A high-profile verdict in Kenya has drawn renewed attention to legal representation, prison reform and the limits of defences rooted in psychological trauma. The case centres on Ruth Kamande – a woman convicted of murdering her boyfriend in 2015 and now serving a life sentence – whose bid to have a psychological defence recognised was recently rejected by the country’s highest court.
Kamande was originally sentenced to death after being found guilty of stabbing her partner 25 times. Her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment as Kenya switched away from capital punishment, but questions around the motivations and fairness of her trial continued to draw public and legal scrutiny.
In 2025 Kamande petitioned the Supreme Court of Kenya to accept the concept of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a valid defence – invoking domestic-violence trauma as a factor in her case. The court dismissed the petition, holding that BWS does not constitute a stand-alone defence under Kenyan law and must be invoked only alongside traditional defences such as self-defence, provocation or diminished responsibility. Because her defence had not been raised during the initial trial or appeal, the court ruled it could not be entertained at this advanced stage.
During her time in prison, Kamande – sometimes referred to by her prison nickname “Miss Lang’ata” – pursued a law degree, studying via a prison legal-education programme. She has since used her skills to assist fellow inmates with legal representation, helping some win reversals or more favourable outcomes in their cases.
The court’s ruling and Kamande’s transformation highlight a broader tension in criminal justice: the struggle to reconcile evolving understandings of trauma, gender-based violence and legal accountability within established frameworks. The verdict underscores that without legislative change, courts may remain constrained in recognising psychological trauma as a decisive factor in violent crime cases.
