Africa-Press – Zimbabwe. HE prosecution of Zimbabwe Independent editor Faith Zaba and her employer, Alpha Media Holdings (AMH), degenerated into controversy on Wednesday after defence lawyers accused the National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe (NPAZ) of attempting to mislead the court with what they described as a “fraudulent, irregular and legally defective” prosecution authority certificate.
Zaba and AMH — represented in court by AMH Editor-in-Chief Kholwani Nyathi — are being charged with undermining the authority of or insulting the President, an offence under section 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
The charge emanates from a Muckraker column published in the Zimbabwe Independent in June.
Their trial before magistrate Apollonia Marutya did not commence on Wednesday as scheduled after State prosecutor Lawrence Gangarahwe made an unexpected application for postponement, admitting for the first time that the authority letter earlier provided to the defence was not issued by the Prosecutor-General (PG) as required by law, but was instead signed by NPAZ chief director Tendai Shonhai.
The State said it had written to the PG, Justice Loice Matanda-Moyo, seeking a proper certificate and requesting two additional weeks.
But defence lawyer Chris Mhike, representing Zaba and AMH on behalf of senior counsel Alec Muchadehama, sharply objected, accusing the State of dishonesty, delaying tactics and trampling on the constitutional rights of the accused.
Mhike told the court that the document relied upon by the prosecution was not only unsigned by the PG, but bore several glaring irregularities pointing to what he described as a “highly dubious” attempt to pass off an unauthorised and incompetent document as lawful authority.
He said the letter the State provided was dated October 20,2025, yet bizarrely bore a date stamp of October 30 — a discrepancy he said reflected either recklessness or deliberate deception.
The stamp itself, he added, was not from the PG’s office, but from the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office at Rotten Row — even though the PG operates from the NPAZ head office in Harare.
Mhike submitted that the so-called certificate did not identify the person who signed it and carried a signature that was “definitely not that of the Prosecutor General”.
He said Zimbabwean law did not allow delegation of PG’s authority to issue prosecution certificates in matters involving charges under section 33, rendering the document invalid.
Mhike further revealed that the suspicious letter inexplicably cited section 32 of the Criminal Code, which relates to unlawful possession of camouflage uniforms, instead of section 33, the offence invoked on the charge sheet.
The purported certificate even referred to a non-existent section “32(2) (1)”, and carried an incorrect police docket reference number.
Most striking, he told the court, was that the document claimed to be issued in terms of section 31 of the Criminal Law Code, which deals with publishing falsehoods prejudicial to the State.
Mhike said there was no legal provision for any certificate to be issued under that section, describing it as “the height of prosecutorial blundering”.
“The State is playing games,” Mhike told the magistrate.
“This document was provided merely to create the false impression that the matter was trial-ready, only for the prosecution to turn around on the day of trial and ask for more time. Prosecution is not a game of hide and seek.”
He said the delay had severely prejudiced AMH and Zaba, who remains on stringent bail conditions, “despite fully complying with all court orders”.
“My clients are entitled to a speedy, fair public trial, according to the Constitution (and) their rights are being trampled upon if this trial is delayed,” he said.
“The lives are on hold, Zaba is severely restricted as a result of conditions given to her by the court and the ability for them to carry on their businesses has been highly affected as a result of these conditions,” the defence lawyer said.
Mhike reminded the court that Zaba was allowed in a High Court judgment issued by Justice Esther Muremba to recover her passport to travel to Singapore for a media summit and had travelled and returned — contradicting the State’s position that she is a flight risk.
“The reason for remand is to secure accused persons pending trial and both accused persons have been religiously attending court and Zaba has strictly complied with bail conditions which include, not interfere with witnesses, report every Friday, to reside at the same residence and in addition by getting her passport back after it was given by the High Court, which added her bail to US$1 000 and surrender of her title deeds,” the lawyer added.
He argued that five months had passed since the initial remand, yet the State failed to do the most basic task required by law: obtain an authentic certificate from the PG.
Mhike urged the court to dismiss the postponement application and remove the accused from remand.
“Although the State is prosecuting her (Zaba) in her individual capacity, she neither undermined the authority of, nor insulted the President of Zimbabwe (President Emmerson D Mnangagwa) on the alleged date (ie June 27,2025) or on any other date and she never made public, any false statement concerning the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe,” he argued.
But the magistrate ruled in favour of the State, saying the matter is less than six months old and the prosecution had made an effort to set the matter down.
Marutya agreed that PG authority was indispensable, could not be delegated and should be secured before trial.
She said the delay could not be deemed inordinate and allowed the State a two-week extension.
Muchadehama, who joined the proceedings later, told the court that the defence will file several applications at the next sitting.
He said they would seek the full edition of the Independent newspaper at the centre of the charge, arguing that without it, the accused could not properly answer to the allegations.
Muchadehama also indicated that the defence will apply to have Zaba removed from the charge sheet, insisting she should not be sitting in the dock at all.
He described her as “innocent in this matter” and said she had not committed any offence.
“We refuse to sit next her and to be charged with her because she is innocent,” he indicated. Muchadehama added that the defence will seek to refer the case to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of section 33.
He said earlier cases involving Douglas Mwonzora, who called the late former President Robert Mugabe a “goblin” and others involving Job Sikhala, had failed to resolve the constitutional issues surrounding insult laws, adding that this case presented an opportunity for proper judicial pronouncement.
Zaba and AMH maintain that their arrest is an attack on Press freedom and that the impugned article constitutes satire and opinion protected by the Constitution.
They argue that the allegations do not disclose an offence and that witness documents provided by the State do not support the claim that the article is intended to undermine the President.
The matter resumes on December 3.
For More News And Analysis About Zimbabwe Follow Africa-Press
