Zimpapers Logo

The effective sentence of 230 years given to serial rapist and robber Thomas Brighton Chirembwe by Regional Magistrate Mr Rogers Simon Kachambwa is clearly going to be a major point of discussion and debate for days to come.
Mr Kachambwa was extremely logical in imposing sentence, simply imposing what he felt was an adequate sentence for each crime and then stringing them together.

A 20-year sentence for rape is higher than what most rapists get, but then Chirembwe, carrying weapons, broke into women’s homes and assaulted them. If this is not an extreme aggravating circumstance then we wonder what would be. So that sentence is not out of the ordinary.

He imposed sentences of half this length for each crime of unlawful entry and robbery. Robbery is still a crime of violence against a person, but is also largely a crime against property. We think Mr Kachambwa struck a good balance, making it clear that breaking armed into anyone’s home to steal is a very serious offence, but also making it clear that crimes against people are always more severe than crimes against property.

Our courts have been widening the gap between the two types of crime for more than 20 years now. Those who commit crimes against property can earn large discounts on jail terms by repaying what they stole or repairing damage, something always possible when just property is involved. Courts are also, at least for first offenders, often willing to suspend all or most of the remainder of a jail term for a property crime on condition of community service.

Jail is now seen primarily as the home of those who commit violence against others, where no restitution is ever possible and where community service options would be seen as intolerable. Seriously violent criminals are basically kept behind bars until they are old men or until they die.

Rape is one of the most extreme crimes of violence, and since independence Zimbabwean courts have been raising sentences to reflect this, with the sentencing powers of regional magistrates, who deal with most serious criminal offences, being extended, primarily over public outrage over what were considered over-lax sentences in the past.

Rapists assault women not for sexual satisfaction, but with the intent of seriously hurting and humiliating the women or girls. Anyone wanting sexual gratification with strange women can find this in Harare rather easily; almost every newspaper runs stories on the problems of prostitution quite regularly.

Once the courts recognised this, they have consistently imposed sentences for rape that correspond to other crimes of extreme violence against the person, such as aggravated assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and attempted murder.

Almost everyone agrees with such a correlation, although many of us, seeing rape as a more common crime than other crimes of extreme violence, feel higher sentences are needed as a deterrent.

The courts are also flexible. Young men fooling around with 15-year-old girlfriends, for example, are given far lower sentences, although are still jailed. Here no force or violence was used, but the sentences are required to protect teenage girls too young to give their informed consent. While the charge is still rape, it is a totally different kind of offence and the sentences reflect that.

Mr Kachambwa’s sentence will come up for judicial review, just as every long sentence imposed by a magistrate comes up for review. If the reviewing judges think that new ground has been broken by Mr Kachambwa then perhaps the best way forward would be a full appeal hearing. In these questions of law a senior lawyer is usually prevailed upon to appear pro deo for the defence so that the appeal bench can hear all arguments.

But most Zimbabweans will feel Mr Kachambwa has got the sentence about right; 20 years for highly aggravated rape and 10 years for breaking into someone’s home and robbing them at knife point do not induce shock.