By Bulawayo Correspondent
A SELF-CONFESSED cannibal who was sentenced to death for murder has lost his bid to escape the hangman’s noose after the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.
In August 2018, Bulawayo High Court Judge Nokuthula Moyo convicted the cannibal Rodney Jindu of murder with actual intent in connection with the deaths of Mboneli Joko Ncube and Cyprian Kudzurunga.
However, his approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s ruling which committed capital punishment to Jindu for the callous murder of two of his friends the year before.
He shot dead Kudzurunga of Queens Park East on January 29, 2017, buried him in a shallow grave in Burnside’s suburb and sent a message to the deceased’s mother pretending to be her son who had suddenly decided to leave the country.
He also shot Ncube and dismembered his body and set the parts on fire before burying him in four shallow graves in Burnside.
Jindu also confessed that he ate the pair’s raw livers and cooked brains.
The court had previously heard that Jindu was mentally ill but following a medical examination, he was declared fit to stand trial.
During trial, Jindu also confessed that he was sent by the devil to kill two of his victims and threatened to unleash the evil spirit on prosecutors.
Deputy Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza sitting with Justices Nicholas Mathonsi and Alfas Chitakunye during a Supreme Court circuit in Bulawayo upheld the ruling by the lower court.
Gwaunza, who read the ruling, said the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal will be included in the full written judgement once it is ready.
“The appeal against both conviction and sentence be and is hereby dismissed in its entirety. The reasons will follow,” ruled the Deputy Chief Justice.
Jindu , through his lawyer Dixon Abraham of Tanaka Law Chamber had filed an appeal at the Supreme court citing the State as a respondent.
In his grounds of appeal, Jindu submitted that the court- aquo erred and misdirected itself by convicting him on two counts of murder when there was evidence that he was mentally incapacitated.
“There was cogent evidence that appellant was mentally incapacitated to appreciate the implications of his actions at the material time of committing the offence. Wherefore, appellants prays that the appeal be and is hereby allowed,” Jindu further argued.
Jindu wanted the judgment and sentence of the High Court to be set aside and be substituted with an acquittal.