Television Stations revealed by the Stations’ complaints registers and on social media.
Needless to point out that for some Stations, the broadcasts have impacted on the expected wider focus of the Stations to inform. educate and entertain the public, and, rather emerged as priority programming to the disappointment viewers and listeners.
To this extent, considering the Authority’s mandate to promote the interests of Consumers in respect of the quality of broadcasting services provided by licensees, account being taken of the prohibition in terms of paragraph 27(4)(e), of the Broadcasting Services ‘Licensing and Content, Regulations, 2004 of advertisement which misleads the public and in the interest of protecting members of the public who are likely to believe in whatever comes out of Radio or Television, the Authority hereby directs all Radio and Television Stations to cease the advertising of faith healing powers and the use of scientifically untested methods of treatment and healing by individuals or churches, including infomercials.
Please kindly note that this directive does not stop the broadcasting of social discussion programmes or debates on these issues.
Be guided accordingly,
Yours faithfully
O. MUGANYU. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BAZ Orders Radio Stations To Stop Running Adverts By Prophets And Traditional Healers (Sangoma/N'anga)

State-owned publisher Zimbabwe Newspapers (Zimpapers), the publishers of the Herald, Chronicle, Sunday Mail and Sunday News have applied to the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) for a Content Distribution Service Licence. The publisher runs its own online television network known as Zimpapers Television Network (ZTN) which started in late 2017.
BAZ has invited people who wish to comment on the matter to do so within 14 days from today. The Notice from BAZ reads,
<blockquote>
<h3>APPLICATION FOR A CONTENT DISTRIBUTION SERVICE LICENCE</h3>
TAKE NOTICE that the Applicant has applied for a Content Distribution Service Licence as stipulated in the Broadcasting Services Act (Chapter 12:06).
Name of Applicant: Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980) Limited
Type of Licence Applied for: Content Distribution Service Licence
Licence Area: Harare
Applicant’s Head Office:                6th Floor, Herald House
Cnr S. Nujoma &amp; G. Silundika 
P.O Box 55 
HARARE
Complete details of the Applicant have been lodged with the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe.
Any person who wishes to comment on the application may, within fourteen days of the date of the publication of this notice, contact the
Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe 
No. 27 Boscobel West Drive 
Highlands, Harare. 
Tel: +263 4 443465/7.
</blockquote>

Zimpapers Applies For Content Distribution Licence, BAZ Inviting Comments

The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) has shot down Zanu-PF’s plans to establish television or radio stations. This follows reports that <a href="https://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/12/23/zanu-pf-considers-establishing-tv-radio-stations/">Zanu-PF</a><a href="https://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/12/23/zanu-pf-considers-establishing-tv-radio-stations/">’s information department had recommended the establishment of radio and television stations for the party</a>.
BAZ chief executive Mr Obert Muganyura said that political parties are prohibited under Section 8 and 20 of the Broadcasting Services Act to own broadcasting licenses. He however said that they are guaranteed equal access to available service providers. Said Muganyura:
<blockquote>The BAZ would like to advise all political parties that the broadcasting law of Zimbabwe does not allow any political party to be the provider of any radio or television broadcasting service. This prohibition is in terms of Section 8 of the Broadcasting Services Act which provides for persons disqualified to be licensed, and Section 20 of the same Act under limitation of control of licences.
Political parties, therefore, need not consider establishing their own radio or television stations as such stations cannot be granted the authority to operate in terms of the law.
What political parties can be guaranteed of, as provided by law, is access to broadcasting services during an election period, in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission which regulate the media during that period.</blockquote>
The Herald reports that MDC-T vice president and Kuwadzana MP in Parliament last week inquired on the procedure for broadcasting licences for political parties.
More: <a href="http://www.herald.co.zw/no-broadcasting-licences-for-political-parties-baz/">Herald</a>

