On 29 April 2019 at Manomano Village, Chief Mangwende Murehwa, the accused, Elliot Rewu (aged 38), killed his 80-year-old father, Chamunorwa Alex Makumborega. The accused and deceased had a long-standing dispute. On the morning of the incident, the accused armed himself with an axe from his mother's kitchen and proceeded to where his father was dressing to go to court for a protection order hearing. The accused struck his father three times on the head with the axe, causing severe head injuries. The accused then threw down the axe, told his mother "I have finished the job," and fled to the mountains. The deceased died on the spot. The accused surrendered to police the next day. The family discord arose from the accused's beliefs in witchcraft and goblins, which neither the deceased nor the accused's mother shared. The accused had a history of alcohol abuse and had terrorized and assaulted both parents. The deceased had sought a protection order against the accused due to his threatening and harassing behavior.
The accused was convicted of murder with actual intent as defined in section 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment.
1. Intention in criminal law is assessed subjectively under section 13 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act - the test is whether the accused intended to engage in the conduct or produce the consequence he did. 2. Being called to attend court proceedings cannot constitute reasonable provocation. 3. Witchcraft-related beliefs alone do not constitute provocation for murder unless the accused acted in the heat of the moment with genuine belief of imminent danger. 4. Under section 47(3), the fact that a victim is over 80 years old constitutes an aggravating circumstance. 5. Where murder is committed in aggravating circumstances, courts have discretion under section 47(4) to impose death, life imprisonment, or a definite term, but where death is not imposed, the minimum effective sentence should be 20 years. 6. In intrafamilial murders, courts may exercise discretion to avoid the death penalty where it would compound family tragedy, focusing on personal deterrence and rehabilitation rather than general deterrence.
The court observed that criminal trials should not be treated as "a boxing ring where a determination is made based on points scored" but should seek to unravel the truth (citing S v Timba SC 81/91). The court noted its inherent power to call witnesses not called by either party where their evidence is material to proper determination of the case. The court made sympathetic observations about the family tragedy, noting that the accused's mother would lose both her husband and son if the death penalty were imposed. The court commented that troubled persons who abuse alcohol "will always find fault in other people" and that the accused "needed to refocus" rather than "find solace in the brown bottle." The court expressed that society would not be "better off without the accused forever" and that he was "not a danger to society generally," indicating belief in his potential for rehabilitation despite the callousness of the murder.
This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to murder committed in aggravating circumstances, particularly intrafamilial murder involving elderly victims. It demonstrates the court's discretion to avoid imposing the death penalty even where aggravating circumstances exist under section 47(3) and (4) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, particularly where the crime occurs within a family context and would compound family tragedy. The case also clarifies that witchcraft-related beliefs do not constitute provocation unless death was caused in the heat of the moment in the presence of anger and fear of imminent death. The judgment emphasizes the subjective test for intention under section 13 of the Act and confirms that provocation is not a complete defense to murder under section 238 but may be a partial defense under section 239 reducing liability to culpable homicide. The case addresses sentencing principles balancing personal deterrence and rehabilitation against general deterrence in family murders.