MUTARE – A shocking case of familial coercion unfolded in the Mutare Civil Court last week, as a woman pleaded for protection from her brother, who allegedly resorted to violence and intimidation to compel her into a sexual relationship with his friend. The brother’s purported justification? His sister’s history of having three children with three different men.
Anna Mukonda, visibly distressed, stood before Magistrate Xavier Chipato where her voice trembled as she recounted the ordeal she’s been subjected to at the hands of her brother, Anashe Mukonda.
“I stand before you today with my voice trembling and my heart pounding, as I seek protection from the unspeakable torment inflicted upon me by my own brother,” she began.
Anna detailed a pattern of abuse, alleging that Anashe would fly into a rage whenever he saw her with another man, resorting to physical violence and public humiliation.
“Whenever he sees me with another man, his eyes blaze with fury, and he assaults me. He has chased me through the streets countless times, humiliated me publicly, and subjected me to relentless abuse in my own home,” she testified.
Desperate for respite, Anna pleaded with the court: “I stand before you, pleading for help. Grant me a protection order and rescue me from this life I am enduring.”
Anashe, who was also present in the courtroom, didn’t deny the accusations. Instead, he presented a defence rooted in what he perceived as his sister’s precarious life choices. He argued that his actions, however misguided, were motivated by concern for Anna’s well-being.
“I stand before you, and my heart is heavy with worry while my thoughts are in disarray,” he stated.
“I understand my sister’s words, but the truth is, I have watched her for a long time playing with her life, her failure to choose wisely (a husband) is damaging her. She has three children with three different men.”
Anashe’s concern, it emerged, stemmed from his perceived responsibility for the care of Anna’s children. He felt compelled to intervene, believing that Anna was “wasting her time” dishing out lula lula to other men when she actually needed a stable partner.
This belief, Anashe explained, led him to devise what he considered a solution: his best friend.
“That is why I thought I had found the solution, a man who can take good care of her, who happens to be my friend,” he explained.
Anashe painted a picture of his friend as a virtuous and capable man, ideal for providing for Anna and protecting her.
“A good man, kind, sincere, loving and capable of protecting her from those who would harm her,” he described.
Anashe insisted that his actions, though admittedly excessive, were born of love and a desire to protect his sister, not to cause her harm.
“My actions, though misguided, stemmed from love, not hate. I sought to protect her, not to torment her,” he stated, offering an apology to Anna.
Anashe acknowledged that his concern for his sister had led him to overstep his boundaries. Expressing remorse for his actions, he admitted his methods were wrong.
“My concern for her is what made me overstep. I regret my actions because the methods I used were wrong,” he confessed.
Seeking guidance from the court, Anashe asked for mercy and advice on how he could support his sister’s freedom while ensuring her well-being.
“I plead for the court’s mercy and guidance on how I can support my sister’s freedom while ensuring her well-being.”
Magistrate Chipato, after hearing both sides of the story, granted Anna the protection order. In his judgement, he underscored the importance of respecting individual freedom, even when motivated by love and concern.
“The respondent is prohibited from harassing the applicant and is encouraged to maintain peace at all times,” he declared.
Recognising the underlying familial tension, Magistrate Chipato advised both Anna and Anashe to seek counselling.
“Both parties are advised to seek counselling,” he said.
He concluded by emphasising the broader implications of the case, stating, “This judgement should promote healthy relationships, mutual respect, and remind us all that love and concern should not be used to deprive another of their freedom.”
The case highlights the complex interplay of family dynamics, personal autonomy, and the sometimes-blurred lines between protection and control.