BAZ Shoots Down Zanu-PF's Plans To Own TV Or Radio Stations

You can click on the link below to download the ruling:
<h2><a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/High-Court-Ruling-Kwese-TV-Permission-to-Operate.pdf">High Court Ruling Kwese TV Permission to Operate</a></h2>
<blockquote>HH 666 -17 
HC 8457/17 
Ref HC 7999/17 
Ref SC 677/17 
MR DISH (PVT) LTD 
versus 
BROADCASTING AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE and 
0 MUGANYURA 
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE J 
HARARE, 15 &amp; 29 September 2017 
Application for leave to execute pending appeal 
T Nyambirai, for the applicant 
T Magwaliba, for the respondent elzis-11,410.
HUNGWE 3: On 8 September 2017 I granted interim relief in favour of the present applicants interdicting the respondents from acting on the purported termination of applicant’s license through a letter signed by second respondent on first respondent’s letterhead. I also further in the order stated that pending the final determination of the matter the applicant shall be entitled to enjoy the full rights and benefits of its license as if the letter of 22 August 2017 does not exist and that the applicant shall be entitled to distribute the Econet Media Limited (Mauritius) content based on the technical standards notified by the applicant to the first respondent and accepted by first respondent on 21 October 2016.
 
On 11 September 2017 a notice of appeal against my decision was lodged. In the ordinary course of events, in terms of our common law, the noting of an appeal suspends the execution of a judgment or the operation of an order, unless the court otherwise directs. See Herbstein &amp; van Winsen, The Civil Practice of the Superior Cow-is, 3rd ed, p 718. This general rule may be departed from in a proper case.
The principles which a court will apply in coming to a decision were set out by CORBETT JA in South Cape Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Engineering Management Services (Pty) Ltd, 1977 (3) SA 534 (AD) at 545E, in the following terms: 
“In exercising this discretion the Court should, in my view, determine what is just and 
equitable in all the circumstances, and, in doing so, would normally have regard, inter cilia, to the following factors –
the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice being sustained by the appellant (respondent in the application) if leave to execute were to be granted; the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice being sustained by the respondent on appeal (applicant in the application) if leave to execute were to be refused; the prospects of success on appeal, including more particularly the question as to whether the appeal is frivolous or vexatious or has been noted not with the bona fide intention of seeking to reverse the judgment but for some indirect purpose, e.g., to gain time or harass the other party; and here there is the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice to both appellant and respondent, the balance of hardship or convenience, as the case may be.” words “leav– proceed in terms of the order”.
Both Mr Nyambirai, for the applicants, and Mr Magwaliba, for the respondents, were agreed that 1 should apply these criteria in coming to my conclusion.
As far as facts are concerned, there are few new facts of any importance before me in this application, which were not revealed in the earlier proceedings. As an example, Mr Nyasha Muzavazi, deponent to applicant’s affidavit says that the matter ought to be dealt with on an urgent basis. He relies specifically on the same facts on urgency as he did when the initial application for interim relief was placed before me. In the earlier application I found that indeed the matter deserved to be treated as an urgent one.
He says that one other factor of relevance is that the respondents have raised as a ground of appeal the issue of urgency which I dealt with in an interlocutory judgment during the earlier proceeding. He says that the fact that the respondents have not sought a transcription of that interlocutory judgment but have raised as a ground of appeal, a matter dealt with in an earlier judgment which they have not sought to be transcribed demonstrates that the appeal was not lodged in good faith but for some other motive such as to buy time or merely to harass the applicant.
The respondents have submitted that the order sought was incompetent. However, the offending portions of the order sought were excised during the hearing and the matter proceeded on the basis that the amended order sought was competent and may be issued in that form. The respondents argue that there is no reason why the normal consequence of the noting of an appeal should not follow in this particular case as the applicant has failed to demonstrate any circumstance which would necessitate the grant of leave to proceed in terms of the judgment in the face of an appeal. The applicant seeks an order to be given leave to proceed in terms of the earlier relief granted despite the appeal noted by the respondents.
What this means in my view is that applicant seeks to enjoy the fruits of the rights that flowed from the license granted to it by the first respondent before second respondent purported to cancel it. In short, applicant does not seek to be given any new rights which it did not enjoy before the letter of 22 August 2017. Applicant points to the fact that after respondents had received payments, they now seek to unlawfully cancel its license as an indication of the lack of good faith on the respondents’ part.
I approach the matter on the basis that there is an onus on the applicant to satisfy me that the normal procedure should be departed from, but that, to use the words of CORBETT, JA, in the South Cape case (supp-a at p 549A), this “should not be regarded as displacing the wide ultimate discretion which the Court enjoys in deciding whether or not to grant leave.”
I will consider the four criteria listed earlier.
1. The potentiality of irreparable harm to the respondent if the application is granted. 
