COUNTRY REPORT ON ZIMBABWE: THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
EMMANUEL MAGADE•
INTRODUCTION
The foregoing will focus on the need to, or otherwise the necessity to question the death penalty as a penal
measure in Zimbabwe’s criminal justice system. The discussion will focus on the following key areas: I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
The Legal Framework of the Death Penalty in Zimbabwe;
The Death Penalty Debate in Zimbabwe.
The Position of Extenuating Circumstances in Mitigating Death Sentences.
Prerogative of Mercy.
Prison Conditions.
Statistical Data on the Death Penalty Executions in Zimbabwe.
A conclusion will be reached that the death penalty is an unnecessary, burdensome, penal measure.
I.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE DEATH PENALTY ON A
MUNICIPAL LEVEL
In Zimbabwe, section 12 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life but inserts reservation clauses and
subsequently sanctions the death penalty
[N]o person shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in execution of a sentence
at the court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted
There are procedural safeguards, in that there is an automatic right of appeal against a death sentence to the
Supreme Court. The writer should hasten to mention that the capacity of the Supreme Court to interfere
with the death sentence is limited. The sentence is one within the discretion of the trial court judge. The
Supreme Court can only set aside a death sentence in the following circumstances;
1) Where there are irregularities or misdirection on the part of the trial judge.
2) Where there is a finding that there were extenuating circumstances.
However there is no automatic review. This is perhaps the most serious lacuna in the procedural safeguards
that were intended to be implemented. This is the greatest reason why decisions from the High Court
almost always are confirmed on appeal because the Supreme Court is not empowered to independently
arrive at its own sentence despite a finding of extenuating circumstances.
Section 15 (1) of Zimbabwe’s Constitution guarantees the right against cruel and degrading treatment but
does not seem to oust the imposition of the death penalty. The courts interpretation of this provision is that,
prisoners civil liberties are not put at bay by the prison walls. In the celebrated case of Conjwayo v Minister
of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Another, Gubbay C.J stated that a prisoner does not forfeit
all of his or her liberties upon imprisonment1 .
Section 314 (B) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, prohibits the application of capital
punishment on juvenile offenders. This position accords well with Customary International law. In the case
of Michael Domingues v United States2 where the applicant was put on death row for a crime committed
when he was 16 years old, the High Court followed the approach taken by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, which concluded that
•
Acting Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Zimbabwe
1991 (1) ZLR 105 (SC)
2
Case 12.285, Report 62/02, Annual Report of the IACHR 2002, available on the IACHR web site at
http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2002eng/USA.12285.htm
1
[P]rohibition of the execution of those who are under 18 years of age at the time the crime
was committed is of a sufficiently indelible nature to now constitute a norm of jus cogens
In Zimbabwe section 337 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act spells out that
The High Court shall pass the death sentence upon the offender convicted of murder
provided that the High Court may impose any sentence other than the death sentence when
the court is of the opinion that there are extenuating circumstances or where the offender is a
woman convicted of murder of a newly born child (infanticide)
A. Death Penalty as a Penal Measure
The penological aims of penalty are the rehabilitation or re-socialising of the offender, or deterrence or
prevention (ante-delictum/post delictum). These penological aims should be best viewed in the context of
state system. The state is an institution designed to not to have human beings as its victims, but to promote
the respect of human persons.
In the administration of any criminal justice system, the state should not take into account expiatory
features of criminal law or the subjective appeasement of certain undefined emotional sentiments. Surely,
such a criminal justice system should be viewed as pursuing an agenda of vengeance.
Thus, any penal measure should necessarily conform to the rationale of social rehabilitation and reintegration of the offenders into the community, simultaneously taking into account the need to ensure the
protection of society and to prevent crime, rather than unleash a hemorrhage of state sanctioned violence.
Some legal practitioners say that punishment and any regime which administers it should have the
following ends: (a) to protect the offender against unofficial retaliation, (b) to reduce the frequency of
criminal conduct and (c) to make the offender atone for the offence.
This is diametrically opposed to the concept of retribution (quid pro quo) as evidenced by the sayings ‘an
eye for an eye’ or ‘savagery begets savagery’. Immanuel Kant defines retribution as the exacting of justice
of the offender by giving him his moral desert
the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed in order that everyone may
realise the desert of his deeds and that the blood guiltiness of the offender may not
remain upon people3.
