Justice Diana Kavedza has defended her decision to spare Paul Mackenzie and his co-accused from execution, arguing that putting them to death could have strengthened the religious extremism that led to the Shakahola Forest killings.
In her sentencing remarks on Friday, the judge said some of the convicts believed dying through starvation would secure their passage to heaven, meaning a death sentence could be interpreted as a reward rather than a punishment for their actions.
She warned that executing individuals who associate death with spiritual victory could undermine the purpose of capital punishment, particularly when the crimes were driven by beliefs that promised followers eternal life and reunion with Jesus and their deceased children.
"In the respectful view of this court, such a sentence would therefore fail to achieve deterrence," Justice Kavedza stated.
The judge instead favoured lengthy prison sentences, reasoning that keeping the convicts alive would subject them to years of accountability and give them time to reflect on the destruction caused by their actions.
Mackenzie received a 200-year prison sentence for his role in the murder of 191 people in the Shakahola massacre, in which 190 children and one adult died.
Justice Kavedza identified three considerations that shaped the court's decision to reject the death penalty: preventing similar crimes, ensuring lasting accountability and allowing room for rehabilitation.
On deterrence, she explained that executing people who regard death as a passage to eternal happiness might not discourage extremist conduct. Instead, it could reinforce the very ideology the court sought to confront.
The judge further reasoned that a prolonged prison term would leave the convicts to live with the consequences of the deaths, including those of their own children. She said decades behind bars, confronting the reality that the promised heavenly reward had not materialised, would amount to a more enduring punishment than execution.
Another consideration was whether the convicts could eventually abandon their radical beliefs and benefit from rehabilitation through the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) programme.
Justice Kavedza noted that executing them would eliminate any possibility of disengaging from the extremist ideology through the rehabilitation process.
The court also considered the interests of families whose children remain missing, saying the convicts could still provide information that might help establish where some of the victims' remains were taken or buried.
"The families that are still waiting for answers are better served by preserving that possibility by any other form of sentence," the judge observed.
She acknowledged that some of the older convicts could remain in prison until their deaths, but said this would be a result of the seriousness of the offences and the level of responsibility established against them.
Justice Kavedza also addressed how the court arrived at the individual sentences and determined which prison terms would run at the same time and which would follow one another.
In making the determination, the court relied on Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023, examining the circumstances of the killings, the links between the offences and the role played by each accused person.
The judge observed that although the murders were connected to a shared system of religious radicalisation and enforced fasting, they did not all happen at the same time or under identical circumstances.
The court consequently settled on a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences to recognise the separate loss of each victim without imposing an excessive overall punishment.
Justice Kavedza explained that the principle of totality required the court to consider the combined effect of the sentences, ensuring they reflected the seriousness of the crimes without resulting in an unjust punishment.
Judge recalls horrifying deaths of children in Shakahola
The sentencing proceedings also brought into focus the suffering of the victims, particularly the children who died after being subjected to prolonged starvation in Shakahola Forest.
In her closing remarks, Justice Kavedza highlighted the case of a 12-day-old baby who was deprived of nourishment from birth and left to die.
She also referred to 161 toddlers and children below the age of 10 who suffered prolonged starvation before their deaths.
The court further considered the deaths of 22 children aged between 10 and 14, as well as teenagers aged 15 and 16 who reportedly resisted the instructions to starve and were subjected to brutal violence.
Beyond the victims themselves, the judge reflected on the suffering inflicted on their surviving relatives.
These included elderly parents left with the responsibility of bringing up orphaned grandchildren and mothers who watched their children die while those enforcing the starvation teachings continued to impose their beliefs.
Justice Kavedza said the punishment imposed was necessary to discourage similar crimes, deliver retribution and shield the public from further harm.
She pointed to the exploitation of vulnerable followers, the misuse of religious influence and the deliberate loss of innocent lives as evidence of the seriousness of the offences.
The judge maintained that the lengthy prison terms were intended to reflect the scale of the atrocities and ensure those responsible remained answerable for their actions.
She also made it clear that declining to impose capital punishment should not be interpreted as leniency towards Mackenzie or his co-accused.
Instead, the court concluded that keeping them alive in prison offered a stronger form of justice than execution, particularly because it left open the possibility of obtaining information that could help families find answers about their missing children.