Harare, Zimbabwe – The recent arrest of popular socialite and video vixen Natalie ‘Enchantress’ Mhandu on allegations of practicing witchcraft has ignited a national conversation, thrusting Zimbabwe’s intricate and often misunderstood witchcraft laws into the spotlight. 

Amidst public speculation and confusion, prominent lawyer and former Member of Parliament, Advocate Fadzayi Mahere, has provided a crucial legal perspective, breaking down what Zimbabwean law actually stipulates regarding such accusations.

"Extremely Hard to Prove": Mahere on the Legal Threshold for Witchcraft

Taking to her X (formerly Twitter) account to shed light on the matter, Advocate Mahere clarified that while Zimbabwe’s Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] does indeed contain a whole section dedicated to criminalizing witchcraft, witch-finding, and related crimes, securing a conviction is far from straightforward.

"FYI – There is a whole section of the Criminal Code dedicated to criminalising witchcraft, witch-finding and related crimes. However, these offences, especially witchcraft, are extremely difficult to prove because the law imposes an extremely high threshold on the State to prove witchcraft with intent to cause harm," Mahere explained.

Natalie "Enchantress" Mhandu

She detailed that two critical elements must be established for a successful prosecution: a clear intent to cause harm and the provision of expert evidence. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an individual's actions, using non-natural means, caused genuine fear or had the potential to cause actual injury.

"The prosecution needs to call an expert to prove what constitutes witchcraft because “conduct commonly associated with witchcraft is not defined. You also have to prove intent to cause harm and that the practice inspired a real fear of harm on the part of the alleged victim. None of these elements is straightforward," she wrote, highlighting the significant legal hurdles.

Zimbabwean Criminal Code: Defining Witchcraft-Related Offenses

To further clarify, Mahere shared specific excerpts from the Act, outlining how Zimbabwean law defines and categorizes these offenses:

• Section 98 - Engaging in Practices Associated with Witchcraft: This section criminalizes engaging in practices commonly associated with witchcraft *with the intent to cause harm*, provided that these practices genuinely inspire a real fear of harm in the alleged victim. A conviction under this section can lead to up to five years in prison or a fine. The Act also specifies that mere words alone do not constitute witchcraft unless they are accompanied by actual conduct.
• Section 99 - Accusations of Witchcraft: The law also criminalizes the act of accusing someone of being a witch without grounds. This provision is designed to protect individuals from malicious accusations.
• 
  

Crucially, Zimbabwean courts do not take "judicial notice" of what is or isn't witchcraft. This means the court does not rely on common knowledge or belief. Instead, the burden falls entirely on the prosecution to provide a qualified expert who can testify as to whether a particular practice scientifically or traditionally fits the definition of witchcraft.

A Double-Edged Sword: Accusers Can Face Legal Trouble

Perhaps the most critical aspect of the law that Mahere highlighted is its protective mechanism against false accusations. Making unfounded allegations of witchcraft can, in fact, land the accuser in legal trouble themselves.

"Also note that groundlessly accusing someone of witchcraft is also an offence," Mahere concluded, referencing the part of the law that criminalizes accusing someone of witchcraft "groundlessly or by the purported use of non-natural means."

This legal provision is designed to safeguard individuals from being victimized, socially ostracized, or subjected to violence based on superstition, personal vendettas, or malicious gossip – a practice that has historically led to severe discrimination and harm in communities. Mahere's expert breakdown provides essential clarity on a complex legal issue, reminding the public of the high evidentiary standards required and the legal risks faced by those who make such serious accusations without substantiation.