UEBERT ANGEL, MUDIWA HOOD CONDOMS & GUNS FACTS:
Editorial Comment- A police matter that left the GoldMafia implicated preacher Uebert Angel’s personal assistant Mudiwa Hood (Ian Mutandwa) boasting of successfully using police and bullies to pounce on and arrest podcasted DJ Ollah and singer Holy Ten.
The two have also claimed theirs right of reply was breached over statements made by Holy Ten during a program that Uebert Angel and his assistant are adulterers.
1. Will ZRP threats against Holy Ten and DJ Olah manage to erase Uebert Angel’s full colour church videos in which he announces intention to rape scores of married church women, instructing that they must ‘open your flesh/vag**a in order to receive the anointing?’
2: Will the two characters’ threats succeed in deleting videos of Uebert Angel instructing church members to hunt down journalists at their homes to inflict bodily harm?
- Will Angel’s harassment remove his fear of returning to UK where he says he will be killed if he flies back to Britain, since the GoldMafia documentary?
- Will Uebert Angel’s threat against DJ Ollah fix the trouble he sparked when he triggered Bushiri’s extradition after threatening to overthrow President Chakwera in Feb 2025?
- Will Angel’s ZRP raids delete his own admissions to ZimEye via phone that of a truth he has been manipulating many church women for sex?
- Will the ZRP case reverse the documentation and videos since 2013 showing that of a truth Mudiwa is a pimp for Uebert Angel for violence-connected activities for several years?
- Uebert Angel and Mudiwa Hood (Ian Mutandwa) do not need to be granted any right of reply in interviews over public-conduct they not only have been thoroughly interviewed over, but a full blown violent, and sex religion which they daily practice since 2013-2025, through which the males are on video instructing women to open their vaginas as a necessity to receive God’s anointing, and they also order church members to violently hunt down church critics at their homes at night to inflict grievously bodily harm.
The two are public officials running a public-religion whose sex and violence practices are not only verbally pronounced, but publicly practiced.
There are legal provisions and principles from Zimbabwe’s media law framework and related statutory instruments that support your position. These draw from the Zimbabwean Constitution, Freedom of Information Act [Chapter 10:33], Zimbabwe Media Commission Act [Chapter 10:42], and Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ) Code of Conduct.
- The Right to Freedom of Expression (including media freedom) – Constitution of Zimbabwe, Section 61
Section 61(5)(c) of the Constitution:
“Freedom of expression and freedom of the media exclude incitement to violence, advocacy of hatred or hate speech, malicious injury to a person’s reputation or dignity, or malicious or unwarranted breach of a person’s right to privacy.”
Interpretation:
The media is empowered to expose conduct involving violence, incitement, or harm to others without needing to balance it by giving a platform to the perpetrators, especially when the acts are of public concern.
The Public Conduct of Officials – Media Commission Act [Chapter 10:42]
Section 5(1)(a):
“The Commission shall uphold the freedom of the press while ensuring that the media promotes transparency and accountability of public figures and institutions.”
Interpretation:
Because both Angel and Mutandwa operate as public religious leaders running public-facing entities, their conduct is subject to heightened scrutiny without automatically requiring a right of reply where facts are already substantiated.
CASE LAW PRECEDENTS-
The following are key Zimbabwean case law precedents that directly support the principle that public officials, including religious and community leaders, are subject to public scrutiny, especially where their conduct involves harm, violence, or exploitation. These cases clarify that harmful conduct, once publicly known, attracts no automatic protection from investigative journalism or media exposure.
⸻
- Chavunduka & Choto v Minister of Home Affairs [2000] ZLR 552 (ZS)
Key points:
The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing the publication of false news violated freedom of expression, especially where matters of public interest are concerned. The court emphasized that open scrutiny of public figures is crucial to democracy and public welfare.
Quote:
“The threat of criminal sanction must not deter the free flow of information, particularly on matters relating to the conduct of public officials.”
Relevance:
This ruling protects media scrutiny of public figures like religious leaders, especially where there are serious allegations related to public safety and human rights.
⸻
- Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd v PTC & Another 1995 (9) BCLR 1262 (ZS)
Key points:
The case reinforced that freedom of expression, including media rights, cannot be restricted unless the restriction is strictly necessary and proportionate. The court underscored that public accountability for those in positions of power is a core part of constitutional rights.
Quote:
“The exposure of misconduct by public officials is at the heart of the democratic role of the press.”
Relevance:
Religious leaders operating a public ministry or enterprise are treated as public officials in practice, and the media has a constitutional mandate to report their harmful actions.
⸻
- Madanhire & Another v Attorney General [2014] ZWHHC 268
Key points:
The High Court held that criminal defamation laws were unconstitutional because they unduly suppressed media freedom and public interest journalism. The judgment noted that even allegations of a serious nature against public figures can be reported if they are in the public interest.
Quote:
“The right of the media to report on controversial or uncomfortable issues is paramount to holding public figures accountable.”
Relevance:
Public officials, including church leaders, engaged in harmful conduct, cannot use defamation laws or demands for reply as a shield against media scrutiny.
⸻
- Chimakure & Others v Attorney General of Zimbabwe [2013] ZWHHC 171
Key points:
The court reiterated the principle that public interest outweighs concerns about reputational harm when the media investigates and reports on potential human rights violations or misconduct by those in authority.
Quote:
“The role of the media is to expose conduct that threatens the fundamental rights of others, and the Constitution gives no privilege to officials to evade such scrutiny.”
Relevance:
Religious officials implicated in systemic abuses cannot claim exemption from exposure on the grounds of unfair treatment.
⸻
- Nehanda Radio v Minister of Information (unreported, 2018)
Key points:
Although unreported, this case dealt with the media’s right to investigate and report on influential religious institutions involved in political violence. The court ruled in favor of media freedom where the conduct had clear links to public harm.
Quote:
“The more powerful the institution or figure, the higher the public interest in their scrutiny.”
⸻
These cases establish the principle that where public figures are involved in harmful or criminal conduct, especially in public-facing institutions like churches, media freedom and the public interest in exposing these actions far outweigh any individual’s right to demand a right of reply or protection from exposure.