Retribution is a retrogressive and negative philosophy, which hardens into a culture of violence. At best
this retributive aspect of our punitive approach is one thus aimed at achieving maximum misery for
inmates. This penal philosophy is archaic as it fails to realise that, that just as it is not possible to punish a
rapist by raping him, it should be for these same reasons that you cannot reasonably achieve justice by
‘murdering’ a murderer. Further, the approach is reflective of the human, archaic animalistic tendencies in
its primitive quest for vengeance, which often has a contagious effect on otherwise law abiding citizens.
B
Persons upon Whom the Death Sentences may not be Passed.
The High Court shall not pass the death sentence upon an offender who is a pregnant woman, or is over the
age of 70 years, or at the time of the offence was under the age of 18 years. Execution is by hanging until
the person is dead.
II
THE DEATH PENALTY DEBATE IN ZIMBABWE
Debate on the Death Penalty has not always been very well informed. Sometimes it has been motivated
more by emotion than by reason. Some of the traditional arguments in favor if the death penalty are:
3
The Metaphysics of Morals (Part II, “The Science of Right”),
1.
2.
3.
4.
It is the ultimate permanent incapacitation that ensures that convicted killers will never be
pardoned, paroled or escape;
Proponents of capital punishment argue that executions serve as a strong deterrent for serious
crimes such as first-degree murder;
On a historical basis, advocates of capital punishment justify it morally on the grounds that it is
mentioned in the Bible and is part of the Judeo-Christian heritage;
Putting dangerous criminal to death also conforms to the requirement that punishment should be
proportional to the seriousness of the crime.
A
(i)
Arguments Against Capital Punishment
Deterrence
Jeremy Bentham defined deterrence as a negative inducement of potential offenders by creating negative
consequences of crime which are greater than its rewards. The writer will start with what seems to be the
most popular argument in the retentionist school, that of deterrence.
In 1985 when ten people were executed in a space of a week in August in Zimbabwe and another four
condemned prisoners in a single day in April 1986 and nine within a week in May 1987; the sheriff of
Zimbabwe was quoted as saying:
this is in line with the government desire to aid the society of undesirables
The argument clearly is that the imposition of the death penalty needed the society of the social outfits, but
is there deterrence? The argument that the death penalty has a deterrent effect is at best, wishful legal
thinking. The argument fails to take cognisance of the fact that crime is a social and psychological
problem. When social and psychological pressures mount beyond a certain point, the criminal will act
regardless of the possibility of the imposition of the death penalty. The writer strongly believes that the
object of punishment in a civilised society’s criminal justice system is reformation. A criminal justice
system can never take the form of vengeance to satisfy the emotional needs of the family victims and other
members of the society. If we are to hang men and women by necks until they are dead, we ought to do it
on more than a hunch, a superstition, a vague impression
This then necessarily means that we should rule out any possibility, however remote, of subsequent
repentance or reconciliation and totally exclude the possibility of moral growth. Opponents of the death
penalty in Zimbabwe are equally passionate in their opposition for the following reasons:
1.
2.
Critics of the death penalty regard it as a barbaric penalty that has no place in a tolerant democratic
and free society.
Frailty of our Criminal Justice System – An equally important reason for the abolition of capital
punishment relates to its finality and brutality and the possibility that innocent persons will
mistakenly be executed. One of the abiding memories of the death penalty debate in the U.K prior
to its abolition concerned the case of Timothy Evans who was hanged in error4 and had to receive
a posthumous pardon and a decent reburial in the 1960s.
In Zimbabwe most defendants in murder cases are poor people who require pro deo assistance and almost
92 percent of murder cases in Zimbabwe are pro deo. These cases are often assigned to junior lawyers,
some of whom may not properly appreciate the significance of establishing extenuating circumstances if
the accused is to be saved from the gallows, much to the detriment of the prisoner’s interests.
B.
4
The Inconclusiveness (if not Falsity) of the Deterrence Argument
Timothy Evans was convicted of murder and then hanged on March 9th, 1950.
Those opposed to the death penalty also find little merit in the argument that capital punishment is a
deterrent to crime. They charge that there is insufficient evidence that the threat of a death sentence can
convince potential murderers to eschew or refrain from criminal activity. Most murders involve people
who knew each other, very often friends and family members. Since murderers are often under the
influence of intoxicants or are suffering severe psychological turmoil, it is unlikely that any penalty can
have a deterrent impact.
