You’ve probably heard a victim express dissatisfation after an accused person is acquitted. More often than not, the victims vow the accused is in fact guilty.

The reason why this happens is because the standard of proof required for a conviction in criminal matters is very high; beyond reasonable doubt.

This means that a court might believe that the person committed the crime they are being accused of but still set them free if the prosecution leaves room for the slightest doubt.

M.A.M from Turkana County was set free eight years and five months later after being tried for defilement of a supposed eight year old boy.

He was tried and convicted in 2015 but he appealed 8 years, 5 months later in 2023.

The prosecution’s case was that M.A.M had defiled the eight year old boy who was the son to his lover. The prosecution had three witnesses the victim, the clinical officer who examined the victim after he was allegedly sodomised and the investigating police officer.

The victim told court that his mother had been admitted to hospital and he had been left with the accused (he refferred to him as his uncle) at home. The accused asked him to go and sleep and while in bed the accused person undressed him, instructed him to kneel on a mattress that was in the room and inserted his penis in his anus.

The complainant/victim was not cross-examined. It is important to note that there is a principle in law called Voir dire which is Latin for ‘to speak the truth’ which is basically the process of asking a witness question to determine whether they are telling the truth,

The second witness, a clinical officer testified that he examined the eight year old and established he had been sodomised.

Finally, the police officer testified that the complainant came to report in the company of his uncle and his statement read that he was sodomised while his mother was sleeping outside as she was ailing. The officer accompanied them to hospital where it was determined he was sodomised.

The accused who had been convicted challenged this decision five 8 years later. The court of appeal faulted the lower court for:

a). Not determining the age of the ‘victim’ via documents such as his birth certificate or baptism card

b). The inconsistency of his evidence and his testimony in court

c). The failure to apply the principle of voir dire

The court ruled in his favour and eight years later, he was set free.