Jealous Ugandan woman to serve 20 years in jail for acid attack

A Ugandan woman serving 20 years for assaulting a girlfriend of her lover with sulphuric acid has lost an appeal.

Irene Wastema, a mother of five, lost her appeal against her sentence before Justice Anne Ong’injo in Mombasa on Friday.

Justice Ong’injo warned her that she was lucky to have been jailed for 20 years instead of life imprisonment.

“This is very strong evidence of the life-threatening injuries suffered by the complainant. It is very clear that the appeal by the appellant is misplaced in consideration of the criminal conduct and intention of the appellant,” said Justice Ong’injo.

Chemical injuries

The judgement, which was read by Justice Dorcas Chepkwony, says the complainant suffered chemical injuries.

“The complainant’s left eye was completely damaged and the right eye had not healed by the time she was testifying. The complainant’s sight is totally impaired and the sentence meted out in my view was very lenient considering the grievous harm suffered,” said Justice Ong’injo.

The judge said although the mandatory sentence for grievous harm was life imprisonment, she had decided not to enhance it because the period of time she was serving was sufficient to pay for her crime.

“The maximum sentence for grievous harm is life imprisonment. I will however not enhance it since 20 years is also a considerable period of time sufficient for one to pay for the criminal wrong of the kind committed by the appellant,” said Justice Ong’injo.

The case was first presided over by a senior resident magistrate in Shanzu court, who upon completing hearing and conviction referred the case to Senior Principal Magistrate Diana Mochache on grounds she wanted the appellant to serve more than seven years, which was beyond her jurisdiction.

Ms Mochache sentenced the appellant to serve 20 years imprisonment.

The appellant had preferred her appeal against the conviction and sentence on seven grounds.

Magistrate disregarded

Among the grounds were that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant based on false and fabricated evidence by prosecution witnesses.

The appellant claimed that the trial magistrate disregarded her defence and evidence, thereby arriving at an erroneous finding and judgement.