Bybit's Lawyer

Bybit's Lawyer Male

Why Police cannot Force you to Delete a Video you Recorded of themLet’s settle this matter once and for all because ever...
05/12/2025

Why Police cannot Force you to Delete a Video you Recorded of them

Let’s settle this matter once and for all because every day on our roads, Police officers shout:

“OFF THAT CAMERA!”
“DELETE THAT VIDEO NOW!”
“YOU NO GET RIGHT TO RECORD ME!”
My brother, my sister it’s not true.The law does NOT support that intimidation.

Let me break it down clearly, and legally in a way you will never forget

🥢 Recording a Police Officer Is NOT a Crime
Police officers are public officers performing public duties in public spaces.
You have the right to:
✔ Record
✔ Photograph
✔ Livestream
…as long as you are not obstructing them physically.
Why?
Because the Constitution guarantees:
– Freedom of expression
– Freedom to gather information
– Right to hold government accountable
A public officer has no expectation of privacy during public duty.

🥢 Police cannot Seize your Phone without Legal Grounds
They love shouting:
“Bring that phone here!”
“You cannot record me!”
“We will delete it for you!”
Calm down. Under the law, police cannot seize your phone except:
✔ You are under arrest AND
✔ The phone is evidence of a crime
Recording a police officer is NOT a crime.
Therefore, your phone is NOT evidence of anything illegal. Meaning they cannot grab it, sn**ch it, or demand it.

🥢 Police Cannot Force you to Delete a Video it is Destruction of Evidence
This is the part they don’t want the public to know. If an officer misbehaves and you record it, that video becomes potential evidence against the officer. If they force you to delete it, that is called:
“Tampering with evidence”
“Obstruction of justice”
Both are offences. So legally, you have more right to keep the video than they have to DELETE it.

🥢 Your Phone is your Personal Property not Police Property
Section 37 of the Constitution protects:
✔ Privacy of your communication
✔ Your messages
✔ Your videos
✔ Your phone content
A police officer cannot:
✔️ Search your phone
✔️ Scan your gallery
✔️Go through your chats
✔️Force you to open your WhatsApp
✔️Demand your password
Unless a court warrant says so or you give consent.
Recording them doesn’t give them any special power over your device.

🥢Record with Sense don’t Interfere with Police Duty
Your right is not a license to act stubborn. Record safely and from a distance without blocking an arrest or obstructing investigation. If you jump inside their operation shouting “I’m recording!”
they can arrest you for obstruction and the court will support them. Use wisdom. Record, don’t interfere.

🥢 If they Harass you for Recording, Here’s what you can do
✔ Don’t argue
✔ Don’t shout
✔ Don’t delete anything
✔ Calmly tell them:
“Recording a public officer on duty is not a crime.”
If they insist, note:
– Their name
– Number on their badge
– Patrol vehicle number
– Time and location
And report to Police Complaint Response Unit (CRU) or Human rights groups / legal support. One video can save another citizen tomorrow.

Recording keeps everyone accountable. Even the good officers know this. That is why they fear your camera but the law is on your side. Police are meant to protect your rights not silence them.

Recording them is not disrespect. It is accountability.

Delete no video.

Surrender no phone.

Fear no intimidation as long as you’re not obstructing, your camera is legal, your evidence is valid, your right is protected.

©️Bybit's Bybit's Lawyer

03/12/2025

Praise the Lord.

Public demonstrations based on false claims of child marriage are misplaced. The individual in question, therefore an a...
21/11/2025

Public demonstrations based on false claims of child marriage are misplaced. The individual in question, therefore an adult with full legal capacity to make her own marital and personal decisions under Section 52 of the Constitution, which protects personal dignity, privacy, and autonomy. Any protest premised on misinformation or personal heartbreak has no legal foundation and must cease to avoid causing unnecessary public disorder.”

HOW YOU CAN DARE NO TO TOUCH MADZIBABA.HE IS HOLY CHOSEN BY GOD HIMSELF AND PROCTECTED BY THE LAW.LEGAL STATEMENT ON THE...
20/11/2025

HOW YOU CAN DARE NO TO TOUCH MADZIBABA.HE IS HOLY CHOSEN BY GOD HIMSELF AND PROCTECTED BY THE LAW.

LEGAL STATEMENT ON THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF BYBIT’S HUSBAND

RE: Protection of Bybit’s Husband From Unlawful Interference, Harassment, or Arrest
Issued by: Legal Representative for Bybit

As the legal representative for Bybit, I issue the following formal position regarding her husband’s legal status, rights, and protections under the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 20 of 2013) as well as general principles of administrative justice and human dignity.

1. Constitutional Right to Personal Liberty (Section 49)

Bybit’s husband is fully protected by the right to personal freedom.
Section 49 guarantees that no person may be deprived of their liberty except in accordance with a procedure that is lawful, fair, and reasonable.
Any attempt to arrest him without a valid warrant, reasonable suspicion, or due process is unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to an abuse of authority.

