Court of Appeal Upholds Constitutionality of Mandatory Death Sentence for Robbery with Violence In Kisumu

The Court of Appeal in Kisumu has upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code. The decision, delivered by Judges Hannah Okwengu, Hellen Omondi, and Joel Ngugi, reaffirms the legal standing of the death penalty for this grave offense, emphasizing its validity under the current legal framework.

Background

The ruling comes in response to an appeal by six convicts sentenced to death for robbery with violence. The appellants had challenged their sentences, arguing that the mandatory nature of the death penalty under Section 296(2) was unconstitutional. They contended that it violated their fundamental rights, particularly the right to a fair trial and the right to life, as enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution.

The Judgment

In their judgment, the appellate judges pointed out that the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is a matter that has been addressed by the Supreme Court. However, they noted that until any legislative changes are made, the death sentence remains lawful.

“The issue of the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is yet to be addressed as recommended by the Supreme Court,” the judges stated. “The death sentence under Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is not unconstitutional as it remains valid under the law.”

This ruling reinforces the position that the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is consistent with the existing legal provisions and the Constitution of Kenya.

KEEP READING: Director Reveals Key Missing Details in Ksh1.4 Billion KPA Scandal: Daniel Manduku Case

Legal and Social Implications

The ruling has significant implications for the Kenyan legal system and society at large. It highlights the ongoing debate over the use of the death penalty and its mandatory imposition for certain crimes. While some argue that the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent for severe crimes like robbery with violence, others believe it is a draconian measure that undermines human rights.

The Supreme Court of Kenya, in a previous judgment, had called for a review of the mandatory nature of the death penalty, suggesting that each case should be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate sentence. This call for reform indicates a shift towards a more nuanced approach to sentencing, balancing justice with human rights considerations.

Next Steps

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision, it is likely that there will be continued advocacy for legislative changes to address the mandatory death sentence. Human rights organizations and legal experts may push for amendments to the Penal Code to allow for judicial discretion in sentencing, thereby aligning with international human rights standards.

In the meantime, the ruling serves as a crucial precedent, affirming the legal standing of the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence. It underscores the need for comprehensive legal reforms to address the complexities of capital punishment and ensure that the justice system upholds both the rule of law and the principles of human rights.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence is a significant legal development in Kenya. It reaffirms the validity of Section 296(2) of the Penal Code while highlighting the ongoing need for legislative reforms to address the complexities of capital punishment. As the debate over the death penalty continues, this ruling will undoubtedly shape the future of criminal justice and human rights in Kenya.

KEEP READING: Investigation Launched After Human Remains Found at Mukuru Dumpsite