NAIROBI, Kenya – The Supreme Court has ruled that it is beyond the Judiciary’s powers to define what constitutes a life sentence, emphasizing that this responsibility lies with Parliament.
A five-judge bench, led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, made the ruling on Friday, stating that courts must refrain from interfering with the legislative role by attempting to define laws.
The court’s decision arose from two appeals filed by Evans Nyamari Ayako and Julius Kitsao Manyeso, who had been sentenced to 30 and 40 years respectively by the Court of Appeal for defilement, instead of the life sentences initially handed down by magistrates.
The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the reduced sentences, reinstating the original life terms.
The court argued that the Court of Appeal had overstepped its mandate by substituting life imprisonment with a 30-year sentence.
“Courts must exercise caution when crafting remedies to avoid overstepping their judicial mandate and intruding upon legislative functions by prescribing or enacting amendments,” the judges said in their ruling.
The court clarified that prescribing a specific number of years for life imprisonment would constitute a judicial overreach, effectively creating laws without the authority to do so.
The judges noted that the introduction of a 30-year sentence was done without the necessary public involvement or parliamentary input, which they argued contravenes Article 94 of the Constitution, which gives Parliament the exclusive authority to make laws.
The ruling also addressed concerns about whether life imprisonment is constitutional, but the court declined to examine the issue, noting that the matter had not gone through the proper legal channels, starting from the High Court.
The judges instead urged Parliament and the Attorney General to address the matter and create clear legislation on the issue.
“Despite making this recommendation on December 14, 2017, and making an order that the Judgment be placed before the Speakers of the National Assembly and the Senate, we note this recommendation has not been considered by the two offices of Parliament,” the court stated.
