Online Reporter
Lovemore Chikova
Deputy Editor
In recent years, Zimbabwe’s courts have been seeing a steady stream of familiar faces – comedians, socialites, musicians and internet celebrities – dragged from their phones and into the dock, all accused of cyberbullying.
What once passed for online drama has started to look more like a real problem facing loose-mouthed celebrities.
In just the past two weeks, at least three high-profile figures have found themselves in trouble with the law over things they said on social media.
Most of it happened the same way it usually does: someone went live, emotions took over, words flew and thousands of people watched it all unfold.
UK-based businesswoman Olinda Chapel was one of them. She appeared before the Harare Magistrates Court last week after allegedly attacking her lover Desmond “Stunner” Chideme’s former wife, Dyonne Tafirenyika, during a Facebook Live video that quickly spread far beyond her own page.
Although she later offered an apology, resulting in the offended part withdrawing the case, Chapel had already learnt it the hard way.
Days later, Kadoma TikToker Leona Rutendo Zinhu also stood in court, accused of using her online platforms to harass and intimidate a freelance journalist.
In the same week, Madzibaba Elisha Ruhinga of the Johanne Masowe yeChishanu church in Chitungwiza was charged after allegedly publicly accusing fellow church leader Madzibaba Moses Gwasarira of stealing church money and abusing congregants.
These were not isolated cases, as in recent years, names like Freddy Mutandwa, Mai Tt, Malloti and Evidence Jiri have all appeared in court over similar allegations.
The pattern is becoming hard to ignore: public figures with big followings are saying things online that land them in serious legal trouble.
From comedy skits to music beefs, relationship drama to lifestyle content, thousands of people now make a living or build fame online.
But what many of these personalities seem to forget is that the same platforms that make them popular also expose them to the law.
The Cyber and Data Protection Act (Chapter 12:07), read together with Section 164B of the Criminal Law Code, draws a clear line: You do not have to hit someone to hurt them.
Section 164B is explicit as it criminalises the intentional generation or posting of electronic messages that harass, intimidate, bully, humiliate, demean or cause emotional distress to another person.
The section substantial reads: “Any person who unlawfully and intentionally by means of a computer or information system generates and sends any data message to another person, or posts on any material whatsoever on any electronic medium accessible by any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, threaten, bully or cause substantial emotional distress, or to degrade, humiliate or demean the person of another or to encourage a person to harm himself or herself, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 10 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.”
This means if you deliberately post or send something that humiliates, bullies, intimidates or causes serious emotional distress, you may already have broken the law.
What many dismiss as “clout chasing”, “defending myself” or “just going live” can easily cross into criminal territory.
A live video that starts as gossip can quickly turn into a public trial, with thousands of strangers piling onto one person in the comments.
Insults get repeated, memes are created and reaction videos spread the damage even further.
And this is how it usually plays out: a name is mentioned, a face is shown, a private issue is dragged into public view. Jokes then turn cruel, while accusations fly, with followers being invited to judge, laugh at and sometimes even confront the person being targeted.
Long after the video ends, the humiliation remains on the target. That is exactly the kind of harm the law is meant to stop.
There is nothing illegal about being funny, expressive or outspoken, but there is a difference between comedy and cruelty, between calling out an issue and tearing down a person.
Once speech becomes degrading, humiliating or emotionally harmful to a clearly identifiable individual, it stops being entertainment and starts becoming evidence.
Musicians are not exempt either. Online feuds, diss tracks and social-media rants can spiral out of control when artists use their fan bases as weapons against each other.
Lifestyle influencers, too, walk a thin line when they post screenshots, expose private messages or turn personal disputes into content.
One of the biggest myths online is that speaking “in the heat of the moment” offers protection, yet it is clear that it does not.
The law looks at what was posted and what it was likely to do, not how angry or emotional the person felt while typing or talking.
Another thing many people underestimate is the size of their audience. A comment made to 10 people is one thing, but the same words broadcast to 100 000 followers is something else entirely.
When followers are encouraged to mock, attack or harass someone, that harm is multiplied many times over.
And then there is the issue of permanence.
Screenshots, screen recordings and saved videos mean nothing ever really disappears. Deleting a post might remove it from your page, but it does not remove it from someone else’s phone or from a courtroom.
This is not about silencing anyone or killing creativity. It is about understanding that going live is not the same as talking in your living room. It is a public broadcast, with legal consequences.
For Zimbabwe’s social media stars, the message is becoming painfully clear – being famous online does not protect you, in fact, it puts you under even greater scrutiny. And in today’s digital Zimbabwe, one reckless video, one angry rant or one cruel joke can be the difference between trending online and standing before a magistrate.
