SITEKI – A security guard who was initially sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for raping a child walked out of the Siteki Magistrates Court after his sentence was suspended.
The court cited, among other reasons, that he must take responsibility for and care for the unborn child conceived during the unlawful sexual encounters.
The ruling, delivered by Principal Magistrate Musa Nxumalo, stunned many who attended the proceedings, not only because of the seriousness of the offence, but also because of the highlighted reason for suspending the custodial sentence. The matter involved a 14-year‑old child from one of the high schools in the Lubombo Region, who is now pregnant. The accused, Sifiso* of Mzilikazi, was employed as a security guard at the same school where the child was attending.
He appeared before the magistrate and pleaded guilty to the offence. According to the charge sheet, the incidents occurred over a period of several months, between August 2025 and February 2026, at Mzilikazi, in the Lubombo Region. The relationship is said to have started earlier, after the accused initiated contact with the then‑13‑year‑old child.
A statement of agreed facts presented in court indicated that the accused proposed a romantic relationship to the child in July 2025. At the time, she was only 13 years old. The two exchanged cellphone numbers and began communicating frequently. The child later agreed to be in a relationship with him.It was during August 2025 that the accused invited the child to his homestead. It was there that they engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse for the first time. According to the Crown’s submissions, the encounters did not end there. After schools reopened for the third term of that year, the accused continued seeing the child, and two additional encounters occurred on February 10 and again on February 14, 2026.
The matter was only discovered on February 15, 2026, when the minor’s mother noticed suspicious behaviour. According to the court record, the mother discovered that her daughter had been sneaking out of the house and decided to take her to Lubombo Referral Hospital for medical examination. Tests conducted at the hospital confirmed that the girl was pregnant.
The discovery prompted the family to report the matter to the police. A formal complaint was lodged at the Siteki Police Station, and the accused was subsequently arrested on February 17, 2026. Prosecutors handling the matter then submitted the child’s birth certificate and medical report as exhibits before the court. The Crown accepted the accused’s guilty plea.
During the sentencing phase, the court outlined that the offence carried aggravating factors. These included the child’s age, the accused’s position as an adult working within the same environment as the child and the fact that he failed to use protection, thereby exposing the child to potential sexually transmitted infections, including HIV and AIDS.
The court further noted that the accused’s name would be entered into the National Register for Sex Offenders, a statutory requirement in such cases.
In mitigation, the accused’s lawyer urged the court to show leniency. He argued that the accused was the sole provider for his one‑year‑old child, who was fully dependent on him for survival. The lawyer submitted that a lengthy sentence would severely affect the livelihood of his dependent child. He further stated that the accused was employed as a security guard and earned a modest income, suggesting that the court should take his financial and parental responsibilities into account.
The prosecution, however, countered these submissions by urging the court to prioritise the seriousness of the offence. The prosecutor submitted that the age difference between the accused and the child should weigh heavily in sentencing. It was highlighted that the child was only 13 years old when the relationship began. The prosecutor further stressed the breach of trust inherent in the case, given that the accused was working at the school the child attended. In the Crown’s view, the protection of children from exploitation by adults, particularly those in positions of proximity and perceived authority, warranted a stiff custodial sentence.
After reviewing all evidence, submissions and legal requirements, Principal Magistrate Nxumalo delivered judgment. He sentenced the accused to 12 years imprisonment without the option of a fine. However, in a surprising turn, the magistrate proceeded to suspend the entire sentence for three years, on condition that the accused is not convicted of a similar offence during that period. The magistrate then stated explicitly in his ruling that another reason for suspending the sentence was that the accused needs to take responsibility for and care for the unborn child.
The pronouncement drew attention because it appeared to place significant emphasis on the need for the accused to support the unborn child, despite the gravity of the offence for which he had been convicted. Within the courtroom, some observers reacted with shock as the magistrate confirmed that the suspended sentence was partly aimed at ensuring that the accused remained available to provide care and support for the expected baby.
Legal analysts who spoke outside the courtroom expressed varied views; with some saying the ruling demonstrated the complexity of balancing punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and the welfare of a child who is yet to be born. Others noted that cases involving minors and adult offenders often require courts to weigh several competing interests, including the future wellbeing of any child involved.
The 33-year-old security guard.