THE bail conditions of Zimbabwe Independent editor Faith Zaba (pictured), who is facing charges of insulting President Emmerson Mnangagwa over a satirical column, have been relaxed after a Harare magistrate reduced her reporting conditions.
Zaba and publisher Alpha Media Holdings (AMH), represented by editor-in-chief Kholwani Nyathi, are charged under Section 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act with undermining the authority of, or insulting, the President.
Zaba had been reporting to police once a fortnight as part of her bail conditions, but Harare magistrate Tapiwa Kuhudzayi ordered that she now report once every month after she applied for a variation, saying she had been religiously complying with the conditions.
Kuhudzayi postponed the matter to May 29 for trial.
The charge stems from a Muckraker column published in the Independent in June 2025.
The state alleges that the June 27 column, titled When we become a mafia state, which referenced Zimbabwe’s alleged interference in neighbouring countries’ politics and claimed the government was “obsessed with keeping itself in power”, was intended to engender hostility towards Mnangagwa.
Keep Reading
- Zimind editor scoops global award
- Violence and harassment of journalists must stop: ZUJ
- In honour of Abigail Gamanya
- In Conversation With Trevor : Diplomatic posting was a mistake: Chihombori-Quao
In December last year, Harare magistrate Apolonia Marutya rejected an application for exception filed by AMH and Zaba, ruling that the state had sufficiently outlined the alleged roles of the accused and that contested issues should be tested at trial.
The defence had argued that the state’s case was vague, disclosed no offence at law and violated constitutional protections of free expression.
Marutya held that the charge sheet and the state outline adequately established the alleged conduct and intent of both accused persons, and that arguments about publication, satire and meaning went to the merits of the case rather than the sufficiency of the charge.
She also dismissed arguments 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.
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.
The defence, led by Alec Muchadehama for AMH and Chris Mhike for Zaba, argued that Muckraker is 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 nowhere mentioned 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 the late 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 of the article, adding that it was the investigators who framed the charge sheet who had misidentified the target and, in doing so, were the ones undermining and insulting the President.
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 defence lawyers indicated that, if unsuccessful in the High Court, they would seek referral to the Constitutional Court.