Perhaps the most hotly contested issue involving capital punishment is whether or not it serves to restrain
people from committing murder thereby sparing the lives of countless potential victims. Some people
strongly believe this to be the case adopting the simplistic view that individuals rationally weigh the
consequences of their actions before engaging in crime. However, there is strong evidence which suggests
otherwise. In extensive reviews of deterrence literature both Klein (1978)5 and Waldo (1981) conclude that
no substantial evidence supports the position that the death penalty deters criminal homicide.
III.
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
In terms of the Zimbabwean Law the High Court is obliged to impose a sentence of death in murder cases
where actual intent to kill is established provided that there are no extenuating circumstances. Section 337
of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act reads as follows
Subject to section 338 the High Court shall pass sentence of death upon an offender
convicted by it of murder provided that the High Court may impose any sentence
other than the death sentence when the court is of the opinion that there are
extenuating circumstances or when the offender is a woman convicted of the murder
of her newly born child.
In Robert Chingaoma v The State6 Sandura JA cited with approval the notion of extenuating circumstances
as defined in the South African case of S v Letsolo 1970 (3) SA 476.
Extenuating circumstances have more than once been defined by this court as any
facts bearing on the commission of the crime which reduce the moral
blameworthiness of the accused as distinct form his legal culpability.
In this regard a trial court has to consider the following issues:(a)
(b)
(c)
whether there are facts which might be relevant to extenuation such as immaturity,
intoxication, belief in witchcraft (the list is not exhaustive);
whether such facts in their cumulative effect probably had a bearing on the accused’s
state of mind in doing what he did;
whether such bearing was sufficiently appreciable to abate the moral blameworthiness of
the accused in doing what he did.
In that case the second accused Lovemore at the time of the commission of the offence was slightly over 18
years of age and was of extremely low intellect. These factors were found to constitute extenuating
circumstances and the accused was spared the sentence of death. His co-accused, Changaona was at the
time of the murder aged 28 years old and had 4 years of secondary education. No extenuating
circumstances were found and the appellant’s conviction on murder charges and the sentence of death were
confirmed.
5
13 Lawrence R Klein et al. ‘The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: An Assessment of the Estimates’ in Alfred
Blumstein et al (eds) Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates
(1978).
Waldo, G.P. and Chiricos, T.G., Perceived Penal Sanction and Self Reported Criminality: A Neglected Approach to
Deterrence Research, Social Problems, 19: 522-540, 1972
6
SC 105/2002
In S v Sibanda 1992 (2) ZLR 438, during the course of a robbery which he had committed, the
appellant allegedly killed the deceased and the then, Gubbay CJ had this to say:
warnings have frequently been given that in the absence of weighty extenuating
circumstances, a murder committed in the course of robbery will attract the death
penalty.
IV.
PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
The President of Zimbabwe is empowered in terms of section 31 J of the Constitution to commute the
sentence of death. However, the accused has no right to a personal hearing during the deliberations over
the possible commutation of his sentence. He may only submit a mercy petition and section 31K(2) of the
Constitution provides that where the President exercises his discretion in the commutation of a death
sentence or declines to do so, the court shall not enquire into the manner in which the President has
exercised his discretion.
Clemency comes after the exhaustion of judicial proceedings. The question, which arises then, is whether
it is proper to have death warranties signed at the absolute discretion of one individual? This is another
formidable discretion peculiar to Zimbabwe and adds to the abolitionist case i.e. the overriding effect of
presidential powers to pardon, through a clemency order, anyone who might have been put on death row.
In its strict sense, this means that the executive is entirely at liberty to exercise his discretion, and that there
are never any grounds whatsoever to impugn his actions in granting a clemency order to a condemned
prisoner, or refraining to exercise his powers of prerogative of mercy. This is a serious, if not dangerous
anomaly in our criminal justice system and should in itself be enough to provide grounds for the quashing
of the death penalty in Zimbabwe.
Lord Diplock concluded that the President was not obliged to furnish reasons on his exercise of prerogative
of mercy.
Section 31H (5) of the Constitution states that:
In the exercise of his function the President shall act on the advice of the Cabinet except in cases
where he is required by his constitution
However in cases of confirmation of death penalty the President is neither obliged to action the advice of
the Cabinet nor to furnish reason for the exercise of his discretion. This approach certainly lies up to the
old adage ‘clemency begins where the legal wheels stop’ and ushers in the very arbitrariness that the law
seek to guard against.
