The High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to life sentences beyond a prisoner’s life expectancy, ruling against a convicted murderer who sought to have his commuted sentence set aside.
Justice Roselyne Aburili made the decision in a case filed by George Kamau Wambui, a convicted murderer whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment under the presidential prerogative of mercy.
Wambui had argued that a life sentence violated his constitutional rights because it effectively condemned him to spend the rest of his life behind bars, despite Kenya’s average life expectancy being about 67 years.
The petitioner asked the court to declare his life sentence unconstitutional, claiming it violated his right to dignity and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment.
He further argued that an indefinite jail term denied him hope of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Challenge to Life Sentence
Wambui is serving a sentence for the 2012 murder of Joyce Muthoni Muriu.
He was convicted by the High Court and later challenged both his conviction and death sentence at the Court of Appeal.
Also Read: High Court Declares Indefinite Life Imprisonment Unconstitutional
However, the appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence against him strongly pointed to his guilt.
After his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, Wambui returned to court seeking a fresh review of the punishment.
He urged the High Court to reconsider his case under current sentencing principles and either replace the life sentence with a fixed prison term or order a resentencing hearing.
He told the court that a life sentence remained harsh and uncertain because it did not clearly indicate when, if ever, a prisoner could regain freedom.
According to the petition, the sentence failed to take into account the possibility of rehabilitation and denied him an opportunity to rebuild his life and reunite with his family.
However, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to reopen issues that had already been determined by the Court of Appeal.
Prosecutors also contended that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how his constitutional rights had been violated.
The State further maintained that constitutional rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of victims, public interest and the need to punish serious crimes.
Judge Dismisses Constitutional Challenge
In her judgment, Justice Aburili agreed with the prosecution and dismissed the petition.
Also Read: High Court Gives Thousands of Kenyans Fresh Hope in Historical Land Injustice Claims
The court found that it could not revisit matters that had already been conclusively addressed by the Court of Appeal.
“Therefore, although this Court is the court with original jurisdiction to hear and determine constitutional challenges, I find no unconstitutionality in the life imprisonment, being the less severe punishment that the President has power under Article 133 of the Constitution to impose in exercise of his power of Mercy upon advice by the Advisory Committee on the Power of Mercy as established under Article 133 (2) of the Constitution,” Justice Aburili stated.
The judge also declined to accept the argument that prison terms exceeding normal life expectancy are automatically unconstitutional.
The ruling effectively affirmed that life imprisonment remains a lawful sentence under Kenyan law, even where a prisoner argues that the punishment may extend beyond the country’s average lifespan.
Section 204 of the Penal Code prescribes the death penalty for murder.
However, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu changed Kenyan sentencing practice by holding that courts must consider mitigating factors and exercise discretion rather than automatically imposing the death sentence.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
