By Jonathan Mbiriyamveka
Zimbabwe’s long-simmering debate over music royalties has reached a boiling point, with churches, cover bands, corporates, and collecting societies increasingly locked in a contest over who should pay for music — and why.
At the centre of the storm is the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (ZIMURA), whose recent public statements have reignited controversy over licensing requirements for churches and cover bands.
While the association insists it is merely enforcing existing law, critics argue the approach risks alienating key cultural and religious constituencies.
Law vs Culture
Legally, ZIMURA’s position is straightforward. The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act does not exempt religious institutions from paying royalties for copyrighted music. In strictly legal terms, churches that use music during services or events are no different from hotels, restaurants, or event promoters.
Culturally, however, the issue is far more complex. Churches are not only places of worship but central community institutions, often operating on donations and volunteer labour.
For many congregants, the idea of paying for music used in praise and worship feels morally uncomfortable, even exploitative.
This collision between legal clarity and cultural sentiment is what has turned a regulatory issue into a national culture war.
The Cover Band Question
Cover bands face a similar dilemma. Many operate informally, performing at weddings, bars, and community events with thin margins.
Being required to pay licensing fees — on top of venue costs and taxes — is seen by some musicians as punitive rather than protective.
Yet from the perspective of composers and songwriters, cover bands directly monetise works they did not create. Royalties, they argue, are not a penalty but a recognition of creative labour.
Trust Deficit and Historical Baggage
Underlying the backlash is a persistent trust deficit between artists, users of music, and collecting societies. Past allegations of poor governance, lack of transparency, and uneven royalty distribution have left many sceptical of where their money goes.
Even when the law is on its side, ZIMURA’s enforcement efforts are filtered through this history. For critics, the question is not only whether royalties are lawful, but whether they are fairly collected, efficiently managed, and equitably distributed.
State Silence and Regulatory Gaps
Compounding the tension is the absence of a detailed regulatory framework from the state. While ZIMURA says tariffs are submitted to the regulator for approval, there is no clear statutory instrument that spells out how churches, cover bands, or informal performers should be treated.
This regulatory ambiguity has allowed resentment to fester, with enforcement perceived as selective or arbitrary. In the vacuum, public opinion has stepped in — loudly and emotionally.
What Is Really at Stake
Beyond fees and licences, the royalties debate is ultimately about the value of creative work in a struggling economy. Should music be treated as a public good, freely available in communal spaces? Or as intellectual property that must be paid for, regardless of context?
Zimbabwe’s answer to this question will shape not only the future of its music industry, but also its broader cultural economy.
A Way Forward
Defusing the culture war will require more than legal enforcement. It will demand:
Clear government regulations
Transparent royalty distribution
Genuine consultation with churches, musicians, and venues
Public education on copyright law
Without this, music royalties will remain less about protecting artists and more about a widening cultural fault line — one where law, faith, art, and economics collide.
About Author
