Iuze Mukube

The unlawful and intentional conduct of a 28-year-old resident of Rehoboth, of exposing pornographic content on his cellphone in 2018 to his eight-year-old, has earned him a fine in the amount of N$10 000 on Tuesday.

This was an order during the accused’s, who shall not be named to protect the identity of the victim, sentencing proceeding before Windhoek High Court Judge Naomi Shivute.

The accused was convicted for contravening section 226(1) read with sections 1 and 226(3) of the Child Care and Protection Act 3 of 2015 -exposing a child or showing a child pornography in October.

Judge Naomi stated that the accused committed a serious offence, as showing a child pornographic material has a detrimental effect on the child’s well-being. She added that he committed the offence against his niece, whom he was supposed to protect, but instead opted to corrupt her mind. “This is an aggravating factor.  However, the fact that he is a first offender who was youthful at 21 years, these are factors in his favour,” she pointed out. 

Having considered all material aspects of the case, she ordered an appropriate sentence of
N$10 000  fine or, in default, five years’ imprisonment.During mitigation for sentence, the accused’s lawyer, Damian Esau, had argued that he was 21 years old at the time of the incident, was a first-time offender and is unemployed.

The accused, who was out on bail, was also taking care of his grandmother, who underwent surgery and served a three-month pre-incarceration period before his release on bail. Esau argued that the action of the accused to expose a child to pornography was an indication of immaturity, and that his youthfulness and being a first offender were factors that weighed in his favour. Additionally, he stated that it has not been established to what extent a complainant is detrimentally affected by the exposure to pornography.

Hence, it was not up to the court to speculate on the extent of the effect. He urged the court to consider an alternative sentence as opposed to direct imprisonment and that the accused was remorseful. Palmer Khumalo, for the State, argued that any offence involving a child is serious.

The complainant was eight at the time and vulnerable and could easily be manipulated, he said.

He urged the court to impose a sentence that has a general deterrence effect, taking into account that the accused corrupted the complainant’s mind.

“Anyone who exposes a child to pornography which has a harmful effect, his moral blameworthy is considered to be very high.”

He added that exposing a child to pornography can also be used to groom the child for sexual activities. On the accused’s remorse, Khumalo stated that the accused regretted his actions because he was about to be sentenced and that he failed to express that remorse under oath.-mukubeiuze@gmail.com