8 HH 547-23 CA 480/19 community service. See S v Cleto HH 63/11 and S v Usavi HH 182/10. Secondly, the trial court misdirected itself by placing undue weight on the fact that the appellant’s conduct contravened the Electoral Act, a consideration was irrelevant to the charge which the appellant had been convicted of. The Electoral Act creates offences and the appellant was not charged with any. Thirdly, the trial court misdirected itself when it failed to take into account that the appellant did not announce results. The State’s submissions and argument on appeal The appeal was opposed by the State. The State counsel based the opposition on the following argument with respect to conviction. The evidence led by the State at the trial was overwhelming and proved that the appellant uttered the words forming the basis on the charge at a time when emotions were running high. He made the utterances as the Zimbabwean citizenry eagerly awaited the official announcement of results of the Presidential election. The appellant had not disputed, at his trial, that he was the person shown in the video on YouTube wearing an election bib. It was evident from the background that the video originated from the Command Centre. The appellant was, indeed, at the Command Centre on the 31July, 2018. It was, therefore, common cause that he was present at the HICC at the Command Centre as an election observer and wearing the attire worn by observers which included the bib also worn by him in the video clip. It was common cause that the appellant was a member of the MDC Alliance political party and that he had attended the political party’s political rallies at Mkoba, Masvingo and Mutare which he attended. It was also common cause that that his political party were involved in violent countrywide protests the 1 st of August, 2018, that is a day after the video had been published on YouTube. The State counsel conceded that the State did not adduce direct evidence to prove that the protesters were instigated to commit violence by the inflammatory utterances. He argued, however, that the connection could safely be inferred. In any event, in terms of our law, it was not necessary for the State to establish a direct connection between the inflammatory words and the violence which occurred the following day. He based the submission on s 187(2) of the Criminal Law Code which says that it shall be immaterial to a charge of incitement that the person who was incited was unresponsive to the incitement and had no intention of acting on the incitement or that the person who was incited did not know that what he or she was being incited to do or omit to do constituted a crime.