A HARARE magistrate has dismissed a bid by Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) and its editor to have criminal charges levelled against them quashed, ruling that the State has sufficiently set out the alleged roles of the accused and that contested issues must be tested at trial.
In a detailed ruling, Harare magistrate Apolonia Marutya rejected an application for exception filed by AMH and Zimbabwe Independent editor Faith Zaba, who are being accused of insulting or undermining President Emmerson Mnangagwa through a satirical column, Muckraker, titled: When you become a mafia state.
The defence had argued that the State’s case was vague, disclosed no offence at law and violated constitutional protection of free expression.
Marutya held that the charge sheet and the State’s outline adequately established the alleged conduct and intent of both accused persons, and that the argument about publication, satire and meaning concerns the merits of the case rather than the sufficiency of the charge.
“The role played by both accused persons was established even in the outline of the State case, as well as on the charge sheet,” the magistrate ruled.
“The issue of whether or not the accused person is responsible for publishing stories or the duties of the first accused … is neither here nor there.
Keep Reading
- Mr President, you missed the opportunity to be the veritable voice of conscience
- ED to commission new-look border post
- Zanu PF ready for congress
- EU slams Zim over delayed reforms
“The charge sheet clearly outlines that as an editor she caused or participated in the publication of the article.”
Addressing the defence submission that prosecutors had failed to produce the full published article, Marutya said the law did not require exhibits to be attached to a charge sheet at this stage.
She also ruled that whether the column was satirical, a central plank of the defence, could only be determined by examining the substance of the case at trial.
“It … applies to whether the article is satirical as they will need to get into merits of the case to ascertain whether the article was published as a satirical article or the real interpretation of the meaning of the article,” Marutya said.
The magistrate dismissed the argument that the charges were defective because they cited no complainant.
In criminal matters, she said, offences are commonly committed against the State, and the office alleged to have been undermined, “in this case, the Office of the President”, could be treated as a juristic person without being formally cited as a complainant.
“There is no law that prohibits them from being mentioned as complainants … It is not a requirement … where the complainant is a juristic person like in this instance, where the complainant deemed to have been wronged is the Office of the President,” Marutya ruled.
“The Office of the President cannot be taken to be a natural person in this instance. It is an office and, therefore, can be taken as juristic person.”
She concluded that the charges were neither embarrassing nor prejudicial.
“The physical conduct of both accused persons and role played by both accused persons, the intention has all been established on the charge sheet,” Marutya said, before dismissing the application as lacking merit.
The case is centred on the satirical column published on June 27, 2025, in the Zimbabwe Independent, one of the three publications owned by AMH.
Prosecutors allege the publication undermined the authority of the President.
The State, represented by Lawrence Gangarahwe, argued that Zaba was charged for causing the publication in her capacity as editor, while AMH was charged as the medium through which the offence was committed.
He said the article appeared alongside a photograph of Mnangagwa holding hands with Mozambique’s President Daniel Chapo and that the charge sufficiently informed the accused of the offence and its essential elements.
Gangarahwe rejected claims of vagueness and constitutional infirmity, arguing that none of the authorities cited by the defence had succeeded in invalidating the relevant provision of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
The defence, led by Alec Muchadehama for AMH and Chris Mhike for Zaba, argued that Muckraker was plainly a satirical opinion column protected by constitutional guarantees of free expression, employing irony and exaggeration to critique social issues.
They submitted that the President and the Republic of Zimbabwe were not mentioned anywhere in the article and that the charges selectively lifted phrases out of context, while failing to attach the full piece.
Muchadehama cited past cases involving opposition figures prosecuted for allegedly insulting former President Robert Mugabe, including Solomon Madzore, Douglas Mwonzora and Job Sikhala, where charges were struck down on constitutional grounds.
He argued that no reasonable reader could identify the President as the subject, adding that the investigators who framed the charge sheet were the ones who should be accused of misidentification.
Following the ruling, Muchadehama filed notice of an application to review the magistrate’s decision, arguing she erred in finding that the editor caused the publication.
The matter was remanded to January 29, 2026, pending the outcome of the review at the High Court.
The defence lawyers indicated that, if unsuccessful at the High Court, they
will seek referral to the Constitutional Court.