A mandatory prison sentence of at least nine years for horse and cattle theft took effect in Rhodesia on 3 April 1976, with the enactment of the new Stock Theft Amendment Bill. In the past, the penalty for this offence consisted of a fine of up to R$1,000, 2 years imprisonment, or a whipping of up to 10 strokes, on a first conviction. Subsequent offenders could be imprisoned for up to 4 years.
The severity of this new measure – and the introduction of yet another mandatory injunction on the Rhodesian judiciary – has been prompted by what Hilary Squires, the new Minister of Justice. Law and Order, has described as "a rising incidence of stock theft which can only be called dramatic". It is estimated that in 1975, between 3,000 and 4,000 head of cattle were stolen, killed or maimed throughout the country. Cattle-rustling has become particularly prevalent in those areas – the north-east and along the border with Mozambique – where the vast majority of the African village population has been removed from their homes into protected and consolidated villages. Both African and European farmers have suffered at the hands of stock thieves. Africans in the operational areas, however, run the additional risk of having their cattle confiscated by the authorities as a punishment for allegedly assisting guerillas, or to pay for food supplies once they are interned "behind the wire". The crime of stock theft, and the punishments proposed, are both symptomatic of a highly disturbed and increasingly tense security situation.
The new nine year mandatory sentence, whose introduction is largely the result of concerted pressure from the white farming lobby in the Rhodesian Front, was acknowledged by the Minister to be "very severe", "a large slice out of anyone's life even to the most insensitive tribal peasant". Even so, there were calls from a number of Rhodesian Front MPs for yet more swingeing penalties, notably an additional mandatory whipping clause. Several senator Chiefs were also reported to have welcomed the new provisions. Chief Dakamela, arguing that flogging should be made part of the penalty for the related offence of illegally branding cattle, suggested that "if the penalty is a jail sentence or fine, they just go to jail to get fat".
In addition to drastically increasing the penalties, the Stock Theft Amendment Act confers special jurisdiction upon magistrates to empower them to impose the minimum sentences. The three most senior categories of magistrates are being empowered to impose fines of up to R$5,000 or prison terms of up to 10 years; for ordinary magistrates the limits are a R$2,000 fine or a 4 year prison term, but with extra powers to impose mandatory sentences where these are specified in the Act.
Although the new Act has aroused considerable controversy, it has already been used to impose a number of heavy prison sentences. Jonah Munjero and a man called Samuel, for example, were each sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment on conviction on 20 counts of stock theft by Mrewa Circuit Court. The two men conducted their own defence. The first magistrate to find himself obliged to impose a nine year minimum sentence, Mr Terry O'Neill-Fitzsimons of Gwelo, described it as "wholly inappropriate." He had found three Featherstone tribesmen, all first offenders, guilty of stealing a heifer. The animal, according to the prosecution, bore no identification marks and had not been claimed by anyone up to the time of the trial. Mr. O'Neill-Fitzsimons, passing sentence in Enkeldoorn Magistrates' Court, pointed out that the offence had been committed three days after the introduction of the Act. Had it been earlier, he said, the court would probably have imposed a prison sentence of some nine months.
At least two magistrates are known to have resigned in protest at the provisions of the Stock Theft Amendment Act, and representations have been made to the Minister of Justice, Law and Order by the Law Society of Rhodesia. A number of High Court Judges are also known to be opposed to the Act. Such criticism as has been voiced, however, is concerned more with the loss of judicial discretion implied by a mandatory minimum sentence, than the severity of the sentences as such.
