At the age of 22, self-confessed sheep thief Ismael Geiseb (22) already has two previous convictions for stock theft, dating from 1998 and 1999, on his record.

That fact counted heavily against Geiseb in the Otjiwarongo Regional Court on Tuesday last week, when Magistrate Christie Liebenberg sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment on the charge of stock theft on which Geiseb had pleaded guilty in the Otavi Magistrate's Court in early August last year.

Geiseb admitted that he had stolen a sheep, valued at N$450, at a farm in the Kombat area on July 14 last year.

He told the court that he slaughtered the stolen animal, ate part of it and sold what was left of the carcass.

Geiseb's sentence may be substantial, but is far less than the minimum term of thirty years' imprisonment, without the option of a fine, that the Stock Theft Amendment Act prescribes for livestock thieves with a previous conviction for the same offence.

A fellow self-confessed stock thief, Joseph Kakishi (22), likewise was spared the severe minimum sentences that the law has been prescribing for stock thieves since it came into operation in December 2004.

Kakishi pleaded guilty to a charge that he had stolen four goats, valued at N$1 200, from a farmer in the Grootfontein area, where he was employed as a farmworker, between July 27 and 29 last year.

Magistrate Liebenberg sentenced him to an eight-year prison term, of which three years were suspended for five years on condition that he is not again convicted of the same offence in that time.

Since its controversial amendment in 2004, Namibia's Stock Theft prescribes a minimum sentence of twenty years' imprisonment, without the option of a fine, for a first offender found guilty of stealing any livestock - except for poultry - with a value of more than N$500.

Repeat offenders face a mandatory minimum jail term of 30 years under the changed law.

The Act also states, however, that a court may decide not to impose the prescribed sentences when it is the court's opinion that there are "substantial and compelling circumstances" that may justify a lesser sentence.

The actual severity of the prescribed sentence can in itself qualify as one of those "substantial and compelling circumstances", the High Court ruled last year.

The Magistrate decided that such circumstances warranting a deviation from the prescribed sentences were present in both Geiseb's and Kakishi's case.

Public Prosecutor Muriel van Zyl represented the State with both men's sentencing.

Legal Aid counsel Martha Nujoma represented Geiseb and Kakishi.

Local News Headlines Of The Last 48 Hours

•  High Court upholds labour-hire ban
•  Oshakati nervously eyes the sky
•  Shamil Dirk's graft case postponed again
•  ACC nabs Otavi Village Council CEO
•  Justice driver accused of looting
•  Job equity has improved
•  Ombudsman complains about Justice Ministry
•  New plan for Cuvelai Basin
•  APP postpones congress
•  Zim to ignore tribunal ruling
•  Immigration locks up SA journalist
•  Youth gets four years for rape
•  Swapo closes ranks
•  Hishongwa hits out at 'newcomers'
•  Doctors to court over dispensing rights
•  Project money missing
•  N$20 000 fine for computer corruption
•  Police kill suspect after 'struggle'
•  Union wants NHE bosses' heads
•  2008 a year of political violence: DTA
•  Gender violence takes centre stage
•  Employers of disabled people awarded
•  Closure of copper mines adds gloom to Nam mining outlook
•  78 Zim farmers win land case
•  Floodgates open over Windhoek
•  Everyone except Swapo to blame for the violence, claims President