As presiding judge Joao Almeida Guilherme delivered his verdict, the courtroom burst into applause with cries of “Long live freedom of expression!”, “Long live justice!” and “There’s hope for the country yet!”.

The case arose from a post which Castel-Branco put on his Facebook page in November 2013, severely criticizing Guebuza’s governance and calling on him to resign. “Mediafax” republished Carlos-Branco’s text.

The Public Prosecutor’s office regarded the article as malicious and, since libelling the head of state and other senior political figures is considered a security offence, Castel-Branco was charged under the law on crimes against state security. Mbanze was accused of the nebulous offence of “abuse of press freedom” under the 1991 press law.

The court analysed in detail Carlos-Branco’s Facebook post – and could find nothing mailicious in it. Judge Gulherme said that Castel-Branco had simply been giving his opinion about the way Guebuza ran the country. Other people might find his criticism uncomfortable, but that did not make them a crime.

The language used by Castel-Branco might be regarded as “impertinent and vulgar, but the law does not deal with mere impertinence and vulgarity”, the judge declared.

However tough some people might find the language used in the article, “it is perfectly acceptable in a democracy”, said Guilherme. “People have the right to give their opinions on how the President is governing the country.”

Guilherme went through the Facebook post almost line by line, looking at all the points the prosecution had found malicious – but he found that Castel-Branco’s words fell within the boundaries of freedom of expression, and were protected by the Constitution.

The prosecution considered the very first line of the article – “Mr President, you are out of control” – as malicious and untrue. But Guilherme declared “however much discomfort this may cause, it’s no crime at all, just a criticism”.

Ruling such assertions criminal would put the court “on the list of the most undemocratic organisations”, he said.

Even Castel-Branco’s references to fascism were not libelous. Guilherme did not regard the term “fascist” as a matter for the courts at all. “To characterize the government as fascist might be an exaggeration, but it is not a crime,” he said. “It’s the opinion of the accused. Others may have different opinions”.

“Freedom of expression should be broader than the simple exercise of defending the image of the President of the Republic,” remarked the judge caustically.