Updates on the Hearing in the Petition 122 Appeal

Feb 4, 2025

The Court of Appeal, led by Justices Daniel Musinga, Francis Tuiyott, and George Odunga, today heard submissions in a partial appeal of petition 122 of 2013.

The appeal, filed by seven survivors of the 2007-2008 post-election sexual violence alongside the Coalition on Violence Against Women, the Independent Medico-Legal Unit, the International Commission of Jurists, and Physicians for Human Rights, seeks state accountability for the failure to prevent, investigate, and prosecute cases of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) during the conflict.

Represented by lawyer Willis Otieno, the petitioners argue that the state neglected its duty to protect victims and failed to provide justice, support, or reparations. Otieno criticized the earlier High Court ruling by Justice Weldon Korir, which limited compensation to victims abused by state officers while excluding those attacked by civilians. He asserted that the government bears responsibility for all victims, as it failed to act on intelligence reports, provide security, or address systemic failures that enabled the violence.

The case, which stems from widespread sexual violence following Kenya’s disputed 2007 election, highlights the longstanding fight for justice by survivors. Human rights groups have documented hundreds of cases of rape, sexual torture, and other abuses perpetrated by both security forces and civilians. Despite various commissions, including the Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC), acknowledging the violations, many survivors remain without redress.

Through Senior State Counsel Emmanuel Bitta, the government opposed the appeal, arguing that the incidents predated the 2010 Constitution and that victims who did not formally report their cases could not claim compensation. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) also distanced itself, stating it was established in 2012 and could not investigate prior violations.

The petitioners, however, insist that justice cannot be denied based on procedural technicalities. They argue that victims’ medical records from Kenyatta National Hospital and reports from human rights organizations provide sufficient evidence. The case also seeks systemic reforms, including a national database for survivors and accountability measures against police officers implicated in SGBV during the violence.

The court is expected to deliver its judgment on April 11, 2025, a decision that could set a crucial precedent for state accountability in cases of conflict-related sexual violence.

Here are links to articles from journalists who reported on the court case.