STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

News, NEWSROOM, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

Corroboration of Evidence in Sexual Offences involving Minors: Application of Section 124 of the Evidence Act in Kenya

/

By Joyce Ochieng Sexual offences against minors are regarded as very serious crimes in Kenya. A child or a minor is any person who has not attained the age of eighteen years.[1] A national survey on Violence Against Children in Kenya conducted in 2010 found that 23% of girls and 12% of boys aged 13–17 had experienced sexual abuse. Among 18–24-year-olds, 32% of women and 18% of men experienced childhood sexual abuse before age 18.[2] The Constitution upholds the paramount principle which safeguards the best interests of the child, protects the child from all manner of abuse and recognizes their vulnerable nature and need for protection by the State.[3] Furthermore, the Sexual Offences Act, 2006 criminalizes any acts of sexual violence against minors, including defilement and indecent acts. Children are also regarded as vulnerable witnesses on account of their age, and appropriate measures should be taken in safeguarding their interests during trial.[4] The penalties ascribed in the Sexual Offences Act range from lengthy prison terms to life imprisonment. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in Republic v Mwangi; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) & 3 others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition E018 of 2023)[5] held that the blanket application of the ratio decidendi in the Muruatetu case by the Court of Appeal in Nyeri conflated the concept of mandatory sentences with minimum sentences, thereby supporting the position that life imprisonment in sexual offences cases is in fact grounded in statute, and lawful. Corroboration refers to additional evidence that provides certainty or supports a statement of fact. Evidence that is corroborated is relevant, admissible, credible, independent and implicates the accused according to the manner that a specific statute requires. Corroboration reduces the chances of convicting an innocent person.[6] Historically, the Kenyan courts viewed sexual offences with suspicion, hence the requirement to seek corroboration of the complainant’s testimony, as a matter of practice, before a conviction could be entered.[7] However, in Mukungu v Republic (2003), the Court of Appeal declared that the practice requirement for corroboration in sexual offences was discriminatory against women and girls and therefore unconstitutional. The court acknowledged the caution in relying solely on the complainant’s testimony as was stated in Maina v Republic [1970] EA 370 but noted that the same caution was not required concerning women and girls’ testimonies in other offences. The court relied on the cases of Republic v Cherop A Kinei and Another [1936] 3 EACA 124 and Chila v Republic [1967] EA 722 at 723 (CA), where uncorroborated evidence was used to convict the accused persons.[8] These exceptions applied where the court, despite duly cautioning itself on the risks of relying on uncorroborated evidence, was satisfied that the complainant is telling the truth.[9] Further, section 124 of the Evidence Act No. 46 of 1963 was amended by section 103 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, and later by the Sexual Offences Act, 2006, formally incorporating the aforementioned exception in statute, in relation to corroboration of evidence in sexual offences cases. The 2003 amendment was particularly about children and read as follows: “Section 124 of the Evidence Act is amended by inserting the following proviso– Provided that where in a criminal case involving a sexual offence the only evidence is that of a child-of tender years who is the alleged victim of the offence, the court shall receive the evidence of the child and proceed to convict the accused person if, for reasons to be recorded in the proceedings, the court is satisfied that the child is telling the truth.” Section 124 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to the amendment by the Sexual Offences Act, states that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 19 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act (Cap. 15), where the evidence of the alleged victim is admitted in accordance with that section on behalf of the prosecution in proceedings against any person for an offence, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other material evidence in support thereof implicating him: Provided that where in a criminal case involving a sexual offence the only evidence is that of the alleged victim of the offence, the court shall receive the evidence of the alleged victim and proceed to convict the accused person if, for reasons to be recorded in the proceedings, the court is satisfied that the alleged victim is telling the truth.” The effect of this amendment is that an accused person can be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that the court is satisfied that the victim’s testimony is truthful, and records its reasons or justifications for relying on the uncorroborated evidence. Despite the comprehensive legal framework, successful prosecutions are often barred by the evidential hurdle of corroboration. In practice, the courts continue to emphasize that the testimonies of victims should be corroborated. The presence or absence of corroboration often decides the outcome in sexual offences cases. Notwithstanding the clearly stipulated section 124 of the Evidence Act, judicial officers have continuously showed reliance on medical reports, additional witnesses, circumstantial evidence and other corroborative materials in making their determinations, as evidenced below. Case Law Analysis: Michael Waweru case vis a vis Peter Mwaura case In Republic v Michael Waweru Kihiu (MCSO/40/2020), Utu Wetu Trust represented the victim’s family, providing legal support and safeguarding the survivor’s interests throughout the proceedings. The accused was convicted of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006, and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment by the Ruiru Law Courts. The alternative charge was committing an indecent act with a child contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, No. 3 of 2006. The judgment, delivered on June 19, 2023, turned on three key issues: whether the victim was a child; whether penetration occurred; and whether the accused was positively identified as the perpetrator. This tri-partite test remains a consistent judicial standard in the determination of defilement cases in Kenya. In determining whether the

