A HARARE magistrate this week dismissed a bid by Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) and its senior editor to have criminal charges quashed over a satirical column, ruling that the State had 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 accused of insulting or undermining President Emmerson Mnangagwa through a satirical “Muckraker” column 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 protections 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 arguments about publication, satire, and meaning went to 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 state case, as well as in 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. 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 further 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.
- The only market where knowledge exchange is part of customer experience
- Dave Chappelle: US comedian attacked on stage in Los Angeles
- AMH investor forum to explore Zim opportunities
- Take Fizzo resurfaces…reunites Chambembe members
Keep Reading
“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 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 said.
“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 in the charge sheet,” Marutya said, before dismissing the application as lacking merit.
The case centres on a satirical column published on June 27, 2025, in the Zimbabwe Independent, 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 an editor, while AMH was charged in the medium through which the offence was committed.
He said the article appeared alongside a photograph of President 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 Code (Codification and Reform) Act.
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 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, pending the outcome of the review. Defence lawyers indicated that, if unsuccessful in the High Court, they would seek referral to the Constitutional Court.
