7 HH 547-23 CA 480/19 1. The methodology used by the expert ought to have been capable of being tested 2. Whether there was any known room of error with the methodology 3. Whether the methodology has been subjected to peer review by others in the expert’s field The appellant’s counsel argued that, to the contrary, the second state witness purported to give evidence as an expert yet his testimony was based on insufficient facts or data and thus consisted of mere guesswork and conjecture. The appellant’s counsel further argued that the court a quo, erred in convicting the appellant in the absence of evidence aliunde confirming that the appellant held a press conference. However, in the event that the court correctly found that the appellant uttered the words forming the basis of the charge that, alone, did not amount to telling anyone to commit violence. The appellant did not call for violence in the video. He promised to do so in the event that ZEC announced incorrect results. His threat was, therefore, predicated on the event that the Zimbabwe Electoral commission announced the wrong results and there was no evidence that ZEC announced the wrong results. There was no evidence linking the appellant’s utterances with the violence which occurred the following day. He cited the case of S v Evans Mawarire HH 802/17 at pages 14 to 15 of the cyclostyled judgment where this court stated the following: “The State referred the court to the case of CR v Njenje & Or 1966 (1) (SRA) as authority for the proposition that if a conspirator incites other conspirators to commit a crime, he may be liable to conviction as a principal offender even though he is not present when the crime is committed, and or if it is proved that he otherwise aided and abetted in the actual commission of the crime. This case is distinguishable from the circumstances before us for the simple reason that, not a single witness was called to testify as a perpetrator of violence, and no evidence was adduced to establish that the perpetrators of violence acted on the strength of any urging to do so by the accused. None of the arrested citizens implicated the accused as having incited them to violence. In fact, one of the state witnesses told the court that they all refused to testify against the accused person. It has not therefore been proved or even shown to be probable that the violence started on the accused’s instigation.” The appellant’s argument on appeal with regards to the rest of the grounds of appeal against sentence. The appellant’s counsel submitted that in the event that the appellant did not succeed against conviction, there was a sound legal basis for this court to interfere with the sentence. Firstly, the effective imprisonment was not called for because the sentence of imprisonment of 24 months imposed by the court a quo was within the threshold of the non-custodial option of