11 HH 547-23 CA 480/19 necessarily constitute a confession to the crime. The appellant was merely abiding by the judgment of the court which had convicted him. We are not persuaded by the argument. Abiding by the judgment of the court which has convicted the accused means that the accused person is entitled to rely on trial court’s findings of fact in mitigation. That the accused uttered the words as a result of temptation and emotional stress and that he succumbed to temptation and the circumstances surrounding him was not part of the judgment of the court which convicted him. Those were facts unknown to the court until he started making submissions in mitigation. The appellant was, therefore, volunteering information which was peculiarly known to him which he wanted to be considered as the truth of what transpired. He was, thus, taking the court into his confidence as a sign of remorse and repentance. See S v Kanongo HH 158/19. His submissions were accepted by the trial court as true and correct. See S v Ngulube 2002 (1) ZLR 316 (H). His insistence on appeal that the video is a creation of the state and that he did not utter the words which form the basis of the appeal was, therefore, not bona fide. That the appeal against conviction is not bona fide is confirmed by the other telling admissions made in written and oral argument by appellant’s counsel. He argued that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant because of the possibility that the appellant spoke with a forked tongue by saying one thing when he meant another or that he had a secret code which only his followers could decrypt. He submitted that the words uttered by the appellant should not be interpreted to be telling anyone to be violent or chaotic. He said there was no evidence establishing a connection between the appellant’s utterances and the violence which occurred the following day. The submissions amount to admissions that the appellant was indeed recorded on video making the utterances. In something akin to confession and avoidance. The appellant’s counsel was conceding that the video is authentic but sought to show that the appellant did not mean any harm by the utterances. It does not make sense that the appellant would deny making the inflammatory utterances and in the next breath admit making them albeit innocently. It is either he uttered the words or he did not. It was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce direct evidence connecting the appellant’s utterances with the violent protests which occurred. In terms of s 187 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act it is immaterial to a charge of incitement that the appellant’s