Supreme Court reinstates life sentence in child defilement case

The Supreme Court has reinstated a life sentence for defilement convict Evans Nyamari Ayako, overturning a Court of Appeal ruling that had reduced his sentence to 30 years.

The ruling, delivered on Friday, marks a significant legal victory for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who successfully challenged the appellate court’s decision on constitutional and legal grounds.

Ayako was first convicted in 2011 by the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Ogembo, following a trial in which the prosecution presented six witnesses.

He was found guilty of defiling a child and sentenced to life imprisonment, the minimum punishment for the offence under Kenya’s Sexual Offences Act. The conviction and sentence were later upheld by the High Court.

However, in a surprising turn, the Court of Appeal reduced Ayako’s sentence to 30 years, citing global legal trends.

The judges argued that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole amounted to cruel and degrading punishment. They referenced jurisdictions such as Germany, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, where parole is permitted even in life sentence cases.

But the DPP took issue with the decision and escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

In its submission, the prosecution accused the appellate court of going beyond its powers by modifying a sentence already clearly prescribed by Parliament.

“The prosecution argued that the Court of Appeal overstepped its mandate by reinterpreting a legislatively prescribed penalty, thereby breaching the doctrine of separation of powers,” the DPP said in a statement.

The DPP further argued that the ruling had ignored binding precedent, and called on the court to declare the decision per incuriam—a legal term for a judgment made in ignorance or disregard of the law.

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming that life imprisonment is constitutional and valid under Kenyan law. The court also stressed that any change to such sentencing guidelines must come from Parliament, not the judiciary.

“For the avoidance of doubt, the respondent shall serve life imprisonment as sentenced by the magistrate’s court,” read part of the judgment.