LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-The Lilongwe Magistrate’s Court recently made two separate rulings that demonstrated how courts base their decisions on evidence and the law, rather than emotions.
Just days apart, the court decided not to send a young husband to prison immediately after he was found guilty of assaulting his wife.
In another case, the same court convicted a grandfather for sexually abusing his 10-year-old granddaughter.
The judgements were handed down by Senior Resident Magistrate Bracious B.C. Kondowe in separate criminal proceedings involving Lonjezo Nyambalo and Daniel Liberito.
Nyambalo had been convicted of Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm after assaulting his wife at Tsoka Market in Lilongwe.
The court did not downplay the seriousness of the offence. In its judgment, the court stressed that the complainant was the accused’s wife and that the assault occurred within a domestic relationship “where trust and protection ought to prevail.”
The magistrate further described domestic violence as a “persistent social ill” which courts must consistently denounce.
Many would have expected a custodial sentence to follow. Instead, the court chose a different path.
In reaching its decision, the court took into account that Nyambalo was a relatively young 33-year-old husband, a first offender with no previous criminal record, and that the injuries suffered by the complainant were relatively minor.
The court was persuaded that despite the seriousness of the offence, the accused remained capable of reform.
The magistrate observed that “sentencing is not a mechanical exercise of punishment alone” and that courts must also consider “rehabilitation and the individual circumstances of the offender.”
The court made it clear that punishment is only one of the objectives of sentencing and that rehabilitation remains equally important especially where there is a realistic prospect that an offender can reform.
As the court explained, “We are not rewarding wrongdoing; we are giving a young man a chance to learn, reform and avoid becoming a repeat offender.”
Rather than sending him immediately to prison, the court opted to give him an opportunity to learn from his mistakes, correct his behaviour and become a responsible husband and member of society.
The court ultimately sentenced Nyambalo to 15 months imprisonment but suspended the sentence for two years on strict conditions including regular counselling sessions aimed at behavioural change, anger management and domestic conflict resolution.
The underlying message was unmistakable. The court was not excusing his conduct.
Rather, it was extending what it described as “a conditional act of judicial mercy” while ensuring that accountability remained firmly in place.
Any breach of the conditions would result in the sentence being activated in full.
In essence, Nyambalo escaped prison by the narrowest of margins, receiving what many would regard as a second chance.
Three days later, however, the same court adopted an entirely different approach in the case of Daniel Liberito.
Liberito stood accused of having sexual intercourse with his 10-year-old granddaughter.
The child told the court that the accused entered her room during the night and sexually abused her.
Her evidence was supported by medical findings which confirmed penetration.
The child’s grandmother also testified regarding the condition in which she found the victim after the incident.
What particularly attracted the court’s attention was Liberito’s conduct after the allegations surfaced.
Evidence showed that shortly after the complaint was made, Liberito fled to Mozambique.
He remained there until he was allegedly persuaded to return to Malawi by his wife. Upon his return, he was apprehended and handed over to police.
Significantly, Liberito himself admitted during trial that he had escaped to Mozambique.
The magistrate found this conduct difficult to reconcile with innocence.
“One wonders why the accused run away instead of staying put to clear his name,” the court observed.
The judgment went further, stating that the accused’s escape was “more consistent with guilt than it is with innocence.”
Although there was no eyewitness who caught the accused in the act, the court carefully examined the circumstantial evidence.
The child knew the accused well because he was her grandfather. The two had been in the same house. Medical evidence corroborated the child’s account.
The accused admitted being present with the children during the relevant period before fleeing the country shortly after the allegations emerged.
Taken together, the court found that the evidence formed a complete chain pointing to only one conclusion.
“There are no other possibilities other than the accused herein,” the magistrate ruled before finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The contrast between the two cases is striking. One convicted man left court with an opportunity to reform. Another was convicted because the evidence against him left no reasonable room for doubt.
Yet the two judgments ultimately tell the same story. Courts do not exist merely to satisfy public anger, nor do they extend mercy where the law and evidence do not permit it. Their duty is to apply legal principles fairly to the facts before them.
In Nyambalo’s case, justice required mercy tempered by strict conditions. In Liberito’s case, justice required conviction.
The outcomes were different, but the principle was the same: justice according to law, not emotion.
