The State v Garikai Chigodo

On 13 April 1997 at Chabvukwa Village, Chief Musikavanhu in Chipinge, Zimbabwe, the accused approached the deceased Kutsera Muyambo who was working in his fields with his family. The accused intended to ask the deceased why he was bewitching him. Not satisfied with the response, the accused assaulted the deceased with a small stick on his back. After the deceased took the stick away, the accused picked up a log and continued assaulting the deceased all over his body. The accused left the deceased lying in the field badly injured but breathing, went home, but then returned to continue the assault with a log. The deceased attempted to roll away to escape and rolled down an escarpment, landing on rocks at the bottom where he died from head injuries. The accused was admitted to Chikurubi Psychiatric Unit from 1997 to 2001. Dr. Walter Mangezi, a psychiatrist, examined the accused in 2016 and concluded that the accused was mentally disordered at the time of the offence but was fit to stand trial after taking medication for epilepsy and mental disorder. The post-mortem report confirmed death resulted from head injury following deep cuts to the head.

• Whether the accused could be found guilty of murder given his mental state at the time of the commission of the offense
• Whether a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should be returned
• Whether the accused should be discharged or institutionalized for further psychiatric treatment and management

1. The accused is not guilty by reason of insanity. 2. The accused be returned to prison for transfer to Chikurubi Psychiatric Unit or such other appropriate institution for his continued treatment and management until discharged therefrom by a competent body.

Where an accused person is found to have been mentally disordered at the time of committing an offense and lacks the requisite mental capacity, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity must be returned. Where psychiatric evidence establishes that a mentally disordered accused person continues to require treatment and management, the court may order institutionalization at a psychiatric facility as a protective measure for both the accused and the community, even after returning a special verdict. Such institutionalization is an administrative measure enabling continued treatment and management until the accused is discharged by a competent body such as a Health Review Tribunal in accordance with the Mental Health Act.

The court observed that premature release of the accused would not be in the interests of either the accused or society at large. The court noted that institutionalization in these circumstances serves multiple purposes: it is protective of both the accused and the community, ensures the accused receives necessary treatment and rehabilitation (particularly for anger management), and safeguards the interests of the administration of justice. The court emphasized that this approach allows for release at an appropriate time as determined by medical and health authorities rather than the criminal court.

This case demonstrates the application of the Mental Health Act [Chapter 15:12] in Zimbabwean criminal proceedings where an accused person lacks mental capacity at the time of committing an offense. It illustrates the court's approach to balancing the interests of the accused, public safety, and the administration of justice when dealing with mentally disordered offenders. The case confirms that a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity does not automatically result in discharge, and that continued institutionalization may be ordered as a protective and rehabilitative measure where psychiatric evidence supports the need for ongoing treatment and management. The judgment reinforces the principle that release from such institutionalization is properly an administrative matter for health authorities rather than the criminal court.