The State v Wardson Dhiga

On 16 November 2020 at around 0900 hours, the deceased Katarina Mupasi (72 years old, the accused's aunt) was passing through the accused Wardson Dhiga's homestead on her way to fetch firewood. The accused, aged 40 years, confronted the deceased and asked her why she was passing through his homestead. The accused armed himself with a steel wheelbarrow handle and assaulted the deceased several times on the legs and head, causing her to fall down. After she fell, he delivered several blows to her back and buttocks. A witness, Lilian Nhinga, saw the assault and called Macala Hove who stopped the assault and disarmed the accused. The deceased passed away soon after the assault. A post-mortem examination conducted by Dr Juana Rodriguez Gregori at United Bulawayo Hospital concluded the cause of death was subarachnoid haemorrhage due to head trauma. The accused was examined by psychiatrist Dr N. Mawere on 23 June 2021 and 8 September 2021 at Mlondolozi Special Institute.

• Whether the accused could be held criminally responsible for the death of the deceased given his mental state at the time of the offence
• Whether a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should be returned in terms of section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act, Chapter 15:12
• Whether the accused should be committed to a mental institution as a danger to society

The accused was acquitted of murder and a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was rendered. The accused was committed to Mlondolozi Mental Institution on the basis that he was a danger to society.

An accused person who, at the time of committing an act that would otherwise constitute a crime, is suffering from a mental disorder (such as schizophrenia and substance-induced psychosis) to such an extent that they cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions and should not be held responsible for their conduct, must be found not guilty by reason of insanity in terms of section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act, Chapter 15:12. Where such a special verdict is rendered but the accused poses a danger to society, the court has the authority and duty to commit the accused to a mental health institution for treatment and public protection.

The court did not make substantive obiter dicta observations beyond the core findings. The judgment was focused on applying the agreed facts and psychiatric evidence to reach the appropriate verdict and protective order. The brevity of the judgment suggests this was a relatively straightforward application of established legal principles regarding criminal insanity and mental health commitments.

This case demonstrates the application of the mental health defence in Zimbabwean criminal law, specifically the operation of section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act, Chapter 15:12. It illustrates how courts handle cases where an accused person suffers from severe mental disorders (schizophrenia and substance-induced psychosis) that negate criminal responsibility. The case also shows the court's dual responsibility to both acquit mentally disordered accused persons while protecting society by committing dangerous individuals to mental health institutions. It reinforces the principle that criminal responsibility requires both the physical act (actus reus) and the mental state (mens rea), and that severe mental disorders can negate the latter.