The Office of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) in Kenya continues to charge individuals like Brian Meshak Onyango with robbery with violence, despite a High Court ruling eight years ago that declared Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code unconstitutional, null, and void. This article delves into the legal and social implications of this ongoing issue, exploring recent cases, legal frameworks, and the broader impact on Kenya’s justice system.
Explanation of Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code
Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code outlines the elements that constitute robbery with violence in Kenya. To qualify as robbery with violence, an offense must involve theft, multiple assailants, the use of dangerous weapons, or actual violence against the victim.
High Court Ruling in 2016
In 2016, the High Court declared Section 296 (2) unconstitutional, null, and void. The ruling was based on the argument that the section was too broad and violated fundamental rights. This landmark decision was expected to change the legal landscape, ensuring that individuals would no longer be prosecuted under this unconstitutional provision.
Recent Developments
Case of Ian Njoroge
Barely three days after a Magistrate Court in Milimani ruled that the robbery with violence charge against Ian Njoroge, a student accused of assaulting a police officer, was unfounded, the ODPP charged another individual with the same offense.
New Charges Against Brian Meshak Onyango
Brian Meshak Onyango was charged with robbery with violence under Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that on June 9, 2024, at Sapros Club in Nairobi, Onyango, along with others not present in court, robbed Antony Macharia of two mobile phones valued at Ksh 128,000 and a wristwatch worth Ksh 6,000, using actual violence during the robbery.
The Legal Framework
Elements of Robbery with Violence
To qualify as robbery with violence, the evidence must show theft, multiple assailants, the use of a dangerous weapon, or actual violence against the complainant. These stringent requirements aim to differentiate between simple theft and more severe violent robberies.
Legal Implications of the High Court Ruling
The 2016 High Court ruling declaring Section 296 (2) unconstitutional was a significant legal development. It meant that prosecutions under this section should cease, and existing charges should be reviewed and potentially dismissed. However, the continued application of this section raises serious legal and constitutional questions.
Case Analysis: Brian Meshak Onyango
Details of the Accusation
Brian Meshak Onyango was accused of robbing Antony Macharia at Sapros Club in Nairobi. The alleged robbery involved the theft of two mobile phones and a wristwatch, with the use of actual violence during the incident.
Court Proceedings and Detainment
Onyango appeared before Milimani Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina, where he denied the charges and was detained pending a bail and bond ruling. This case highlights the ongoing use of Section 296 (2) despite its nullification by the High Court.
Role of the ODPP
Responsibilities of the ODPP
The ODPP is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases on behalf of the state. Its mandate includes ensuring justice is served while upholding the rule of law and respecting constitutional provisions.
Controversy Over Continued Prosecutions
The ODPP’s continued prosecution of individuals under Section 296 (2) has sparked controversy. Critics argue that this practice undermines the rule of law and disregards the High Court’s ruling, raising concerns about the integrity of the legal system.
Human Rights and Legal Inconsistencies
Katiba Institute’s Lawsuit
In January 2024, Katiba Institute sued the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the Judiciary for sustaining charges of robbery with violence, despite the High Court’s declaration that the provision is unconstitutional. This lawsuit underscores the ongoing legal battle over the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
Human Rights Lobby Group’s Petition
A petition filed by a Human Rights Lobby Group in the Milimani High Court accuses the DPP and Judiciary of refusing to revoke charges of robbery with violence and attempted robbery as ordered by the court eight years ago. The petition highlights the alleged failure to uphold constitutional duties and protect fundamental rights.
Implications for the Justice System
Impact on Legal Integrity
The continued application of Section 296 (2) despite its nullification undermines the integrity of the legal system. It suggests a disconnect between judicial decisions and prosecutorial actions, eroding public trust in the justice system.
Broader Legal and Social Implications
This issue has broader implications for legal and social justice in Kenya. It raises questions about the enforcement of judicial rulings and the protection of individual rights. The ongoing prosecutions under an unconstitutional provision highlight systemic issues that need to be addressed.
Public and Legal Reactions
Reactions from Legal Experts
Legal experts have expressed concern over the continued use of Section 296 (2). They argue that the ODPP’s actions violate constitutional principles and undermine the rule of law. There is a call for immediate cessation of prosecutions under this invalidated section.
Public Opinion
Public opinion is divided, with some supporting the ODPP’s stance on tackling crime and others criticizing the disregard for constitutional mandates. The debate highlights the tension between ensuring public safety and upholding legal principles.
Possible Solutions
Legal Reforms
One solution is to implement legal reforms that ensure the clear and immediate enforcement of judicial rulings. This could involve stricter oversight mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance with court decisions.
Enforcement of Judicial Decisions
Strengthening the enforcement of judicial decisions is crucial. Ensuring that court rulings are respected and implemented can restore faith in the legal system and protect individuals from unjust prosecutions.
Case Studies of Similar Legal Battles
Other Instances of Unconstitutional Laws Being Enforced
There have been other instances where unconstitutional laws continued to be enforced. These cases provide valuable lessons on the importance of robust legal frameworks and the need for vigilance in upholding constitutional rights.
Lessons Learned
The lessons from these cases emphasize the need for accountability, transparency, and adherence to legal principles. They highlight the critical role of advocacy groups in challenging unconstitutional practices and advocating for justice.
The Way Forward
Recommendations for the ODPP and Judiciary
Recommendations for the ODPP and Judiciary include strict adherence to constitutional rulings, regular review of legal provisions, and enhanced training on constitutional law. Ensuring that prosecutorial actions align with judicial decisions is essential.
Role of Advocacy Groups
Advocacy groups play a vital role in holding the legal system accountable. Their efforts in challenging unconstitutional practices and advocating for legal reforms are crucial in ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law.
Also Read: Tracy Tsindondo Amutamwa Faces Detention Over Alleged Theft from Employer
In conclusion, the ongoing prosecutions under Section 296 (2) of the Penal Code, despite its nullification by the High Court, highlight significant legal and constitutional issues in Kenya. The continued use of an unconstitutional provision undermines the integrity of the legal system and raises serious questions about the protection of individual rights. Addressing these issues requires legal reforms, strict enforcement of judicial decisions, and the active role of advocacy groups in promoting justice and accountability.
