CASE NO.: CC 03/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA

In the matter between:

THE STATE

versus

PAUL STEENKAMP

CORAM: SIBOLEKA, J

Heard on: 2010 May 5, 17; 18; 20

Delivered on: 2010 June 04

________________________________________________________________________

SENTENCE:

SIBOLEKA, J

[1] I have convicted the accused on murder, read with the provisions of the Combating of Domestic Violence Act, Act no. 4 of 2003.

[2] It is trite that in arriving at an appropriate sentence the Court has to follow the guidelines formulated in St. v Zinn 1969(2) SA 357. This entails that factors such as the gravity of the offence, the interests of the public, and the accused’s personal circumstances must be taken consideration.

[3] I will now start with the accused’s personal circumstances.

[4.1] Accused is currently a 66 years old pensioner (who owns a house that is still being paid off). He was 61 at the time of the commission of this offence. He had eight children and twenty four grandchildren. Two of his children have passed away.

[4.2] He was married to Thekla Steenkamp – (the deceased) the mother of all his children for thirty nine years up to the time of her death on the 22^nd of April 2005.

[4.3] They resided at House No. 121 Oosterheim, in Aroab. They got married on the 25^th of December 1965 at Aroab Roman Catholic Church. They both attended this church until later in their marriage when the deceased decided to leave and join the Gospel Church, a move that resulted in her gruesome killing.

[5] The facts leading to this incident are as follows:

[5.1] After the couple’s civil marriage in the Roman Catholic Church, they remained and continued to be its active members, attending services regularly.

[5.2] For thirty nine years all was well and the couple lived in peace and harmony, so related the accused in mitigation of sentence. Peace in their household prevailed until later in the 40^th year of their marriage when the deceased left the Roman Catholic Church to join the Gospel Church. This church, the deceased had attended for quite a long time (i.e) for one year according to the accused. Nonetheless, on the 17^th of April 2005, the accused told the deceased to follow him to the Roman Catholic Church.

It became apparent during the accused’s evidence in mitigation of sentence that after a period of one year he still tried to persuade his wife (the deceased) to leave the church of her choice (Gospel Church) and came back to the Roman Catholic Church. The deceased on the other hand did not want to change her decision and the accused was unhappy about it. Although the accused alleges in his answers to questions put to him after his evidence in mitigation that on the day of the incident the deceased told him he was a sinner and was not born again. The main reason for deciding to kill the deceased was because she left the Roman Catholic Church.

[6] It is my considered view that the accused has no remorse regarding what he had done to the deceased and in particular the pain she had endured after being set alight till she later passed away. The following questions and answers after his evidence in mitigation of sentence clearly spell it out:

“Q: When did the deceased come back from church (Gospel Church)?

A: Around 11:00 in the morning and I saw her when she came back from church. After her return from church she went to the location.

Q: You knew she went to visit in the location and there was nothing wrong to you with that?

A: Yes.

Q: When you came from the Roman Catholic Church you saw deceased … at Gospel Church?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you worship?

A: God.

Q: What do they worship at the Gospel Church?

A: God.

Q: What was wrong in the deceased going to worship God in her church of choice?

A: She told me I was a sinner and “I was not born again.”

Q: It was proper for the deceased to tell you she has found another church.

A: Yes, deceased had attended the Gospel Church for one year, what hurt me was when she told me ‘I was a sinner, I must repent.’

Q: You planned to kill the deceased Sunday evening.

A: Yes, that was when I took petrol out of the petrol tank of my Datsun car.

Q: When you asked the deceased where she has been did you argue with her?

A: No argument, we just talked nicely. Later in my room I thought about it and decided to kill the deceased … The petrol was in a cup … I threw it on her as she stood straight. I had a box of matches with me, I took out a stick striked it to light and set her alight … I later drank petrol – (swallowed it from the cup)… I wanted my wife to die that way.”

[7] The State called Maureen Eiman to testify in aggravation of sentence. This witness has a child with one of the accused’s sons. On the day of the incident she shared a room with another girl called Dora inside the main house. According to her when the accused came from church in the morning of that day he started talking to her and Dora. The accused saw the deceased at the Gospel Church and told the witness to look at the way the deceased was singing and dancing (referring to the way the Gospel Church people normally worship God). The deceased was at that church with all other church goers. It was then that the accused allegedly told this witness that the deceased’s death was not very far.

[8] Later in the evening Maureen Eiman saw the accused entering the deceased’s room, and remove the small child who was with her there. Shortly thereafter, he set the deceased alight. This witness and her friend just stood there watching helplessly, because the accused started walking up and down talking Nama language which she could not understand and had a knife in his hand.

[9] It is my considered opinion that even churches do not force people to join them, nor do they regard leaving one church for another an issue. It is therefore normal for an individual to leave one church and join another. Such a move does not require the furnishing of reasons to the church itself or to any other person.

[10] The Constitution of this country provides:

“Article 21 Fundamental Freedoms

[1] All persons shall have the right to:

[a] …

[b] freedom of thought, conscience, and belief …;

[c] freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice,” my own underlining.

[11] Paul Steenkamp (the son of the accused), testified and confirmed what the accused told the court that after the incident they all sat and talked about the matter and forgave him. Dawid van Schalkwyk also testified (mitigation) in support of the accused that the deceased herself told her parents that she was forgiving the accused person for what he had done to her. This witness was however unable to explain why he did not bring his parents to come and say that to Court.

[12] It is however my considered view that the deceased was killed in the most barbaric, inhuman, gruesome and cruel manner. This is borne out by the fact that not only did the accused watch the deceased burning and screaming for assistance, after he had set her alight, but by walking up and down with a knife in his hand he was actually intimidating and preventing Maureen Eiman and her friend to give the urgent assistance that the deceased needed.

[13] Therefore, if the Court were to give weight to the children and family members of the deceased’s forgiveness to the accused, it would be grossly failing in its quest to restore common sense which was absent here, maintain law and order, the rule of law as opposed to the rule of the jungle and the survival of the fittest.

[14] It will not be in the interests of the public to allow this type of conduct to go by without a swift and clear cut response from this Court to stop it.

[15] An appropriate sentence is therefore required to send a strong message to would be offenders that they will meet the full wrath of the law if they gamble with other people’s lives.

[16] Our Constitution states:

“Article 6 Protection of life. The right to life shall be respected and protected.”

[17] In S v Kangodi CC 09/2002 quoted with approval by Gibson, J as she then was in S v Efraim Sachimo Haradoep, Shivute, JP, as he then was stated:

“This case is yet another example of a most disturbing and relatively recent trend of cases involving mainly men employing extraordinary violent methods to settle petty quarrels. In the majority of the cases the victims of this cowardly conduct are defenseless women and children,” my own underlining.

[18] The only mitigating factor in this matter is that the accused is now 66 years old. However, this factor is not of much assistance to him given the fact that he acted in a manner that would not normally be expected from a person of his age.

[19] Accordingly you are sentenced to:

Thirty five (35) years’ imprisonment.

_________________

SIBOLEKA, J

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: ADV. NYONI

INSTRUCTED BY: THE OFFICE OF THE

PROSECUTOR-GENERAL

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: MR. KARUAIHE

INSTRUCTED BY: LEGAL AID