The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has achieved a major legal victory after the Supreme Court reinstated a life sentence for Evans Nyamari Ayako, overturning a previous decision by the Court of Appeal that had reduced the sentence to 30 years.
In a judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court upheld the original life sentence issued to Ayako, who was convicted of defiling a minor in 2011.
This decision represents a significant triumph for the DPP, who had challenged the Court of Appeal’s ruling on both constitutional and legal grounds.
Ayako was first charged on July 18, 2011, before the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Ogembo, where he faced accusations of defilement and committing an indecent act with a child. During the trial, the prosecution presented six witnesses, leading to Ayako’s conviction and a life sentence, as mandated under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, Ayako appealed to the High Court, which upheld both his conviction and the sentence, affirming that the trial court had correctly interpreted and applied the law.
Still seeking relief, Ayako took his case to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the trial court had failed to conduct a voir dire examination—an essential procedure when children of tender age testify—and also cited alleged inconsistencies in the evidence that, he claimed, made the conviction unreliable.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal considered international legal standards and observed that countries such as Germany, Zimbabwe, and South Africa permit parole in life sentence cases. It concluded that life imprisonment without parole constituted cruel and degrading treatment and accordingly reduced Ayako’s sentence to 30 years, retroactive to the date of his arraignment in 2011.
The DPP contested this decision at the Supreme Court, raising key constitutional questions. The prosecution argued that the Court of Appeal had exceeded its authority by reinterpreting a sentence expressly defined by legislation, thus infringing upon the principle of separation of powers.
Moreover, the DPP maintained that life imprisonment is both constitutional and legally sound, and accused the appellate court of violating the principle of stare decisis by ignoring binding legal precedent.
The DPP urged the Supreme Court to declare the Court of Appeal’s judgment per incuriam—a decision made in ignorance of the law—and to overturn it.
Agreeing with the DPP, the Supreme Court ruled that life imprisonment remains a valid and constitutional sentence, and emphasized that any amendments to such penalties fall solely under the authority of Parliament.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the respondent shall serve life imprisonment as sentenced by the magistrate’s court,” the judges declared.
The ruling not only reinstates the life sentence for Ayako but also underscores the DPP’s dedication to seeking justice for victims of sexual offences and preserving the integrity of the legal system.