There has been a judicial questioning of this approach particularly the CCJP in Zimbabwe v The State7and
the Nkomo and Anor vs the AG8. The Judge in the former case made a passing reference to a condemned
prisoner’s ‘de facto right’ to expect the lawful exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The lawfulness
criterion would then require some sort of procedurally and legally sound methods of arriving at a particular
conclusion. This approach would best accord with the objectives of the Law Administrative Act which
states that one has a right to written reasons of actions done by any administrative authority,
disappointingly excluding the president.
In the Nkomo case, the prerogative of mercy was considered an automatic review of the death sentence
which takes place whether the condemned person seeks it or not. The use of the word review hence
denotes some sort of legal insights into the case, not just a mere hunch.
In the Zimbabwean case therefore it would appear that with respect to the death sentence, the President is
duty bound to consider only such petitions for mercy. However, there is no specific procedure as to how
7
8
1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S)
1993] 2 LRC 375 (Zimbabwe SC)
the President should exercise his powers of prerogative of mercy. States should allow adequate time before
sentence and executive for the preparation and completion of appeals as well as petitions for clemency. (In
terms of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/15 as adopted on the 23rd July 1996). Put even further, one should be
mindful of the maxim ubi remedium ibi jus (whenever there is a remedy there is a right) and ubi jus ibi
remedium (where there is a right there is a remedy). Viewed from this perspective it becomes nonsensical
to say that there is an automatic right of appeal for clemency without a remedy for being furnished with
reasons for the outcome of the appeal and to say that there is a remedy in the form of an appeal to the
president without couching such a remedy as a matter of right.
Whichever way one looks at it, the main aims of prerogative of mercy are to correct possible error, to
mitigate the harshness of punishment and to compensate for the rigidity of the criminal justice system. It is
recommended that in Zimbabwe there should not be any executions while the results of a petition for mercy
are pending and one need not necessarily lodge a petition for consideration. The whole process acts like a
review of judicial decisions already made.
V.
PRISON CONDITIONS
By all accounts death row prisoners are subjected to horrendous conditions. I can do no better than to
quote the most important death penalty case in the history of Zimbabwe.
In The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v Attorney-General and Others9, the issue
was whether an inordinate delay in executing duly convicted prisoners was unconstitutional on the basis
that this contravened section 15(1) of The Constitution of Zimbabwe, which reads as follows:
No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or
Other such treatment
The court graphically alluded to prison conditions which death row prisoners are subjected to and observed
as follows:
The four condemned prisoners have spoken of the agony and torment they suffer.
They maintain that the harsh prison conditions to which they are subjected daily add
substantially to the measure of their misery. They are left virtually in solitary
confinement in cramped unhygienic conditions; there is an absence of meaningful
contact with the outside world; they are permitted no reading material save that of a
religious nature; there is a total lack of facilities with which to pass the day; they are
deprived of all clothing from mid-afternoon to early morning; they are taunted by
prison officers with impending death by hanging; they are affected by the mental
deterioration of some fellow inmates and by suicides and attempt thereat; they are able
to hear the sounds of executions being carried out10.
The court then commuted the sentences of death to life imprisonment, having ruled that the Constitution
had been violated in that respect. Regrettably the legislature swiftly amended the Constitution and the
current legal position is that delay in the execution of a sentence of death imposed upon a person in respect
of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted shall not be held to be a contravention of subsection
(1) of section 15 of the Constitution.
Prisoners are incarcerated in a condemned section of Harare prison pursuant to section 110 of the Prisons
Act, chapter 21. A condemned prisoner is confined to a cell separately, and under constant supervision by
day and by night .The cell is approximately three and a half metres long by two metres wide. There is a
single window very high up through which only the sky is visible. An electric light burns in each cell and is
never extinguished. There is no in built toilet and the prisoner uses a chamber pot. Lunch is given at 11.00
hours and super is given at 14.00 hours. The prisoners are given a Bible as literature and other religious
books and nothing else.
9
1993(1) ZLR 242
ibid 280
10
It should be noted that at 15.00 hours the condemned prisoner is required to leave all clothing outside his
cell there upon he is incarcerated, naked until the following morning. It is should also be noted that it is
very cold during the night and the situation often becomes unbearable for the inmates. Visitations from
family members are allowed periodically and only last for ten minutes.
Mtombeni a condemned prisoner disposed an affidavit in which he stated that;
Because you spend very so much time in your cell alone, you endlessly brood over your fate and it
becomes very difficult to cope… The gallows themselves are situated within the condemned
prisoners section itself. Whist I was there, people can be hanged at the same time, the hangings
used to take place in stages. This meant that for the rest of us the argon was prolonged…often the
person to be hanged resisted and the wardens then used electric prodders to subdue them11.
