Iuze Mukube
Two residents of Outjo who are currently serving lengthy prison sentences for unrelated offences want the court to allow sentencing in a murder and rape case before the court to run concurrently with their existing sentences.
The accused, Lourense Aib (32) and Hendrick Nowoseb (34), made an appearance before Judge Nate Ndauendapo in the Windhoek High Court last Friday for their pre-sentencing submissions.
In this matter, the two were convicted for murder, attempted murder, rape and robbery with aggravating circumstances last year.
The charges are in relation to a matter of 25 October 2014 in the district of Outjo, where the two accused and another, Ferdinand Hangula, who has since died, allegedly broke into a tuckshop, attacked and killed Gerhardus Petrus Koekemoer (71).
They allegedly assaulted a former fiancé of the deceased with a knife and strangled her until she lost consciousness with the intent to murder and sexually assaulted her too.
They also stole N$25 in cash, recharge vouchers worth N$465, cigarettes, sweets, keys and a pocket watch.
The three were arrested shortly, and Hangula is reported to have committed suicide after strangling his pregnant girlfriend to death in November 2020 while out on bail.
Aib and Nowoseb, while also out on bail in this matter, were subsequently sentenced on unrelated offences.
Aib was sentenced to 14 years for housebreaking and theft.
Nowoseb, on the other hand, is currently serving a prison sentence of 44 years since August 2017 for the murder of his former girlfriend, whom he stabbed to death in her hospital bed on 7 December 2014, after he had stabbed her the previous evening on 6 December 2014.
During their pre-sentencing proceedings last Friday, their legal representatives argued that the court should consider that the accused have subsequent convictions and should impose sentences that run at the same time as their period of imprisonment.
Jermaine Muchali, on behalf of Aib, argued that when the offence was committed, the accused was at the tender age of 20 years, the youngest of his co-accused.
He contended that Hangula, being the oldest at 37 years at the time, seemed to be the mastermind, and although Aib was not a minor, looking at the age difference and his youthfulness, he was easily influenced and persuaded by the much older Hangula.
He also pointed out his client’s difficult childhood, being raised by a single parent, without the love of his mother.
He argued that Aib, with the example of his brother also being in jail, points to the fact that, because of a difficult life, they resorted to unlawful activities to make a living.
He pleaded for the court to consider one sentence for all charges, as the offences happened at the same time, place, and with the same victims.
Muchali asked for 15 years imprisonment for all four charges.
Similarly, Natjirikasorua Tjirera pleaded for a lesser sentence for his client, Nowoseb.
He argued that the sentence cannot be lengthier than the accused’s natural life, as that would be unconstitutional, adding that the accused is already serving a 44-year sentence.
He stated that it must run concurrently with the serving sentence and that they still intend to appeal the other sentence.
The State, represented by Karin Esterhuizen, opposed the request, arguing that the two should be sentenced independently from their subsequent convictions.
She argued that their offences are serious and deserve an appropriate sentence on their merits.
She stated that the court should consider a 30-year sentence for murder, 10 years for robbery, 15 years for rape, and another 10 years for rape.
She further argued that the accused showed no remorse nor regard for life, and their violation of the sanctity of a home demonstrated intent to achieve their own agendas through violence.
The scene was a crime of terror; they broke into the tuckshop and assaulted unarmed and defenceless women and killed the deceased in cold blood.
She added that no mercy, humanity or escape was shown that evening in 2014. “The deceased lost his life in such a senseless manner,” she argued.
She added that their commission of other offences while on trial shows their propensity and conduct to commit further crimes.
She implored the court not to consider a sentence which will run concurrently with their sentences, as that would amount to injustice and unfairness.
“A concurrent sentence will seem as if they are not sentenced or punished in this matter,” she said.
The matter was postponed to 8 April 2026 for sentencing.