News, NEWSROOM, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION, Uncategorized

Court Moves Baby Pendo Case to Kisumu

/

In September, the big story for us was the transfer of the Baby Samantha Pendo case from Nairobi to Kisumu. The High Court of Kenya agreed that since the killing and other abuses happened in Kisumu, and most witnesses and survivors are based there, it is the proper venue for the trial. Human rights organisations, including Utu Wetu Trust, Amnesty International Kenya and International Justice Mission, welcomed the move but emphasised that this is only a preliminary step toward accountability. They pointed out that the case has been delayed by years, repeatedly bounced between judges, and seen charges dropped and key suspects remain at large. What this really means is that venue change alone won’t guarantee justice unless the courts, the prosecution and oversight agencies now commit to a clear timeline, ensure witness protection, and respect victims’ rights to participate. Utu Wetu will continue to monitor every step. Different media outlets covered this development with our support and alongside our partners. Below are links to their coverage. Radio Jambo Classic 105 Nation https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CbpmDQ8iU/?mibextid=wwXIfr Capital FM https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2025/09/court-moves-baby-pendo-case-to-kisumu-orders-police-commission-to-facilitate-accused-officers/ 2. https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2025/09/rights-league-welcomes-transfer-of-baby-pendo-case-to-kisumu-decries-delays/ Eastleigh Voice https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/news/215711/high-court-orders-transfer-of-baby-pendo-murder-case-to-kisumu https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/national/217093/rights-groups-welcome-moving-of-baby-pendos-case-to-kisumu-push-for-speady-prosecution The Star Newspaper https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2025-09-26-justice-for-baby-pendo-must-move-from-paper-to-action-say-lobbies  

STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

Understanding the Continuum of Violence in Utu Wetu’s Legal Battles

/

The legal cases Utu Wetu has been involved in illustrate how violence, particularly sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), is not an isolated event but part of a broader system of oppression and impunity. The concept of the continuum of violence helps explain how injustices persist across different contexts. Political, legal, corporate, and social, reinforcing each other over time. From election-related sexual violence to institutional negligence in reproductive health rights, the cycle remains unbroken when state and societal structures fail to deliver justice.  Petition 122 of 2013, which seeks accountability for post-election sexual violence, is a clear example of how state-sanctioned violence operates within this continuum. During political crises, security forces, who are supposed to protect civilians, become perpetrators, using sexual violence as a weapon. The lack of justice for survivors extends beyond the election period, creating a reality where sexual violence is normalized, and victims are left without redress. Similarly, in the Baby Pendo case, the use of excessive force by the police against civilians, resulting in the killing of an infant, highlights the deep-rooted impunity within state security institutions. Both cases show that when the state fails to hold its own accountable, it emboldens further violations in different contexts. Beyond state-perpetrated violence, institutional failures also play a critical role in sustaining oppression. The CRR case, which focuses on reproductive health rights violations, reveals how the denial of essential healthcare services can be a form of structural violence. Women’s bodies have historically been sites of control, whether through restrictive laws or through the negligence of policymakers. Likewise, the Chebochok case exposes corporate and institutional injustices, where governance structures prioritize profit and power over ethical responsibility. The failure of corporate actors to uphold human rights principles mirrors the impunity seen in state institutions, showing how economic violence is deeply connected to other forms of oppression. Legal processes, when flawed, further contribute to this continuum. The Kibera case, where judicial failures led to the acquittal of a defilement suspect, demonstrates how procedural gaps and victim-blaming narratives create barriers to justice. When the legal system does not take SGBV cases seriously, it signals to perpetrators that such acts can continue without consequence. However, the Ruiru case resulted in a conviction and represents a shift in this cycle. It shows that when survivors receive support and legal structures function effectively, justice can be served, breaking the pattern of impunity. These cases are not separate instances of injustice but interconnected struggles within a system that allows violence to thrive. The failure to address impunity in one area inevitably fuels its persistence in another. Election-related sexual violence, police brutality, reproductive health violations, and legal gaps in SGBV cases all exist within the same ecosystem of structural and systemic violence. The continuum of violence framework makes it clear that breaking this cycle requires not just individual legal victories but a fundamental shift in how justice is approached, ensuring that accountability is not selective but comprehensive.

