The Supreme Court of Kenya has addressed a case where a man received a life sentence for sexually assaulting a minor, assessing if this punishment should instead be changed to a flat term of thirty (30) years.
The Court pointed out that according to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2003, someone found guilty of committing defilement against a child eleven years old or younger must face a sentence of life imprisonment upon conviction.
It was emphasized that a court decision changing life imprisonment to a fixed-term sentence would contravene the Kenyan Constitution.
"According to the sentencing guidelines under the Sexual Offences Act, there is a mandatory minimum sentence that typically depends on thevictim's age; generally, the younger the victim, the harsher the punishment," stated the judgment partly.
“Consequently, after the trial court confirmed that all elements of defilement were established beyond a reasonable doubt, as I previously stated in my ruling, there was no scope for the court to exercise discretion. The sole minimal compulsory sentence prescribed under the Sexual Offenses Act was life imprisonment.”
Supreme Court Rejects Replacing Life Imprisonment with 30-Year Sentence
The decision comes after Evans Nyamari Ayako appeared before the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Ogembo on July 18, 2011. He was charged with defilement according to Section 8(1) and Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, Cap 63A under Kenyan law.
He was additionally faced with a different charge of performing an indecent act involving a child, as per Section 11(1) of the aforementioned legislation.
Also Read: Supreme Court Decides on Ruth Kamande’s Case for Stabbing Her Partner 25 Times
Following the testimony from the prosecution's witnesses and after reviewing all submitted evidence, the trial court ruled against the Respondent, finding him guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and received a sentence of life imprisonment as stipulated under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offenses Act.
The High Court ruled that the lower court properly interpreted and applied the legislation to the circumstances of the case and consequently handed down the least severe punishment allowable as per Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act, namely life imprisonment.
The court rejected the appeal and confirmed both the conviction and the punishment assigned to the respondent.
Appellate Court Changes Lifetime Sentence to 30 Years
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the life sentence and replaced it with a 30-year prison term, which began on July 18, 2011, when he initially appeared before the court.
By determining that an indefinite life sentence contravenes Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal examined recent international legal trends concerning changing norms of human dignity and rights. This includes the worldwide movement toward eliminating or reformulating life imprisonment.
The court reviewed procedures in nations including Namibia, Germany, South Africa, Mauritius, Spain, and Zimbabwe, along with rulings made by tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights. These sources indicated that indefinite life terms were considered incompatible with human rights standards and constituted an act of cruelty and degradation.
Also Read: Court Rules Ruto’s Creation of Maraga-Led Taskforce as Unlawful
It similarly cited academic perspectives that characterize life imprisonment without the chance of release as a "living death sentence," "death by incarceration," "virtual death sentence," "lengthy death penalty," or "death sentence with no execution date." Additionally, it pointed out that numerous legal systems have shifted toward establishing specific terms for life sentences.
Citing the reasoning employed in those legal systems, the Court of Appeal determined that life imprisonment qualifies as cruel and degrading treatment because of its indeterminate duration.
Consequently, this decision permitted the challenge to the original sentence and replaced the life term with a fixed 30-year prison term.
As a result, the respondent was instructed to serve a 30-year prison term starting from July 18, 2011, which is when he entered his plea.
Justification by Supreme Court
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court noted that although the appellate court referred to municipal laws from different jurisdictions, it did not cite any precedent where a court had transformed a life sentence into a fixed-term sentence.
The court further noted that it did not clarify how this conclusion would be consistent with Kenya's legal principles.
"The court also breached Article 51 of the Constitution, which states that only Parliament has the authority to categorize an offense and stipulate the corresponding penalty," the decision continued.
Specifically, Article 51(3) of the Constitution grants the Legislative body the responsibility to define how prisoners should be treated, encompassing decisions about parole eligibility periods, release conditions, and post-release oversight.
The Appeals Court breached the doctrine of stare decisis by imposing a term sentence instead of life imprisonment, even though the legislature had not enacted such a change.
The court restored the decision made by the High Court. To avoid any ambiguity, the respondent will be required to serve a life sentence as initially decreed by the Magistrates' Court.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
