Fact Check Zimbabwe is a legally registered trust with the Registrar of Deeds in Zimbabwe. This is set out on the organization’s website under the ‘About Us - Who We Are’ section -  https://factcheckzw.org/who-we-a/. 

‘FactCheck and Media Lab ZW (FactCheckZW) was established by the Fact Check Zimbabwe Trust in March 2022, set up for the purposes of creating a fact checking and media literacy platform to provide fact checking services in the country; train journalists and citizens in fact checking and media literacy; and support universities in fact checking and media literacy related research work. Fact Check Zimbabwe is registered as a Trust with the Registrar of Deeds as set out in the Deeds Registration Act Chapter 20:05 – registration number MA0000108/2022.’

Although it is not possible to link the registration to the deeds office, the website provides the registration number for anyone who might want to confirm the registration with the Deeds Office. 

The applicant is legally registered as indicated on its webpage at . It was also set up as explained on the same page exclusively to fact check. It has carried out a number of fact checks as indicated at <https://factcheckzw.org/category/reports/> which demonstrates what it has done since it was registered in March 2022.

1. Fact Check Zimbabwe was set up in March 2022 and started fact-checking in July of the same year. It was set up for the purposes of fact checking and carrying out media literacy programmes to combat mis and disinformation. 

2. The organisation has 5 people working on the project. These are:

- Executive Director: responsible for the strategic oversight of the project and implementation; as well as fundraising and overall running of the project. Also handles media literacy training programmes for now. 

Editor: responsible for the editorial content - commissioning of fact checks, research work, and editing. 

Researcher: researches claim and writes reports for publication. 

Finance officer: part timer who is responsible for managing the finances of the organisation. Coordinates the budgeting and implementation from the financial side.

Administrative assistant: mans the office, acts as receptionist and supports both the project and editorial teams.

3. The organization mainly carries out two activities:

Factchecking

Media Literacy engagements 

4. Main goals for the year ahead are to:

- continue publishing fact check reports every week

- monitor election related misinformation for the Zimbabwe 2023 election

- carry out media literacy campaigns targeting marginalised communities in the rural areas 

- fundraise for institutional support

The organisation was started in March 2022 although it started to fact check in July of the same year. There is indication when it was started under 'Who we are'. See for further information. It also shows the number of people that work at the organisation and their roles under 'Our teams' at .

Fact Check Zimbabwe has been publishing at least 1 fact check a week on average since August 1, 2022, and more than 32 since August. 

The criteria that Fact Check Zimbabwe uses to choose claims for verification is that they should be in the public interest, for example, is it about use of public funds or decisions around public health or national laws; potential of the claim to do harm, for example, is it something that will have a negative impact on people’s lives if unchecked; the status of the person making the claim: for example, are they a public official, an influencer, a media house or someone not in the public eye;  and also the potential of the claim to go viral, for example, how many times has it been shared.

Fact checks are produced in English, and can be found on this link: 

https://factcheckzw.org/category/reports/

The applicant has done a number of fact checks since it was set up as evidenced under reports at .

It is clear that the fact checks touch on the general welfare or wellbeing of individuals or society. See the reports at .

Fact Check Zimbabwe has no links of any kind to the state, politicians or political parties in Zimbabwe. It has not received any funding or support from local political actors. 

It is currently receiving financial support from the International Media Support. This is stated on the ‘About Us - How we are funded’ section -  https://factcheckzw.org/how-we-are-funded/

The applicant has indicated that it is independent and there is no evidence that its work is controlled by the state, a political party or politician. It, however, indicates the it accepts funding from "philanthropic foundations; grants from local and international agencies, as well as local and foreign governments; and private corporations". It also points out that "funding is accepted on the basis that FactCheckZW retains total editorial and programming independence, without any interference from the funder". Currently, the applicant says it is funded by the International Media Support. I think this is a satisfactory explanation regarding its independence. There is thus no evidence that the International Media Support has compromised its independence.

