On 23 May 2005, an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act was gazetted. One particular provision – car radio licensing – became a popular topic for debate on social media streets.
The feedback ranged from accusations that the public broadcaster, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, is ‘the worst state broadcaster on earth’ to opinions that ‘if you don’t want to subscribe you must not be forced’.
We fact check the various claims.
CLAIM 1: From today, every car in Zimbabwe will be forced to have a car radio licence even if the car does not have a radio.
SOURCE: Account on X
VERDICT: False
On May 26, 2025, an X account holder, Dickson Chikwizo, who uses the handle @DicksonChikwiz3, posted a message claiming that all vehicles in Zimbabwe are now required to purchase radio licences including those that do not have radio receivers.
Describing the development as ‘HEARTLESS’ on the part of the country’s leadership, Chikwizo said: ‘From today, every car in Zimbabwe will be forced to have a car radio licence even if the car does not have a radio.’
On the same day, popular film maker, Hopewell Chin’ono, made a similar claim, ‘From today, every car in Zimbabwe will be required to have a car radio licence, even if it does not have a radio’.
Radio or not, pay up?
Contrary to these claims that ‘every car in Zimbabwe should have a car radio licence even if the car does not have a radio’, the truth is that while section 13 now makes it mandatory for motorists to first acquire a Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) radio licence before buying motor vehicle licences and insurance policies, cars without radios are exempted.
‘The Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) and every motor insurance company shall only issue a motor vehicle licence and motor insurance policy respectively to individuals and companies who either hold a current radio licence issued by the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) or a valid exemption certificate from (ZBC) unless the vehicle to be insured is not equipped with a radio receiver,’ reads Section 13 of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Act in part.
There are two clear provisions here. The first is that a car with a radio but having a valid exemption certificate can get a ZINARA motor vehicle licence without having to produce a ZBC current radio licence first. Secondly, a car without a radio is exempted with no need for a ZBC exemption certificate.
The owner of a vehicle that does not have a radio receiver only needs to sign a declaration as specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Act shown below.
21 Insertion of a new Schedule
The principal Act is amended by the insertion of a new Schedule after the Seventh
Schedule—
“EIGHTH SCHEDULE (Section 38B)
Declaration By a Motorist in Terms of Section 38B (4) of the Broadcasting
Services Act [Chapter 12:06]
I…………………………………………………ID Number…………………………
Name
of………………………………………………………………………………………
Address
do hereby state that
(1) I am the registered owner of a motor vehicle being (make) ……………………………………
registration number………………………………….
(2) I hereby state and declare that the said vehicle is not equipped with a radio receiver.
(3) I swear that the above information is true and correct.
Thus, stated and sworn at………………………this day of……………………202…
Sworn ………………………………………………… Date…………………….
Sworn and signed before me…………………………. Date……………………
CLAIM 2: The changes, which were recently approved by parliament, pegs the fee at $23 per quarter, amounting to $92 per year.
SOURCE: BBC
VERDICT: False
The British Broadcasting Corporation also weighed in on the debate with an article headlined, ‘Anger as Zimbabwe leader approves new radio levy for motorists’.
The article claims that ’the changes, which were recently approved by parliament, pegs the fee at $23 per quarter, amounting to $92 per year’.
This is not correct. The fees are not new. Only the requirement that ZINARA only sells motor vehicle licences to those holding a valid ZBC licence or an exemption certificate or those having signed a declaration that their cars do not have a radio receiver, is new.
The $92 fee has been in place since 2021. The 92 usd per year which is 23 usd per quarter was gazetted in 2021 by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe’s SI 2021-023 Broadcasting (Listener’s Licenses) (Fees) Notice, 2021.
CLAIM 3: The Court ruled that the law requiring payment of a broadcasting licence fee is valid
SOURCE: Account on X
VERDICT: True
Following the gazetting of the new requirement, there was also a lot of talk on the constitutionality of the new requirement. Is it constitutional for ZBC to force people to pay for radio and tv licences?
‘Dear lawyers; What legal steps can be taken against this BSA Act No.2 imposed on 🇿🇼 without consent? Were there irregularities in its passage? Doesn’t it infringe on ordinary citizens’ rights? The $92 license fee is exorbitant and disproportionately burdensome,’ one person asked.
One of the responses was, ‘The only grounds on which to challenge this would be on a constitutionality (sic). That is freedom of choice.’
However, that ship has sailed.
The Constitutional Court has on more than one occasion dealt with the issue of mandatory payment of ZBC radio and tv licences. In Majome vs ZBC and others, the applicant ‘challenged the constitutional validity of ss 38B(2), 38C and 38D(1)-(4) of the Act on the ground that the provisions authorize the ZBC to compulsorily deprive her of property in the form of money paid as a licence fee not for a public purpose but for the purpose of funding ZANU-PF propaganda through programmes broadcast on television and radio’.
The application was dismissed with costs. The Constitutional Court ruled that, ‘It must be said that the applicant’s conduct of deliberately refusing to pay the licence fee for possessing a television set remains a criminal offence notwithstanding the attempt to justify the offence on account of the alleged biased programming by the public broadcaster in favour of ZANU-PF. Wrongful conduct on the part of the public broadcaster cannot justify her own criminal conduct. Two wrongs never make a right. Both conducts infringe the law’.
Earlier in 2013, another case had been brought to the Constitutional Court in Benard Wekare vs The state and others.
The court ruled that ‘the fact that any given listener is averse to the material that the ZBC broadcasts, whether from a recreational or political perspective, does not necessarily violate his right to freedom of expression’ and ‘The right of a person who does not want to view or listen to programmes broadcast by the ZBC by television or radio is not violated. The person is obliged to pay a licence fee for the possession of the receiver whether he or she wants to receive broadcasting service from ZBC or not’.
It went on to state that ‘the reasons given by the applicants for not complying with the law relate to accrual of benefits. Their contention is that programmes broadcast by the ZBC are not of the quality they expected to receive in return for the money they would have paid as licence fee for possessing a receiver’, ruling that ‘one does not pay tax to derive a direct personal benefit. Tax is paid for a public purpose as opposed to a private purpose. In other words tax is not paid to protect personal interest. One pays a road tax for construction of a road one may never use’.
Conclusion
Firstly, the widespread claim that all cars in Zimbabwe, even those without radios, are now mandated to acquire a ZBC radio licence is false. The amended Section 13 explicitly exempts vehicles not equipped with a radio receiver, requiring only a signed declaration from the owner. For cars with radios, a ZBC license or a valid exemption certificate is required to obtain a ZINARA motor vehicle licence or insurance.
Secondly, the assertion that the fee for car radio licences is a new levy of $23 per quarter, totaling $92 per year, is also false. These fees are not new; they have been in place since 2021, as gazetted by the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe’s SI 2021-023. The novelty lies solely in the linking of ZINARA motor vehicle license and insurance policy issuance to the possession of a ZBC radio licence or a valid exemption/declaration.
Finally, regarding the constitutionality of mandatory ZBC licence payments, the claim that the court ruled the law valid is true. The Constitutional Court has, on multiple occasions (e.g., in Majome vs ZBC and others and Benard Wekare vs The State and others), upheld the validity of mandatory broadcasting licence fees. The court has consistently maintained that possessing a radio or television receiver necessitates payment of the licence fee, irrespective of an individual’s preference for ZBC content or perceived quality. The rationale provided is that such fees, akin to taxes, serve a public purpose and are not contingent on direct personal benefit or satisfaction with the broadcaster’s programming. Therefore, legal challenges based on freedom of choice or dissatisfaction with content have been dismissed.
