HIGH Court judge Justice Gibson Mandaza has reserved judgment on HStv senior journalist Blessed Mhlanga’s bail application saying he needed more time to go through submissions made in court yesterday.
Mhlanga was arrested three weeks ago with the State alleging that he published videos recorded at a Press conference held by former Zanu PF central committee member and war veteran Blessed “Bombshell” Geza with messages inciting violence.
Harare magistrate Farai Gwitima denied Mhlanga freedom, arguing that he was likely to interfere with witnesses if granted bail.
Aggrieved, he took the matter up with the High Court arguing that the lower court erred in denying him bail.
Mandaza yesterday said he would need time to go through submissions.
“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.
Meanwhile, Mhlanga’s lawyer Chris Mhike yesterday told the court that his client had 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. He was not present at that Press conference and had nothing to do with what was said at that Press conference.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
“Secondly, he did not transmit what transpired at that Press conference because he is not HStv. He also admits that on YouTube, the ownership of the video was attributed to HStv.
“He makes it clear that he is not HStv. Therefore with these common cause factors, it is difficult to comprehend why the State would in the first place arrest the accused and thereafter allege it is a strong case.”
Mhike also submitted that the case was based on a lie.
“The lie is that my client is HStv. HStv is the owner of the content and broadcasts the content. The State suggests that the transmission of that relevant video is an introverted fact.
“But the question is who transmitted the videos. It would be unfair to conclude that because the videos were concluded, it was the appellant who transmitted the videos. It is not even alleged by the State that the video recordings show the appellant broadcasting or transmitting the videos,” he told the court.
He further submitted that the State did not say Mhlanga was seen sitting on a computer transmitting the video, adding that the words quoted as the broadcasted messages 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,” he said.
Mhike said his client was being punished for something else.
“The onus to prove a strong case is on the State. The record of proceedings in the court a quo 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,” he submitted.
Mhike said Mhlanga did not challenge remand because it would have prejudiced him after staying in jail for over two weeks.
He said the magistrate erred by ignoring that the witnesses were not named.
“How can one interfere with an unknown witness? There is no evidence that if the appellant continues to work, he will threaten the security of this nation. There is no basis for asserting that the appellant before you will undermine public order or peace or security,” Mhike said.
“The offence under review is not scheduled so the magistrate erred in denying the appellant bail on grounds that his release will threaten peace and security in the country. The magistrate also made other errors which constitute unfairness in his determination.”
He said there was no evaluation of other factors such as the appellant’s cooperation with the police.
For the State, Fungai Nyahunzvi submitted that the prosecution stuck to its written submissions.
“We did not say he generated the message. For example, if one forwards nude images he will be committing an offence of transmission. We are not saying he authored the uttered messages. We are saying he transmitted the messages,” he said.
“We are told that challenging placement on remand would have prejudiced the appellant but we do not know why this is being said. That is why courts sit. When you look at the reasons why the accused was denied bail you will see that his case is different from other accused persons. The issue is not that he is a flight risk, we are saying he will interfere with witnesses.”
He said because of Mhlanga’s seniority he was likely to interfere with witnesses who were his subordinates.