He also related the story of Chitongo who could not die from the hanging and the wardens had to hammer
him to death. Another inmate Vundla, was shown a newspaper article which stated that he was about to be
executed. He then proceeded to commit suicide.
VI
PUBLIC OPINION ON THE RETENTION OR ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
This discussion on the desirability or otherwise of the death penalty would not be adequate if there was no
recourse to public opinion. The roots of punishment in general and death in particular seem to be deeply
anchored in a society’s values and beliefs. At the moment in Zimbabwe, very little is known about
attitudes of the public towards the death penalty.
When people express themselves, mostly, they are at variance. Sometimes, they do not know how grievous,
satanic, cruel and dehumanising it is for the hangman himself and the society which gives him his mandate,
to ‘slaughter’ another human being in the name of justice. This accounts well with sentiments expressed by
a prominent writer Chenjerai Hove who wrote:
the death penalty sentence is abominable, as abominable as the crime itself … our
penal code must be based on rehabilitation rather than annihilation
In Zimbabwe there are no opinion polls on death penalty because most executions are done secretively in
the gallows and the public has never been afforded the opportunity to witness the hangings so that they
could make informed contributions to the debate on the desirability or otherwise of the death penalty.
After a series of execution that took place in 1985 to May 1987, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe had this to say
this is in line with the government’s desire to rid society of undesirables
The argument clearly is that the imposition of the death penalty is necessary to exterminate ‘social misfits’.
Contrary to this crude idea is the idea expressed by Pope John Paul II (leader of the Catholic Church to
whom most Zimbabweans bear allegiance) who correctly and emphatically stated
in a contemporary, capitalist, political economy of a society with sufficient material
resources, it is effectively impossible to imagine scenarios warranting the
implementation of death penalty; let us continue to bear in mind that no-one is beyond
the redemption powers of God that the innocent are being executed and the paradigm
of death penalty was himself and the prince of peace (Jesus Christ).
This is the prevalent opinion that is held by Zimbabwe’s Catholics, Adventists and other Christian
groupings. It is in line with what Chief Justice Dumbutshena said in December 1987. He recommended
that the government should review the use of the death penalty and stressed the need for rehabilitation.
Again, if one were to make reference to the example of the European Union, the deep sentiments of the
population correspond to the national tradition of public opinion supporting the quashing of the death
penalty. The lesson to be learnt from this is that there should be a thorough, extensive, public debate on the
issue. The public should be well informed of the various realities surrounding the death sentence and only
then can one safely mention the death sentence and comment on the fact of whether or not the public
supports the death penalty. For this reason, that is lack of data and public opinion; the writer deplores the
efforts of some highly placed government officials who seem to suggest that the death penalty is still
desirable because the Zimbabwean public seems to support it. With all due respect, there is no available
and conclusive data on this aspect. Until comprehensive research is done on public opinion the arguments
made by the retentionist school in Zimbabwe should never be taken seriously.
Some legal practitioners have also the following views:
1.
The death penalty brutalises and degrades the society that implements it. The word ‘justice’ when
applied to capital punishment is purely out of place, an orchestrated politically correct terminology
for crude revenge – a conspiracy of murder legalised vengeance and a political game of
retribution.
The writer here stops and puts forth the following questions. Is there any execution of a live human being
which does not take away the right to life? Is there any method of execution, whether by flogging, burning,
shooting or lethal injection or grilling on an electrical chair or any other method of creative killing which is
not inherently cruel, inhuman and degrading? A medical doctor at Chikurubi maximum prison witnessed
the government ‘hangman’ in action and made the following remarks.
the whole process is slow, dirty, horrible, brutal, uncivilized and unspeakably barbaric
… the prisoner is dropped through a trap door with a rope round the neck, the
intention is to decapitate12
The writer’s argument here is that the death penalty follows an agenda of blood vengeance or a conspiracy
to kill. It is a manipulation of the criminal justice system to satisfy the emotional needs of family victims
and other members of society.
VII
STATISTICAL DATA ON DEATH PENALTY EXECUTIONS IN ZIMBABWE
On the figures annexed hereto, one should be mindful of the dark nature of statistics, as not all cases are
represented within. For instance, Amnesty International in its 1989 edition reported that there were extrajudicial executions in Zimbabwe between 1972 and 1986. Between 1981 and 1983 alone, there were 19
official executions and four death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment and others were altered
on appeal or the accused simply released.
