Jonathan Chiwendere vs Manica Post (12 August 2016)

Katuruza Tsitsidzaishe registered her complaint with the MCC over a story published by The Sunday Mail on 21 August 2016 headlined, “Joice Mujuru unmasked”.

Tsitsidzaishe complains that the story is unethical and completely undermines the role of women, especially the role played by Dr. Joice Mujuru, during the liberation struggle.

The complainant also raises concern that the story contains falsehoods, seeks to review and revise history and is demeaning to all women.

Tsitsidzaishe also added that the source of the story, George Rutanhire appeared to be a secondary source of information yet his account was given as a first-hand account.

Status:  Finalised

The MCC wrote to the Sunday Mail and the Editor Mabasa Sasa responded as follows:

That the article does not undermine the role of women in the liberation struggle unless the complainant was arguing  Dr Joice Mujuru alone is representative of the thousands of women who participated in the Second Chimurenga. The focus of the article was one particular woman, and the article did  note the prominent role played by women such as Cdes Sheba Tavarwisa and Angeline Tongogara.

Sasa asked the complainant to indicate which “falsehoods” were in the article and where in particular the article sought to “review and revise history?” He added that history is the narration of competing narratives, and at no point had the 

narrative whose publication would naturally be subject to normal media industry considerations.

The editor also argued that the complainant wrongly assumed that George Rutanhire is the only source of the information contained in the article, saying that a cursory reading will indicate that there are other sources, at least one of whom is not named, as per constitutional prerogative. As for Cde Rutanhire’s account, his role – along with that of other people such as Cde Luke Mushore as mentioned in the article – in integrating Dr Mujuru in the liberation struggle is a matter of historical record, a record which Dr Mujuru herself has never contested. This again brings us to the issue of competing historical narratives, and the complainant is more than free to raise his/her competing narrative.

While the MCC urged the complainant to take up the newspaper’s offer to submit  a right-of-reply article, the complainant rejected this proposal as not being adequate remedy for their grievance.