Malawi Capital Resentencing Project, 150 Prisoners Have Been Heard on Resentencing, and 140 Have Received New Judgments

Introduction to Compendium..........................................................................................................................1 Sentencing Guidelines - Case Digest..............................................................................................................5 The Republic v. Wintala Chioko................................................................................................................17 The Republic v. Margret Nadzi Makolija.....................................................................................................46 The State v. Laston Mukiwa.........................................................................................................................54 The Republic v. Limbikani Wilson Mtambo ...................................................................................................58 The Republic v. William Mkandawire .........................................................................................................63 The Republic v. Funsani Payenda.................................................................................................................75 The Republic v. Lackson Dzimbiri.............................................................................................................108 The Republic v. Chiliko Senti.....................................................................................................................122 The Republic v. Francisco James ...............................................................................................................134 The Republic v. Gilbert Masiye.............................................................................................................141 The Republic v. Mabvuto Elias ..................................................................................................................147 The Republic v. Clitus Chimwala...............................................................................................................153 The Republic v. James Galeta.....................................................................................................................156 The Republic v. Richard Chipoka............................................................................................................162 The Republic v. Bisket Kumitumbu ...........................................................................................................172 The Republic v. Kachepa Tsogolani.....................................................................................................176 The Republic v. Kingsley Karonga..........................................................................................................185 The Republic v. Edson Khwalala ...............................................................................................................193 The Republic v. Richard Maulidi and Julius Khanawa ..............................................................................202 The Republic v. Geoffrey Mponda ..........................................................................................................208 The Republic v. Richard Jiba James, Charles Dick, Charles Nyalapa and Gray Zimba ..............218 The Republic v. Venita Maiche ..................................................................................................................233 The Republic v. Gift Ngwira.........................................................................................................................269 The Republic v. Michael Khonje................................................................................................................275 The Republic v. Stoneki Kachala ...............................................................................................................282 The Republic v. Charles Khoviwa..............................................................................................................288 The State v. Stenala Nashele, Edwin Uladi and Mkoma Kaputeni..................................................296 The Republic v. Jack Makasu and Daniel Teputepu ..............................................................................300 The Republic v. Patson Mtepa .................................................................................................................304 The Republic v. Godfrey Thawe..............................................................................................................310 The Republic v. Peter Kusaina and Amosi Augustine Shama ........................................................................314 The Republic v. Abraham Phonya ...........................................................................................................320 Introduction to Compendium In Kafantayeni v. Attorney General of Malawi, Constitutional Case No. 12 of 2005 (hereinafter, Kafantayeni), the High Court struck down the mandatory death penalty on the grounds that it violated the accused’s constitutional rights to a fair trial, access to justice, and protection from inhuman treatment or punishment. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed with the rationale of Kafantayeni in Jacob v The Republic, MSCA Crim. App. No. 18 of 2006, noting “that offenses of murder differ, and will always differ, so greatly from each other that we think it is wrong and unjust that they should attract the same penalty or punishment”. In Mclemonce Yasini v The Republic, MSCA Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2005, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that all persons sentenced to the mandatory death penalty were entitled to sentence rehearings before the High Courts, where they could present mitigating evidence relating to the personal circumstances of the offender as well as the circumstances of the offence. Further, in Chimenya v The Republic, MSCA Crim App No. 8 of 2006, the Court stated that before imposing sentence, the courts should take into account “the manner in which the murder was committed, the means used to commit the offence, the personal circumstances of the victim, the personal circumstances of the accused and what might have motivated the commission of the crime”. At the time of the Kafantayeni judgment, approximately 190 prisoners were incarcerated in Zomba Central Prison after being sentenced to death pursuant to the now-unconstitutional mandatory regime. The affected prisoners included 23 prisoners on death row as well as approximately 164 men and 4 women whose mandatory death sentences had been commuted to life in prison by the President. These numbers dwindled in subsequent years, as certain prisoners died, were released, or had their sentences reduced on appeal. In 2013, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) initiated a resentencing project to ensure that the affected prisoners were given an opportunity to present mitigating evidence at a new sentencing hearing. With the support of Tilitonse Fund, the MHRC brought together a coalition of stakeholders to carry out the project. They included the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Judiciary; the Legal Aid Department; the Law Society; the Paralegal Advisory Services Institute; the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance; Chancellor College School of Law Malawi; Professor Babcock of Cornell University School of Law; and the international legal charity Reprieve. The stakeholders involved in the project came together to honour and implement the court’s directive in Kafantayeni, thereby demonstrating Malawi’s commitment to the rule of law, the values entrenched in the Malawian Constitution and the country’s international human rights obligations. The stakeholders’ common aims were to ensure access to justice for prisoners that had received an unconstitutional sentence; to develop, in the course of the resentencing process, best practices in sentencing for capital cases following the abolition of the mandatory death penalty; to build capacity for the handling of capital cases by training key stakeholders in the criminal justice system; and to facilitate community sensitization and offender reintegration through community outreach and education. Sentence rehearings began in February 2015. As of now, March 27, 2017, the High Courts have conducted 140 hearings. One hundred fourteen prisoners have been released from prison after serving their sentences; another twenty-six remain incarcerated but will be released in the future. Ten prisoners are awaiting judgment, and twenty-five have not yet received a resentencing hearing. In connection with the resentencing project, the High Courts have issued at least sixty written judgments addressing the nature of mitigating evidence, the issue of missing case files, burden of proof, and other matters. These judgments provide the most comprehensive jurisprudence on the factors relevant to capital sentencing in Malawi, not only in the resentencing project but in capital prosecutions more broadly. This publication brings together thirty-three judgments that explain the mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in each case to justify the sentence imposed. Some of these judgments discuss offenders’ rights under the Malawi Constitution and international law; others address the rights of victims; and several debate the relevance of post-conviction conduct in the capital sentencing process. Among the themes addressed in the judgments are the following: A death sentence is only appropriate if the prosecution has rebutted the presumption in favour of life by proving

Load more