The section ‘About Us - How we are funded’ states that any funding that the organisation accepts has no bearing on our editorial policy -  https://factcheckzw.org/how-we-are-funded/

Our website states that; 

‘We do not accept funding from political parties in the country and any such partisan bodies.

Funding is accepted on the basis that FactCheckZW retains total editorial and programming independence, without any interference from the funder.

Any funder who contributes more than 5 percent of our annual operating budget is named here and their logo displayed.

Currently, FactCheckZW is funded by the International Media Support – www.mediasupport.org’

The applicant explains on its website that it receives funding from, among others, local and foreign governments. There is also an explanation on the page that its editorial independence is guaranteed because " FactCheckZW retains total editorial and programming independence, without any interference from the funder" (see https://factcheckzw.org/how-we-are-funded/ for further details). 

Fact Check Zimbabwe uses the same criteria to fact check claims regardless of who has made the claim. The claims are subjected to the same fact checking methods as set out on our website: 

How we select information for verification

The editorial team selects information to be fact-checked, based on their significance and public interest. In our selection we look at: who made the claim, what is the claim’s potential reach and what is the claim’s potential to cause harm. Our readers are free to send claims they may want us to fact check and these will be fact checked if they meet the criteria. The reader will get a response from the team on whether the claim is verifiable or not.

Gathering evidence

We identify the source of a claim and establish if the claim was indeed made.

We check the claims against publicly available information and other sources. We use publicly available information in our verification and provide references in our work.

We consult experts in the field in question for additional information, where necessary. We use multiple sources to fact-check claims, with a minimum of two sources.

When checking pictures and videos, we use tools such as reverse image search, video verification applications, maps, and other visual clues to verify images.

Sources

To verify information, we use primary sources. We trace the claim to its original source or at least, as close as possible. We only use publicly available data and provide the sources so that anyone can also follow the evidence.

Where there is need, we also speak to experts and include their area of expertise and any affiliations they have that may impact on their comments.

Rating claims

Once all information is gathered, the editorial team assesses it and gives it a rating.

These ratings apply:

• TRUE/ACCURATE: Based on the information available at the time of research, the claim is factual

• MISLEADING: The information has some accurate elements, but they are presented in a way that is misleading

• EXAGGERATED: The claim is exaggerated

•INCONCLUSIVE: Available evidence can neither prove nor disprove the claim, and more data is needed

• FALSE/INACCURATE: Based on information available, the claim is incorrect

Publishing fact-checks

Fact checks are subjected to further scrutiny and checks by members of the editorial team. In publishing our fact checks, we set out the original claim, detailing the source of the claim and the context, provide the evidence and how we sourced it, and conclude with our assessment and rating.

Our reports are made available on our website and through our social media channels.

We follow the evidence regardless of who made the claim. For instance, in this report:  https://factcheckzw.org/yes-there-are-no-females-in-matobos-ward-20/, there were claims questioning the figures that had been supplied by Zimbabwe Statistics in the 2023 Census report. While the evidence showed that ZimStat had got this right, our next fact check on the same Census report came to a different conclusion: that citizens could be right in doubting the immigration figures in this report: https://factcheckzw.org/a-million-2-million-15-the-available-data-on-zimbabweans-living-in-the-diaspora-can-not-be-substantiated/

This shows that our fact checks follow the evidence to come up with a rating and the evidence is included for the readers to make up their independent judgements by following the evidence. 

The two major political players in Zimbabwe are ZANU PF and the Citizens Coalition for Change. The same standards are used to rate claims made by each party. In this report verifying a claim by CCC spokesperson  https://factcheckzw.org/almost-half-at-some-point-but-not-quite-no-half-of-zimbabweans-are-not-living-in-extreme-poverty/ the rating was that if an official rounded off a figure without saying they had done so, this would be rated as inaccurate and this was the same standard used in rating President Mnangagwa’s claim here: 

https://factcheckzw.org/food-security-wheat-and-fertiliser-production-fact-checking-president-mnangagwas-food-summit-speech/

In a country as polarised as Zimbabwe, fact checking can only remain effective by being, and seen to be, non partisan. 