Mr Magwaliba, suggests that if the application is granted, then the respondents will suffer irreparable harm. That harm is said to result from the failure by the respondents to ensure compliance with the law and the terms and conditions of such licenses in terms of the Broadcasting Act [Chapter 12:06]. First respondent would have failed in its duty to account to the public and the authorities for such compliance. As such first respondent would have failed in its duties and obligation to be accountable to the general public which would defeat the very purpose for which it was set up. That there may be a failure by the first respondent in its enforcement role cannot be disputed, were the application to be granted. In my view, the issue is whether that failure would in any way result in irreparable harm to the first respondent if the application is granted. It seems to me that whatever harm may result from the grant of the leave to proceed in terms of the interim relief is merely of a temporary nature since it can be compensated for by an appropriate administrative action against the applicant in the form of a fine. It is not an irreversible har ich applicant may suffer should the
2. The potentiality of irreparable harm to the applicant if this application is refused. 
If the appeal is allowed, the applicant would have lost nothing to which it has a right. Similarly, if the appeal is dismissed, the applicant would have lost potential revenue which it may still make with the passage of time, assuming that the respondents act fairly in their deliberations regarding the apparent oversight which led to this litigation. In the final analysis, I come to the conclusion that the scales are evenly balanced in respect of the potentiality of irreparable harm in either event. The matter must therefore be considered on the basis of the remaining two factors.
3. The prospects of success of the appeal 
In assessing the prospects of success of the appeal, the Court is invited to pay due regard particularly to the question of whether the appeal is frivolous or vexatious or has been noted not with the bona fide intention of seeking to reverse the judgment but for some indirect purpose, e.g., to gain time or harass the other party. See Fox &amp; Carney (Pvt) Ltd v Carthew- Gabriel (2) 1977 (4) SA 970 (R) and ZDECO (Pvt) Ltd v Commercial Careers College (1980) (Pvt) Ltd 1991 (2) ZLR 61 (1-1). Mr Nyambirai argued that the appeal was lodged for some other motive than to seek to reverse my earlier order, He points to the fact that the chances of the appeal succeeding are next to nil because clearly, the second respondent acted ultra vires his powers. There is no basis for the view that an appeal court applying its mind to the issues to be considered would come to a different conclusion. I must say that one must always accept that an appellate court may be persuaded to come to a different conclusion on any finding by this court. Whilst there is that possibility it seems to me that in the present case, that possibility is a bit remote. I do not wish to second guess the appellate court’s final decision but it occurs to me that the respondent lodged the appeal for some indirect purpose. The respondents’ prospects of success are minimal. Finally, I must consider what has come to he termed “the balance of convenience”.
4. The balance of convenience or the balance of equities 
Where there is the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice to both appellant and respondent, the balance of hardship or convenience, as the case may be, will be weighed into the scales in the determination of Nether to exercise the discretion in favour of granting the relief sought. With regard to the epons derance of equities,Ft. it is obvious that the applicant has much to gain if they are permitted to continue with their operations as previously licensed by the first respondent. Likewise, the applicant has much to lose if they are prohibited from carrying on with their preparations in the interim. Applicant has expended large amounts of money and entered into contractual agreements with other persons in the expectation of being granted the necessary licence, which in any event, was granted. It seems to me that the equities are fairly balanced in favour of the applicant. 1 say this because the first respondent, as the broadcasting authority, will lose nothing if the applicant is allowed to continue providing the service that applicant notified it in terms of section 17 of the Act. As the regulatory authority, its mandate is to ensure that applicants for the broadcast licenses are duly granted such licenses on good cause shown. As the regulatory authority its powers are prescribed in the Act. Those powers are exercisable by itself not the second respondent, as happened with the purported letter of cancellation. As such, in my view, the preponderance of equities favour the applicant as the holder of a license duly granted to it. If there is some contravention of the conditions of the license, in my view, that does not entitle second respondent to cancel the license as he has no such powers.
As indicated in the South Cape Corporation, (supra) the Court retains a wide discretion in the determination of whether or not to grant leave to execute pending an appeal. In exercising this discretion, the court should, in my view, determine what is just and equitable in all the circumstances, and, in doing so, would normally have regard, inter alia, to the factors set out above. This court has applied the foregoing principles in Dabengwa Anor vMinister of Home Affairs 1982 (1 ) ZLR 223 at 225 (HC), Jeremy Prince (Pvt) Ltd v Owen &amp; Anor HH-14-86: Van t’ Hoff v Van t’ Hoff &amp; Ors (2) 1988 (1) ZLR 335; Archies (Pvt) Ltd v Guthrie Holdings (Pvt) Ltd 1989 (1) ZLR 152 (HC).
I am satisfied that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for the grant of leave to proceed with its operations as set out in the order of this court in HH-598-17 dated 8 September 2017 in which the letter by the second respondent was to all intents and purposes suspended pending the final determination of the rights of the parties.
In the result I make the following order: 
1. Leave to proceed in terms of the judgment of this Court in se nu•er 598- 
17 be and is hereby granted. 
2. The respondents shall bear the costs of this application. o JP ,01.{9
Melva &amp; Nyainbirai, applicant’s legal practitioners 
TH Chitapi &amp; Associates, respondent’s legal practitioner</blockquote>

