Abductors appeal lengthy sentences saying judge was wrong and emotional
AFTER serving only 30 days of their 650 years in jail, the two abductors of the 13 Lusaka women are seeking to overturn their lengthy sentences.
The cheeky criminals say the court was emotional when it graciously handed them 650 years each for rape plus life imprisonment for a long list of other charges including abduction, aggravated assault with intent steal, abduction of a child and asault occasioning actual bodily harm and causing harm.
Between March and October 2022, James Bwalya and Mathews Sikaonga abducted 13 young women including student nurses and mobile money agents whom they held captive in a house in Chalala.
The victims who included a pregnant woman and her child were repeatedly raped, assaulted by the duo who were demanding a ransom from their relatives as a condition of release.
The duos dark party was brought to an end by police operation in October resulting in the rescue of 13 traumatised and starving victims.
After spending a few hours on the run, Bwalya and Sikaonga were captured in Kaoma and eventually slapped with 54 charges.
After playing several delaying tactics, the duo of Mathews Sikaonga and James Bwalya eventually pleaded guilty to the charges but pleaded for mercy saying they committed the crimes for fun without realising they were committing serious offenses.
The two asked for a rehabilitative sentence and not a custodial sentence because they regretted their actions.
In his judgement, on July 29, 2023 High Court judge Charles Kafunda pronounced a sentence that would ensure the charcoal dark souls of the two young criminals remain behind bars for the rest their lives.
Judge kafunda said Bwalya and Sikaonga did not deserve a rehabilitative or reduced sentence, because their explanation that they committed 54 offences against humanity for fun showed lack of empathy for their captives.
He ruled that youthfulness by itself does not justify a lesser sentence as there ought to be a link between circumstances of the offender being youthful and their conduct in commiting the offence.
Judge Kafunda said the crimes committed by the young malevolent lads do not bear characteristics of commonness or associated with bad behavior, but crimes that were well calculated and executed.
The sentences were handed down accordingly; Attempted abduction five years, abduction of a child five years, aggravated assault with intent to steal 15 years, abduction five years, rape 50 years, assault three years, causing grevious harm five years years.
The said sentences will be served concurrently
“I have omitted to hand sentences in respects two victims (the pregnant woman and her child) because they were subjected to excess violence and cruelty they were singled out for brutality because they came from a comfortable background,” judge Kafunda said.
He indicated that the first victim of captivity was pregnant and raped in the presence of her three -year- old child and Bwalya and Sikaonga continued to have forced and violent sexual intercourse with her thereby risking her life and that of her unborn child.
Judge Kafunda said due to the barbarity that the pregnant woman experienced, he would sentence Bwalya and Sikaonga to 20 years imprisonment with hard labour for aggravated assault, life imprisonment for rape, abduction five years assault five years, aggravated assault 20 years, causing grevious harm seven years.
He said the sentences for attempted abduction and abduction of a child will run consecutively.
However the convicts have challenged their jail time which they will serve even in their death, on four grounds of appeal.
They argued that judge Kafunda erred in law and facts to have sentenced them to life imprisonment based on the evidence on record when they had readily pleaded guilty to the charges.
The two said the trial court erred in law and fact to have ignored the principal of sentencing established in Zambia such as the nature and intrinsic value of the matter involved, their history and character, their youthfulness at the time of committing the offence, the prevalence of the offence they were convicted for and them being the first offenders who had admitted the charge.
“By confining itself to the South African jurisdiction whose society character, behavior and levels of criminality are different thereby imposing sentences reflecting the South African jurisdiction rather than the Zambian community hence forth the sentences be received by the court with a sense of shock,”they said.
They claimed the Court was emotional when it considered a sentence to impose on them by demeaning their plea that the atrocities committed were just a game and not a serious offence.
“The Court should receive all the sentences with a sense of shock as the trial judge was emotional on several instances when delivering a ruling on the imposition of sentences and rendered the appellants an injustice,”said Bwalya and Sikaonga.
“The trial Court erred in both law and fact for not being consistent with the pattern of sentences on similar cases the appellants have been sentenced and the Court of Appeal should receive the sentences with a sense of shock.”
By Mwaka Ndawa
Kalemba