Hango sentencing drags on
Convicted in February for raping his cousin in October 2014, Hango was initially found not guilty in 2019, but the State appealed the verdict and the acquittal was set aside.
16 December 2021 | Justice
The sentencing of rape convict Sindano Hango has been postponed to 31 January 2022.
On Tuesday, Magistrate Leopoldt Hangalo postponed the ruling, saying there are still issues to be ironed out. This after Hango’s defence lawyer Kadhila Amoomo asked the magistrate to delay sentencing to allow witnesses to make time to come to court.
Hango’s bail was cancelled last week and he has returned to custody awaiting sentencing.
He was convicted in the Oshakati High Court in February for raping his cousin in October 2014.
Initially, Hangalo had found Hango not guilty in the Oshakati Regional Court in 2019, but the State appealed the verdict, and the Oshakati High Court set aside the acquittal. The matter was referred back to Hangalo for sentencing, who was at pains to hand down a sentence and agreed with Amoomo’s proposal to postpone sentencing.
Four state witnesses who were set to testify - including human rights activist Rosa Namises and social worker Veronica Theron, who is attached to the Office of the First Lady - have been asked to return in January.
Blame the media
Deputy prosecutor general Ruben Shileka, assisted by prosecutor Nelao Ya France, was irked by Amoomo’s request to postpone sentencing, saying the defence had enough time to notify the State for postponement, but had not made such requests.
Ya France also pointed out that the State was forking out money to pay for witnesses, some of whom travelled from as far as Windhoek to testify.
Meanwhile, Amoomo took shots at the media for interfering with the judiciary process and having an influence on trial cases.
He said the media has been aggressive in reports about his client, adding commentary to reports, which influence perception instead of stating facts.
“My client is a subject of social media [ridicule] elevated beyond the judgement of the trial because of media reports. As a matter of fact, this case is sub judice. Some media breached the sub judice. No one has a monopoly over the law,” he fumed.
- [email protected]