The name Francis Muruatetu always pops up whenever a convict is being sentenced to either life imprisonment or death, in Kenya’s corridors of justice.
In her ruling that sealed Joseph Jowie Irungu’s fate in the case of Monica Kimiani’s murder, Justice Grace Nzioka of the High Court referred to the case at intervals as she provided context to the aspects informing her decision to sentence the accused to death.
But who exactly is Muruatetu and why does every other popular judgment make reference to his case?
Francis Karioko Murutatetu and Wilson Thirimbu Mwangi are the two little men behind the common phrase in court cases.
Origin of the Muruatetu principle
The duo had been arraigned before the High Court for the offense of murder contrary to the provisions of the Kenyan law and the penal Code to be particular.
At the High Court, the two were convicted and sentenced to death in accordance with section 204 of the Penal Code in 2003.
Unsatisfied with the ruling by the High Court, they appealed both the conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the mandatory death sentence imposed on them was unconstitutional.
In their prayers to the Court of Appeal, Muruatetu and his co-accused asked the judges to declare their sentence null and void.
Their case, at the time, attracted a significant nationwide and international attention in what would lay precedence for a popular principle within the legal profession.
In their submissions, Muruatetu and Mwangi argued that the mandatory nature of the death sentences allowed the judicial system to hand predetermined sentences.
Also Read: Jowie’s Final Prayers to Justice Grace Nzioka Raise Questions
How the two convicts argued their case
The two also argued that the nature of death sentence as applied in Kenyan courts was a dictation by the legislature and was, as such, a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
At the center of their case was another case named the Case of Francis Kafantayeni & 5 Others v the Attorney General that had court rule that sentencing should be determined based on the principle of fair trial and required judicial determination in the course of a trial which cannot be achieved by a legislative fiat.
At the time, litigants drew inspiration from other rulings made in jurisdictions including Uganda and Malawi where constitutional courts had found death sentences to be unconstitutional.
After a protracted court battle, the case culminated to the Supreme Court where a six-judge bench in 2017 delivered a landmark ruling declaring that the absolute death sentence was a violation of the right to fair trial.
What would follow was a series of appeals, with convicts including those whose cases had reached the Supreme Court level filing appeals for their cases to be reheard at the magistrate level.
Also Read: Jowie Irungu Handed Death Sentence
Supreme Court clarifies Muruatetu ruling
To them, the ruling that death sentence was unconstitutional presented an opportunity to pursue favorable rulings in their otherwise closed cases.
Their jubilation with the ruling was, however, cut short in 2021 when the Supreme Court revisited its decision, clarifying that the ruling could only apply to murder convicts.
In the 2021 ruling, the judges asserted that it was the mandatory nature of the death sentence as provided for under Section 204 of the Penal Code that was unconstitutional and not the death sentence itself.
In other words, the ruling was aimed at changing the then status quo where the death sentence was the obvious punishment for murder. From then on, death sentence would only be handed at the discretion of the judge in question.
To date, the case, rulings, and jurisprudence surrounding the Muruatetu case have been used as reference in notable cases- with lawyers both from the defense and prosecution quick to invoke its principle in courts of law.
