Whereas article 533(22) of the Penal Code provides that “pimping is anyone by any means aiding, abetting, or hiding someone’s prostitution, or acquiring any profit, sharing proceeds or receiving finances thereof, employing, training, abducting someone for prostitution purposes, or to force someone into prostitution or to continue prostituting”; that by this provision, pimping offence can be established when there is a preexisting offence, although not punishable, that is, someone indulging in prostitution, a material fact of pimping such as encouraging this practice, abetting, acting as middleman, sharing proceeds of someone else’s prostitution and profits thereof, and providing abode to the sex worker, then a moral element that is knowing that pimping is an indictable crime; Whereas firstly, conditions precedent to pimping suggest factual prostitution consists in one person of either gender to continuously indulge in sexual activity with others for financial reward; that as it is, exhibits from the case file and court arguments all point to the fact that Cynthia Richard just like many other girls indulged regularly in prostitution for financial reward; that it should be noted that conditions precedent to pimping although not punishable, that is, prostitution, has been established beyond any doubt; Whereas secondly, for the offence to be established there needs to be material evidence of pimping such as aiding, abetting or protecting one’s prostitution which should consist in real active, material and personal participation, drawing profit from one’s prostitution, providing products thereof, or encouraging helping someone into prostitution; that as it is, Uzebu Florence leased some houses she turned into “brothels” to girls who indulged in prostitution for financial gains; that according to her confessional statement, those girls paid CFA F 30,000 (thirty thousand) per month each; that her son S.O use to pass to collect the excess funds; that witness report has it that he