CASE FOUR: CRR CASE, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

Petition No. 428 of 2018 (CRR Case)

/

This case, filed in the High Court of Kenya, involves the Network for Adolescents and Youth of Africa (NAYA-Kenya) and Jackline Mary Karanja as petitioners against the Attorney General, the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board (KMPDB), and the Kenya Film and Classification Board (KFCB), among others. The case challenges actions taken by these government agencies that allegedly restrict access to abortion information and services in Kenya. Background: In August 2018, Marie Stopes Kenya (MSK), in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, launched a nine-week public awareness campaign addressing comprehensive reproductive health services. The campaign aimed to highlight the dangers of unsafe abortions, abortion stigma, and discrimination against women and girls who have undergone unsafe abortions. However, between September and November 2018, several government agencies intervened: The Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) banned the campaign, alleging it promoted abortion contrary to Article 26(4) of the Kenyan Constitution and targeted teenage girls by providing alternatives to unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. The Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board (KMPDB) directed MSK to cease offering any form of abortion services in all its facilities across Kenya. The Director of Medical Services (DMS) further prohibited MSK from providing any form of post-abortion care (PAC) in all its facilities within Kenya. This PAC ban was lifted on December 19, 2018, after an audit determined that MSK was not violating any laws. Legal Challenge: On November 30, 2018, NAYA-Kenya and Jackline Karanja filed a petition challenging these actions, arguing that they unlawfully limited access to abortion information and services, thereby infringing on constitutional rights. The petitioners contend that the bans: Violated the right to access reproductive health information and services as enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution. Perpetuated stigma against abortion care, deterring women and girls from seeking necessary medical services. Contravened the government’s obligation to provide accurate information and lawful healthcare services without interference. Current Status: As of January 31, 2025, the highlighting of submissions in Petition No. 428 of 2018 has been rescheduled to June 5, 2025.

Image: Reuters/T. Mukoya
CASE 1: BABY PENDO, NEWSROOM

Doctrine of Command Responsibility: The Fight for Justice in Kenya’s Baby Pendo Case

