The Judiciary/FILE
Victims and other parties in an appeal case regarding sexual violence committed during the 2007/08 post-election chaos have expressed disappointment over delays to issue judgment, yet again.
The victims had been informed that the judgment would be delivered on Friday, April 25, 2025.
It follows an earlier postponement of the judgment by the Court of Appeal, which had been scheduled for April 11, 2025.
“Cumulatively, the victims have been in court seeking justice for over 12 years. For the victims and survivors of the post-election violence, after more than 17 years, this is another dark day,” a statement from interested parties reads.
“We invite the media and Kenyans to interrogate the judiciary and the government's responses to the plight and rights of victims of gross human rights violations.”
The appeal case stems from constitutional petition 122 of 2013, which was filed in the High Court by eight survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) experienced during the 2007–2008 post-election period, six females and two males.
Three of the female survivors were allegedly gang-raped by police officers. In contrast, civilian criminals allegedly gang-raped the other three females, and the two male survivors, who were children at the time of the Post-Election Violence, were forcefully circumcised by ethnic militia.
The survivors in the case are supported by a coalition of organisations, including the Utu Wetu Trust, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU), the International Commission of Jurists – Kenya (ICJ-K), the Coalition on Violence against Women (COVAW), the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), and the Constitution and Reform Education Consortium (CRECO). In this case, two other organisations, Katiba Institute and REDRESS, are enjoined as Amicus Curiae.
In 2020, the High Court issued its judgment in petition 122 of 2013, awarding Sh4 million compensation to four of the survivor-petitioners on the basis that they were violated by police officers and for the state’s failure to investigate and prosecute perpetrators following one reported case where a civilian gang raped the survivor.
The other four, whose cases involved gang rape and forced circumcision, were dismissed on the basis that they were committed by civilian perpetrators and lacked formal police reports.
The Court of Appeal was on Friday expected to address whether survivors who were violated by civilian criminals and who did not or could not report violations due to several factors, including breakdown in security, law and order at the time, trauma, stigma, or displacement, still deserve protection and redress from the State.
The Court of Appeal was also expected to address the High Court’s reluctance to issue structural orders that would require the state to establish mechanisms for documentation and reparation for all other victims of sexual violence committed during PEV.
