Sammy 1Lasco 1Kavinga 1v 1The 1People 1Appeal 1No 151/2018 1(21 1August 12019)

Facts

The 1appellant 1served 1as 1a 1pastor 1or 1apostle 1at 1the 1Spirit 1of 1Christ 1Fellowship 1church

1 in 1Lusaka. 1He 1was 1convicted 1by 1the 1Subordinate 1Court 1on 1one 1count 1of 1rape, 1one

1 count 1of 1attempted 1rape 1and 1two 1counts 1of 1indecent 1assault 1involving 1three 1family

1 members. 1The 1crimes 1had 1a 1religious 1dimension 1as 1the 1appellant 1committed 1the

1 crimes 1on 1the 1pretext 1of 1removing 1bad 1omen 1from 1the 1victims. 1Upon 1conviction, 1the

1 magistrate 1referred 1his 1case 1to 1the 1High 1Court 1for 1sentencing. 1The 1High 1Court

1 sentenced 1him 1to 1prison 1terms 1ranging 1from 1three 1years 1to 125 1years 1with 1hard 1labour,

1 to 1run 1concurrently. 1Unhappy 1with 1the 1outcome, 1the 1appellant 1appealed 1against 1his

1 conviction 1only 1to 1the 1Court 1of 1Appeal.

How 1the 1courts 1have 1used 1Jurisprudence 1to 1come 1up 1with 1the 1said 1logical

1 judgement;

The 1Court 1of 1Appeal 1considered 1the 1sentence 1inadequate 1and 1shocking. 1This 1was

1 because 1the 1appellant 1was 1a 1religious 1leader 1who 1betrayed 1the 1trust 1reposed 1in 1him

1 by 1the 1victims. 1Because 1of 1this, 1the 1Court 1of 1Appeal 1decided 1there 1was 1need 1for 1a

1 stiffer 1punishment. 1It 1decided 1to 1interfere 1with 1the 1decision 1of 1the 1High 1Court 1and

1 instead 1sentenced 1the 1appellant 1to 145 1years’ 1imprisonment 1with 1hard 1labour 1on 1count

1 1, 140 1years 1with 1hard 1labour 1on 1count 12, 120 1years 1with 1hard 1labour 1on 1counts 13 1and 14

1 each. 1The 1court 1further 1ordered 1that 1these 1sentences 1should 1run 1consecutively 1(one

1 after 1the 1other) 1on 1account 1that 1they 1were 1separate 1offences. 1The 1Court 1effectively

1 sentenced 1him 1to 1105 1years’ 1imprisonment 1with 1hard 1labour

1
various 1Jurisprudential 1issues 1that 1the 1case 1presents

First, 1the 1105-year 1prison 1term 1is 1a 1violation 1of 1article 115 1of 1the 1Zambian 1constitution,

1 which 1states 1that 1‘a 1person 1shall 1not 1be 1subject 1to 1torture, 1or 1to 1inhuman 1or 1degrading

1 punishment 1or 1other 1like 1treatment.’ 1The 1right 1is 1couched 1in 1absolute 1terms 1and 1does

1 not 1permit 1any 1exceptions. 1In 1sentencing 1the 1appellant 1to 1105 1years, 1in 1a 1country 1with

1 life 1expectancy 1hovering 1around 150 1years, 1that 1would 1have 1required 1the 1appellant 1to

1 live 1at 1least 1two 1lives 1to 1satisfy 1the 1penalty. 1

This 1effectively 1meant 1that 1he 1was 1given 1a 1life 1sentence. 1His 1whole 1natural 1life 1would

1 expire 1in 1prison. 1A 1prison 1sentence 1that 1forecloses 1the 1possibility 1of 1reform 1and

1 reintegration 1into 1the 1community 1is 1manifestly 1inhuman 1and 1degrading. 1An 1interesting

1 illustrative 1case 1is 1that 1of 1Vinter 1and 1Others 1v 1The 1United 1Kingdom 1(Applications 1Nos

1 66069/09, 1130/10 1and 13896/10) 11(9 1July 12013) 1determined 1by 1the 1European 1Court 1of

1 Human 1Rights. 1The 1case 1was 1brought 1by 1three 1applicants 1against 1the 1UK 1challenging

1 their 1mandatory 1life 1sentences 1for 1the 1offenses 1of 1murder. 1The 1Challenge 1was

1 premised 1on 1article 13 1of 1the 1Convention 1for 1the 1Protection 1of 1Human 1Rights 1and

1 Fundamental 1Freedoms 119502 1(on 1which 1the 1Zambian 1Bill 1of 1Rights 1is 1based),

1 couched 1as 1follows: 1‘No 1one 1shall 1be 1subjected 1to 1torture 1or 1to 1inhuman 1or 1degrading

1 treatment 1or 1punishment.’ 1As 1can 1be 1seen, 1Article 13 1is 1framed 1similarly 1to 1article 115 1of

1 the 1Zambian 1constitution. 1In 1determining 1the 1legality 1of 1the 1life 1sentences, 1the 1Court

1 distinguished 1between 1three 1types 1of 1life 1sentences, 1as 1follows: 1

1
Vinter 1and 1Others 1v 1The 1United 1Kingdom 1(Applications 1Nos 166069/09, 1130/10 1and 13896/10)
1
2
article 13 1of 1the 1Convention 1for 1the 1Protection 1of 1Human 1Rights 1and 1Fundamental 1Freedoms 11950
1

2
(i) 1a 1life 1sentence 1with 1eligibility 1for 1release 1after 1a 1minimum 1period 1had 1been 1served; 1