/

Who should be held accountable when law enforcement officers or military personnel violate human rights? The individual who pulled the trigger, the officer who gave the order, or the entire chain of command that allowed such crimes to happen? International humanitarian law provides a clear answer through the doctrine of command responsibility. This legal principle ensures both direct perpetrators and their superiors are held accountable for law violations. This doctrine has been successfully applied in in international cases to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. For the first time in Kenya’s history, it is being used in the Baby Pendo case. Beyond the Officer on the Ground: The Chain of Accountability Under international law, command responsibility extends beyond the officer who commits an unlawful act. It holds law enforcement or military supervisors accountable if they fail to prevent or punish violations. The International Commission of Jurists Kenya emphasizes that this responsibility extends from the officer commanding a riot squad to the Inspector General of Police and even the Minister of Interior. Advocate Leah Aoko, a programs associate at Utu Wetu Trust, explains why this legal doctrine is critical in ensuring justice: “What we are saying is that where an offence has been committed by an officer, we hold the person who gave the orders responsible. For example, if I am part of a mission and I go to an area and commit an offence—whether it’s sexual assault—my boss is going to be held responsible.” She further highlights how this doctrine prevents a culture of silence within security forces. Police officers are often reluctant to report colleagues who commit crimes. However, when their superiors become liable for their actions, the entire chain of command must monitor and control what happens on the ground. “This can be very effective because police bosses will be aware of what their juniors are doing. If something wrong happens, they will be held accountable. They will be very keen to ensure that their juniors do not commit crimes. The issue of blindly following orders will come to an end.” Command Responsibility In Baby Pendo Case The Baby Pendo case is a reminder of police brutality in Kenya. In 2017, six-month-old Samantha Pendo was brutally beaten by police officers during post-election violence in Kisumu. She later succumbed to her injuries. This case was a turning point in Kenya’s human rights discourse, as it marked the first time that command responsibility was invoked to hold senior police officers accountable for the actions of their subordinates. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) investigated and recommended that the officers who carried out the violence and their commanders face prosecution under this doctrine. By applying command responsibility, Kenyan prosecutors seek to hold top security officials responsible for failing to prevent or punish the crimes committed by officers under their command. This is a step toward ending police impunity.  How Command Responsibility Works The concept of command responsibility is firmly embedded in the Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocol I (1977). The International Criminal Court (ICC) further solidified this principle in Article 28 of the Rome Statute, which defines two types of superior responsibility: Military Commanders – A commander is criminally responsible if they: Knew, or should have known, that forces under their command were committing crimes. Failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or punish the crimes. Civilian Superiors – A non-military leader (such as a police commander or a government official) is responsible if they: Consciously disregarded information that indicated subordinates were committing crimes. Failed to act within their authority to prevent violations or report them for prosecution. In both cases, the superior does not need to order the crime directly. Their failure to act is enough to establish guilt. Why Command Responsibility Matters Now More Than Ever For decades, police and military abuses in Kenya have gone unpunished, often because perpetrators are shielded by a powerful hierarchy that protects its own. However, with growing calls for justice in cases of police brutality, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence, command responsibility could be a turning point. If successfully applied, it would send a strong message to police and military leadership: accountability does not stop at the junior officer. Every leader, from the commanding officer to the highest levels of government, is responsible for ensuring justice. By implementing command responsibility, Kenya has a chance to break the cycle of impunity—where powerful officials escape justice while survivors of violence are left to suffer in silence. The law is clear: failing to act is as much a crime as committing the act itself. Will  Baby Pendo Case Be the Landmark Kenya Needs? The Baby Pendo case is more than just one family’s fight for justice; it tests Kenya’s commitment to accountability. If the courts uphold command responsibility, it could change the way police brutality cases are handled in the country. But if the case persists, it will be another example of justice denied. Will Kenya uphold this principle, or will impunity continue reigning?

