By Princess Eugene Majuru
The recent crackdown by Zimpapers on luxury gifts from businessman Wicknell Chivhayo has cast a long, uncomfortable shadow over Pockets Hill. While Zimpapers enforced a strict $100 gift limit and issued a “return it or resign” ultimatum to its stars, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) has maintained a conspicuous silence regarding veteran journalist Reuben Barwe’s acceptance of a premium vehicle and significant cash.
This discrepancy raises a critical question: Should ZBC retroactively force Barwe to return his “donation,” or is the veteran journalist legally and professionally “safe” because the institution failed to implement a policy in time?
The Case for “Grandfathering” Barwe
In many legal and professional frameworks, new policies cannot be applied retroactively. If ZBC did not have an active, enforced gift policy at the moment Reuben Barwe accepted the Land Cruiser and cash, it becomes difficult—if not impossible—to discipline him now.
Institutional Failure: The primary fault lies with ZBC’s management. If an organization fails to define the boundaries of professional conduct, it cannot punish an employee for crossing a line that didn’t exist.
The “Safe” Zone: Under this logic, Barwe is likely “clear.” He accepted the gift in a policy vacuum. Punishing him now would be seen as an arbitrary move, especially given his long-standing service to the state broadcaster.
The Risk of a Policy Vacuum
The real danger for ZBC isn’t what has already happened, but what could happen next. Because ZBC has not yet implemented a formal policy, every other employee—from news anchors to camera operators—could theoretically accept a car from Chivhayo tomorrow without technically breaking any rules.
Potential for Mass “Capture”: Without a policy, ZBC remains open to “soft capture”. Chivhayo or any other wealthy benefactor could effectively buy the loyalty of the national broadcaster’s staff, one gift at a time.
Public Trust: Every day that ZBC remains silent, its credibility erodes. While Barwe may be safe from internal discipline, the public perception of the broadcaster as an independent “guarding of the truth” is severely compromised.
The only logical move for ZBC to save face is to implement a robust gift policy immediately. However, to be fair and legally sound, the policy must have a clear “Start Date.”
Acknowledge the Gap: ZBC management needs to admit that their previous lack of oversight was a mistake.
Define the Future: Implement a strict limit (similar to Zimpapers’ $100 rule) that applies to all future gifts.
The “Barwe Exception”: While Barwe might keep his car due to the lack of prior rules, the new policy would ensure that he—and everyone else—is barred from accepting further gifts that could influence their reporting.
Reuben Barwe may indeed be “well clear” due to ZBC’s institutional negligence, but his “safety” is a symptom of a larger problem. If ZBC continues to drift without a policy while its sister organization, Zimpapers, takes a principled stand, the national broadcaster risks becoming a relic of an era where journalism was a commodity rather than a public service.
The door was left open for Barwe; ZBC must now decide if they are going to lock it before the rest of the newsroom follows him through it.
Comments
About Author