(ii) 1a 1discretionary 1sentence 1of 1life 1imprisonment 1without 1the 1possibility 1of 1parole 1(that

1 is, 1a 1sentence 1which 1is 1provided 1for 1in 1law, 1but 1which 1requires 1a 1judicial 1decision

1 before 1it 1can 1be 1imposed); 1and 1

(iii) 1a 1mandatory 1sentence 1of 1life 1imprisonment 1without 1the 1possibility 1of 1parole 1(that 1is,

1 a 1sentence 1which 1is 1set 1down 1in 1law 1for 1a 1particular 1offence 1and 1which 1leaves 1a 1judge

1 no 1discretion 1as 1to 1whether 1to 1impose 1it 1or 1not). 1The 1Court 1considered 1the 1first 1type 1of

1 life 1sentence 1acceptable 1as 1it 1is 1reducible, 1but 1not 1the 1other 1two. 1

The 1Court 1held 1that 1by 1imposing 1irreducible 1mandatory 1life 1sentences 1on 1the 1three

1 applicants, 1the 1UK 1was 1in 1violation 1of 1article 13. 1This 1is 1notwithstanding 1the 1possibility

1 of 1Executive 1clemency 1as 1that 1is 1capricious 1and 1not 1predictable 1nor 1is 1it 1based 1on 1the

1 prisoner’s 1capacity 1for 1reform.

The 1point 1is 1that 1an 1irreducible 1life 1sentence 1leaves 1the 1person 1with 1no 1hope 1for 1the

1 future 1and 1nothing 1significant 1to 1live 1for 1apart 1from 1sustaining 1his/biological 1life. 1The

1 rationale 1for 1this 1was 1perhaps 1best 1explained 1by 1Chief 1Justice 1Mahomed 1of 1the

1 Namibian 1Supreme 1Court 1in 1the 1case 1of 1Lukas 1Tcoeib 1v 1The 1State 1SA/4/93 1(1996):3

The 1second 1point 1is 1that 1the 1sentence 1of 1105 1years, 1considering 1that 1it 1effectively

1 means 1the 1appellant 1would 1spend 1the 1rest 1of 1his 1natural 1life 1in 1prison, 1is 1a 1violation 1of

1 human 1dignity. 1Article 18 1of 1the 1Constitution 1lists 1‘human 1dignity’4 1among 1the 1national

1 values. 1Article 19 1of 1the 1constitution 1is 1categorical 1that 1the 1national 1values 1are 1binding

1 and 1shall 1be 1considered 1in 1interpreting 1the 1constitution, 1enactment 1and 1interpretation

3
Lukas 1Tcoeib 1v 1The 1State 1SA/4/93 1(1996):
1

3
1 of 1legislation, 1and 1development 1and 1implementation 1of 1state 1policy.5 1Human 1dignity 1is

1 an 1elusive 1concept 1not 1susceptible 1of 1an 1easy 1definition. 1But 1what 1is 1clear 1is 1that 1the

1 doctrine 1of 1human 1dignity 1asserts 1that 1‘every 1human 1being 1counts; 1that 1every 1human

1 being 1has 1infinite 1value, 1regardless 1of 1his 1or 1her 1personal 1circumstances 1or 1actions.’6

1 Human 1dignity 1thrives 1in 1personal 1freedom. 1When 1freedom 1is 1taken 1away, 1dignity 1is

1 threatened. 1It 1is 1in 1freedom 1that 1the 1human 1being 1can 1thrive 1and 1fulfil 1their 1potential. 1

Third, 1the 1constitution 1empowers 1the 1Courts 1with 1power 1to 1Africanise 1or 1Zambianise

1 the 1law 1of 1sentencing 1but 1the 1opportunities, 1as 1in 1this 1case, 1are 1never 1seized. 1Article

1 7 1(d) 1of 1the 1Constitution 1recognizes 1customary 1law 1as 1a 1source 1of 1law 1while 1article

1 118(2)(a) 1empowers 1the 1courts 1to 1promote 1alternative 1forms 1of 1dispute 1resolution,

1 including 1usage 1of 1traditional 1dispute 1resolution 1mechanisms. 1Yet 1the 1Courts, 1in

1 sentencing, 1seem 1oblivious 1to 1these 1provisions. 1No 1effort 1is 1made 1to 1apply 1any

1 traditional 1thought 1patterns 1in 1the 1sentencing 1process. 1It 1appears 1that 1the 1judiciary 1in

1 general 1is 1still 1trapped 1in 1William 1Church’s 1criticism 1of 1the 1ambivalence 1created 1in 1the

1 early 1Zambian 1lawyers 1trained 1in 1English 1law:

1 Because 1the 1legal 1training 1was 1relatively 1remote 1from 1the 1practical 1circumstances

1 faced 1daily 1in 1Zambia, 1the 1substantive 1legal 1consciousness 1the 1training 1was 1designed

1 to 1promote 1tended 1to 1become 1fixed 1as 1of 1the 1point 1of 1formal 1training, 1unable 1to 1grow

1 easily 1in 1the 1Zambian 1surroundings 1of 1the 1new 1lawyer. 1When 1legal 1understanding

1 thus 1becomes 1fixed 1and 1unchanging, 1two 1things 1happen.

BIBIOGRAPHY 1

CASES

4
Vinter 1and 1Others 1v 1The 1United 1Kingdom 1(Applications 1Nos 166069/09, 1130/10 1and

1 3896/10)

Lukas 1Tcoeib 1v 1The 1State 1SA/4/93 1(1996):

Authorities

Article 13 1of 1the 1Convention 1for 1the 1Protection 1of 1Human 1Rights 1and 1Fundamental

1 Freedoms 11950