It is evident that the applicant uses  the same high standards of evidence to investigate the claims regardless of who made the claim. 

Our selection on claims to check is set out on the website under ‘How we fact check - our process’ - https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/

It is not always possible to fact check all political players equally since one of the parties is the government of the day. This means that it’s officials being in cabinet get to make more pronouncements affecting citizens that the other parties and as a result, politicians forming the government get fact checked more. However, at party politics level, there is no undue concentration on any one side. 

Fact Check Zimbabwe explains at the process it follows to fact check issues. It says that the "editorial team selects information to be fact-checked, based on their significance and public interest. In our selection we look at: who made the claim, what is the claim’s potential reach and what is the claim’s potential to cause harm. Our readers are free to send claims they may want us to fact check and these will be fact checked if they meet the criteria. The reader will get a response from the team on whether the claim is verifiable or not". The explanation is important as it shows what informs its selection of claims to investigate as well as how it goes about it. 

The applicant does not always disclose in its fact checks relevant interests of the sources it quotes. The choices of sources is based on their capacity to comment on the issues being fact-checked which is important in such work. Neither does it discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships it has. Despite such failings, I don't believe this affects the quality of the applicant's work given the fact that that is not always important. The most important thing is that the sources used are credible, authoritative and knowledgeable.

The applicant makes it clear that it is was registered exclusively for fact-checking purposes. See for more details. It also makes it clear that it is not affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate. The applicant says at <https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/> that: "Fact Check ZW is an independent Zimbabwean fact checking platform, guided solely by its editorial charter and no external influences". In addition, based on a critical analysis of the reports, it is clear that it does not advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.

Fact Check Zimbabwe is a non partisan organisation. This is stated on the website under the ‘How we fact check - our process’ section  https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/which states that;’

‘Fact Check ZW is an independent Zimbabwean fact checking platform, guided solely by its editorial charter and no external influences. We use standard journalism tools to verify information made available in public.

We are non-partisan and our work is not influenced by any political party; funding partner or personal beliefs. Our staff are contractually bound to not get involved in advocacy issues or party politics that may jeopardise the objectivity of our work.’

All employees and volunteers, as well as the Management Committee are bound by the Code of Ethics to be non partisan. The organisation does not employ anyone who is a member of a political party, or it’s affiliates, or holds office in such. Being a member of a political party is ground for contract termination. 

This is regularly emphasised to employees and volunteers and extends to use of personal social media platforms. 

Fact Check Zimbabwe alludes to the fact that it is non-partisan, and staff are expected to adhere to the editorial charter. "We are non-partisan and our work is not influenced by any political party; funding partner or personal beliefs. Our staff are contractually bound to not get involved in advocacy issues or party politics that may jeopardise the objectivity of our work," the applicant says under 'Our process' found under 'How we fact check'. See <https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/>. The applicant also explains under the same section that its staff do not get involved in advocacy or publicise their views on policy issues the organisation might fact check.

It is clear that Fact Check Zimbabwe identifies the sources of information. The reports available at  show the use of various sources to verify information that the applicant seeks to fact check.

FactCheckZW endeavors to use primary sources where possible - in most cases these would be the claims themselves. For verification, we uses publicly available data and this is mostly from government agancies like ZimStat and International Agencies like the World Bank. The Zimbabwe government does not make data readily available to citizens, except through ZimStat - which is the one we rely on for data on population, maternal mortality rates, poverty issues, etc. We have added an explanation of this under Sources on Our Process on the website.If advised to, we can add a similar explanation in every fact check report were we use these sources. https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/

I believe this explanation suffices although 'endeavouring' and doing it are not the same. An explanation on the website on why primary sources are not used would respond to the requirement that the applicant uses primary sources.

There is evidence to show that the applicant makes use of multiple sources in its reports.

FactCheckZW only identifies in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. Where the interests do not impact on the accuracy of the evidence, the interests are not mentioned as they become irrelevant - in line with the requirements of this criteria which seeks that the interests be identified only where the reader might think they could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. 

