On 2 October 2026 a Harare magistrate dismissed, without giving reasons, journalist Gideon Madzikatidze's application for refusal of further remand. The court relaxed his bail reporting to once every two weeks and remanded the case to 29 October. The State still has not produced the 'cyber report' the defence has requested. Madzikatidze was arrested on 18 February 2026, spent about three months in pre-trial detention and has been on bail since 15 May. He has yet to face a trial date.
The case for the law
The strongest argument for Section 164B deserves a fair statement. Online harassment is real, and it falls hardest on women, including female journalists and politicians in Zimbabwe. A statute that lets prosecutors act against coordinated abuse, threats and degrading campaigns answers a genuine gap. Commentators in the Zimbabwean press have called the provision progressive on that score. A state that ignored such conduct would fail its citizens.
The question is whether Section 164B, as drafted and applied, fits that purpose.
What the statute says
Section 164B was inserted into the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act by the Cyber and Data Protection Act, 2021. It punishes anyone who 'unlawfully and intentionally' generates and sends a data message, or posts material on any electronic medium, 'with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, threaten, bully or cause substantial emotional distress, or to degrade, humiliate or demean the person of another'. The maximum penalty is a fine up to level 10 or imprisonment for up to ten years (Cyber and Data Protection Act, 2021, Chapter 12:07).
The mental element is the problem. 'Degrade, humiliate or demean' describes the foreseeable effect of much legitimate accountability reporting on its subject. A story alleging that a company's chief executive bribes journalists will embarrass him if it is true. It will embarrass him if it is false, too. The text has no public-interest defence and no truth defence. It also does not separate a message sent to a victim from a news article published about a public figure.
How it has been applied
According to the MISA Zimbabwe court-monitoring reports, the State alleges that between 15 and 16 December 2025 Madzikatidze posted a data message stating that the boss of Geo Pomona Waste Management bribes journalists and editors to evade scrutiny. The State says he intended to intimidate, harass and bully, and to degrade and humiliate the company and its chief executive. He also faces a second count, providing a broadcasting service without a licence under Section 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act. The reported charge is that his online reporting was an unlicensed broadcast (MISA, bail ruling report).
The licensing count compounds the problem. Treating a news website as an unlicensed broadcaster turns the licensing regime into a gate on publishing. Together, the two counts let a prosecutor reach almost any online reporter.
The procedure has also been slow and unforgiving. On 2 March 2026 a magistrate denied bail, calling the accused a flight risk, even though the alleged offence was a published article. He was remanded in custody until 17 March. By 27 May he was out on bail, with the matter pending 'finalisation of an outstanding cyber report by the State'. On 17 July the matter was postponed again to 20 August because the cyber report remained outstanding (MISA, postponement to August). The case is now before the court on 29 October, and the report still has not been produced.
Why the missing report matters for surveillance
The cyber report is the surveillance-adjacent part of this case. For a post that is public on its face, it is unclear what technical evidence is needed. The Act that created Section 164B also gives the State a monitoring apparatus. Its text refers to a 'Cyber Security and Monitoring Interception of Communications Centre'. Where the State relies on a forensic or attribution report the accused has not seen, the defence cannot test how the evidence was collected, what authority was used, or whether it reaches beyond the posts charged. Whatever the report contains, a trial cannot be fair while one side withholds it for seven months.
The constitutional backdrop
Zimbabwe's courts have addressed this problem before. In Madanhire v Attorney-General (CCZ 2/14, 12 June 2014), the Constitutional Court struck down criminal defamation as unnecessary, disproportionate and excessive. It reasoned that civil damages adequately protect reputation, and that criminal sanctions silence public discourse (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression summary; judgment, Southern Africa Litigation Centre copy). Section 164B criminalises 'degrading' or 'humiliating' speech with a penalty up to ten years, and that is harsher than the offence the Court struck down. Press groups have made the same argument about Section 164C, the false-data-message offence used against other journalists. In February 2026 the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists said journalism 'is not a crime' when a Zimbo Live reporter was charged under the same Act (AllAfrica report).
A proportionate alternative
A pro-innovation, pro-speech approach would not abandon victims of harassment. It would narrow the law and fix the procedure:
- Limit 164B to targeted conduct. Require that the message be directed at or sent to a specific person, or form part of a pattern of conduct, so that publication of news about public figures falls outside it.
- Add truth and public-interest defences. Reporting on matters of public concern should not be punishable on the ground that a subject felt humiliated.
- Remove publishing from broadcast licensing. A website is not a transmitter. Licensing it deters new entrants and independent media.
- Require disclosure. The State should disclose any forensic or interception report within a fixed period, or the charge should be withdrawn.
- Reserve detention for real flight risks. Remand in custody for an article is itself disproportionate.
If the Geo Pomona allegations are false, civil remedies exist. If they are true, the public interest in the story is greater. Either way, a criminal charge carrying up to ten years in prison is the wrong tool.
The next hearing is 29 October. The test is whether the State discloses the report, or the charge is withdrawn, rather than a seventh month of remands.