The Court of Appeal has emphasised the need for a serious discussion regarding the mandatory minimum sentences for convicts of robbery with violence, especially in cases where only threats were involved.

Sitting in Nakuru, Justices John Mativo, Paul Gachoka, and George Odunga expressed their bewilderment that a murderer could receive a lighter sentence, while those convicted of robbery with violence, even when threats were the only element, faced the death penalty.

Their remarks came when delivering the judgment on a case against Daniel Chege, a man on death row, for stealing a bicycle, valued at Sh4,000, on February 28, 2010, in Naivasha.

“This glaring discrepancy is one that the public finds difficult to understand. We cannot rationally justify it, except with the old response that ‘it is the law.’ It is a question we pose but cannot answer,” the judges remarked.

They expressed hope that, sooner rather than later, this inconsistency would be addressed. The facts of the case were that Bernard Karanja was riding his motorcycle when Chege and an accomplice approached him. 

In his appeal, Chege claimed that the victim had not been injured during the incident.

Judges Mativo, Gachoka, and Odunga noted that section 296(2) of the Penal Code mandates the death sentence for robbery with violence.

“With heavy hearts, we must reiterate that the evident discriminatory sentencing framework needs to be reviewed and reconsidered as soon as possible,” the judges ruled. 

They found it puzzling that murderers could receive a sentence of just one day in prison at the court’s discretion, while other offenses automatically incur a mandatory death or life sentence. By Yvonne Chepkwony, The Standard