On
the question of sentence, it had been suggested that the court should find the
age of the appellant to be an extenuating circumstance.
The
court a quo was alive to the principle that
youthfulness would ordinarily constitute an extenuating circumstance provided
the actions of the offender are consistent with immaturity.
Counsel
for the respondent argued
that the ...
On
the question of sentence, it had been suggested that the court should find the
age of the appellant to be an extenuating circumstance.
The
court a quo was alive to the principle that
youthfulness would ordinarily constitute an extenuating circumstance provided
the actions of the offender are consistent with immaturity.
Counsel
for the respondent argued
that the appellant's conduct cannot be imputed to youthfulness. She
contended that the appellant's conduct could not be excused on grounds of
immaturity. Counsel for the appellant
agreed that youthfulness could not save the appellant. He
conceded that the appellant intended to kill a political opponent and went on
to accomplish his purpose.
The
appellant armed himself with a dangerous weapon and relentlessly pursued his
victim until he struck him three times on the head with it. The assault
was brutal. The moral blameworthiness of the appellant was aggravated by the
fact that he threatened to kill the deceased because he thought he belonged to
another political party.
In
S v Muyambo 1980 ZLR 411 it was held that cases that
involve politically motivated violence must be dealt with
severely. FIELSEND CJ said:
“Firstly,
the public must be protected from unlawful violence and they must feel that
they are being given such protection. Secondly, the police who have a very
difficult task must be shown that they have the support of the courts…,. For
all these reasons, sentences that will be effectively deterrent must be
imposed.”
In
S v Ndlovu SC122-94, it was held that political beliefs
cannot be taken to be extenuation considering that people are free to hold
different views.
The
learned Judge was alive to these principles. In passing sentence, he said:
“In
a democracy, people are free to belong to political parties of their
choices. It would be wrong to punish them for choosing to go to parties of
their choices. This type of behavior should not be tolerated in a
democratic society. Killing someone because he or she holds different
political beliefs cannot be an extenuating circumstance. Instead, it would
suffocate democracy if it were to be allowed.”
Violent
offences committed against other citizens simply because they belong to a
different political party should be viewed seriously by the courts. It
follows that where a person is killed for his or her political affiliation the
sentence imposed should reflect the inherent wickedness of the crime. The
sentence should not be viewed by right-thinking members of society as a licence
for the infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed right of every citizen
to belong to a political party of his or her own choice.
Accordingly,
the appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
