The
trial court was of the view that no other form of punishment other than a term
of imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances. The court reasoned that
what the accused did would bring the name of the Government into disrepute. His
actions would further discredit any good intentions the Indigenisation and
Empowerment Act may ...
The
trial court was of the view that no other form of punishment other than a term
of imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances. The court reasoned that
what the accused did would bring the name of the Government into disrepute. His
actions would further discredit any good intentions the Indigenisation and
Empowerment Act may have. Moreso, as the appellant was alleging that senior Government
officials were involved in such malpractices. The court arrived at the
conclusion that severe and deterrent sentences should be meted against the
miscreant so that others with like minds could be deterred.
The
court then sentenced the accused to undergo eight (8) months imprisonment.
In
terms of section 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
[Chapter 9:23] a person who is convicted of impersonation is liable to a fine
not exceeding level six or imprisonment or a period not exceeding one year or
both.
The
eight (8) months imprisonment imposed by the trial court is within the limit
provided by law. The appellant was persistent in his behavior leading the trial
court to the conclusion that the only suitable form of punishment was a term of
imprisonment. The trial magistrate appears to have exercised his discretion
properly, in my view, when arriving at the sentence which was finally imposed.
