Supreme Court reinstates life sentence in defilement case

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) secured a significant legal victory after the Supreme Court reinstated a life sentence for Evans Nyamari Ayako.

This indicates the overturning a Court of Appeal decision that had reduced the same sentence to 30 years.

In a judgment delivered Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the original life sentence imposed on Evans, who was convicted for defiling a minor in 2011.

This ruling marks a major win for the DPP who had challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision on constitutional and legal grounds.

Ayacko was initially arraigned before the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Ogembo on July 18, 2011, where he faced charges of defilement and committing an indecent act with a child.

Following a trial where the prosecution called six witnesses, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the minimum penalty under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the convict appealed to the High Court, which upheld both his conviction and sentence, confirming that the law had been correctly applied.

Undeterred, Ayako escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the lower courts had erred by failing to conduct a voir dire examination—a crucial procedure when dealing with child witnesses of tender age.

He also claimed the evidence was riddled with contradictions, making the conviction unsafe.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal considered international jurisprudence, noting that several jurisdictions—including in Germany, Zimbabwe, and South Africa — allow for parole even in life sentence cases.
The court found that life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, amounted to cruel and degrading treatment and reduced the sentence to 30 years from the date of his arraignment in 2011.

The DPP challenged this decision at the Supreme Court, raising key constitutional issues.

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 further contended that life imprisonment is a lawful and constitutional sentence, and that the appellate court had violated the principle of stare decisis by disregarding binding precedent.

The DPP urged the Supreme Court to find the Court of Appeal’s judgment to be per incuriam—rendered in ignorance or disregard of established law—and to set it aside.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with the DPP, affirming that life imprisonment remains a constitutional and legally valid sentence. The court emphasized that any change to such a penalty falls within the exclusive purview of Parliament.

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

This ruling not only restores the life sentence for convict but also reaffirms the DPP’s commitment to pursuing justice for victims of sexual offences and upholding the rule of law.