An article from The Herald argues that there is “nothing amiss” about Zimbabwe’s compulsory car radio licence. However, I would argue that there is a lot amiss about it—though perhaps not in terms of legality.
The Broadcasting Services Act of 2001 introduced the requirement to ensure a steady revenue stream for the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC).
The ZBC historically provided a key source of information in both urban and rural areas. But with today’s media consumption habits, is this law still justified?
Original Rationale: Why Was This Law Introduced?
In 2001, radio was one of the most accessible sources of news, entertainment, and public service announcements in Zimbabwe.
It was therefore reasonable to collect radio licence fees. However, the challenge was determining who actually used the radio and who didn’t. With no technical ability to differentiate, the government simply assumed that everyone did.
The government justified compulsory car radio licences by assuming that anyone with a car radio was consuming ZBC’s broadcasts and should contribute to its funding.
Back then, many people relied on radios for news and updates, and since ZBC was the dominant broadcaster, funding it through car radio licences seemed logical. But has the situation changed in 2025?
The Stupidity of the Consumption Assumption
Again, the only reason the government has to resort to assuming that anyone with a car radio is consuming ZBC’s offerings is that they lack the technical ability to restrict access to only those who have paid for it.
Instead of fixing this limitation, they assume everyone listens and demand payment from all. This approach is flawed, and here’s why:
If ZBC’s radio signals are freely accessible without restriction, then they are effectively offering it as a free service. Businesses that give things away can’t later force people to pay.
For example, a musician performing on the street can’t demand that everyone nearby pay for listening.
A movie theatre, however, has controlled entry and charges people before they watch. If ZBC wants guaranteed payment, they should operate like a theatre, not a street performer.
Here’s another example of how ridiculous this position is: A restaurant decides not to put up a cashier to check payments.
Instead of fixing this, they later demand money from everyone who walked past the restaurant, assuming they must have eaten there. That’s as absurd as assuming all drivers listen to ZBC.
In countries like the UK, the BBC licence fee applies to those watching live TV, not just those who own a television. If someone only uses their TV for streaming services like Netflix, they are exempt. This contrasts with Zimbabwe’s car radio licence, which applies regardless of whether the driver ever tunes in to ZBC.
Still not convinced? Here’s something else you are familiar with:
Car ownership doesn’t automatically mean a person uses toll roads, so toll fees are charged only when someone actually passes through a toll gate.
Zimbabwe’s car radio licence assumes usage simply based on possession—similar to charging a toll fee just for owning a car.
Imagine there were no toll gates, and the government instead said that if you have a car, you have the means to use toll roads and so you must pay up.
It Gets Stupider and More Desperate Still
As if the consumption assumption wasn’t stupid enough, desperation has led to the government no longer considering whether you even have a car radio or not.
ZBC’s head of licensing says:
“So, we have a good number that would avoid and say they are removing the radio altogether. I don’t want to be found wanting, but there are also those who just choose to say we are evading, probably consciously or subconsciously. They will just decide they are not going to comply with this very same Act, which then pushed us to then find a way. First and foremost, we wanted to help our agencies to enforce this legal requirement.”
So now, you can’t license your car without first paying ZBC’s dues, whether or not your car even has a radio.
If this had been done in the 1990s, when I assume people still heavily listened to ZBC’s shows, the outrage would be minimal. However, ZBC has only been driven to this desperate act because conditions have changed.
How Have Conditions Changed?
Unlike in 2001, Zimbabweans now access news and entertainment through multiple platforms:
- FM Radio Alternatives – The law assumes that all vehicles with a radio are tuned in to ZBC, but this is outdated. Many motorists use USBs, Bluetooth, or streaming services to listen to music and podcasts, bypassing FM radio entirely.
- Smartphones and Mobile Data – Even in rural areas, WhatsApp has become a major source of news, reducing reliance on traditional radio. However, mobile internet coverage remains uneven, and some remote areas still depend on ZBC’s radio stations for information.
- Social Media & Online News – Urban dwellers, who make up a large portion of the car-owning population, often consume their news through platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp groups rather than tuning in to ZBC radio.
- Decentralized Media – Unlike the early 2000s, digital news platforms (including state-owned publishers) have created alternatives to ZBC, further reducing the necessity of compulsory funding through car radio licences.
Given these changes, does it still make sense to enforce this law on all motorists when many do not even use ZBC services?
The Urban-Rural Situation: A Justification for the Law?
A fair argument for keeping the radio licence fee is that radio remains an important medium in rural areas where internet access is limited. Not everyone in Zimbabwe has access to social media or smartphones, and for some, particularly in remote regions, radio is still their primary source of news and public service announcements.
However, there’s an issue of fairness: should urban motorists, who rarely (if ever) use traditional radio, be forced to subsidize a service they don’t consume? A blanket policy that applies equally to all motorists—regardless of whether they listen to radio or not—raises questions of fairness and equity.
What the ZBC Should Focus On
ZBC’s Declining Viewership & Quality Issues
A major reason urban dwellers avoid ZBC radio is dissatisfaction with its programming. Many perceive it as outdated, biased, or lacking in quality content, leading them to seek alternative sources of information. If ZBC offered content that was more engaging and relevant, more people might be willing to pay for it voluntarily.
Accountability & Transparency
There’s little clarity on how these fees are being used. Are they genuinely improving broadcasting services, or are they just another revenue stream for the state? Without transparency, resistance to the fee will remain.
Tying It All Up
The original justification for the compulsory car radio licence—ensuring a stable revenue stream for national broadcasting—still has some merit, especially in rural areas.
However, the law’s blanket application ignores technological advancements and shifting consumer habits. Urban motorists, who increasingly consume content through alternative means, are being forced to pay for something they neither need nor use.
If it’s all about supporting rural broadcasting, then maybe a more targeted funding model should be considered—one that doesn’t unfairly burden urban motorists who have moved on from traditional radio.
Which means the conversation isn’t just about whether the law was once necessary, but whether it is still fair today.
Leave a Reply