Full Ruling: High  Court rules that Kwese TV can continue operating until Supreme Court appeal

<blockquote>CALL FOR PUBLIC NOMINATIONS FOR PERSONS TO SERVE ON THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE BOARD</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of the Parliament of Zimbabwe is mandated in terms of section 4(2)(b) of the Broadcasting Services Act [Chapter 12:06], to nominate candidates for appointment by his Excellency, the President, to serve as Members of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe Board. A list of six candidates shall be submitted to his Excellency, the President from which three persons shall be appointed to the Board.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Committee on Standing Rules and Orders is hereby calling on the Public to nominate persons to be considered for appointment to the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe Board.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The functions the Commission and the person specifications are given below:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
1. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE BOARD</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Functions of Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe Board 
The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe Board has the following functions— 
(a) to plan and advise on the allocation and distribution of the available frequency spectrum; 
(b) to advise the Minister on the adoption and establishment of standards and codes relating to equipment attached to broadcasting systems; 
(c) to receive, evaluate and consider applications for the issue of any broadcasting licence or signal carrier licence; 
(d) to monitor tariffs charged by broadcasting licensees with a view to eliminating unfair business practices among such licensees and to protect the interests of consumers; 
(e) to advise the Minister on ways of improving and promoting a regulatory 
environment that will facilitate the development of a broadcasting industry in 
Zimbabwe that is efficient, competitive and responsive to audience needs and 
the national interest; 
(f) to encourage diversity in the control of broadcasting services; 
(g) to ensure that Zimbabweans have effective control of broadcasting services or 
systems; 
(h) to ensure the role of broadcasting services and systems in developing and 
reflecting a sense of Zimbabwean identity, character and cultural diversity; 
(i) to promote the provision of high quality and innovative programming by 
providers of broadcasting services; 
(j) to encourage providers of commercial and community broadcasting services 
and systems to be responsive; to the need for a fair and accurate coverage of 
matters of public interest and for an appropriate coverage of matters of local 
significance; 
(k) to encourage providers of broadcasting services and systems to respect 
community standards and values in the provision of programme material; 
(l) to ensure the provision of means for addressing complaints about broadcasting 
services; 
(m) to ensure that providers of broadcasting services place a high priority on the 
protection of children from exposure to programme material which may be 
harmful to them; and 
(n) to ensure compliance with this Act and license conditions and, where 
empowered, to enforce the provisions of this Act; 
(o) to monitor and track the use of the broadcasting service bands; 
(p) generally, to advise the Minister on all matters relating to broadcasting systems 
and services; 
(q) to carry out any function or act as may be prescribed by the Minister.</blockquote>
<blockquote>2. PERSON SPECIFICATIONS 
Members of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe Board must be Zimbabwean 
citizens and chosen for their integrity and experience and for their competence in the 
Broadcasting matters.</blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>3. NOMINATION PROCEDURE</blockquote>
<blockquote>Nomination material must consist of a typewritten submission of no more than two A4 
pages long stating why the person nominated is a suitable candidate together with a 
completed nomination form which can be obtained at Parliament offices or 
downloaded from the website: www.parlzim.gov.zw. 
Nominations must be addressed to the Clerk of Parliament in envelopes clearly 
marked with the name of the Commission must either be posted, hand delivered or 
emailed to:</blockquote>
<blockquote>The Parliament of Zimbabwe 
Parliament Building 
Cnr. K. Nkurumah Avenue and Third Street 
P.O. Box CY 298 
Causeway 
Harare 
Email: hr@parlzim.gov.zw 
Closing date of submissions is 30 September 2017</blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div></div>
</blockquote>
</div>

