The State v Maxwell Governor and Edmore Governor

On 10 January 2005, Lisa Jane Veron, a Swiss national working for the World Health Organization in Zimbabwe, was murdered. The deceased and her husband Martin Brunner employed the first accused, Maxwell Governor, as a domestic worker. The second accused, Edmore Governor, was Maxwell's brother and a frequent visitor. On the fateful day, the deceased left home for the gymnasium around 6pm. At approximately 8:30pm, her car was discovered overturned in a ditch with her body still inside, strapped to the passenger seat. She had been stabbed in the chest with a sharp instrument, causing fatal injuries. Her cell phone, jewelry, and other valuables were missing from her handbag. The following morning at 7am, the second accused was found in Guruve (100km away) in possession of the deceased's cell phone, camera, and her husband's watch. The first accused remained at the residence and continued to plunder the deceased's property, later selling items including the cell phone and computer printer. When Martin Brunner returned from Switzerland after the funeral, he found his home had been ransacked and the first accused living in the main house with a woman and baby.

• Whether the accused persons murdered the deceased with actual intent
• Whether the accused's warned and cautioned statements and indications were admissible
• Whether an extra-curial statement by one co-accused is admissible against another co-accused
• Whether there were extenuating circumstances to avoid the death sentence
• What is the appropriate sentence for accessory after the fact to murder

First accused (Maxwell Governor): Found guilty of murder with actual intent. No extenuating circumstances found. Sentenced to death. Second accused (Edmore Governor): Found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder. Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment.

1. An extra-curial statement made by one co-accused may be admissible against another co-accused where: (a) the co-accused by words or conduct accepts the truth of the statement making it his own, or (b) in cases of conspiracy, statements made in execution or furtherance of the common design are admissible against all conspirators. 2. Possession of a murder victim's property (particularly a cell phone) at or immediately after the time of death, coupled with false explanations, creates a compelling inference of guilt where the property was on the victim's person when killed. 3. In the absence of weighty extenuating circumstances, murders committed in the course of robbery invariably attract the death sentence. 4. Youthfulness alone does not constitute an extenuating circumstance where the accused's conduct exhibits maturity, premeditation, careful planning, and brazen determination to achieve the criminal objective. 5. The decision to recall a witness under section 232 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act is vested in the court's discretion and is not subject to application by parties during trial.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) That most adults would have a basic idea of how to drive a motor vehicle from observation, even without formal training or a license, which explained why the first accused could drive the vehicle albeit incompetently, resulting in the accident; (2) Whether or not the first accused and deceased were having an affair was irrelevant to the determination of guilt; (3) The court commended the State and police for their thorough investigation and presentation of concrete empirical evidence; (4) The court noted that Zimbabwe as a UN member state is bound by public international law to extend due protection to foreign nationals admitted into its territory; (5) The court observed that the motive for killing the deceased (as opposed to merely robbing her) was likely that she knew her assailant (the first accused as her domestic worker) and the murder was a cover-up to prevent identification; (6) The court noted that even if the accused's version that he believed the deceased was already dead when he stabbed her were accepted, this would not constitute an extenuating circumstance as committing murder to cover up a perceived murder cannot reduce moral blameworthiness.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for several reasons: (1) It clarifies the exceptions to the general rule that extra-curial statements are only admissible against their maker, establishing that where co-accused make consistent indications independently, one accused's statement may be admitted against another; (2) It reaffirms the principle that murders committed in the course of robbery will attract the death sentence unless there are weighty extenuating circumstances; (3) It demonstrates that youthfulness alone (accused was 21) is insufficient as an extenuating circumstance where the conduct exhibits maturity, premeditation, and brazen criminal resolve; (4) It emphasizes Zimbabwe's international law obligations to protect foreign nationals lawfully in its territory; (5) It provides guidance on the proper procedure for recalling witnesses under section 232 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, clarifying that the decision is vested in the court and not subject to application by parties during trial.