High Court Rejects ZCC Bishop's Appeal Over Congregant's Death During Exorcism Says Religious Healing Not an Excuse

The High Court of Zimbabwe recently affirmed a critical boundary between religious practice and criminal liability, rejecting an appeal by a Zion Christian Church (ZCC) bishop, Chrispen Gomore, who was convicted of culpable homicide. Gomore had argued that the fatal assault of a congregant during an exorcism was part of a religious healing ritual. However, Justice Ngoni Nduna of the Bulawayo High Court ruled that objective medical evidence, which conclusively showed the deceased died from injuries inflicted during the beating, could not be overridden by claims of religious practice. This decision underscores the principle that constitutional guarantees of religious freedom do not extend to acts that violate criminal law or cause demonstrable harm, setting a clear precedent for accountability within religious institutions.

In a significant ruling that reinforces the supremacy of the rule of law over religious claims, the High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an appeal by a Zion Christian Church (ZCC) bishop, Chrispen Gomore, who sought to overturn his conviction and 10-year prison sentence for culpable homicide. The case arose from the tragic death of a congregant during an exorcism ritual, where Gomore contended that the fatal assault was a legitimate religious healing practice. This judgment by Justice Ngoni Nduna sitting at the Bulawayo High Court sends a unequivocal message that religious beliefs and practices, while constitutionally protected, do not provide immunity from criminal prosecution when they result in harm or death.

This article delves into the High Court's reasoning, examining how it navigated the delicate balance between freedom of religion and the state's imperative to protect its citizens from harm. It will analyze the legal framework underpinning the decision, particularly the interplay between constitutional rights, criminal statutes, and the decisive role of medical evidence. For legal practitioners, this case offers crucial insights into the limitations of religious defence in criminal matters and highlights the judiciary's consistent stance against the abuse of religious authority.

The ruling serves as a vital reminder to religious leaders and their followers across Zimbabwe that while freedom of worship is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and cannot be invoked to justify actions that contravene established criminal law. The court's emphasis on objective medical findings as paramount in determining the cause of death sets a clear standard for future cases involving alleged harm during religious or traditional healing practices.

Zimbabwe's legal landscape is shaped by a Constitution that enshrines fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of religion. Section 60 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe guarantees "freedom of thought, opinion, religion or belief; and freedom to practice and propagate and give expression to their thought, opinion, religion or belief, whether in public or in private and whether alone or together with others." This robust protection reflects the nation's commitment to religious pluralism. However, like many constitutional rights, religious freedom is not absolute. Section 86 of the Constitution allows for the limitation of certain rights, including religious freedom, where such limitations are necessary to protect public safety, public health, or the rights and freedoms of others.

In the realm of criminal law, the *Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]* is the primary statute governing offences against the person. Specifically, Section 49 defines culpable homicide, an offence for which Bishop Gomore was convicted, which typically involves negligently causing the death of another person. The Act also addresses various forms of assault. Crucially, in criminal proceedings, the role of evidence, particularly medical evidence, is paramount. The *Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]*, through sections such as 278 and 280, outlines the admissibility and weight given to medical reports, including post-mortem examinations, which are often presented in affidavit form but can be subject to oral testimony if deemed necessary by the court.

Zimbabwean courts have, on several occasions, grappled with the intersection of religious practices and criminal law. While the state generally maintains a distance from religious matters, judicial intervention becomes necessary when religious practices lead to harm or violate established laws. For instance, there have been concerns and legal actions regarding child marriages within certain religious groups, and other instances where traditional or religious healing methods have resulted in injury or death, leading to criminal charges. These cases collectively underscore a consistent judicial stance: while religious belief is protected, it cannot serve as a shield for criminal conduct that endangers individuals or society.

Justice Ngoni Nduna, sitting at the Bulawayo High Court, meticulously considered Bishop Chrispen Gomore’s application for leave to appeal against both his conviction for culpable homicide and his 10-year prison sentence. Gomore’s defence rested on the assertion that the assault, which led to the congregant’s death, was an integral part of a religious healing ritual. However, the court unequivocally rejected this argument, emphasizing that the religious explanation could not displace objective medical findings.

The core of Justice Nduna’s reasoning was the irrefutable medical evidence presented through the Post Mortem Report. This report concluded that the cause of death was “encephalic contusion, cranial trauma, and assault,” thereby unequivocally establishing the assault as the direct cause of the deceased's death. The judge highlighted that the applicant did not deny assaulting the deceased, but rather sought to reframe the assault as a religious act. The court found that this re-framing did not undermine the prosecution's case, nor did it create a reasonable prospect for an appellate court to arrive at a different conclusion regarding the conviction.

This ruling aligns with broader legal principles articulated by prominent legal figures in Zimbabwe. For example, Speaker of the National Assembly, Advocate Jacob Mudenda, has previously warned that constitutional guarantees of religious freedom do not extend to criminal acts committed under the guise of faith. He stressed that perpetrators would face the full wrath of the law, noting that Section 86 of the Constitution allows for the restriction of religious practices that cause demonstrable harm, violate criminal law, or undermine compelling governmental public interests. This judicial stance reinforces that no right, including religious freedom, is absolute and all rights are subject to limitations necessary in a democratic society.

Furthermore, the court upheld the 10-year prison sentence, deeming it to be well within the penalties prescribed for culpable homicide under Zimbabwean law. Justice Nduna condemned the abuse of religious authority, stating that Gomore had “grossly abused” the trust placed in him by congregants and explicitly warned that “religious standing or spiritual authority can never serve as a shield for criminal conduct.” This aspect of the judgment serves as a strong deterrent, signaling to religious leaders that their positions of influence come with significant responsibilities and that the law will not tolerate practices that lead to harm or death, regardless of their purported spiritual intent.

The case of *S v Gomore* thus reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity of human life and ensuring that individuals are held accountable for their actions under the criminal law, irrespective of the religious context in which those actions occur. It underscores the principle that medical and scientific evidence will take precedence over unsubstantiated religious claims when determining the cause of death and criminal liability.

The High Court's rejection of Bishop Gomore's appeal is a landmark decision for legal practitioners in Zimbabwe, firmly establishing that religious belief cannot be a defence for criminal acts that result in harm or death. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of religious freedom, affirming that while the Constitution protects the right to practice one's faith, this protection does not extend to practices that violate the fundamental rights and safety of others. Practitioners must advise religious organizations and leaders that any rituals or practices involving physical contact must be meticulously reviewed to ensure they do not pose a risk of injury or death, as medical evidence will be the decisive factor in such cases.

Going forward, this judgment sets a clear precedent, reinforcing the accountability of religious leaders for the well-being of their congregants. It signals a judicial intolerance for the abuse of spiritual authority to justify harmful acts. Legal professionals should anticipate increased scrutiny of religious practices, particularly those involving physical interventions, and advise clients on the imperative of compliance with the *Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act* and other relevant statutes. This case serves as a powerful reminder that the rule of law is supreme, and no individual or institution is above it, irrespective of their religious standing.