Harare – The High Court has reserved its ruling in the case of Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) journalist Blessed Mhlanga, who stands accused of transmitting messages inciting public violence. The state alleges that Mhlanga published videos recorded at a press conference held by war veteran Blessed Geza, who is opposing an extension of President Mnangagwa’s tenure.
Mhlanga was arrested three weeks ago and subsequently denied bail by Harare magistrate Farai Gwitima, who ruled that he was likely to interfere with witnesses if released. Mhlanga then appealed to the High Court, arguing that the lower court had erred in denying him bail.
During the High Court hearing on Monday, Mhlanga’s lawyer, Chris Mhike, argued before Justice Gibson Mandaza that the lower court’s decision was flawed. Mhike stated, “The accused has given a sensible or plausible defence. At this stage, the accused is entitled to be heard in respect of allegations against him and the defence he deposed.”
Mhike emphasised that Mhlanga was not present at the press conference and had no connection to the statements made there. He also pointed out that Mhlanga is not HSTV, the organisation to which the video’s ownership was attributed on YouTube. “He was not present at that press conference and has nothing to do with what was said at that press conference,” Mhike argued. “Secondly he did not transmit what was uttered at that less conference because he is not HSTV.”
Mhike further questioned the basis of the state’s case, stating, “This case is based on a lie. The lie that my client is HSTV. HSTV is the owner of the content and broadcasts the content.” He argued that it would be unfair to conclude that Mhlanga transmitted the videos simply because they were broadcast. “It is not even alleged by the state that the video recordings show the appellant broadcasting or transmitting the videos,” Mhike said.
Mhike highlighted that the state had not presented any evidence to show Mhlanga sitting at a computer transmitting the video. He further argued that the words quoted by the state as inciting violence were not uttered by Mhlanga but by Geza. “It cannot be a compelling reason to say he is the one who transmitted the words. There is no logical link between my client and the words quoted by the State saying it was words which are inciting violence.”
Mhike asserted that his client was being punished for something he did not do and that the state had failed to prove a strong case against him. “The onus to prove a strong case is on the state,” he said. “The record of proceedings in the court aquo makes it clear that the video does not pin his presence at the press conference or that he broadcast the press conference. It is clear the arrest was baseless.”
Mhike also explained that Mhlanga had reluctantly subjected himself to bail proceedings, as challenging remand would have resulted in him spending an extended period in jail. “So he reluctantly subjected himself to bail proceedings,” Mhike said. He questioned why Mhlanga was being denied bail when many other accused persons are released on bail while on remand. “The vast of accused persons are on bail while on remand, why is my client being denied the same when thousands of suspects are on bail?”
Mhike further argued that the magistrate erred by ignoring that the witnesses were not named and that there was no evidence to suggest that Mhlanga would threaten national security if released. “The magistrate erred by ignoring that the witnesses were not named. How can one interfere with an unknown witness?” He added, “There was no evidence that if the appellant continues to work, he will threaten the security of this nation.”
Representing the state, Fungai Nyahunzvi maintained that Mhlanga transmitted the messages, even if he did not generate them. “We did not say he generated the message. For example, if one forwards nude images he will be committing an offence of transmission,” he said. “We are not saying he authored the uttered messages. We are saying he transmitted the messages.”
Nyahunzvi also argued that Mhlanga’s seniority at HSTV made it likely that he would interfere with witnesses who were his subordinates. “Because he is a presidential correspondent. You cannot have a junior coming from college being assigned as a presidential reporter,” he said.
Justice Mandaza stated that he would need time to review the submissions made by both parties before making a ruling. “Quite a lot of submissions have been made. As soon as I’m ready I will put a notice on IECMS, I might put a date and advise parties when to come. It will just be a few days,” he said.
Mhlanga has been in remand prison since his arrest. In addition to the bail appeal, Mhike requested Justice Mandaza to order the state to release the evidence to the court and the defence so that the court could make an informed determination in the case. Mhike argued that the information on the request for remand form differed from what was in the recordings.
Mhike told the court that he had attempted to engage the state before the hearing but was unsuccessful. “I tried to engage the State before commencing the court but he was not interested allowing the appellant to challenge the evidence,” Mhike said. “We can have an adjournment to midday to allow the State to avail these evidence.”
The state countered that the defence should have requested the evidence at the magistrate court. However, Mhike referred the judge to the court transcript, stating that he had attempted to request the evidence but was denied by magistrate Farai Gwitima.
The judge adjourned the hearing to consider the application for the release of further particulars. The ruling on this application will determine whether there will be further arguments or a ruling on bail.
Mhike also raised concerns that his client’s record was being kept as a security record, causing delays in retrieving it.
The judge adjourned the hearing to consider the application for the release of further particulars. The ruling on this application will determine whether there will be further arguments or a ruling on bail.
Mhike also raised concerns that his client’s record was being kept as a security record, causing delays in retrieving it.
