Herdboy acquitted of employer’s brutal axe murder

A former herdboy accused of brutally murdering his employer with an axe has walked free after the Bulawayo High Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to produce reliable evidence linking him to the killing.

Mkhokheli Ndlovu was acquitted by Justice Donald Ndirowei following a full murder trial in which the State relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and disputed voice identification.

Ndlovu had been accused of killing his former employer, 62-year-old Teboko Sebata, at her homestead in Chabeda Village, Zezani, on November 13, 2022.

According to the prosecution, Sebata was attacked shortly after returning from a cattle sale. She sustained multiple head injuries and a severed carotid artery after being struck with a metal-handled axe.

Her body was discovered the following day, prompting police to launch a murder investigation.

Investigators recovered a blood-stained axe concealed inside a ventilator opening of a Blair toilet at the homestead.

The prosecution, represented by Elaine Kanengoni and Mufaro Ndirarire, alleged that Ndlovu had murdered Sebata, stolen her Nokia cellphone and fled the area.

However, the State's case encountered significant difficulties because investigators could not produce forensic evidence directly connecting the accused to the murder weapon or crime scene.

Ndlovu was arrested in May 2024, approximately 18 months after the killing, when police detained him for possession of cannabis in Zezani and subsequently established that he was wanted in connection with Sebata's death.

During the murder trial, prosecutors relied on testimony from the deceased's son, Lihlonolo Sebata, and a relative, Lafhisani Muleya.

Both witnesses claimed that they had called Sebata's missing cellphone after her death and that a man answered.

Lihlonolo told the court that he recognised the voice as Ndlovu's.

However, under cross-examination, he acknowledged that he had only met the accused on two occasions, spending a combined total of approximately six days in his company.

Muleya also testified that the person who answered the cellphone identified himself as "Mukokeli" before ending the call.

His evidence was challenged after he admitted that his original police statement did not mention the alleged telephone conversation.

The inconsistencies raised questions about the reliability of the witnesses' identification of the accused.

Detective Hilton Sibanda, the investigating officer, conceded that the investigation had not produced forensic evidence linking Ndlovu to the blood-stained axe.

The court also heard that the deceased's cellphone was never recovered and that investigators had not established any connection between the device and Ndlovu through its International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number.

Ndlovu denied involvement in the killing, maintaining that he had been at his rural home in Plumtree when Sebata was murdered.

He acknowledged that his former employer owed him outstanding wages when he left her employment but rejected the suggestion that the dispute had motivated him to commit murder.

He also denied possessing or answering Sebata's cellphone after her death.

In delivering judgment, Justice Ndirowei expressed serious reservations about the prosecution's reliance on voice identification.

"In criminal law, the alleged identification of an accused by voice alone is generally highly fallible and notoriously unreliable," the judge said.

He observed that identifying someone by voice could be particularly problematic where a witness had limited previous contact with the person being identified.

The judge found that the telephone evidence, without supporting forensic evidence or recovery of the allegedly stolen property, was insufficient to establish Ndlovu's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Ndirowei also considered alternative explanations for Sebata's murder, including the possibility that robbers had targeted her because she had recently received money from a cattle sale.

He noted that another person could have answered her cellphone and impersonated Ndlovu to divert suspicion.

"The question is not whether the accused person might have committed the offence, but whether the evidence excludes every reasonable inference consistent with his innocence," the judge ruled.

Finding that the prosecution had failed to meet the required standard of proof, Justice Ndirowei acquitted Ndlovu of murder and ordered his release.

The judgment highlights the importance of reliable identification evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly where a prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence rather than direct forensic links to the accused.

Although the court established that Sebata had been violently murdered, it found that the evidence presented did not prove that Ndlovu was responsible for her death.