The High Court has set free a man who had been serving a 100-year jail term for allegedly defiling four minors at a children’s home. The man, who had been convicted by a Nairobi court, was previously found guilty of sexually abusing minors under his care while serving as the director of the facility.
The trial court had ruled that the accused took advantage of the vulnerable children and even quoted the Bible to justify his immoral actions. According to the prosecution’s earlier evidence, he manipulated the minors into believing that his conduct was acceptable, using religious texts to disguise his abuse. The victims, all of whom were residents of the children’s home, had reported the incidents leading to his arrest and prosecution.
Following the initial judgment, the man was handed a cumulative sentence of 100 years in prison — 25 years for each count of defilement — a punishment that was meant to run consecutively. The sentencing drew widespread attention due to both the gravity of the offences and the length of the sentence, which was seen as a strong stance against child sexual abuse.
However, in a recent judgment, the High Court has overturned both the conviction and the sentence. The appellate court ruled that there were serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and that the trial court erred in its assessment of the testimonies presented. The judge noted that the conviction was unsafe, citing insufficient proof linking the accused to the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, the court quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence, and ordered that the man be released from custody unless otherwise lawfully held on other grounds. The ruling effectively nullifies the earlier decision and restores the accused’s freedom after several years behind bars.
The case has sparked mixed reactions among members of the public and children’s rights advocates. While some have praised the High Court for upholding the principle of fair trial and due process, others have expressed concern about the implications of the decision on victims of sexual abuse and the pursuit of justice for vulnerable children.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s critical role in reviewing and correcting possible miscarriages of justice, reaffirming that convictions must rest on credible and consistent evidence.