Even though the applicant does not identify relevant interests of the sources it uses, there is no evidence that not mentioning the interests affects the quality or accuracy of the fact checks. Moreover, the explanation offered on why such interests are not identified suffices and makes the applicant compliant.

Fact Check Zimbabwe is an independent fact checking organisation. This is stated on the website under the ‘About Us - Who we are’ section. The organisation is registered with the Registrar of Deeds in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe - registration number MA0000108/2022.  

 https://factcheckzw.org/who-we-a/

 As the applicant indicates under 'About us' and 'Who we are' (see https://factcheckzw.org/who-we-a/), the organisation is an independent body set up by the Fact Check Zimbabwe Trust. 

Fact Check Zimbabwe is a non profit organisation. Being less than a year old, it has no financial reports to display as yet. However, it does set out its funding criteria and current funder here: 

https://factcheckzw.org/how-we-are-funded/

The applicant says that's it is a non-profit organisation (see https://factcheckzw.org/how-we-are-funded/). The applicant also indicates, under 'About us' and 'Who we are', that Fact Check Zimbabwe is registered as a Trust with the Registrar of Deeds as set out in the Deeds Registration Act Chapter 20:05. Its registration number is MA0000108/2022. (see https://factcheckzw.org/who-we-a/). The applicant further lists its sources of funds, and indicates that "any funder who contributes more than 5 percent of our annual operating budget is named here and their logo displayed" (see https://factcheckzw.org/how-we-are-funded/). 

Fact Check Zimbabwe’s organisational structure is made up of the Project and Editorial teams, with the Management Committee having a strategic oversight.

It is stated on the website that while the Executive Director has control over the organisation, editorial control is totally exercised by the Editor - without interference from the Director or Management Committee. 

 https://factcheckzw.org/our-teams/

The applicant's team is available under 'About us' and then 'Our teams' (see https://factcheckzw.org/our-teams/). The page shows the 'project team' the 'editorial team' and the 'management committee'. It says that the editorial team "forms the core of the functions of the Trust. It is led by the Editor, guided by the editorial charter, and enjoys publishing independence; without interference from the other two supporting structures". This suggests to the fact that the editorial team exercises editorial control.

Short bios of all team members are included in the section ‘About Us - Our teams’  https://factcheckzw.org/our-teams/

The 'Our teams' page (see https://factcheckzw.org/our-teams/) details the professional biography of the two members who form the editorial team and who are in charge of the organisation's editorial output. 

The website home page details at the very top (desktop version) the different ways to communicate with the organisation. This includes an email; phone number and social media handles. 

This is repeated at the bottom of the home page Contact Us section which states where one can get us if they have any complaints or require a correction. 

https://factcheckzw.org/

The website homepage also has a section where one can submit a claim they would want to get fact checked.

There is also a Contact Us section under ‘About Us’ https://factcheckzw.org/contact-us/

The contact details, including email address and phone number, of the applicant are available at the top if its website (see https://factcheckzw.org/). It also shows its Twitter and Facebook accounts.

The applicant has information on how the organisation selects, researches, writes and publishes its fact checks. See https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/ for more details.

The applicant indicates under 'Our process' that it selects claims "based on their significance and public interest" (see https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/). The reports themselves do not, however, offer the reasons and it is assumed that it is the importance of the claims that determine their selection as indicated in the process.

It is clear in the reports that the applicant offers evidence to either support or disprove the claims. See the reports (available at https://factcheckzw.org/category/reports/) for the evidence each report contains.

The reports show that a rigorous process is applied to fact check claims.

Zimbabwe remains a highly polarised community. Most prominent people (journalists included) are also polarising figures and are considered to be either for or against the government.

FactCheckZW finds itself treading a fine line so that it is not seen as taking a side in Zimbabwe’s politics, where even being neutral is seen as being pro-ruling party (following debates on Twitter shows this).

This means that we have to apply our standards equally. For instance, if we approach someone like Hopewell Chin’ono to verify a claim he has made, we will also have to approach the Presidential Spokesperson, George Charamba, otherwise we will be seen as being on Chin’ono side (whichever side the reader thinks Chin’ono is on) and the vast majority of Zimbabwe thinks he has a side - which anyone can see by going through comments on his social media timelines.