CASE TWO : PETITION 122 OF 2013

Petition 122 Seeks Accountability for Post-Election Sexual Violence in Kenya

/

Following the disputed 2007 general elections in Kenya, the country descended into widespread chaos and bloodshed, resulting in the deaths of over 1,100 individuals. Thousands more endured various forms of violence, including sexual violence, which was perpetrated against women, men, and children. More than a decade later, the majority of these violations remain unpunished, leaving survivors to grapple with long-term physical, emotional, and psychological trauma in the absence of justice or accountability. In an effort to address this egregious failure, a group of survivors initiated legal proceedings against the Kenyan government. In 2013, six women and two men, who had suffered sexual violence during the post-election turmoil filed Constitutional Petition No. 122 at the High Court in Nairobi. The petition sought to hold the government accountable for its failure to prevent, investigate, and prosecute cases of sexual violence that occurred during the crisis. Understanding the Context of the 2007-2008 Post-Election Violence Violence that erupted after the December 27, 2007, elections was fueled by electoral fraud and political betrayal allegations. Protests and confrontations escalated into large-scale intercommunal violence in six of Kenya’s eight provinces. As homes and businesses were set ablaze, reports of sexual violence committed by both security forces and civilian groups became alarmingly frequent. Women, girls, men, and boys were subjected to brutal acts of rape, gang rape, defilement, and other forms of sexual abuse. In many instances, the assaults took place in the presence of family members, amplifying the survivors’ trauma. Despite the widespread nature of these crimes, survivors encountered substantial barriers in their quest for justice. Fear of retaliation, societal stigma, and institutional neglect discouraged many from reporting their assaults. Those who did attempt to seek justice were met with indifference or outright dismissal by law enforcement agencies. The government’s failure to investigate and prosecute these offenses effectively created an environment of impunity, allowing perpetrators to evade accountability while survivors continued to suffer in silence. Core Arguments of the Petition Petition-122 of 2013 was founded on the assertion that the Kenyan government violated multiple constitutional and human rights obligations by failing to: Prevent acts of sexual violence during the post-election crisis; Provide adequate protection to its citizens against such violations; Conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into reported cases of sexual violence; Prosecute the perpetrators of these heinous acts; Ensure comprehensive support and redress for survivors, including access to medical, psychological, and legal assistance. The petitioners argued that security forces, who were tasked with restoring order, were among the principal perpetrators of sexual violence. They also contended that the government’s failure to gather sufficient forensic evidence, conduct medical examinations, and properly document survivor testimonies severely compromised the ability of victims to obtain justice. Judgment and its Implications After years of delays, the High Court of Kenya delivered its judgment in December 2020. The court ruled that the government had failed to investigate and prosecute sexual violence cases linked to the post-election violence, thereby violating the rights of survivors. However, the ruling only recognized four of the eight survivors petitioning the court. Each of these four individuals was awarded KES 4 million (approximately USD 35,000) in compensation for their suffering. Despite this partial victory, as of late 2021, the awarded compensation had not been disbursed. The decision also fell short in holding the government accountable for its failure to address sexual violence committed by gangs and militias, further highlighting gaps in the judicial process. Appeal and the Continued Fight for Justice Dissatisfied with the limitations of the ruling, survivors and their legal representatives filed an appeal on November 11, 2021. The appeal challenged the court’s failure to recognize the government’s responsibility for crimes perpetrated by non-state actors, including militias and civilian groups. The petitioners argued that the government was obligated to protect all citizens, regardless of whether the perpetrators were security forces or private individuals. By filing the appeal, survivors and human rights organizations aimed to set a stronger legal precedent—one that would ensure all victims of election-related sexual violence receive justice, acknowledgment, and reparations. This step also underscored the urgent need for Kenya’s judicial system to adopt a more survivor-centered approach in handling cases of gender-based violence. Kenya’s Legal and Moral Obligations Under both Kenyan law and international human rights frameworks, the government is duty-bound to prevent, investigate, and prosecute sexual violence. The 2010 Constitution of Kenya, the Sexual Offences Act, and various international treaties—including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights—all emphasize the state’s responsibility to uphold the rights and dignity of survivors. Beyond legal obligations, the state has a moral duty to provide comprehensive support services to those affected by sexual violence. This includes ensuring survivors receive medical treatment, mental health support, legal aid, and economic empowerment programs to help them rebuild their lives. The Broader Impact of the Case Constitutional Petition No. 122 represents a critical moment in Kenya’s legal history. It is not merely about the eight survivors who courageously came forward; it is about the hundreds of others who suffered similar violations but never had the opportunity or means to seek justice. The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for how Kenya addresses conflict-related sexual violence in the future. By holding the government accountable, this case challenges the culture of impunity that has long shielded perpetrators of sexual violence. It also serves as a call to action for policymakers, civil society organizations, and the broader public to advocate for stronger protections against gender-based violence and to push for reforms within the country’s legal and law enforcement systems.  

CASE THREE: CHEBOCHOK CASE, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

Court Blocks Swearing-in of Tea Factory Director Over Sexual Violence Allegations

/

Today, a court in Kericho delivered a landmark ruling in favor of women’s rights by halting the swearing-in of Mr. John Chebochok as Director of Tegat/Toror Tea Factory, Ainamoi Zone. This decision follows serious allegations of sexual violence against him, as revealed in a BBC documentary titled The True Cost of Our Tea: Sexual Abuse on Kenyan Tea Farms. The case, Petition No. E006 of 2024 – Wangu Kanja Foundation (K) Registered Trustees and OXFAM and 3 Others VS Tegat Tea Factory Limited and Kenya Tea Development Agency and 13 Others, was filed by civil society organizations, including UTU WETU, which participated as an Interested Party. The petitioners challenged the clearance and election of Mr. Chebochok, citing concerns over his professional and moral suitability, particularly in light of the sexual abuse allegations. UTU WETU’s involvement in the case was instrumental in demonstrating the State’s constitutional obligation to protect victims of sexual violence and ensure accountability for perpetrators. The organization stressed that appointing an individual facing such serious allegations to a leadership position would erode public trust in institutions and the justice system. In its ruling, the Court considered three key principles in determining whether the swearing-in should be stopped. First, it assessed whether the petitioners had established a prima facie case. The Court found that they had noted that the case raised critical constitutional issues, particularly under Articles 10 and 73(2), which address public officials’ integrity and moral suitability. Second, the Court ruled that failing to intervene would render the petition moot, highlighting the need to address the serious allegations before confirming Mr. Chebochok’s appointment. Finally, the Court emphasized the significant public interest in preserving the integrity of the tea industry and protecting vulnerable women from sexual violence. UTU WETU welcomes the Court’s ruling as a crucial step in safeguarding women in Kenya’s tea sector. Elsie Milimu, UTU WETU’s counsel on record, stated that the decision reinforces the importance of preventing individuals accused of sexual violence from holding influential positions.