Invitation to Public to Nominate Candidates for BAZ Board

Strive Masiyiwa’s Kwese TV has now gone offline in Zimbabwe as legal wrangles between Kwese TV’s content distributor, Dr Dish, and the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) continue. Dr Dish and Kwese TV had to shut down operations after <a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/09/13/baz-challenges-high-courts-decision-to-allow-kwese-tv-to-operate/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">BAZ filed an appeal at the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe challenging High Court judge Justice Charles Hungwe’s decision to allow Kwese TV to operate</a> as if the letter written by BAZ cancelling Dr Dish’s licence did not exist. However, when BAZ appealed against the ruling at the Supreme Court, it had the effect of suspending <a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/09/08/full-high-court-judgement-kwese-tv-vs-broadcasting-authority-zimbabwe/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Justice Hungwe’s ruling</a>, meaning that for now Dr Dish’s licence has been suspended and Kwese TV cannot air its content within the law.  We have since confirmed that Kwese TV has stopped airing its content.
<a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/09/14/kwese-tv-seeks-permission-operate/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kwese TV has also filed an urgent application at the High Court again, seeking permission to continue operating until the matter is resolved by the Supreme Court.</a> The matter is yet to be resolved.
 
<h3><a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/09/16/kwese-tv-statement-explaining-suspension-broadcasting-services-says-open-refund/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Here is the statement released by Kwese TV, explaining the suspension of services.</a></h3>

Kwese TV is now off air in Zimbabwe until courts decide various applications and appeals

State owned telecommunications company TelOne has applied for a broadcasting licence in order to setup Video on Demand (VoD) services. The application has been submitted to the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe. In a notice placed in the state owned daily newspaper The Herald, people have been invited to air their comments.
 
Part of the notice reads
<blockquote>Complete details of the application have been lodged with the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe. 
Any person who wishes to comment on the application may within fourteen days (14) of the date of publication, of this notice, contact the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe, 27 Boscobel West Drive Highlands, Harare.Tel (04) 443 465-7, email: info@baz.co.zw .</blockquote>
 
This comes at a time when the BAZ is trying to cancel the broadcasting licence belonging to Kwese TV’s broadcasting partner Dr Dish. <a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/09/13/baz-challenges-high-courts-decision-to-allow-kwese-tv-to-operate/">BAZ has since applied to the Supreme Court after High Court judge Justice Charles Hungwe granted a provisional order which allowed reversed an earlier decision by BAZ to cancel Dr Dish’s licence.</a>

As BAZ tries to shutdown Kwese TV, TelOne applies for Broadcasting Licence

Local Government Minister Saviour Kasukuwere has celebrated Dr Dish’s victory against the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) at the High Court today. Dr Dish is the company which will distribute content for Kwese TV.
In a tweet Kasukuwere wrote:
https://twitter.com/Hon_Kasukuwere/status/906199793994780672
In a ruling, High Court Judge Justice Charles Hungwe set aside BAZ’s ban and gave Dr Dish the go ahead to distribute content on behalf of Kwese TV.
Part of the ruling reads:
<blockquote>Applicant(Dr Dish) shall be entitled to enjoy the full rights and benefits of its license as if the said letter of 22 August 2017 does not exist.
 Applicant shall be entitled to distribute the Econet Media Limited (Mauritius) content based on the technical standards notified by the Applicant to the First Respondent and accepted by First Respondent on 21 October 2016.</blockquote>
<h2><a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/09/08/full-high-court-judgement-kwese-tv-vs-broadcasting-authority-zimbabwe/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">You can read more of Justice Hungwe’s judgement here.</a></h2>

