Kenya’s Justice System on Trial: The Fight for Accountability Begins
Posted by EDITORIAL
After spending 17 years in Kamiti Maximum Prison, Daniel Wanyeki’s conviction was overturned following the emergence of new claims that his daughters may have been coerced during testimony, reportedly in the context of a family property dispute. As the case proceeds to retrial, it raises critical questions about child testimony, judicial delays, and broader lessons for Kenya’s justice system.
Nairobi Kenya
In Summary
- Daniel Wanyeki Gachoka spent 17 years in Kamiti Maximum Prison following a 2007 conviction for defilement involving his two daughters.
- In 2020, one of the daughters recanted her earlier testimony, alleging that relatives had pressured the children, reportedly in connection with a family property dispute.
- The High Court in Kiambu quashed the conviction in November 2024, citing new evidence, and ordered a retrial under Article 50(6) of the Constitution.
- Wanyeki, now out on bail, awaits the retrial as renewed public debate unfolds on judicial accountability and the safeguards against wrongful convictions in Kenya’s justice system.
Seventeen years. That’s how long Daniel Wanyeki Gachoka lived behind the thick walls of Kamiti Maximum Prison; not as a man whose guilt was beyond question, but as one still waiting for a justice system to test its own fairness.
In 2007, Wanyeki, a father of two, was convicted of defiling his daughters aged seven and nine. The court sentenced him to 20 years, later upgraded to life imprisonment after appeal. His name was erased from the rolls of innocence, and his life became a cautionary tale whispered in shame.
Then, in 2020, one of his daughters recanted her earlier testimony in court, claiming the accusations had been fabricated under family pressure linked to a property dispute valued at about KSh 50 million. The recantation pointed to a tragic mix of greed, coercion, and possible institutional lapses — how a family feud may have shaped a man’s life sentence.
READ: Court Overturns Garissa Miner’s Murder Sentence: Gaps in ‘Last Seen’ Doctrine Exposed
READ: From U.S. Fraud to Nairobi Mansions: The Hidden Trail of Illicit Wealth
Armed with this new testimony, Wanyeki filed a petition under Article 50(6) of the Kenyan Constitution, which allows retrial when new and compelling evidence surfaces. In November 2024, the High Court in Kiambu agreed: the conviction was quashed, and a fresh trial ordered. In December, Wanyeki was released on bail, stepping out into a world that had long forgotten him.
But freedom, in his case, is partial. The retrial means his name is still entangled in the justice system’s web — technically neither guilty nor cleared.The courts have reopened questions surrounding his first trial, yet the law offers little remedy for the 17 years he spent behind bars. There is no official apology, no compensation, and no clear policy for restitution in cases where convictions are under review or subject to retrial.
Unlike jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom or Canada, where statutory schemes provide compensation for wrongful convictions, Kenya relies primarily on constitutional petitions; often protracted, resource-intensive, and inconsistently adjudicated—leaving those whose convictions are overturned with uncertain or inaccessible routes to compensation.
This gap reveals a deeper wound within Kenya’s judicial framework. While the Sexual Offences Act (2006) rightly prioritizes protection of victims, its rigidity — combined with systemic delays — can lead to irreversible damage when cases are mishandled. Many sexual offence trials lean heavily on witness testimony, and when investigations are rushed or evidence improperly tested, the system’s good intentions can backfire spectacularly.
Wanyeki’s experience underscores the long timelines and procedural bottlenecks that plague Kenya’s criminal appeals. From conviction in 2007 to the reopening of his case in 2024, nearly two decades passed before the High Court revisited his case. Even with the Constitution’s promise of fair hearing and justice without delay, Yet in practice, these ideals are often strained by delays and procedural backlogs
The question now extends beyond the courtroom: who accounts for the seventeen years Daniel Wanyeki spent behind bars, now under renewed judicial scrutiny? Who bears responsibility when new claims emerge after years of imprisonment?
As Wanyeki, now nearing sixty, seeks to rebuild his life, Kenya’s justice institutions may need to re-examine how they handle cases where convictions are later revisited. There is growing public debate on the need for structured pathways toward reparative justice — including compensation, rehabilitation, and reintegration — for individuals whose convictions are overturned or re-evaluated.
A justice system cannot rely solely on retrials; it must also consider how to support those affected by possible miscarriages of justice.
Editor’s Note:
The High Court quashed Daniel Wanyeki’s earlier conviction in November 2024 and ordered a retrial. As of publication, the case remains before the courts. This article is based on verified court documents and credible reports. It does not pre-empt the outcome of ongoing judicial proceedings.
