The State v Steven Tshuma

On 11 December 2017 at Bazha Business Centre under Chief Malaki Masuku in Matobo, Matabeleland South, the accused Steven Tshuma (30 years old) stabbed the deceased Pedzisai Mpofu (36 years old) with an okapi knife. The deceased was stabbed once on the back and once on the right side of the neck, causing fatal injuries. The accused arrived at the business centre from Bulawayo at around 1700 hours and entered Bazha store. An altercation occurred between the accused and the deceased, who was consuming alcohol. The accused claimed the deceased was drunk and insulted him, making remarks about having an affair with the accused's wife. According to the state's evidence, after an initial stabbing inside Zamangothando Bottle Store, the accused chased the deceased who was fleeing, and stabbed him fatally in the neck. Eye witness Robert Moyo saw the accused stab the deceased "by the throat part" and police officer Mutisi witnessed the accused chasing the deceased while holding an okapi knife. The deceased collapsed and died. The post mortem report by Dr S Pesanai showed the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock and stab wound on the neck which perforated the right subclavian vessels.

• Whether the accused acted in private defence/self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea for murder with actual intent
• Whether the requirements for defence of person were satisfied: (a) whether an unlawful attack had commenced or was imminent; (b) whether the accused's conduct was necessary to avert the attack; (c) whether the means used were reasonable in the circumstances; and (d) whether any harm caused was proportionate

The accused Steven Tshuma was found guilty of murder with actual intent in contravention of section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) For the defence of private defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act to succeed, an accused must demonstrate that an unlawful attack had commenced or was imminent, that the defensive conduct was necessary and reasonable, and that the harm caused was proportionate to the threat faced. Fear alone is insufficient. (2) An accused cannot claim self-defence when pursuing a fleeing victim and inflicting fatal injuries. (3) Murder with actual intent is established where the accused either desired to bring about the death of the victim or, while pursuing another objective, foresaw death as a substantially certain result and proceeded regardless (applying S v Mugwanda test). (4) The continuation of an attack after an initial assault, particularly chasing a fleeing victim and targeting vulnerable body parts, demonstrates actual intent to kill. (5) Private defence evolved from public policy to allow individuals to protect themselves when state protection is not immediately available, but society must carefully limit its ambit to prevent vigilantism and maintain the rule of law.

The court made strong obiter comments condemning the apparent attempt by state witnesses to suppress evidence and assist the accused evade justice. Mathonsi J stated that witness Robert Moyo and "the entire village community of Bazha should hang their heads in shame for daring to assist a person who committed a heinous crime at a business centre in broad daylight by trying to suppress the evidence." The court observed that "old age does not come with wisdom, but may come strolling alone." The judge also commented on the prevalence of okapi knife violence, stating "We cannot allow people to move around armed with okapi knives, which they use to take other people's lives on the basis of a whim." The court characterized the accused's behavior as that of "a village bully" and described the killing as "callous in the extreme," noting the accused "walked away as would someone who had just killed a wild animal." These observations emphasize societal expectations regarding witness cooperation with justice and the need to deter weapons violence in communities.

This case reinforces the strict requirements for the defence of private defence/self-defence in Zimbabwean criminal law under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. It demonstrates that courts will carefully scrutinize claims of self-defence and require evidence of an actual or imminent unlawful attack, proportionate response, and reasonable belief that no other means of escape existed. The case also illustrates the court's approach to determining actual intent in murder cases, applying the principles from S v Mugwanda. The judgment emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the need for deterrent sentences in cases involving weapons violence and deliberate killings. It also addresses the serious issue of witness interference and attempts to suppress evidence in criminal proceedings.