Chin’ono for the majority of Zimbabweans, is more than a journalist - he is seen as the face of resisting the ruling party. His profile within Zimbabwe is not as clear cut as it is in the international community.

We already have had a case of the Presidential Spokesperson making public threats against our editor on twitter after he made a comment on his personal account. The presidential spokesperson then accused the editor of taking the side of Americans because FactCheckZW is angling for financial support from them - which was not true.

https://twitter.com/tinoedzazvimwe1/status/1631564233010737152?s=48&t=h4XH9KZeg52lHS-DSyvLqQ

It is in light of this that FactCheckZW made a decision to apply the safety rule of not approaching people who make claims across the board as we risk being labeled partisan if we approach people from one side and not others from a different side.

And since FactCheckZW is a non profit trust rather than a media house, it is not covered by journalistic privilege. This is already a risk, especially now in light of the PVO and Patriotic Bills.

While we have made the decision to put on the website the names of the team members, our fact checks do not carry a byline to protect the particular researcher of that fact check, and this protection was extended to removing the requirement for the researcher reaching out to the person who made the claim which would expose them as the author. In this way, the risk and fall out is limited to just the editor. 

This explanation that Zimbabwe is a polarising society and thus difficult to contact those who made the claims somewhat unconvincing even though understandable. The applicant should perhaps state, as indicated, that attempts were made to contact the claim(s) makers especially if they were unable to get any response. There may be legitimate reasons, including safety reasons, on why the applicant may not wish to contact those who make claims including, as they say, the Presidential Spokesperson, George Charamba. This should be made explicitly clear given that evidence is necessary in any fact checking. In addition, the explanation that FactCheckZW is a not-for-profit trust rather than a media house and thus not covered by journalistic privilege does not really hold. I would still insist that they try as much as possible to contact those who them to made the claim to seek supporting evidence as part of their fact checking. Fact checking should be always be rigorous. I still believe the applicant is non-compliant.

The website has a section on the home page for users to submit claims they might want to be fact checked. There is a disclaimer that the organisation can not promise to fact check all submitted claims but does read and consider suggestions. https://factcheckzw.org/

The process on how claims are chosen for verification is set out here: https://factcheckzw.org/our-process/

‘How we select information for verification

The editorial team selects information to be fact-checked, based on their significance and public interest. In our selection we look at: who made the claim, what is the claim’s potential reach and what is the claim’s potential to cause harm. Our readers are free to send claims they may want us to fact check and these will be fact checked if they meet the criteria. The reader will get a response from the team on whether the claim is verifiable or not.’

The applicant's website invites readers to send in claims to they want checked. Under the 'Want us to fact-check something? on its homepage, it tells readers to "submit a claim here for FackCheckZW to fact-check. We can’t promise to check every claim suggested, but do read and consider all your suggestions". It provides the space readers can type what they want checked. It also allows readers to attach files although that is limited to only 5MB. 

Fact Check Zimbabwe states on its homepage that readers with complaints or corrections requests are able to contact us on provided platforms. 

There is a corrections policy which states how correction requests are handled: https://factcheckzw.org/corrections-policy/

The applicant has a corrections policy at . However, this is not easily visible and one has to go under 'how to fact check' to find it. Nonetheless, it is available on the website.

The applicant explains how the organisation handles mistakes and corrections at . There is no indication, however, whether the policy is adhered to scrupulously based on the reports available on its website.

To date, no complaint or correction request has been received. 

As indicated by the applicant, the organisation has not had to correct any of the work published on its website. The organisation further explains under the 'Corrections Policy' that it "promises transparent in our corrections and not hide them" and that "for significant changes resulting in a change in rating, we will make the corrected article as prominent on our social pages as the initial article".

N/A 

The applicant is not an IFCN signatory yet.

The applicant is not affiliated to any media company. It was set up as an non-profit organisation engaged in fact checking as it explains under 'About us'. See for more details.