112 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal [CIO] and the police who were allegedly involved in the abduction of human right and MDC activists last November”, and went on to name the members. The Attorney-General was of the view that the articles contained false statements about the involvement of the law enforcement agencies and its members in the abduction of the human rights activists and members of the political party. He concluded that the articles contained statements which were materially false and prejudicial to the State, and authorised the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicants. On the other hand, the accused consistently denied that anything in the articles in question was false. The Zimbabwe Independent’s editor and a senior journalist were arrested and charged, together with a representative of the newspaper company, under s 31 of the Criminal Law Code. Section 31 of creates an offence styled “publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State”, and provides for the imposition of a fine of up to $5000 or imprisonment of up to twenty years, or both, on anyone convicted. The alleged prejudice to the State in this case was the undermining of public confidence in the police and the CIO, so the specific charge was contravening s 31(a)(iii), the part of s 31 dealing that particular type of prejudice to the State. Section 31(a)(iii) in effect prohibits the publication or communication to any other person of a wholly or materially false statement with the intention, or realising that there is a real risk or possibility, of undermining public confidence in a law enforcement agency (which would include the police force and the CIO), the Prison Service or the Defence Forces of Zimbabwe. The provision did not (it has since been amended by Act 3 of 2016) require proof by the State that the false statement actually undermined public confidence in the security service institution concerned or that the accused had knowledge of the falsity of the statement. Referral of case to Supreme Court The magistrate originally presiding over this matter referred it to the Supreme Court to determine