Kasukuwere celebrates Kwese TV's High Court victory

New pay television network Kwesé TV launched its service in Botswana as the service has been banned in Zimbabwe after the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe cancelled the broadcasting licence for Kwese TV’s content distributor, Dr. Dish. <a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/08/28/kwese-tv-distributor-dr-dish-threatens-sue-baz-ceo-personally-illegal-decision-cancel-licence-gives-24-hour-ultimatum-reverse-decision/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dr Dish is now threatening to sue BAZ and it’s Chief executive officer for the “illegal decision” to cancel the licence.</a>
General Manager at Kwesé TV Goabaone Kgosana said,
<blockquote>Batswana have been hungry for an alternative and we believe we have the answer with our programming bouquet which speaks to every viewing appetite and budget.
As a business premised on making premium content accessible, we have also made our service available at varying price points by pioneering ‘pay-as-you-watch’ subscription packages which enable consumers to purchase seven and three day passes, at 88 BWP and 50 BWP respectively,”</blockquote>
More: <a href="http://www.weekendpost.co.bw/wp-news-details.php?nid=4216">Weekend Post</a>

Kwesé TV launches in Botswana while barred in Zimbabwe

An unnamed source that spoke to The Herald claims that Kwese TV has never applied to operate in Zimbabwe.
Said the anonymous source:
<blockquote>We don’t know on what basis this discussion around Kwese is coming in, because Kwese has not lodged an application for a licence for distributing foreign content. The application that was lodged and was considered in the affirmative is that of Dr Dish, and this was to distribute a foreign content service, which has since been discontinued in Southern Africa called My TV. Now, the whole argument being raised is trying to suggest that change of content supplier is immaterial to the licence.
Government does not license people to sell doughnuts or biscuits in Zimbabwe. They are licensed to introduce foreign content into Zimbabwe’s airwaves, so the issue of supplier and nature of content is the soul of that licensing process. If there is a change of supplier, that is a material fact of the licensing process, and because there has been that change, the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe is correct to have cancelled that licence and in any event, they cancelled it after an inordinately long period of inactivity to that licence — not just absence of activity, but also even failure to pay basic charges which comes with that licence, which means it’s clear that there was no capacity in the first place.</blockquote>
More: <a href="http://www.herald.co.zw/kwese-tv-never-applied-for-a-licence/">Herald</a>

Kwese TV has never applied for a licence to operate in Zim

Kwese TV distributors Dr Dish intend to sue the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ). Dr Dish executive chairman, Nyasha Muzavazi said that they served BAZ CEO Mr Obert Muganyuri the letter on Friday. This comes after BAZ announced that Dr Dish’s licence is not valid anymore as it was cancelled by the authority for failure by Dr. Dish to provide service when the company initially attempted DTH pay TV years ago.
<a href="http://www.techzim.co.zw/2017/08/econet-starts-refunding-people-bought-kwese-tv-decoders-subscriptions/">Techzim reports that </a><a href="http://www.techzim.co.zw/2017/08/econet-starts-refunding-people-bought-kwese-tv-decoders-subscriptions/">Econet has started to refund</a> Kwese TV customers in Zimbabwe. Some weeks ago there were rumours that Kwese TV had finally managed to get a license although Econet hinted that some administrative procedures had to be completed first. However, Dr Dish,  a company licensed to provide pay satellite TV in 2012 (when it introduced MyTV Africa) issued a press release announcing that it had partnered with Econet Media to enable distributr Kwese TV in Zimbabwe services using the Dr Dish license.
<h2>Now Read: <a href="http://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/08/28/kwese-tv-distributor-dr-dish-threatens-sue-baz-ceo-personally-illegal-decision-cancel-licence-gives-24-hour-ultimatum-reverse-decision/">Kwese TV distributor, Dr. Dish, threatens to sue BAZ and its CEO personally for “illegal decision” to cancel licence, gives them 24-hour ultimatum to reverse decision</a></h2>

Breaking: Kwese TV distributors to sue Govt

<blockquote>PRESS STATEMENT 
BROADCASTING AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE 
The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe wishes to advise the public that the Authority has not issued any licence for the provision of Kwese TV In Zimbabwe. This follows media reports suggesting that Kwese was now officially in Zimbabwe and did not need a licence after all. In terms of the Broadcasting Services Act [Chapter 1206J, no person shall provide a broadcasting service in Zimbabwe other than in accordance with a licence issued by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe. T. Content Distribution licence issued to Dr. Dish, which was specific to the provision of the My TV Africa Service, as declared by Dr. Dish in its application and stated in the terms and conditions of the licence, was cancelled by the Authority for failure by Dr. Dish to provide the My TV Africa service, The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe therefore wishes to advise the public not to invest in a service that cannot be provided without a licence and warns anyone who may contemplate providing an unlicensed broadcasting service to acquaint themselves with the course of action that the Authority is bound to take, in terms of the law. 
Obert Muganyura 
Chief Executive Officer</blockquote>

