In a significant legal victory for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Supreme Court of Kenya has reinstated a life sentence for Evans Nyamari Ayako, convicted of defiling a minor in 2011.
The ruling overturns a previous Court of Appeal decision that had reduced Ayako’s sentence to 30 years, marking a pivotal moment in the enforcement of strict penalties for sexual offenses in Kenya.
The case, which has been closely watched by legal experts and child rights advocates, began over a decade ago when Ayako was arraigned before the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Ogembo on July 18, 2011.
He faced charges of defilement and committing an indecent act with a child under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.
Following a trial where the prosecution presented six witnesses, Ayako was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment – the minimum penalty prescribed by the Act for such an offense.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Ayako appealed to the High Court, which upheld both the conviction and the life sentence, affirming that the law had been correctly applied.
However, Ayako escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the lower courts had failed to conduct a voir dire examination – a procedural requirement for child witnesses of tender age – and that the evidence was inconsistent, rendering the conviction unsafe.
In its 2023 ruling, the Court of Appeal sided with Ayako, reducing his sentence to 30 years. The court cited international jurisprudence from countries like Germany, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, where life sentences often include the possibility of parole.
The appellate judges argued that life imprisonment without parole constituted cruel and degrading treatment, violating constitutional principles.
They also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in the Francis Karioko Muruatetu case, which had declared mandatory death penalties unconstitutional, to support their stance on the need for sentencing flexibility.
The DPP, led by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision, escalating the matter to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution argued that the appellate court had 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 under Kenyan law, and that the Court of Appeal had disregarded binding precedent, rendering its judgment per incuriam – a decision made in ignorance of established law.
In a unanimous ruling delivered on April 11, 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the DPP, reinstating Ayako’s life sentence.
The court emphasized that life imprisonment remains a valid and constitutional penalty, and any changes to such sentencing laws fall exclusively within Parliament’s purview.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the respondent shall serve life imprisonment as sentenced by the magistrate’s court,” the judges declared, setting a strong precedent for future cases.
The ruling is a major win for the DPP, reinforcing its commitment to pursuing justice for victims of sexual offenses and upholding the rule of law.
It also reaffirms the strict penalties outlined in the Sexual Offences Act, which has been a cornerstone of Kenya’s legal framework for addressing crimes against minors.
The case has sparked renewed discussions about sentencing guidelines in Kenya, particularly regarding life imprisonment.
While the Supreme Court upheld the penalty, the Court of Appeal’s earlier concerns about the lack of a precise definition of life imprisonment in Kenyan law—highlighted in prior cases like Muruatetu—remain unaddressed.
Legal scholars are now calling on the Kenyan Legislature to enact clearer legislation outlining the conditions of life sentences, including provisions for parole and rehabilitation, to align with constitutional rights and international standards.
For now, the Supreme Court’s ruling stands as a victory for the DPP and a reaffirmation of Kenya’s commitment to protecting its most vulnerable citizens.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing legal principles with the pursuit of justice for victims of sexual violence.
