MBABANE – The teacher who was sentenced to five years without an option to pay a fine for kissing a minor pupil is seeking the review and setting aside of his conviction and sentence.
The sentence that Samkeliso James Dvuba wants to be set aside was issued by Mbabane Principal Magistrate Fikile Nhlabatsi on May 26, 2025.
Dvuba also prays that the High Court vary the sentence he is already serving to include an option of a fine. The respondents in the matter are the principal magistrate, director of public prosecution and the attorney general.
Dvuba, of Lobamba, stated in his affidavit that the High Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction for the review, as the cause of action arose within its area.
Dvuba informed the court that in May 2024, he surrendered himself to the police and was arrested and charged for contravening Section 36(1)(a)(i) of the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act of 2018.
The charge sheet indicates that on March 20, 2024, at approximately 2:45pm, at his school, he sexually violated *Thandi, who was 12 years old, by holding her close to him and kissing her. Dvuba has been a teacher for over 13 years.
His trial commenced on July 12, 2024, before the principal magistrate and he pleaded not guilty. The Crown led a total of seven witnesses, all of whom Dvuba cross-examined briefly or not at all.
Following the closure of the Crown’s case, Dvuba stated that he did not lead any evidence in his defence, and the trial proceeded straight to submissions, mitigation and sentencing.
On May 26, 2025, Dvuba was pronounced guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment without an option of a fine. He is currently serving his sentence at Sidwashini Correctional Services.
In his founding affidavit, Dvuba outlined several grounds for review. He alleged procedural irregularities and the denial of his right to a fair trial.
He contended that although the interpreter informed him of his right to legal representation before the trial, he did not appreciate or understand the significance of this right.
He submitted that the principal magistrate allegedly failed in her legal duty to properly explain the advantages of being legally represented or the disadvantages of conducting his own defence given the seriousness of the offence.
Dvuba informed the court that this right was merely paid ‘lip service’ and that the failure to ensure he properly understood the right and the possible severe sentence (up to 25 years imprisonment) meant he was unable to make a well-informed choice, constituting a gross irregularity and a violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
*Full article available in our publication
Leave a comment