Life Imprisonment in Kenya: Clarifying the Duration

Introduction

Recently, there has been a noteworthy ruling by the Court of Appeal (COA) in Kenya regarding the interpretation of life imprisonment. The controversial judgment asserts that a life sentence should not necessarily equate to a person’s natural life behind bars but should be limited to a thirty-year imprisonment period. This landmark decision has sparked considerable debate and raises important questions about the criminal justice system in Kenya.

1. Understanding the COA Judgment

The COA’s decision has generated mixed reactions among legal experts and the public. Previously, life imprisonment in Kenya was presumed to mean permanent confinement without any clarity regarding the exact/definitive term or duration of the imprisonment. However, the judgment in Evans Nyamari Ayako v. R[1], brought more clarity to the sentencing process. The COA, in that case relied on comparative jurisprudence within the commonwealth and the prevailing socio-economic conditions in Kenya, to conclude that life imprisonment in Kenya does not mean the natural life of the convict but a thirty-year imprisonment term.

2. A chance at rehabilitation and reintegration into society

This ruling is instrumental and aims to ensure that convicts have an opportunity to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society after serving their sentences. This ruling also prompts a crucial evaluation of rehabilitation programs within the prison system in Kenya and goes to ensure that convicts receive adequate support during their sentences to support possible re-entry of exiting inmates from the prison system. While considering the issue of rehabilitation of convicts, the court in the European Court of Human Rights in Vinter & Others vs The United Kingdom[2] held that an indeterminate life sentence without any prospect of release or possibility of review is degrading and inhuman punishment. The court further recognized the international law principle that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, should be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if that rehabilitation is achieved. This would allow inmates to plan for their reintegration into society, with the possibility of contributing positively to the community upon their release.

3. Implications for the Criminal Justice System

The COA judgment has far-reaching disruptive implications for the criminal justice system in Kenya. This decision provides hope to those currently serving life sentences, who now are eligible to have specific timelines to work towards their release through filing resentencing petitions and/or applications. This was strongly particularized in the Namibian case of State v. Tcoeib[3], where the court held that ‘deliberately incarcerating a citizen for the rest of his or her natural life severely impacts upon much of what is central to the enjoyment of life itself in any civilized community and can therefore only be upheld if it is demonstrably justified… It seems to me that the sentence of life imprisonment in Namibia can therefore not be constitutionally sustainable if it effectively amounts to an order throwing the prisoner into a cell for the rest of the prisoner’s natural life as if he was a ‘thing’ instead of a person without any continuing duty to respect his dignity.’

All circumstances of an incarcerated person must be considered such as the sociological and psychological re-evaluation of the character of the convict. The mental and physical health of a convict should also be reviewed so as to establish that his or her release after a few years will not endanger the safety of others. Evidence which can also show that the offender has reached such an advanced age, or become so infirm and sick, or so repentant about his or her past, that continuous incarceration of the convict at state’s expense, constitutes a cruelty which can no longer be defended in the public interest – must also be put into account.

It would therefore be unjustifiable to insist, that regardless of the circumstances, a convict must spend the rest of his or her natural life in incarceration. This would be tantamount to gross violations of their rights not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which are non-derogable rights under Article 25 (a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

4. Ethical Considerations and Public Opinion

While the COA’s decision acknowledges the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration, it has sparked ethical debates within the country. Some argue that life sentences should genuinely equate to a convict’s natural life, especially in cases involving extreme and heinous crimes. Others support the reformist approach, with reasonable determinate sentences as opposed to indeterminate sentences, emphasizing on the potential for personal growth and change – even among individuals who have committed severe and unconscionable offenses. The wider public perception of this judgment, along with these ethical considerations, will play a crucial role in shaping future sentencing policies surrounding life imprisonment in Kenya.

Conclusion

The recent COA judgment regarding the duration of life imprisonment in Kenya has shed light on a previously murky subject in the criminal justice system. While the ruling brings more clarity and a sense of hope for inmates, it also raises important questions about the ethical implications and public opinion surrounding this issue. As Kenya moves forward, it is imperative to engage all stakeholders into meaningful dialogue and conversations, where both the rights of convicts and the safety of the society, must be considered and balanced.

By Anne Munyua (https://twitter.com/MurugiMunyua)

Founder and Executive Director,
CELSIR Africa

[1] Kisumu Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2018.

[2] Application nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) 120161 Ill ECHR 317 (9 July 2013).

[3] (1996) 7 BCLR 996 (NmS), At 1004-1005.