"Imet Chaku's [the victim's] guardian after the incident and told him she had left for home. I did not tell him we had sex, he did not ask me. If he had asked me I would have explained to him what had happened. She should not have reported this matter to the Police. It shou.ld have been a I I secret between us." According to the evidence of PWl, Jerrehba Banda, a police officer investigating the case, the accused/Appellant was arrested on the 3rct of J anuarx, 2009. 1 The Record shows at 1 page 32 that the evidence of the accused under cross-; e>;<amina,tion, including the excerpt !I , , 1 II! lih ,, quoted above, was given on the 30th of September 2009, almost 9 months after his arrest. ,. I t 1 ,J,u ,. Imust state that contrary to the Appellant's Counsel's statement regarding "remorse and repentance" on the part of the Appellant!,· I do 1not detect 1 scintilla of repentance even 9 months after the commission of thoffence. remorse or Instead the Appellant has throughout the proceedings in the trial court and the lower maintained his innocence, I'I 11 '! I a position he has obviously abandoned in this appeal which is solely against sentence. I ·, h • I Thus, whatever signs of remorse and repentance by the Appellant have been discerned cannot be throug H the lenses of..either the trial judge or judges in the lower court. I, 1 t' I,,. I fi n·a, 11 ll11 . ''Ill' . therefore, .not element'ot: remorseor.repentance on the part of the Appellant. I1 ' II" !h !IIIIth 'IIIII Counsel for the ApRellant has under paragraph 3 of her Brief of Arguments before this 1tl lih 'fll h. ... ) Court listed what she regards as important "facts" which the lower court failed to take into ' I. '• , ··\consideration. 11'(dl my mirld these are extraneous and peripheral matters which the lower 4 t1 I COfhcould not . are considered. II.,I They concern the ignorance of the Appellant of the rature ,or. the. ofnce of rape; the failure by Counsel for the Appellant at the trial court to •1111 Ill IIIII' appreciate the law relating to rape, and the consequent reliance by the Appellant on the 11'• erronous advice of Counsel that co sent was a defence in this case, which, as Counsel I for the Appellant puts it (under para 3.2), made him appear "as cold, unsympathetic and apologetic [sic, I believe she meant 'unapologetic'] for his actions." SC NO. 212012 - NFAMARA SAIDYKHAf\i4JS THE STATE- 7TH MAY 2015 - Page 1 13