The State v Adiel Matoyi

The accused was charged with contravening s 187 as read with s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. On 18 April 2014 at village 5, Chipinda, chief Nhema in Zaka, the accused allegedly mandated Linos Paunganwa to kill his son, Joseph Matoyi, providing him with two iron bars, US$20 with a promise to pay another US$40 and a cow after execution. There was an existing feud between the accused and Joseph centered on accusations and counter-accusations of witchcraft practices between father and son. Linos did not intend to carry out the killing and instead reported the matter to Mathias Musingarimwi, a member of the neighbourhood watch. Together they devised a plan to entrap the accused by requesting more money. When the accused came to discuss payment, he was arrested by Mathias. The accused denied the charge, claiming Linos owed him maize and that Joseph had plotted to falsely incriminate him.

• Whether the accused incited Linos Paunganwa to commit murder
• Whether it is material that the person incited had no intention of acting on the incitement
• Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence of incitement to commit murder

The accused was found guilty of contravening s 187 as read with s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (incitement to commit murder).

The binding legal principle established is that under s 187(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, it is immaterial to a charge of incitement that the person incited was unresponsive to the incitement and had no intention of acting on it. The decisive issue in incitement is whether the accused reached out and sought to influence the mind of another person towards the commission of a crime. The completion of the offence of incitement does not depend on the incited person's response or intention to act.

The court made observations about the accused's demeanour during trial, noting that he initially sat looking down as if not paying attention, then held his jaw and cheek, appearing either bewildered or overcome with the enormity of Linos's testimony until a prison officer prompted him to sit up straight. The court also noted that a local court had been convened at village 5 after the accused's arrest where the accused allegedly admitted tarnishing Linos's image and offered him a cow as compensation, though this was not central to the legal determination.

This case demonstrates the application of s 187(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in Zimbabwean criminal law, confirming that incitement is complete regardless of whether the person incited intended to or actually committed the crime. It illustrates that the mens rea for incitement focuses on the accused's intention to influence another to commit a crime, not on the actual commission of that crime. The case also highlights the evidential weight given to confirmed warned and cautioned statements and the court's assessment of witness credibility in incitement cases.