HIGH Court judge Justice Gibson Mandaza yesterday denied an application for bail by HStv senior journalist Blessed Mhlanga.
He is facing charges under Section 164 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
Mhlanga (44) was arrested on February 24 after handing himself over to the police and is accused of unlawfully recording a video of Blessed Runesu Geza, a war veteran and fierce critic of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, and allegedly distributing it on YouTube via Heart and Soul Broadcasting Services channels.
He has been in remand prison since.
On February 28, Harare magistrate Farai Gwitima denied him bail.
Mhlanga’s lawyer Chris Mhike appealed the ruling on March 7, arguing that there were no compelling reasons to justify his continued detention.
“It is my view that there was a proper exercise of discretion in this matter by denying the appellant bail,” Justice Mandaza said.
“After careful examination, I did not find any misdirection by the lower court. In the end, the decision of this court is that the appeal by the appellant against the decision of the magistrate court on the February 25 is being dismissed.”
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
Justice Mandaza’s ruling comes after Mhlanga’s appeal faced delays, including an attempt by the National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe to transfer the case to the High Court’s Anti-Corruption Court, which the court dismissed.
“The offence is that as an employee of HStv, he (Mhlanga) transmitted violent messages. There is no absurdity,” the judge said.
“The charge is about transmitting data messages leading to incitement of violence. It is not an essential element of the offence that the violence must have occurred.
“What is clear from the message is that there were undertones of violent messages aimed at the President and police officers.”
Added Justice Mandaza: “Whether the words were uttered by Blessed Geza or someone else, it doesn’t change the nature of the charge”
He, however, noted that Mhlanga was not a flight risk, but claimed he could interfere with State witnesses because of technology.
“As things stand the appellant handed himself. He cannot be classified as a flight risk. The court a quo did not consider this,” the judge said.
