analysis be less the period of time he has already spent in prison. As shown above, the penalty provision prescribes imprisonment for a period of not less than ten (10) years without the option of a fine. This means that the ten (10) years is only the minimum sentence to be imposed and the Court is at liberty to impose a much higher sentence when everything is considered. Thus, even if the accused had started serving his sentence immediately after his conviction he would still be far from the half way mark of the prescribed minimum so that it is my view that when all is said and done, the prejudice he may have suffered is far outweighed by all these other factors. Indeed in the case of Malunga (supra) which Mr. Lephuthing sought to rely on in this application the accused was discharged on the basis of Section 141(2) of the CP & E. However, there is a distinction to be drawn between the two in that in that case, not only had the accused spent two (2) years without his sentence being prosecuted, but the record was not traceable and the Crown itself instituted the application for his discharge. Therein the learned Lehohla CJ stated as follows in relevant parts at p5 of the record:“The DPP’s reaction to the above state of affairs concerning the importance of security of records was that, a committal is by its nature a continuation of a trial and that it goes without saying that, the fact of the Accused having spent two years in custody without being sentenced was no doubt against his constitutional right to a fair trial. He submitted further that on account of