Blood, Belief and the Bench: The Cultural Weight of Witchcraft at the Gweru High Court

Gweru - An 89-year-old man lay motionless in his bedroom in Magama Village, Mberengwa. Blood had pooled beneath his body, the injuries to his head were severe, consistent with a violent assault.

By the time police from  Mataga arrived on 17 January 2026, the first explanation of what had happened was already circulating through the village, not as evidence, but as belief.

Whispers of witchcraft moved faster than facts, some spoke of a curse that had long shadowed the family. Others just insisted an elderly father had been murdered by his own sons.

What followed during the trial at the High Court in Gweru would become a case that tested not only criminal liability, but also how far the law may engage with deeply rooted cultural belief systems without compromising justice.

The State charged Pathias Ncube (40) and Keletse Ncube (31) with murder in terms of Section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], alleging that on the night of 15 January 2026, one or both unlawfully assaulted their father, Zivanai Jephias Ncube (89), causing fatal head injuries.

But the court outcome sharply divided the two accused.

Pathias Ncube was convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment while Keletse Ncube was acquitted in full after the court found that the State had failed to link him to the fatal assault.

The court accepted that suspicion and proximity were not enough to ground criminal liability.

That distinction became central to the judgment where one brother stood convicted on evidence accepted by the court, while the other walked free because the law demands proof, not assumption.

State witness, Gracious Moyo, the family maid, told the court she heard the deceased screaming for help during the night.

She did not intervene, believing both accused were inside the house.

By morning, the elderly man was found dead in his bedroom.

Medical evidence later confirmed brain injury, acute subdural haematoma and severe head trauma; the post-mortem findings leaving little doubt about the violence of the attack.

Leading the prosecution, Thompson Hove delivered a firm but legally structured pre-sentence address that became a defining feature of the case.

“The accused used a wooden log to assault the deceased. The use of the log aggravates the murder," Hove said.

He stressed the vulnerability of the deceased, aged 89, and the brutality reflected in the medical findings.

The prosecution’s argument was however carefully calibrated within the law.

Prosecutor Hove acknowledged Section 101 of the Criminal Law Code, which permits courts to consider belief in witchcraft in mitigation, but never as a defence.

Relying on S. v Tshuma HB 171/22, he submitted, “belief in witchcraft does not excuse murder.”

The State urged the court to impose a 20-year custodial sentence, stressing deterrence and the sanctity of human life.

The Ncube's defense,Tafadzwa Komboni, advanced a narrative rooted not in denial of death, but in the interpretation of its cause.

Justice  later acknowledged this dimension in unusually direct terms.

“The measure which captures the offender in this matter stands strong and is rooted in beliefs which the court must admit continue to exist in many African societies," Komboni said.

The court heard that after a succession of unexplained deaths within the family, the offender returned from South Africa shortly before the incident to confront his father.

The defence said nine siblings had allegedly died one after another in descending order of seniority from the eldest child, a sequence the offender believed could not be natural.

The proactive defense counsel, Komboni submitted that the deceased had allegedly made pronouncements concerning some of the deaths before they occurred, reinforcing suspicions within the family that supernatural forces were involved.

The defence argued that these beliefs profoundly affected the offender’s mental and emotional state.

The confrontation between father and son allegedly deteriorated rapidly, ending in fatal violence.

While the defence accepted the unlawfulness of the killing, it urged the court to consider the unusual emotional and psychological circumstances under which the offence occurred.

In sentencing Pathias Ncube, Justice Mutevedzi delivered a judgment that carefully navigated the difficult intersection between criminal law, cultural belief and moral blameworthiness.

The court stressed that sentencing required balance rather than emotion.

“We must obviously seek to balance the interests of society, the seriousness of the offence, and the personal circumstances of the offender,” Mutevedzi said.

The prosecution had argued that the offence was committed in aggravating circumstances because the deceased was above the age of 70, as contemplated under Section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

Justice Mutevedzi however rejected the proposition that age alone automatically transformed the offence into aggravated murder.

“Ordinarily, that would have an effect in the commission of this matter, but our view is that particular circumstance is being taken out of context by prosecutors and legal practitioners,” he said.

The judge proceeded to distinguish aggravating circumstances under subsection 3 from those automatically qualifying under subsection 2.

“The circumstances listed under subsection 3 are therefore different from those listed under subsection 2, whose mere existence clarifies the aggravation without more,” he said.

The court held that the State had failed to establish additional aggravating circumstances beyond the deceased’s advanced age.

“In our view, the deceased’s age is the only factor advanced by prosecution and the defence with aggravating this particular matter. It is therefore not enough to elevate this matter to one committed in aggravating circumstances," he said.

The court accepted that the offence occurred within a context of deeply held belief in witchcraft.

“The evidence indicates that the offence was committed in the context of the offender’s deeply held belief that the deceased was practising witchcraft and was responsible for the mysterious deaths in the family," Justice Mutevedzi said.

The court however remained unequivocal that such beliefs could never justify violence.

“While such beliefs can never justify violence or the taking of human life, they are relevant in assessing the offender’s state of mind and moral blameworthiness," he said.

Justice Mutevedzi noted that Zimbabwean courts have previously recognised the influence of witchcraft beliefs in assessing sentence, while still firmly condemning unlawful violence.

The judgment relied on precedents including S v Tshuma HH 295/15 and S v Chiurunge & Others HH 371/15.

Quoting from S v Chuurunge, the court observed that: “He clearly acted in a wrong way in trying to deal with the challenges that burdened him as an individual. It looks like he was overwhelmed by his belief that the deceased was a witch.”

Similarly, in S v Chiurunge & Others, the court remarked: “It is highly mitigatory that the accused appears to have been affected by his strong belief in witchcraft, which appears to be prevalent in their area.”

Justice Mutevedzi ultimately concluded that the circumstances surrounding the offence operated “more in mitigation than in aggravation.”

Pathias Ncube was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.

But Keletse Ncube was acquitted entirely after the court held that the State had failed to prove his participation in the killing.

The ruling reinforced a fundamental principle of criminal justice; Suspicion, proximity and community belief are not substitutes for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Legally, the matter ended with conviction and acquittal separated by evidence.

Socially, however, the questions remain far less settled. In Magama Village, interpretations still diverge between those who see a straightforward criminal act and those who see a tragedy shaped by belief systems deeply embedded within rural African life.

As journal  "The Cosmology of Witchcraft in the African Context"  by Lumwe suggests, such beliefs continue to exist in a contested space between explanation, interpretation and disbelief.

The court’s position remained unmistakably clear that belief may explain conduct; may mitigate sentence but it can never replace proof, nor justify the taking of human life.