The Supreme Court of Kenya has dismissed Ruth Kamande’s appeal seeking to overturn the conviction of murdering her boyfriend in 2018, affirming her life imprisonment sentence.
The landmark ruling, delivered on Friday, addressed significant legal questions surrounding self-defense, gender-based violence, and the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences for murder in Kenya.
Ruth Kamande, once crowned Miss Lang’ata Women’s Prison in 2016 while awaiting trial, was convicted for the brutal murder of her boyfriend, Farid Mohammed, whom she stabbed 25 times in September 2015 at his home in Nairobi.
Initially sentenced to death in July 2018, her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by President William Ruto in 2023, following a broader commutation of death penalties in Kenya.
Kamande’s appeal to the Supreme Court sought to overturn her conviction, arguing that her actions were in self-defense amid an abusive relationship and that the mandatory life sentence violated judicial discretion.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court, under Petition No. E032 of 2023, rejected Ruth Kamande’s self-defense claim, stating that the excessive nature of the attack—25 stab wounds—did not align with a proportionate response to an immediate threat.
The court noted that post-mortem evidence contradicted Kamande’s narrative that Mohammed had pinned her down during a struggle, as the injuries suggested a sustained and deliberate assault.
“The defense of self-defense must be proportionate to the threat faced,” the court emphasized in its media summary, adding that Kamande’s claim of being a victim of abuse lacked sufficient evidence of an imminent danger at the time of the killing.
Kamande, represented by Senior Counsel Prof Githu Muigai, had argued that her case raised issues of general public importance, particularly the applicability of the “battered woman syndrome” in Kenyan law and its relevance under the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act.
She contended that the courts should consider the psychological impact of prolonged abuse in such cases.
However, the Supreme Court found that while gender-based violence is a critical issue, the legal threshold for self-defense requires clear evidence of immediate threat, which Kamande failed to provide.
The court also addressed the broader question of sentencing, ruling that mandatory life imprisonment for murder, as provided under Kenyan law, is constitutional.
Kamande’s legal team had argued that such sentencing strips judges of discretion, potentially leading to unfair outcomes.
The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the mandatory sentence aligns with Kenya’s legal framework and does not violate constitutional principles, a decision that reinforces the country’s stance on severe crimes like murder despite ongoing debates about judicial flexibility in sentencing.
This ruling comes in the context of Kenya’s evolving legal landscape on the death penalty and sentencing.
In 2017, the Supreme Court declared the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional, a decision that led to mass commutations, including Kamande’s.
In 2009, President Mwai Kibaki commuted the sentences of 4,000 death row inmates to life imprisonment, followed by President Uhuru Kenyatta’s commutation of 2,747 death sentences in 2016.
Despite these steps, Kenya has not fully abolished the death penalty, and life imprisonment remains a common sentence for murder convictions.
The case has sparked public debate about gender-based violence and the legal system’s handling of such cases.
Ruth Kamande’s story gained significant attention due to her participation in a prison beauty pageant while awaiting trial, which highlighted her complex public image.
Her initial death sentence in 2018 was welcomed by Mohammed’s family, who described the crime as heinous. “We’re glad that this day came,” Mohammed’s aunt, Emmah Wanjiku, had said at the time of the original sentencing, a sentiment likely echoed by the family following the Supreme Court’s latest ruling.
Legal experts see the decision as a significant precedent in Kenya’s judiciary, particularly in how it balances claims of self-defense with the need for factual evidence in cases involving gender-based violence.
The ruling underscores the importance of proportionality in self-defense claims. It also reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding mandatory sentencing for murder, which some argue limits discretion but ensures consistency in handling grave offenses.
