By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru
Own Ollah Madondo a controversial DJ in Zimbabwe also known as DJ Ollah 7 recently interviewd a rape victim Mai Jeremaya on his Podcast and stirred lot of debate about his profesi9nal conduct. Zimbabwean Journalist Maynard Manyowa who also happens to be Olla’s friend posted his comments on the responsed from the public, Manyowa posted on his Facebook page, his comments are attached bellow this analysis.
Points that align with certain journalistic ethics:
Seeking the truth/Informing the public: Manyowa emphasizes Ollah’s “duty to ask questions” to “establish the truth,” which aligns with the core journalistic principle of seeking and reporting factual information.
Avoiding bias/Equal treatment: His point that Ollah’s consistent interview style prevents accusations of “bias or unequal treatment” suggests an adherence to fairness in journalistic practice.
Victim anonymity (in principle): Manyowa explicitly states his position that victims of sexual offenses “should not be named” due to potential public harm and deterrence of reporting. This aligns with a strong ethical consideration for victim protection and minimizing harm, common in many journalistic codes, particularly in countries with established anonymity laws for sexual assault victims (like the UK standard he mentions).
Acknowledging public discomfort vs. journalistic duty: His observation that “People are uncomfortable because they had to sit through the disturbing details” while asserting Ollah’s duty to ask questions highlights the tension between public sentiment and the journalist’s role, a common ethical challenge.
Points that raise ethical questions or are debatable:
Minimizing harm vs. victim agency: While Manyowa acknowledges Ashley’s agency in choosing to appear, his assertion that “she should not have done that interview” and that the responsibility for stopping her lay with her family and friends, rather than the interviewer, could be seen as sidestepping the interviewer’s ethical obligation to minimize harm. Professional guidelines for interviewing trauma survivors often emphasize assessing the interviewee’s vulnerability, ensuring informed consent with a full understanding of potential outcomes, and providing support, breaks, or even stopping the interview if the interviewee appears to be in distress or re-traumatized. Simply stating the interviewee “seemed determined” might not fully absolve the journalist of responsibility in such sensitive situations.
The “therapy session” distinction: While an interview is not a therapy session, journalists interviewing trauma survivors are often advised to have basic knowledge about sexual violence and its consequences, and to approach the interview with sensitivity. This includes being prepared for emotional moments and offering breaks. A complete lack of empathy or a perceived aggressive questioning style could be seen as a failure to “minimize harm.”
Public interest vs. individual privacy/dignity: While Manyowa argues for establishing truth, the ethical balance in sexual assault cases often leans heavily towards protecting the dignity and privacy of the victim, even when they choose to speak out. The “public circus” and “humiliation” he mentions raise questions about whether the interview, in its execution, inadvertently caused more harm than it served a clear public interest beyond the existing trial.
The “grief and shock” clause: Manyowa dismisses the application of the Editors’ Code of Practice Clause 4 (intrusion into grief and shock) because the case was “months ago” and “well beyond the grief and shock phase.” However, trauma responses can be long-lasting and do not necessarily conclude with a trial. This dismissal could be seen as a narrow interpretation of trauma and its impact on individuals.
Lack of legal anonymity in Zimbabwe: While Manyowa rightly points out the absence of anonymity protections in Zimbabwean law, ethical journalism often strives to uphold higher standards than the minimum legal requirements, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals.
Maynard Manyowa’s comments demonstrate a focus on traditional journalistic principles of truth-seeking and avoiding bias. However, his perspective appears to place a significant emphasis on victim agency to the extent that it might, from other ethical standpoints, downplay the interviewer’s active responsibility in minimizing harm, particularly when dealing with a highly sensitive and potentially re-traumatizing subject like sexual assault. His views align with some aspects of professional ethics, but others would argue that a more comprehensive ethical approach to interviewing survivors would demand greater consideration for their vulnerability and well-being.
Below are the comments made by Maynard Manyowa concerning DJ Ollah 7s interview:
Maynard Manyowa wrote;
Good God — I’ve seen some really wild takes about journalism and ethics on Facebook today, most of them directed at DJ Ollah 7
One of the most frustrating things about working in this field is that people with no training in journalism often feel compelled to lecture professional journalists about what journalism is, how it should be done, where, and why.
Never mind the gatekeeping process — or all the behind-the-scenes effort and responsibility that goes into the job.
Anyway, the two main criticisms seem to be:
1. That Ollah shouldn’t have allowed Ashley onto his show.
2. That he should have been more kind and empathetic.
But here’s the thing: in that same interview, Ashley says her husband didn’t want her to appear on the podcast — because he knew it would be humiliating. She went on anyway.
So how is Owen Ollah Madondo now expected to take responsibility for Ashley’s decision, when she wouldn’t even listen to her husband?
Secondly, once she was on the show, Ollah had a duty to ask questions. And yes, some of them were difficult. But that’s what interviews are. He was trying to establish the truth — not conduct a therapy session.
My take? People are uncomfortable because they had to sit through the disturbing details of a sexual assault — and because they watched Ashley humiliate herself and her husband in public.
I’ll admit, I initially refused to watch it. I didn’t want to hear a woman recount how she was raped.
But after the backlash against Ollah, I felt I had to — because he’s a colleague, and we must hold each other to account.
When I did watch it, I was confused.
Ashley should not have done that interview. It didn’t achieve anything — it just exposed her to more humiliation.
But the responsibility for stopping her wasn’t Ollah’s. That duty lay with her family and friends.
Because even if Ollah had said no, she seemed determined. She would have gone to someone else. 🤷🏽♂️
So if you want to hold someone accountable for that decision, hold her — not Ollah.
There’s also a side debate about his “mannerisms.”
At this point, I can’t tell whether that’s a serious critique or trolling. Ollah’s interview style — tone, delivery, reactions — is consistent. Just watch how he handled Holy Ten.
Had he behaved differently with Ashley, there’d now be an outcry about bias or unequal treatment. He didn’t — so what’s the fuss?
Lastly, on ethics: my position is that victims of sexual offences should not be named — even if the accused is acquitted. Naming them often leads to the kind of public circus we saw outside court and deters other victims from reporting, out of fear they’ll be torn apart online.
The only exception should be if the victim is charged with perjury and found by a court to have lied. That is, in fact, the standard in the UK.
Of course, that wouldn’t have helped Ashley — because she broke her own anonymity. And in Zimbabwe, there are no anonymity protections in law.
There might have been an argument under Clause 4 of the Editors’ Code of Practice — regarding intrusion into grief and shock — but this case was months ago. There’s already been a trial. This is well beyond the grief and shock phase.
People are upset. But they are lashing out at the wrong person.
Comments
About Author
