Lawyers representing HStv and Alpha Media Holdings senior journalist Blessed Mhlanga on Tuesday argued that the State’s key evidence is riddled with contradictions and confusion as the trial continued before Harare magistrate Sheunesu Matova.
Mhlanga and HStv are represented by lawyers Chris Mhike, Douglas Coltart and Beatrice Mtetwa.
The State led evidence from its witness, Edmore Nyazamba, the officer-in-charge of CID Law and Order Harare.
The defence argued that Nyazamba failed to interpret a cyber-forensics report compiled by an expert, saying the document is critical to determining whether any offence was committed.
Nyazamba told the court that he could not comment on the report because he was not an expert and doing so would “mislead the court”.
The defence further submitted that facts relating to the X (formerly Twitter) digital platform — which were used as the basis for Mhlanga’s arrest — do not appear anywhere in the State papers supplied to the accused.
Mhike pressed Nyazamba to explain how those facts were formulated, but he declined to comment.
Under cross-examination, Mtetwa noted that Nyazamba’s statement does not mention HStv at all, but refers only to Mhlanga.
- Letter to my people: The experiment has failed spectacularly
- Village Rhapsody: Zimbabwean journalists under siege
- AMH journalists arrested
- Letter to my people: The experiment has failed spectacularly
Keep Reading
Nyazamba, however, told the court that HStv, as an accused, “participated in broadcasting, publishing and transmitting data likely to cause violence”.
Mtetwa countered that neither the search warrant nor the State papers contain any allegation of unlawful conduct by HStv.
The defence said HStv has never received any formal statement from the State outlining its alleged unlawful participation, arguing that this omission amounts to a violation of the accused’s rights.
Nyazamba insisted that the rights of the accused were respected, saying all necessary statements were delivered through the prosecutor.
Prosecutor Anesu Chirenje objected to Mtetwa’s line of questioning, arguing that Nyazamba is not a legal expert and cross-examination rules prevent questions that force witnesses into speculation.
He said Nyazamba was merely part of the investigating team and could not be expected to interpret constitutional law.
The defence rejected that argument, saying it was implausible that an officer-in-charge of CID Law and Order would not understand basic arrest procedures.
Mtetwa also argued that Nyazamba’s oral testimony differed significantly from the charge sheet, noting that his claims about Mhlanga allegedly “engaging” war veteran Blessed “Bombshell” Geza and facilitating Press conferences do not appear anywhere in the State papers.
Nyazamba responded that the engagement with Geza “is not an essential part of the case”, but merely contextual information.
He further told the court that he has never attended a Press conference in his career.
Mtetwa said this undermined his claim that the accused sought out Geza, arguing instead that Geza approached them, exposing what she described as the witness’s confusion.
The defence also highlighted inconsistencies between the State outline — which alleges the accused incited violence against President Emmerson Mnangagwa — and Nyazamba’s testimony, in which he said the accused made statements against “the government of Zimbabwe”.
Nyazamba said this was not contradictory because “the President is the head of government and commander-in-chief”, prompting Mtetwa to quip that he sounded like he came “from the Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology” due to his inability to distinguish the President’s powers from those of other arms of the State.
The charges stem from two Press conferences held by Geza, which were filmed by Mhlanga and broadcast on HStv.
During the briefings, Geza urged Zimbabweans to push for the removal of Mnangagwa, accusing him of misgovernance, nepotism and presiding over widespread corruption.
The trial continues today.
