3 HH 547-23 CA 480/19 on YouTube, when he stumbled on a video of the appellant speaking in, what appeared to be, an interview during which he uttered the inflammatory words forming the basis of the charge. It appeared to be a question and answer session because the appellant was fielding questions. The video later went viral on social media that evening. On the following day, 01 August, 2018, members of the MDC Alliance party protested the results of the harmonized elections in violent protests during which they destroyed and set several properties on fire. He concluded that the demonstrators were members of the MDC Alliance because they were wearing MDC Alliance regalia. He instructed the Law and Order division of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to investigate the issue of the video which he had seen YouTube the day before the violent protests broke up because he believed that the disturbances were incited by the appellant’s utterances. The appellant had called for chaos in the video. He denied any suggestions that it was a mere coincidence that the turmoil took place after the video had been posted on YouTube and that the video was created by the State to falsely accuse the appellant of inciting the violence. He asserted that the video was genuine and not ‘photo shopped’, as alleged by the appellant, because he (the witness) knew the appellant’s voice and demeanor on television. The second witness to give evidence for the State was Simba Nyamayauta who was called by the State to testify as cyber expert. He held a Bachelor of Science Degree in Management of Systems and a Certificate in ‘Reducing Cybercrime through Knowledge and Capacity Building. His evidence was as follows. He had 10 years’ experience in the Zimbabwe Republic Police and was, at the time of giving evidence, working at the Criminal Investigations Department’s Headquarters as a Systems Administrator. His job involved maintenance of ICT equipment. On the 3rd August, 2018 he downloaded, from YouTube, a video depicting the appellant addressing what appeared to be a press conference and preserved it on compact disc for future reference as evidence. He noted that the video had been uploaded on the 31st of July, 2018. He had the knowledge and skill to download the video from the internet. With the consent of the appellant, he produced and played in court during his testimony. The appellant also consented to the production of the transcript of the utterances accompanying the video, which the witness produced. During cross examination, the defence the defence played a video depicting the then, and now late, President of Zimbabwe which they said had been manipulated to demonstrate that videos could be created or manipulated. The witness could not be drawn to say whether the video