Full Press Statement from BAZ dismissing claims that Kwese TV has a valid broadcasting licence

Here is how some of the Twitter users responded to the announcement by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe’s (BAZ)  that Kwese TV has not been licenced.
https://twitter.com/matigary/status/900591629140197377
https://twitter.com/StanSinyo/status/900584514782670852
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
Those at the top (in Zim):
1. Love things. 2. Block things from coming into Zim for ordinary folk. 3. Travel abroad to buy things.
— Fadzayi Mahere (@advocatemahere) <a href="https://twitter.com/advocatemahere/status/900613273690587136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
1. The KweseTV debacle &amp; the defence of govt's unreasonableness is a good reminder of ZANU PF's toxicity whether united or factionalised.
— Alex T Magaisa 🇿🇼 (@Wamagaisa) <a href="https://twitter.com/Wamagaisa/status/900616223809040384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
Lol. Why not start by licencing the alternative that has been started by our very own. Banning is not a solution pple will subscribe in SA.
— Kuda Mugova 🇿🇼 (@kmugova) <a href="https://twitter.com/kmugova/status/900591743984336896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
2. Kwese TV has been authorised to operate in many African countries, except in Zimbabwe, the original home of its mother company.
— Alex T Magaisa 🇿🇼 (@Wamagaisa) <a href="https://twitter.com/Wamagaisa/status/900440983950774272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
Correct positn is Multichoice Zim isn't a foreign company. It's just a franchisee of Multichoice SA. It's owned by locals like Mangwende
— mmatigari (@matigary) <a href="https://twitter.com/matigary/status/900593762757480448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
Kusvika rinhi <a href="https://twitter.com/DStv?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DStv</a> is now difficut to pay. Lets pave way for <a href="https://twitter.com/watchkwese?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@watchkwese</a> and enjoy the benefits of the sons and daughters of our land
— Manuchisvo_Official🇿🇼🇿🇲 (@giwukumene) <a href="https://twitter.com/giwukumene/status/900599412426248192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
A blatant eg f government's self destructive pattern since 1980s.This would make world more accessible 2households but 'no, we must block'
— Neptune. (@neptunethezimbo) <a href="https://twitter.com/neptunethezimbo/status/900570972796796928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
Zim has everything to benefit,transmedia however on the other side have everything to lose!!! Look who owns transmedia
— Kudzi Muyangwa (@khanyie04) <a href="https://twitter.com/khanyie04/status/900568867742855170?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
ok heuno muvhunzo dont just argue for the sake of it. "….Why frustrate investment when the country looking for it!" asked <a href="https://twitter.com/Wamagaisa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Wamagaisa</a>
— waMakwiramiti (@madamombead) <a href="https://twitter.com/madamombead/status/900578282810290176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-dnt="true" data-width="550">
<a href="https://twitter.com/ProfJNMoyo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ProfJNMoyo</a> What do u expect from pple who enact legislation like AIPPA and POSA
— Kanganwai 🇿🇼 (@chihozhwak) <a href="https://twitter.com/chihozhwak/status/900581719455223808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>

Zimbabweans on Twitter respond to news that Kwese TV does not have a valid broadcasting licence

In a statement released today, the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) denied issuing Kwese TV a licence to operate in the country despite reports that it did not require a licence.
BAZ CEO, Mr Obert Muganyura said in terms of the Broadcasting Services Act [chapter 12:06], no person shall provide a broadcasting service in Zimbabwe other than in accordance with a licence issued by BAZ. Muganyura stated that the content distribution licence issued to Dr. Dish, which was specific to the provision of the My TV Africa Service was cancelled by BAZ for failure by Dr. Dish to provide service. Part of the statement by BAZ reads:
<blockquote>BAZ therefore wishes to advise the public not to invest in a service that cannot be provided without a licence and warns anyone who may contemplate providing an unlicensed broadcasting service to acquaint themselves with the course of action that the authority is bound to take in terms of the law.</blockquote>
<h3>Strive Masiiyiwa was also initially denied a license to set up Econet Wireless and had to fight the government through the courts to be awarded the licence.   <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Masiyiwa%27s_Narration_of_Court_Battles_in_Establishing_Econet">You can read an account of his legal battles here</a>.</h3>

Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe Latest News

Latest Jobs