Mashonaland East – A disturbing case of sexual violence has emerged from Mashonaland East, where a 32-year-old man from Domboshava, under Chief Chinamhora, has been arrested by police. The suspect faces charges of aggravated indecent assault for allegedly sodomising a 23-year-old man with a mental disability.
ZRP Mashonaland East provincial spokesperson Inspector Simon Chazovachiyi detailed the harrowing allegations, stating that the incident occurred on an unspecified date this month. According to the police report, the complainant was asleep in his bedroom when the suspect gained unauthorised entry.
“While inside, he said the suspect produced a knife and threatened to stab him,” Inspector Chazovachiyi explained.
“After threatening the 23-year-old man, the suspect removed his shoes and got into the complainant’s blankets, removed the complainant’s clothes and sodomised him. After the act, the suspect went away.”
The ordeal remained hidden until January 5, 2026, when the complainant, while at church, confided in a fellow church member from Shamhu Village, also under Chief Chinamhora. The church member then relayed the information to the man’s aunt.
“The aunt accompanied her nephew to the police, where a report was made, leading to the suspect’s arrest,” Inspector Chazovachiyi confirmed, adding that investigations are currently underway.
In a separate case highlighting the prevalence of sexual offences, a Hopley man, John Chamboko, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty of attempting to sodomise a 14-year-old boy after promising him US$5.
Harare regional magistrate Mrs Sandra Mupindu ruled that there was overwhelming evidence linking John Chamboko to the offence. Chamboko had denied the charges during the trial.
The court heard that on 17 November 2025, the minor was bathing when Chamboko told him he wanted to use the restroom.
The complainant let Chamboko in.
After Chamboko used the restroom, he told the child that he was handsome and went on to request to have anal sexual intercourse with him.
Chamboko promised the minor that he would give him $5 as payment, but the complainant refused.
The court heard that the minor decided to leave the bathroom but on his way out, Chamboko grabbed his hand and dragged him towards him.
Chamboko lowered his trousers to knee level, thereby exposing his erect penis to the minor.
However, the minor managed to elbow Chamboko and escaped.
He informed his mother. With the help of neighbours, they took Chamboko to ZRP Southlea Park to file a report.
This incident comes amid ongoing debate and scrutiny of Zimbabwe’s legal framework concerning sexual offences, particularly the definitions of rape and aggravated indecent assault. The case of State v Makedenge has brought to light a perceived gap in the law, where the gender of the perpetrator and victim significantly influences the charges laid.
Zvikomborero Maria Makedenge, a United States–based woman, is currently facing a charge of aggravated indecent assault following allegations of non-consensual sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old boy. The case has sparked widespread discussion, with many questioning why the charge is not rape, given the seriousness of the allegations.
According to the State outline, Makedenge allegedly followed the complainant into a bedroom, locked the door, twisted his arm until he was overpowered, tied his hands with an electric cable, pushed him onto a bed, and then forced him to have sexual intercourse.
These allegations, if proven true, would typically be recognised as rape. However, under Zimbabwean law, the charge of rape is not applicable in this scenario. The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23), specifically sections 61 to 87, does not recognise the rape of a male by a female.
Rape, as currently defined in Zimbabwean law, is a crime that can only be committed by a male against a female. As a result, the State has charged Makedenge under section 66, which deals with aggravated indecent assault – an offence covering non-consensual penetration committed with indecent intention.
In this case, the allegation is that the accused forced the complainant to penetrate her without his consent. While this conduct involves sexual penetration and violence, the law classifies it as aggravated indecent assault rather than rape solely because of the gender of the alleged perpetrator and victim.
This legal distinction raises a fundamental question: If a man who forces a woman to have sex commits rape, why does the law not describe the same conduct as rape when a woman allegedly forces a man to have sex?
Respected legal scholar Geoffrey Feltoe has long argued that the distinction between rape and aggravated indecent assault is artificial and outdated. In his commentary on the Codification and Reform Act, he proposes that the two offences be merged, stating: “It would make good sense to merge these two offences together and make any non-consensual penetrative sex act rape. These two offences are equally serious, involving sexual invasion of the complainant”.
There is compelling merit in the argument that rape should be a gender-neutral offence. Section 56(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe guarantees equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law for all persons, regardless of gender. Equal protection must mean that male victims of sexual violence are recognised and protected with the same seriousness as female victims.
Comparative jurisprudence strengthens this argument. South Africa’s Sexual Offences Act adopts a gender-neutral definition of rape.
Section 3 provides that any person who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration without consent is guilty of rape.
“Any person who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act of sexual penetration with a complainant, without the consent of the complainant, is guilty of the offence of rape,” it states.
Under such a framework, the allegations in State v Makedenge would clearly constitute rape, irrespective of the accused’s gender.
Zimbabwe’s current framework produces troubling inconsistencies. Aggravated indecent assault may be committed by persons of any gender against persons of any gender and includes non-consensual penetration. Yet where sexual intercourse occurs between a male perpetrator and a female victim, the offence becomes rape. Where the same act occurs with the genders reversed, it does not.
This anomaly is not new. In State v Chikunguruse HH-206-2004, decided before the current Act, a woman who forced a six-year-old boy to penetrate her was convicted under the Sexual Offences Act, not for rape. Even under today’s law, the outcome would be the same.
The High Court ultimately imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment, with two years suspended, meaning the offender served three years for conduct that would almost certainly have attracted a far harsher sentence had it been committed by a man. The disparity is stark when sentencing provisions are compared.
Aggravated indecent assault carries a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, while rape may attract life imprisonment in aggravating circumstances. This legislative hierarchy suggests that rape is viewed as a more serious crime, yet the distinction is based not on the harm suffered by the victim, but on the gender of the perpetrator. Such a framework is difficult to reconcile with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
It creates the impression that sexual violence against men is legally less serious, and that women who commit acts indistinguishable from rape are deserving of lesser punishment.
The courts have previously recognised that sexual offences law must evolve to confront emerging realities. In Chikunguruse, the High Court observed that legislative reform was necessary because common law offences were no longer adequately addressing the abuse of vulnerable victims, particularly children.
“It seems to me that the legislature, in promulgating the Sexual Offences Act, and providing a penalty section which provides for a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment, had recognised the growing problem of the abuse of young children. This was also an acceptance that the common law offense of indecent assault was not effectively dealing with the problem,” the High Court judge stated. That reasoning is still relevant today
The Makedenge case exposes a fundamental gap in Zimbabwe’s legal framework on sexual offences, particularly in how gender shapes the definitions of rape and aggravated indecent assault. By failing to recognise male victims of sexual violence in law, the current framework undermines the constitutional promise of equality before the law. Legislative reform is, therefore, urgently required to ensure that all victims of sexual violence, regardless of gender, are afforded equal protection, equal recognition and equal justice, in full fidelity to the values of dignity, equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.
Follow @MyZimbabweNews