CASE 1: BABY PENDO, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

Baby Pendo Case Lawyer Warns Police over Brutality

/

Lawyer Willis Otieno has issued a warning to Inspector General of Police Japheth Koome and Nairobi Police Boss Adamson Bungei regarding the use of excessive force on peaceful protesters. Speaking during a Citizen Assembly Forum on X (formerly Twitter) on July 7, 2024, Otieno emphasized that police officers involved in the killing of Baby Pendo during the 2017 post-election violence (PEV) are now powerless and hesitant to plead their cases. “You will bear the consequences alone. Yebei is in court over Baby Pendo,” Otieno stated, insisting that all officers currently misusing their power will be held accountable, regardless of whether they are still in service or not.   Baby Pendo was six months old when she was killed in the early hours of August 12, 2017. The case was brought forward by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2017, based on recommendations from the Independent Policing and Oversight Authority (IPOA). Utu Wetu Trust, The Law Society of Kenya Kisumu Chapter, IPOA, the Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA), the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU), and the International Justice Mission, among others, have been providing counsel to witnesses and victims.

OUR WORK, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

Baby Pendo Case

/

The Baby Pendo case signifies a significant milestone in Kenyan national courts as it represents the first instance of prosecuting crimes against humanity. It is also the initial case of its kind to accuse individuals of committing crimes during post-election violence, specifically under the concept of command responsibility as outlined in the Kenyan 2008 International Crimes Act. In collaboration with other partners, UTU WETU is acting as a representative organization for the Family of Baby Pendo, offering legal support and assistance. The case known as “Baby Pendo” alleges that shortly after the announcement of the presidential election results in August 2017, the police unlawfully killed Samantha Pendo, a 6-month-old baby who her mother was holding at their residence. Following an inquiry, a ruling was made, urging the ODPP (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) to investigate and bring charges against police superiors based on the theory of command responsibility.   The indictment asserts that Samantha Pendo’s killing was part of a systematic and widespread assault on civilians residing in Nyalenda, Nyamasaria, Kondele, and Obunga, all located in Kisumu County, which was the Pendo family’s place of residence.

CASE TWO : PETITION 122 OF 2013, OUR WORK, STRATEGIC IMPACT LITIGATION

PETITION 122

/

In our pursuit of justice for survivors of sexual violence, UTU WETU engages in Strategic Impact Litigation to hold perpetrators and duty-bearers accountable. One significant facet of this endeavor is our involvement in cases related to conflict-related sexual violence and other forms of gender-based violence. For instance, Petition 122 stands as a landmark effort to seek accountability for the atrocities committed during the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya. Today, @ICJKenya, @PHRKenya @IMLU_org, and UTU WETU convened a meeting to provide an update to the petitioners of petition 122. The case pertains to holding the state accountable for the sexual violence inflicted upon survivors during the post-election period of 2007. pic.twitter.com/7lOc7huNtN — UtuWetu (@utu_wetu) November 17, 2023 Through this litigation, we aim to compel the Kenyan government to fulfill its obligations in preventing, investigating, and prosecuting sexual violence crimes, as well as providing reparations to survivors. Despite the challenges and delays, our perseverance has yielded victories, such as the High Court ruling in favor of survivors in December 2020. However, our work is far from over, as evidenced by ongoing appeals and efforts to ensure that justice is served comprehensively. By leveraging the legal system as a tool for social change, we strive to advance the rights and dignity of survivors while promoting accountability and ending impunity for perpetrators of sexual violence.

Scroll to Top