2. Protection From Arbitrary Arrest (Section 50)

The law is clear:

Arrests must be based on clear, lawful grounds.

An individual must be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons.

Detention cannot be used as intimidation or punishment.
Therefore, no officer or authority may “just arrest” him, especially not for matters involving his private life, his marriage, or his cultural practices.

3. Right to Privacy and Family Life (Section 57 & Section 25)

Bybit’s husband has the constitutional right to:

Privacy,

Family autonomy,

Protection of his home and marital arrangements.

No outsider—whether a private individual or authority—may interfere with his household, his marital structure, or how he has lived peacefully before external parties disrupted his and Bybit’s life.

4. Recognition of Cultural and Customary Marriages (Section 63 & Marriage Act Provisions)

Zimbabwean law recognises customary marriages, including those where a man may have more than one wife under customary norms.
This means:

His marriage to Bybit is lawful,

His lifestyle is protected,

His family structure is not grounds for harassment, discrimination, or arrest.

5. Right to Human Dignity (Section 51)

Every person must be treated with dignity.
Harassing Bybit’s husband, threatening him, or attempting to arrest him without lawful basis is a direct violation of his human dignity, which the Constitution absolutely protects.

6. Right to Equal Protection of the Law (Section 56)

Bybit’s husband enjoys the same rights as any Zimbabwean citizen:

Equal treatment,

Protection from discrimination,

Protection from targeted or malicious interference.

No one can try to destroy his family life and then attempt to use state authority to justify it.

7. Unlawful Interference With His Life and Safety

Before the recent disturbances, Bybit’s husband lived a peaceful, private, and culturally recognised family life.
Any individual or institution attempting to disrupt or criminalise his lifestyle is acting:

Outside legal authority,

In violation of constitutional safeguards,

In a manner that endangers his safety and emotional wellbeing.

8. Warning Against Illegal Harassment or Attempts to Arrest

Any person or authority who attempts to:

Threaten him,

Intimidate him,

Arrest him without lawful cause,

Interfere with his marriage,

Or endanger his safety,

is acting illegally and may face legal consequences for:

Abuse of office,

Harassment,

Violation of constitutional rights,

Infringement of family life,

Emotional and social harm to both him and Bybit.

---

Conclusion

Bybit’s husband remains a legally protected citizen, entitled to live freely and safely under Zimbabwean law.
No one has the right to touch him, threaten him, or attempt to arrest him outside strict constitutional procedures.
Any further interference will be met with full legal action to defend his rights, dignity, and safety.

Bybit's Lawyer

LAWYER’S PUBLIC STATEMENTPUBLIC STATEMENT BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVEREGARDING A CUSTOMARY LAW MARRIAGEAs the legal represen...
20/11/2025

LAWYER’S PUBLIC STATEMENT

PUBLIC STATEMENT BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
REGARDING A CUSTOMARY LAW MARRIAGE

As the legal representative acting on behalf of my client, Ms. Bybit, I issue this statement to clarify the legal position and constitutional protection of her marriage, solemnised under Zimbabwean Customary Law, which fully permits a man to have more than one wife. This statement also serves to affirm her maturity, consent, happiness, and legal protection within that marriage.

Zimbabwe is a nation whose laws recognise two parallel marriage systems: civil marriages and customary law marriages. Under Civil Marriages Act [Chapter 5:11], polygamous unions are not permitted. However, Customary Marriages Act [Chapter 5:07] expressly recognises and regulates marriage under customary traditions, including polygyny, which is a culturally and legally accepted marriage structure in Zimbabwe.

Further, Section 63 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) guarantees every person the right to participate in the cultural life of their choice, provided it does not violate the rights of others. Traditional marriage arrangements—including a man marrying more than one wife under customary rites—fall squarely within this constitutional protection. This means that a woman who chooses to enter a customary polygynous marriage does so with full legal and constitutional backing, and her marriage enjoys the same respect, dignity, and recognition afforded to other customary unions.

My client, Ms. Bybit, is a fully consenting and mature adult who has willingly entered this marriage as a second wife. She was never coerced, misled, or pressured into the union. Instead, she has demonstrated a clear understanding of the cultural, legal, and social framework of customary marriage. She has also expressed deep contentment, security, and emotional well-being within this family structure. Any assumptions or suggestions that her marriage is improper, unlawful, or forced are therefore incorrect and misleading.

The image supplied (which includes Ms. Bybit with her husband and co-wife) visually reflects the peaceful, cooperative, and mutually respectful nature of their family unit. It serves as supporting evidence that she is living harmoniously and that the marriage is functioning in accordance with the traditional values recognised by Zimbabwean customary law.

Moreover, Section 51 of the Constitution guarantees every person’s inherent dignity, while Section 52(a) protects personal autonomy and bodily integrity. My client is exercising these rights by choosing a marriage structure that aligns with her cultural identity and personal preference.

Therefore, the public is reminded that customary polygynous marriages are lawful in Zimbabwe, protected both by statute and the Constitution. My client remains committed to her marriage, stands proudly in her position as a second wife, and is fully satisfied with her marital life. Any negative insinuations against her marriage are unfounded and contrary to the legal realities of Zimbabwe’s plural marriage system.

