Online Reporter
Fatima Bulla-Musakwa-Features Writer
THE news in July that a British citizen of Zimbabwean heritage was being sought by police in connection with the murder of his wife and two young daughters set social media ablaze.
At the centre of the social-media furore were reports that Nothabo Zandile Tshuma (42) and her daughters, Natalie (15) and Nala (five), were found dead with fatal head injuries at their home in Great Denham, near Bedford on July 7.
As audiences struggled to come to terms with the tragedy, various theories emerged about what could have led to the gruesome deaths. Social media users offered speculation after theory in an attempt to make sense of the circumstances surrounding the case.
The media’s portrayal of the couple as accomplished professionals further fuelled suppositions.
Ndodana Tshuma was reported to be a senior IT manager, while his late wife was an associate director.
The couple also reportedly owned a £1,3 million home, details that appeared to deepen public fascination with the case as audiences tried to understand how a seemingly successful family could end in such a tragic cul-de-sac.
As the case continued to trend, attention increasingly focused on Tshuma, who became a prime suspect. One theory that gained traction on social media was that Tshuma may have discovered that the two children he believed he had fathered with Zandile were not biologically his, allegedly triggering the violence.
A post by our sister radio station Star FM announcing the murders provided one example of how some social media users directed blame towards the late wife. One Facebook user commented:
“What was the secret behind the murder, was the woman filing for divorce? Or he discovered that the children were not belonging to him?”
Another comment, written in Shona, took a similar tone:
“Yavari kufira mashoko anobuda mukanwa mavo after all your sacrifices aunenge waita murelationship boom munhu wokudza kuti vana havasi vako ibva pano haa wangu ndopakapusira vakadzi mu(no)fira shoko rimwe”.
The comment suggested that women would continue to die for asking for separation and invoked the idea that men may discover that children they had raised were not biologically theirs.
Another user wrote, “Musachengetese vanhu vana vasiri vavo,” meaning, “Do not let men take care of children they did not sire.”
Such comments illustrate a recurring pattern on social media in which women who are victims, or are portrayed as villains are blamed for tragic circumstances in relationships, while men are often granted the benefit of the doubt or their actions are rationalised.
A similar dynamic emerged in another tragic case: the death of Zimbabwe Human Rights Commissioner and lecturer at Midlands State University, Dr Martin Muduva, who was allegedly attacked by his wife while sleeping at their home in Dzivaresekwa weeks back.
There were indications that photographs showing Dr Muduva at a marriage ceremony formalising his union to his second wife had triggered the alleged dispute that subsequently turned violent.
On social media, however, prominent reactions took a troubling turn, with blame directed towards the two women associated with the Commissioner’s life.
Comments about the first wife portrayed her as an older woman who sought to control her husband and remained in a marriage in which, according to the commentators, she was no longer wanted. The second wife was portrayed by some users as a prostitute who had destroyed another woman’s marriage.
One reaction to a Herald social-media post stated, “Nowadays don’t encourage or advise any man to get married, let him do it at his own risk, many women are failing reasonability tests.” Another comment said, “Rimwe dambudziko rekuroora mukadzi muhombe. A woman should have a certain fear of her husband, especially because he should be older”.
Meanwhile, one of the comments on a Star FM post directed at the second wife described her as a prostitute, stating:“Patience ih*re.”
In contrast, some of the reactions directed at the late Commissioner appeared to minimise or excuse his actions in relation to polygamy, framing them as being consistent with a practice rooted in Zimbabwean tradition. This type of labelling and framing of women and men on social media can contribute to what is known as Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV).
Gender Media Connect in 2025 identified cyber-harassment and hate speech as forms of TFGBV involving repeated abusive content intended to frighten, intimidate or undermine a woman’s self-esteem or reputation.
Musasa Project Board chairperson, Ms Beatrice Tonhodzayi raised concern on the disturbing rising cases of GBV perpetrated against both men and women noting the social media vitriol that was directed at the late Zandile and justification of Commissioner Muduva’s murder.
She argued that nobody has the right to kill another person, warning that blaming victims risked taking societies back to a place when rape victims were blamed for wearing provoking clothes.
“As a society, if we don’t watch it, we are going to degenerate into societies where the lives of women are at risk of danger. Now digital platforms are now being used to shame, destroy and discredit women. It is now emerging also in the area of TFGBV and women on women TFGBV is something we should be talking about, it is wrong. If we don’t watch it, we will go backwards in terms of the strides that Government together with civic society and funding partners have recorded over the years,” she said.
For social scientist Dr Manase Chiweshe, the two cases reveal a deeper structural problem in which patriarchy, already embedded in society, is being reinforced through technology.
“When men are violent, the discourse searches for a trigger, deception, divorce or a second wife while when women are violent or victimised, the discourse searches for a character flaw that could be irrationality, failure to leave or showing off.
“This asymmetrical blame logic is amplified in digital spaces by anonymity, speed, and emotional contagion.
“The real critique is not about any single comment. It is about the systematic nature of this blame logic, it makes male violence ‘explainable’ and female suffering ‘questionable’,” he said.
Dr Chiweshe said addressing the problem would require more than online civility campaigns.
That, however, could prove to be a mammoth task as millions of people increasingly inhabit digital spaces where attitudes towards women and men are reproduced, reinforced and amplified.
There were 3.7 million WhatsApp users in Zimbabwe, representing roughly 44 percent of mobile use and about half of all internet traffic in the country, according to an IRI risk assessment published in 2023 and cited by the Nehanda Centre for Align.
There were also 232 200 users of X, where the mobbing of women has been particularly intense, underlining the far-reaching consequences of persistent negative framing of women and the ways in which such abuse can manifest as TFGBV.
According to Urgent Action Fund-Africa, digital abuse can reshape who is able to participate, organise and lead safely online.
Professor Admire Mare, Head of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at the University of Johannesburg, said the posts went beyond ordinary commentary and could function as rage bait.
Professor Mare
“Basically, it works through rage baiting whereby these platforms incentivise content that promotes hate, divisions and sensationalism. This is becoming problematic, especially on Facebook, X, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube,” he said.
The phenomenon raises broader questions about the role of digital platforms in amplifying existing gender inequalities.
While social media gives people unprecedented opportunities to express themselves and participate in public debate, it can also provide a powerful channel through which harmful stereotypes, misogyny and victim-blaming are rapidly reproduced.
Experts note that TFGBV is distinct from general online violence because it targets women because of their gender or disproportionately affects them.
In Zimbabwe, however, TFGBV is not formally defined in law. The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) and the Domestic Violence Act (Chapter 5:16) remain among the country’s key legal instruments addressing gender-based violence, but neither specifically addresses technology-facilitated abuse.
As tragic cases continue to unfold both offline and online, the reactions they provoke reveal more than public shock.
They also expose deeply-rooted assumptions about gender, relationships, violence and responsibility assumptions that, once transferred into the digital sphere, can travel far beyond the original tragedy and leave victims facing another form of harm long after the physical violence has occurred.
