The State v Ordetta Mpofu

On 10 April 2020 at around 19:45 hours in Emganwini Township, Bulawayo, the accused (aged 44) was watching television with her husband, the deceased (aged 52), and their three minor children. An argument arose when one of the children changed the television channel. The accused argued with the children and demanded that the deceased reprimand them, but he refused to get involved and went to the bedroom to sleep. At around 21:30 hours, the accused armed herself with an axe and struck the deceased three times on the head while he was in the bedroom. The deceased died instantly from the injuries. The accused then informed her daughter Sisasenkosi that she had killed her husband. A post-mortem report revealed the cause of death as encephalic dislaceration, cranial burst, and chop wounds.

• Whether the accused was criminally liable for the murder of her husband
• Whether the accused was suffering from a mental defect at the time of the commission of the offence such that she could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions
• Whether the accused should be found not guilty by reason of insanity in terms of section 29 of the Mental Health Act

1. The accused was found not guilty by reason of insanity in terms of section 29 of the Mental Health Act (Chapter 15:12). 2. The accused was to be returned to prison pending transfer to Mlondolozi Special Institution for further treatment and care.

Where an accused person is suffering from a mental illness such as schizophrenia and, due to not taking medication, does not appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions at the time of committing an offence, they cannot be held criminally liable. In such circumstances, the accused should be found not guilty by reason of insanity under section 29 of the Mental Health Act (Chapter 15:12), and committed to a special institution for treatment and care rather than being subjected to criminal punishment.

The court observed that the death of the deceased was tragic and noted with concern that cases of this nature are on the rise. The court emphasized that there is an urgent need for adequate treatment and care to be provided to mental patients, suggesting a systemic failure in mental health services that contributes to such tragic outcomes.

This case illustrates the application of the insanity defence in Zimbabwean criminal law and highlights the intersection between criminal liability and mental health. The judgment underscores the importance of psychiatric evidence in determining criminal responsibility and emphasizes the need for adequate mental health care and treatment facilities. The court's observation about the rising number of such cases serves as a call for improved mental health services in Zimbabwe.