Issued by:
Attorney for Ms. Bybit
Bybit's Lawyer
Zimbabwe

19/11/2025

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SUE

Date: 25 November 2025
From: Bybit's Lawyer

To:
(Names of Defendants – or “All Persons Who Made Public Promises to Assist Bybit Between 25 October and 10 November 2024”)
(info being complied): ………………………………

---

RE: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SUE FOR FAILURE TO HONOUR PUBLIC PROMISES OF ASSISTANCE

Take notice that I, BYBIT, hereby give formal notice of my intention to institute legal proceedings against you in a competent Zimbabwean court for damages arising from your failure to fulfil public promises you made between 25 October 2024 and 10 November 2024, which promises were made publicly through social media, community platforms and other public channels.

During this period, you individually and/or collectively made clear, express and public undertakings to provide me with cash assistance, school fees, groceries, sanitary pads, electronic devices (including phones, tablets and computers), books and stationery, a residential stand, borehole drilling, scholarships, and other material support.

These promises created legitimate expectations and induced me to act to my detriment, including but not limited to:

Travelling to Harare at my own cost;

Securing space and logistical arrangements to receive the promised items;

Suffering emotional distress, anxiety and trauma;

Loss of time with family and husband;

Loss of opportunities during the period of reliance;

Reputational harm caused by public exposure and unmet expectations.

Despite making these promises publicly and repeatedly, you failed to honour any of the assistance pledged, resulting in financial, emotional and social harm.

Accordingly, I intend to claim damages in the sum of USD 100,000, plus:

Interest at 20% per month from the date of summons until full and final payment;

Legal costs on a higher scale; and

Any further relief the court may deem just.

This Notice is made in accordance with the relevant principles of Zimbabwean Contract Law, Delict, and the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, including but not limited to:

Law of Contract (Breach by Non-Performance);

Delictual Liability for Pure Economic Loss;

Unlawful Inducement and Negligent Misrepresentation;

Reliance Damages for Promissory Conduct.

If you wish to resolve this matter amicably and avoid litigation, you are hereby invited to contact me within 7 days of receipt of this Notice to discuss settlement.

Failure to respond within the specified period will result in summons being issued without further notice.

---

Signed: BYBIT

19/11/2025

MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF ZIMBABWEHELD

AT: ___________________________
Case No: (to be allocated)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN BYBIT
of Darwin / District, Zimbabwe
ANDVARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS
Defendants(witnesses to come forward with information by contacting her lawyer)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff, BYBIT, is an adult female resident of Darwin District, Zimbabwe.
2. The Defendants are various individuals and/or organisations who, between the period 25 October 2025 and 10 November 2025, publicly, verbally, and digitally made promises of assistance, benefits, donations, and material support to the Plaintiff.
3. During the stated period, the Defendants promised to provide the Plaintiff with:
- Cash donations
- Payment of school fees
- Money for sanitary pads
- Groceries
- Borehole drilling
- Residential stands
- Mobile phones, tablets, computers
- Books and stationery
- Scholarships
- Clothes
-Cosmetics
- And other publicly announced forms of assistance
4. These promises were made through social media posts, messages, videos, voice recordings, and direct communications, creating enforceable obligations under Zimbabwean contract law.
5. The Defendants failed, refused, and/or neglected to honour their undertakings. Their conduct amounts to breach of contract, repudiation, and misrepresentation.6. The Plaintiff accepts the repudiation and treats all agreements as terminated. She therefore seeks compensation for losses reasonably foreseeable at the time the promises were made.
7. The matter falls within the legal framework of: - Common-law principles of Contract (Roman-Dutch Law) - Contractual Penalties Act [Chapter 8:04] - Principles of damages for breach, including foreseeability, causation, and compensation
8. Particulars of Loss and Damage:
a) Transport Costs: The Plaintiff incurred significant transport expenses travelling from Mutoko/Darwin to Harare, relying on the Defendants’ promises.
b) Loss of Family Time: She spent long periods away from her family.
c) Loss of Time With Husband: Extended separation caused strain and emotional distress.
d) Emotional and Psychological Trauma: Public exposure caused embarrassment, distress, and humiliation.
e) Preparation Costs and Securing Space: The Plaintiff secured space and made preparations to receive items based on promises.
f) Opportunity Loss: The Plaintiff lost economic opportunities due to time lost.
9. Total damages amount to US$100,000.WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:
a. Payment of US$100,000.
b. Interest at 20% per month from 10 November 2025 to full payment.
c. Costs of suit.d. Leave to file a supplementary list of defendants.
e. Further relief as the Court may deem just.
NOTE TO WITNESSES:
Any individuals with evidence of promises made to BYBIT are encouraged to come forward.DATED AT 19 November 2025
Bybit's Lawyer

Address

Mt Darwin
Mount Darwin

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Bybit's Lawyer posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category