The High Court has declared that indefinite life sentences are unconstitutional, setting a significant precedent on sentencing under Kenya’s criminal justice system.
In a judgment delivered in Kiambu, the court found that mandatory life sentences, particularly under the Sexual Offenses Act, violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The case involved a convict who had been sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty of defilement.
High Court Rules on Life Sentences
Justice A. Mshila held that although the law provides for life imprisonment, such sentences must not be treated as meaning incarceration for the natural life of a convict without review.
The judge observed that the prevailing interpretation effectively condemns offenders to an uncertain and potentially endless period behind bars, which offends constitutional protections.
The court noted that an indefinite sentence strips a prisoner of hope and undermines the principles of rehabilitation that underpin modern sentencing approaches.
By failing to define a clear duration or provide a mechanism for review, such punishment was found to inflict psychological suffering and legal uncertainty on the convict.
Also Read: Full List of Kenya’s 42 Public Universities, Colleges, and Their Heads
In the ruling, the court found that indeterminate life imprisonment contravenes Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to human dignity, as well as Article 29, which protects individuals from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Justice Mshila stated that a sentence that leaves a convict without a clear timeline or opportunity for release effectively reduces the individual to a state of perpetual punishment.
The judge added that even persons convicted of serious offenses are entitled to have their dignity respected and protected under the law.
The court further held that such sentences do not align with the evolving jurisprudence recognizing the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
“Such an indefinite sentence contravenes the right to human dignity and the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment,” the judge stated in his ruling.
According to the judgment, punishment should not only serve retributive and deterrent purposes but must also allow room for reform and eventual reintegration.
Crucially, the court took issue with the fact that mandatory life sentences deny convicts the opportunity to present mitigation before sentencing.
This process, which allows offenders to explain their circumstances and seek leniency, is considered a fundamental aspect of a fair trial.
Equality and Parole Concerns Raised
The ruling also highlighted concerns over equality before the law, as provided under Article 27 of the Constitution.
Also Read: CMA Approves Sale of 15% Govt Stake in Safaricom to Vodafone: What Happens Next?
The court found that offenders subjected to life sentences are treated differently from those serving fixed-term sentences.
Justice Mshila observed that while offenders serving definite sentences are allowed to offer mitigation and may benefit from parole, those facing life imprisonment are excluded from both processes.
This disparity, the court found, amounts to unjustifiable discrimination.
By denying parole and mitigation, the sentencing framework effectively creates two classes of offenders, with those on life sentences facing harsher and less flexible treatment without a rational basis.
As a result, the court concluded that the mandatory imposition of life imprisonment is not only unfair but also inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and fair treatment.
Having found merit in the petition, the court set aside the life sentence and substituted it with a definite custodial term of 35 years.
The sentence is to run from the date of the original conviction in 2013.
The decision is expected to influence future sentencing, particularly in cases where the law prescribes mandatory penalties.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