There are cases of either the case being reversed, or the sentence being commuted to life
imprisonment, or being reversed on appeal, or even a total discharge. This represents the potential for a
high ratio of error in judgement at the passing of the death penalty. In fact when one weighs the total
number of executions, (108 executions and 181 sentences commuted to life imprisonment or reversed and
discharged) this raises strong suggestions that some otherwise innocent condemned persons are falling
victim to the hangman’s ropes. Even the most resolute scholars in the death penalty retention school like
John Reid Rowland agree that the error threshold is so high that when subjected to post execution review of
the case, there is potentially a room of finding innocent souls ‘murdered by the state’ in the guise of
fulfilling the ends of our criminal justice system.
A
Comparative Study
South Africa
Under the South African Constitution, the right to life is absolute. There can never be a deprivation of the
right to life. Article 2 on Personal Rights in the South African Constitution provides that
12
Evidence given during Republic v Mbushuu alias Dominic Mnyaroje and Kalai Sangula (1994) TLR 154
every person has a right to life and no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her
rights … capital punishment is abolished and no further executions shall take place.
Thus the South Africa has taken the position that the right to life is inviolable and has gone further in
constitutionally recognising the sanctity of human life. This position is recommendable.
Mozambique
Speaking at the United Nations Congress in 1990, Judge Issa of Mozambique was quoted as saying;
Mozambique recognises the need to abolish the death penalty and uphold human
rights considering that there is no factual evidence that the death penalty prevents
political crimes or acts of terrorism, believing that no-one should be subjected to such
punishment even for the greatest crimes …Mozambique has adopted an abolitionist
position not only in the constitution of the republic but also as a reflection of the
feelings and customs of the people .It believes that there is an immeasurable good to
preserve life
Section 70 (25) of the constitution specifically provides that
In Mozambique there will be no death penalty
A similar provision can be found under Article 6 of the Namibian Constitution, which emphatically forbids
the death penalty.
VIII
CONCLUSION
For the above mentioned, one can conclude that 1) the legitimacy of the death penalty as a penal measure
has been seriously questioned in Zimbabwe, particularly the issue of extenuating circumstances and the
exercise of the prerogative of mercy, two aspects which are so vague and prone to manipulation that they
cannot be validly be relied upon as safeguard mechanisms in administering the death penalty. Prison
conditions do not reflect any of the decency that ought to be inherent in the treatment of any human being
and it remains a worrying factor in our criminal justice system. It remains open to debate on whether or not
the generality of Zimbabweans are pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty. Lastly from the available
statistics, Zimbabwe has shied away from the ‘death penalty execution drive’ that took place prior to 1980
and there seems to be compliance with death penalty provisions that exist under International law. The only
real misgiving is that, the death penalty is yet to be expunged from our penal laws. It is also imperative that
there is need to generate literature and intervention methods, which assist policymakers in the formation of
alternative punitive measures.
ANNEX I
YEAR
No Sentences to
death in the High
Court
9
28
41
71
23
30
33
40
18
15
1960
1965
1966
1968
1970
1973
1974
1975
1982
1983
No executed
3
8
24
27
36
10
2
Sentence
commuter to life
in Jail
5
11
29
68
19
3
5
2
-
No case altered on
appeal & accused
reheard
1
9
12
3
4
3
1
2
4
1
SOURCE: EXTRACT FROM STUDY OF ZIMBABWEAN CASES ON DEATH PENALTY, MARIE CHIHAMBAKWE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Constitution of Zimbabwe (Section 12(1)
2.
South African Constitution
3.
S v Makwayane 1995 (3) SALR 39
4.
Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act; Chapter 9:07
5.
Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace v A.G and Others 1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S)
6.
Conjwayo v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Another 1991 (1) ZLR 105
(SC)
7.
S v Ncube and Others 1987(2) ZLR (s) 267 B –C
Journals
1.
2.
Emmanuel Magade, Death Row Syndrome (unpublished)
A Study of Zimbabwean Cases on the Death Penalty;Par 1 and 11 by Marie Chihambakwe, 1996,
Zimbabwe, Legal Forum, pg.13
Other Sources
1.
2.
High Court of Zimbabwe, Condemned Prisoners Book.
Professor G Feltoe, Mitigatory Factors, Extenuating Circumstances, Zimbabwe Legal Forum,
1996, Vol. 1 at page 23