Supreme Court engages public on its jurisprudence
Supreme Court engages public on its jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court gave another lecture to engage the public on its jurisprudence and share on what the court has been doing since its inception.
Supreme Judge Njoki Ndungu who gave the lecture titled: “The Supreme Court of Kenya’s Evolving Jurisprudence on Criminal Law,” at Moi University, School of Law, said it is important to have conversations around the decisions that the court has been delivering adding that it’s through the lectures that the judges can share with the public what the court has been doing.
“It is very difficult for Supreme Court judges to engage the public other than through their judgments and we felt that engaging academia, the scholars, is the best way in which we can share what we have been doing and to have conversations around the decisions that we have been making,” Justice Ndungu said.
The Judge explained that the lecture is part of the Supreme Court Lecture Circuits Series initiated last year to engage the public on its jurisprudence and what the court has been doing since its inception.
Her lecture focused on examining the evolving role of the Supreme Court of Kenya in shaping criminal jurisprudence through landmark decisions and highlighted the Supreme Court decisions, including cases on judicial discretion in sentencing, application of Article 50 of the Constitution, right to a fair trial, extradition, and ODPP’s prosecutorial powers among others.
Justice Ndungu explored how the Court has balanced the rights of individuals against interests of the state and assessed the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, its impact on legal certainty, and whether its decisions have fostered progressive legal reform in Kenya’s legal landscape.
On Mandatory and Minimum Sentencing, the judge explained that sentencing guidelines can be applied in a way that makes judges accountable for individual sentence length decisions, however, there are structures like statutory limits, mandatory sentences and sentencing guidelines that limit judicial discretion in sentencing.
“Depending on the detailed provisions involved, determinate sentencing combined with sentencing guidelines can concentrate the determinations of sentence length in the court,” she said.
She noted that after the decision in Muruatetu, confusion emerged prompting the Supreme Court in Muruatetu Two, to give directions and clarify its position in Muruatetu One.
She said the court reiterated that, the court’s decision in Muruatetu, did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code, the Sexual Offences Act or any other statute.
It also reiterated that Muruatetu cannot be the authority for stating that all provisions of the law prescribing mandatory or minimum sentences are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Ends/…
