The State v Lython Mathe

On 18 October 2009, at the 433 peg along the Bulawayo-Victoria Falls road, the deceased Judson Mukatini, a truck driver, was murdered. The deceased had met Natally Natasha Sibanda, a sex worker, at the Chinotimba Sports bar around 3am. He bought her drinks and took photographs of her using his Nokia 1680 mobile phone. They agreed on payment of $20 for sexual services and walked together towards the Truck Port where the deceased had money in his truck. As they walked along the main road, five people began following them, including the accused Lython Mathe, whom Natasha recognized when a car's headlights illuminated the area. The group ambushed the couple at a crossing of bush paths. The accused grabbed the deceased by the neck and strangled him while holding Natasha with his other hand. Natasha broke free and hid in the bush, watching as the assailants searched the deceased's body and pockets. The deceased's body was later found on the highway, initially believed to be a road traffic accident until the post-mortem report revealed ligature strangulation, extensive abrasions, fractures, and trauma consistent with murder. The accused had pledged the deceased's mobile phone (containing Natasha's photographs) to Enock Chamunorwa. The accused was 30 years old at trial.

• Whether the accused was guilty of murder with actual intent
• Whether the witness Natally Natasha Sibanda was credible despite being treated as an accomplice
• Whether the accused's defense that the mobile phone belonged to him (given by a Congolese national) was credible
• Whether Natasha was the accused's girlfriend as he claimed
• Whether the accused's allegations of police torture affecting his warned and cautioned statement affected the admissibility of evidence
• Whether Natasha was entitled to absolution from prosecution as an accomplice witness

The accused Lython Mathe was found guilty of murder with actual intent. Natally Natasha Sibanda was granted absolution from any prosecution relating to the murder case and a warrant for her immediate liberation from custody was issued.

An accomplice witness who receives the customary warning under section 267 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] and testifies clearly, frankly, and credibly may be believed by the court and their evidence can form the basis for a conviction for murder with actual intent. Where an accused makes demonstrably false claims that could easily be disproven (such as ownership of property that could be verified through simple demonstration), refuses opportunities to prove his version, and makes threats revealing consciousness of guilt, the court is entitled to reject the accused's evidence entirely and prefer the State witness's version. A witness who has been unnecessarily detained as a suspected accomplice but who provides credible evidence assisting the State is entitled to absolution from prosecution and immediate release from custody.

The court made observations about Natasha Sibanda's claim to be a "heavy drinker who can go through a crate of beer," noting this "has to be taken with a pinch of salt in the light of her stature" as she had "a small body which is unlikely to take 24 pints of beer." The court also commented on the brutal nature of the killing, noting "the deceased died a very painful death" based on the post-mortem findings. The court expressed concern that Natasha "has been unnecessarily prejudiced for such a long time" by being held in custody since October 2009, suggesting criticism of the prosecutorial decision to detain her as an accomplice rather than treating her as a witness from the outset.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to accomplice evidence under section 267 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], showing that accomplice witnesses who testify frankly and credibly after receiving the customary warning can be key witnesses entitled to absolution from prosecution. The case illustrates the court's willingness to critically assess an accused's credibility, particularly where the accused makes demonstrably false claims (such as phone ownership that could have been easily proven) and makes threats revealing consciousness of guilt. It also highlights judicial concern about unnecessary detention of witnesses and the court's power to order immediate release where a witness has been prejudiced by prolonged detention. The case shows how post-mortem evidence can transform what initially appeared to be a road traffic accident into a murder investigation, and demonstrates the careful scrutiny applied to defenses involving claims of police torture where the evidence suggests the accused had actual knowledge of incriminating facts (such as where stolen property was pledged).