Specifically, the case against the state argues that the death penalty offends human dignity, constitutes inhumane and degrading punishment, and amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of life, all in breach of express or implicit provisions of the Zimbabwe Constitution. In addition to the aforementioned constitutional violations, the fact that a sentence of death is mandatory also denies citizens of their right to fair trial, violates the principle of separation of powers by depriving the judiciary of one of their essential functions, and, in practice, discriminates against indigent accused persons.

The petitioner describes hanging, the method used in Zimbabwe, as “horrendous, barbaric, inhumane, brutal, and uncivilized.” It focuses on the significant delays characteristic of Zimbabwe’s death row, stating that delays in execution lead to anxiety and severe emotional and physical trauma, particularly given current prison conditions. The case centers on the idea that prisoners retain some rights, even after conviction. Most fundamentally, under Zimbabwe’s Constitution, it maintains that all citizens have a right to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life and a right not to be subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments.

Though the last execution happened in 2003, currently, there are at least 49 prisoners on death row at Harare Central Prison. In the past, executions have been suspended for years due to a lack of a public hangman. While they wait, prisoners on death row have to deal with horrendous prison conditions. In Zimbabwe, twenty-five men are held in a single nine meters by four meters cell. Food portions are meager and consist of barely edible or spoilt food. Unsanitary conditions in both the over-crowded cells and the kitchen threaten the wellbeing of all prisoners.

Innocent became involved in this case after a junior lawyer at his law firm, assigned to the matter on a pro bono basis, represented Mazango during the trial in which he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Immediately, they decided to challenge the death penalty based on his sentence. For the purposes of monitoring the progress of the case closely and media interface, it was filed through Maja and Associates, Innocent’s law firm. Thus far, an application to the court has been filed, and both Innocent and Mazango await the state’s response, while the legal team prepares heads of argument to file with the court.

A number of state-sponsored Zimbabwe newspapers have featured Sheperd Mazango’s case, giving it a fair amount of in-state media attention. Recently, international newspapers have also expressed interest in the case. This attention comes as a result of interest and awareness in Zimbabwe on the rights of the accused. Conversely, the case and the media attention it receives are likely to attract a wider audience to the debate on the death penalty and rights retained by the accused in Zimbabwe.

According to Innocent, “Most indigent persons in Zimbabwe, who cannot afford legal counsel, are given inexperienced lawyers to represent them. Oftentimes, this leads to conviction and death sentences. It is a denial of justice. The death penalty is atrocious, in that it takes away human life. Once a human life is taken away, the rights of that person are taken away as well. The mode of killing (i.e. hanging) is horrendous, inhumane, and degrading. It is torturous.”

Above: Anita Mugeni.  (Photo by Jesse Blaisdell.)

Recently, Anita defended a woman appealing a conviction sentencing her to death. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the court had not appointed a lawyer and the woman did not know she had a right to one. The woman was accused of murdering her neighbor by poisoning her. As Anita discovered, however, the neighbor was still alive.

Anita drove across the country on her own expense to visit the woman in prison. The woman was from a small village and had little education. She was confused and afraid she was going to die. The police had beaten her so severely that she confessed to murdering a woman who was, in fact, still alive.

After consoling the woman, Anita returned to the Supreme Court to study the woman’s file. She discovered that the alleged poison was never analyzed in a lab – there is no forensic lab in the woman’s village. The substance was not even tested on an animal, which is an accepted method of identifying poisonous substances. The Prosecutor and the Court were aware of the lack of evidence and the fact that the woman’s neighbor was still alive. But they pressed on with the prosecution.

At the time, the death penalty had not been abolished. Without Anita’s help, the woman could have been executed. Anita won an acquittal and the woman was released, but there was no way to repair the damage that had already been done. The woman spent three years in pre-trial detention. A widow, she was forced to leave three small children alone at home with no one to care for them. Anita claims that if the woman had access to a lawyer she would not have spent a day in prison.

Above: Anita presenting at IBJ’s June Defender Training event in Kigali, along with IBJ Program Director Sanjeewa Liyanage and IBJ Trainer Medhi Benbouzid.  (Photo by Jesse Blaisdell.)

In June of 2009, Anita cooperated with International Bridges to Justice to train Rwandan lawyers in criminal defense law. Eighty of the three hundred lawyers in the country attended the training and discussed ways to expand the work that Anita and others are doing. Local news media published the story and many expressed high hopes. Together with IBJ, Anita and this dedicated group of lawyers are working to defend human rights and make legal aid in Rwanda a reality.