The Lower Eastern Times Opening The Third Eye
Controversial preacher Paul Nthenge Mackenzie avoided the death penalty because the court feared executing him could reinforce the extremist religious beliefs that contributed to the Shakahola Forest massacre.
In explaining the sentencing decision, Justice Diana Kavedza said imposing capital punishment on individuals who view death as a gateway to eternal life could be interpreted as a victory rather than a punishment.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel
The judge observed that some of the convicts believed dying would take them to heaven, where they would reunite with Jesus and their deceased children.
She argued that executing such individuals would therefore undermine the intended deterrent effect of the punishment.
READ MORE: Mackenzie Jailed for 200 Years Over Shakahola Massacre
According to Kavedza, keeping the convicts in prison for extended periods would provide a more meaningful form of accountability by forcing them to live with the consequences of their actions.
Mackenzie was subsequently handed a 200-year prison sentence for his role in the murder of 191 people, 190 of whom were children.
The judge outlined three major considerations behind the court’s decision to reject the death penalty.
The first was the need for effective deterrence. The court reasoned that executing people who consider death a passage to eternal happiness could unintentionally validate the ideology behind their crimes.
Secondly, prolonged imprisonment would ensure continued accountability, requiring the convicts to confront the consequences of the deaths rather than having their punishment end through execution.
The third consideration was the possibility of rehabilitation and obtaining information about victims whose remains have not yet been recovered.
Justice Kavedza argued that spending decades behind bars reflecting on the deaths of innocent children, including their own, would constitute a more enduring punishment than execution.
She further noted that a death sentence would eliminate the opportunity for the convicts to abandon extremist beliefs and undergo rehabilitation through the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) programme.
Another important consideration was the possibility of recovering the remains of children whose whereabouts remain unknown.
The judge observed that keeping the convicts alive could give investigators and affected families an opportunity to obtain information about the missing victims.
She said families still searching for answers would benefit more from preserving that possibility than from imposing a death sentence.
The court acknowledged that some elderly convicts could spend the remainder of their natural lives in prison but maintained that this was justified by the seriousness of their offences and their individual responsibility.
Why the court settled on lengthy prison sentences
Beyond rejecting capital punishment, Justice Kavedza explained the legal considerations used in determining the individual sentences and whether they would run concurrently or consecutively.
The court relied on Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 to assess the circumstances of the murders, the relationship between the offences and the role played by each accused person.
Although the killings were linked to a common system of religious radicalisation and enforced fasting, the judge noted that they happened at different times and under varying circumstances.
The court therefore adopted a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences to reflect the loss of individual victims while avoiding an excessive overall punishment.
Kavedza said the principle of totality required the court to impose sentences that adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes without resulting in an unjust or disproportionate punishment.
Judge recounts horrific suffering of Shakahola victims
In her emotional remarks during the sentencing proceedings, Justice Kavedza highlighted the suffering endured by children who died in the Shakahola Forest tragedy.
She recalled the death of a 12-day-old infant who was denied nourishment from birth and left to die.
The court also considered the prolonged starvation endured by 161 toddlers and children below the age of 10.
Another 22 victims were aged between 10 and 14, while teenagers aged 15 and 16 who reportedly resisted the fasting instructions were subjected to brutal physical violence.
The judge further highlighted the devastating impact on surviving relatives, including elderly parents left to raise orphaned grandchildren and mothers who watched their children die as those enforcing the fasting doctrine continued with their activities.
Kavedza emphasised that punishment was necessary to deter similar crimes, deliver justice and protect society from future harm.
She said the offences involved the deliberate exploitation of vulnerable followers, misuse of religious authority and the loss of innocent lives.
The lengthy prison sentences, she explained, reflected the gravity of the crimes, the need to protect the public and the importance of holding those responsible accountable.
The judge also clarified that rejecting the death penalty did not amount to showing sympathy towards Mackenzie or his co-accused.
Instead, it was a deliberate judicial decision based on the belief that keeping the convicts alive in prison could serve justice more effectively than execution, particularly for families still seeking answers about their missing children.
