MARTIN MAWAYA
GWERU-Two vendors, Lovemore Reketai and Bernard Tsotsi, are set to stand trial on January 16, 2025 for cyberbullying and harassment.
The pair appeared before Provincial Magistrate Beaulity Dube, who directed them to obtain the state papers from the prosecution in preparation for their trial.
They are charged under Section 164B of Zimbabwe’s Cyber Security and Data Protection Act, which prohibits electronic harassment.
According to this section, “any person who unlawfully and intentionally, by means of a computer or information system, generates and sends any data message to another person, or posts on any material whatsoever on any electronic medium accessible by any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, threaten, bully, or cause substantial emotional distress, or to degrade, humiliate, or demean another person, or to encourage a person to harm himself or herself, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 10 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.”
The act also incriminates the intentional broadcasting or distribution of data concerning an identified or identifiable person, knowing it to be false, with the intent to cause psychological or economic harm.
In this case, the duo allegedly disparaged Costain Mukanganike, the managing director of Cosfoam Projects and the 2023 Zanu-PF primary elections parliamentary candidate for Gweru Urban, on a social media platform.
The incident occurred on October 28, 2024.
The court heard that Reketai and Tsotsi, who are members of a WhatsApp group titled “Gweru Vendors,” allegedly sent voice messages labeling Mukanganike a “thief” and advising others not to heed his words.
Mukanganike was informed of these messages through recordings sent by another group member, Pluckcedes Madhirize.
During their initial appearance, Reketai and Tsotsi admitted to sending the voice notes in the Gweru Vendors WhatsApp group, calling the complainant a “conman.”
They told the court that they have evidence to support their claim that the complainant has “duped” them.
The accused persons are currently on bail, with the condition that they will not interfere with state witnesses and will continue residing at their residential addresses.
