Zaba and AMH — represented in court by Kholwani Nyathi, the editor-in-chief of AMH — face charges of undermining the President's author...
The legal case against Faith Zaba, the editor of Zimbabwe Independent, and her company, Alpha Media Holdings (AMH), sparked debate on Wednesday when defense attorneys claimed that officials from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) at the Harare Magistrates Court were trying to deceive the court by presenting a prosecution authority certificate that they called fraudulent, irregular, and legally invalid.
Zaba and AMH — legally represented in court by Kholwani Nyathi, the editor-in-chief of AMH — face allegations of challenging the President's authority or showing disrespect, which is considered a crime under section 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The accusation stems from an article titled "Muckraker" that appeared in the Zimbabwe Independent in June.
The hearing before magistrate Apolonia Marutya did not start on Wednesday as planned. State prosecutor Lawrence Gangarahwe submitted an unexpected request for a delay, acknowledging for the first time that the official document given to the defense was not issued by the Prosecutor-General (PG) as mandated by law, but was instead signed by NPA chief director Tendai Shonhai.
The state mentioned that it has already sent a letter to the PG, Justice Loice Matanda-Moyo, requesting an appropriate certificate and requiring two more weeks. However, defense lawyer Chris Mhike, who represents Zaba and AMH with the assistance of senior counsel Alec Muchadehama, strongly objected, accusing the state of being dishonest, using delaying strategies, and violating the constitutional rights of the accused.
Mhike informed the court that the document used by the prosecution was not only missing the PG's signature, but also contained several obvious flaws that he referred to as a "highly questionable" effort to present an unauthorized and poorly prepared document as legitimate evidence.
He mentioned that the letter provided by the state was dated October 20, but strangely had a date stamp of October 30 — a difference he claimed indicated either carelessness or intentional trickery.
The stamp, he further explained, did not originate from the PG's office but from the Provincial Prosecutor's Office located at Rotten Row — despite the fact that the PG is based at the NPA headquarters in Harare.
Mhike argued that the so-called document failed to specify the individual who signed it and contained a signature that was "clearly not that of the Prosecutor-General."
He stated that Zimbabwean law does not permit the delegation of the PG's authority to issue prosecution certificates in cases involving charges under section 33, making the document invalid.
Mhike added that the mysterious letter strangely referred to section 32 of the Criminal Code, which deals with illegal possession of camouflage uniforms, rather than section 33, the clause mentioned on the charge sheet.
The supposed certificate also mentioned a non-existent section, "32 (2) (1)", and included an incorrect police case reference number.
Most notable, he informed the court, was that the document stated it was issued under section 31 of the Criminal Law Code, which addresses the publication of false information harmful to the state.
Mhike mentioned that there was no legal basis for issuing a certificate under that section, calling it "the peak of prosecutorial mismanagement."
The state is engaging in deception," Mhike said to the judge. "This document was given just to give the false idea that the case was prepared for trial, but then the prosecution came back on the day of the trial and requested additional time. The prosecution isn't a game of hide and seek.
He mentioned that the delays have significantly harmed AMH and Zaba, who is still under strict bail conditions, even though he has fully adhered to all court orders.
"According to the constitution, my clients have the right to a quick and fair public trial, and their rights are being violated if this trial is postponed," he stated.
"Their lives are in limbo, Zaba faces significant limitations due to the court's conditions, and their capacity to continue their business has been greatly impacted by these restrictions," the lawyer stated.
Mhike informed the court that Zaba was permitted in a High Court ruling by Justice Esther Muremba to retrieve her passport for a trip to Singapore to attend a media conference, traveled, and returned — challenging the state's claim that she was likely to flee.
"The reasons for remand are to ensure the presence of the accused individuals before trial, and both have consistently attended court sessions. Zaba has strictly followed the bail conditions, which include not interfering with the investigation, reporting every Friday, residing at the same address, and additionally, regaining her passport after it was returned by the High Court, which increased her bail to US$1,000 and required the surrender of her property deeds," the lawyer added.
He claimed that five months had elapsed since the original remand, but the state had not completed the fundamental legal requirement: acquiring a genuine certificate from the PG. Mhike requested the court to reject the extension request and release the accused from remand.
"Although the State is bringing charges against her (Zaba) as an individual, she did not challenge the authority of, nor insult the President of Zimbabwe (President Emmerson D. Mnangagwa) on the alleged date (i.e., June 27, 2025), or on any other occasion, and she never publicly made any false claim about the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe," he stated.
However, the judge decided in favor of the state, stating that the case was still under six months old and the prosecution had demonstrated some initiative in scheduling the matter.
Marutya acknowledged that the PG's power was essential, could not be transferred, and needed to be ensured prior to the trial.
She mentioned that the delay could not yet be considered excessive and granted the state a two-week extension. Alec Muchadehama, who joined the proceedings later, informed the court that the defense would submit multiple applications at the next session.
He mentioned that they would be requesting the complete version of the Independent newspaper at the heart of the accusation, contending that without it, the defendant would not be able to adequately respond to the claims.
Muchadehama further stated that the defense would seek to have Zaba removed from the list of accused, arguing that she should not be present in the courtroom at all.
He characterized her as "innocent in this matter" and stated that she had not committed any offense. "We refuse to sit beside her and be held responsible for her because she is innocent," he mentioned. Muchadehama further noted that the defense would seek to bring the case before the Constitutional Court to determine the constitutionality of section 33. He mentioned that previous cases involving Douglas Mwonzora, who referred to the late former president Robert Mugabe as a "goblin," and others concerning Job Sikhala, had not resolved the constitutional issues related to insult laws, and that this case offers a chance for a proper judicial decision.
Zaba and AMH argue that their arrest represents a violation of press freedom, asserting that the disputed article is a form of satire and opinion safeguarded by the Constitution.
They claim that the accusations fail to reveal a crime and that the witness materials submitted by the state did not back the assertion that the article aimed to damage the President.
The issue will continue on December 3.
COMMENTS