Well it's not exactly false if the accused admits to it. Furthermore, the officer could have simply explained that it appeared silver at first glance and when he followed it, it became apparent that it was not, but it didn't matter because he was more concerned about dealing with the accused, the rider of the motorcycle. The colour of the motorcycle was immaterial in this case. Furthermore, it was caught on camera and broadcast to a national audience. Not a lot of wriggle room for lies.
To have the officer who wrote the ticket prosecute the offence is a bizarre circumstance which usually isn't allowed because he may well be called as a witness. It is potential misconduct for a lawyer to take on a case if they expect to be called as a witness. In my state, for all summary matters, a sergeant from Prosecutors Command will take over. This show is about a summary court for the purpose of adjudicating non-criminal matters so certain rules can be relaxed, I suppose. It seems they are, because there does not seem to be any procedure to have witnesses testify.
But the basic principle stands - a prosecutor is not under oath. If they lie, that is a matter for the Law Society/Bar Association (if the prosecutor is a lawyer), or the police supervisors (if a police prosecutor). They still can't lie and fudge things, but it ain't a crime.
Lastly, lighten up, buddy! This was supposed to be funny!
Threaded Mode