A task force led by Nancy Baraza has proposed amending the Sexual Offences Act to introduce chemical castration for those convicted of defiling children and Persons with Disabilities.
A proposal by the Technical Working Group on Gender-Based Violence to introduce “chemical castration” for convicted sexual offenders has sparked intense debate, with medical experts, lawyers and human rights activists offering differing views.
The Nancy Baraza-led task force has recommended amending “the Sexual Offences Act 2006 to include chemical castration for both male and female child defilers and defilers of PWDs.”
While the proposal has been framed as a tough response to sexual violence, experts warn its effects could be far-reaching and lifelong.
Dr Ahmed Ali Yousef, a consultant urologist and Head of Department at the Aga Khan University Hospital, describes the use of “chemical castration” as a complex issue that sits at the intersection of medicine, law and ethics and one he considers a form of violence.
“This is a very serious topic that sits at the difficult intersection of law, ethics, and medicine,” says Dr Yousef.
President William Ruto receives the Report of the Technical Working Group on Gender-Based Violence, including Femicide, from the chairperson, Dr Nancy Baraza, at State House, Nairobi.
With three decades of experience managing hormone levels in men, often treating prostate cancer by lowering testosterone or helping those with low levels raise it, Dr Yousef says he has seen firsthand how powerful these hormones are.
“I understand deeply how powerful these hormones are and what happens to the human body when we drastically manipulate them,” he warns.
In medical terms, he explains, the word “castration” does not necessarily mean surgery. Instead, it refers to stopping the testicles from producing functional hormones.
“Sexual offense is a devastating plague on society. The desire to find a solution is understandable. However, when we propose using strong medical agents as a tool of the justice system, we must be absolutely clear about what these drugs do, and what they do not do,” he warns.
Chemical castration involves the use of medication to shut down testosterone production, which is the primary male sex hormone responsible for sexual desire, erections, physical strength and energy. By suppressing it, the drugs essentially cut off the “fuel” that drives libido.
But the side effects, experts say, can be severe.
Considering risks such as depression, suicidal ideation, hot flashes, anaemia, infertility, increased body fat, and higher chances of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, advocate Omoke Morara argues that “the side effects are long life and it may be argued that incarceration is a sufficient punishment.”
From a legal standpoint, Mr Morara notes that introducing chemical castration would require amendments to existing laws.
According to him, criminal statutes “ought to specifically prescribe offenses and the applicable punishments.”
Even then, offenders could challenge the punishment in court, particularly by pointing to the serious health consequences associated with the procedure.
If adopted by Parliament, Kenya would also have to consider its obligations under international human rights treaties.
“The legislature ought to align national legislation with the country’s treaty obligations and the constitution. The constitution adopts a general international human rights principle by prohibiting degrading punishment,” explains Mr Morara.
Human rights advocates have also raised concerns about ethics, consent and the broader message such a policy sends.
According to Adrian Kibe, the Transgender Rights Lead at the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), any such policy would require strict medical ethics standards and independent oversight.
The process, he explains, would need to be genuinely voluntary, with safeguards against coercion. However, achieving this in practice would be difficult.
“It is also important to acknowledge that such measures are costly and could place an additional burden on an already strained State. Most importantly, focus on survivor care must not be diminished.”
Beyond the logistical and ethical challenges, Kibe argues that the proposal reflects a deeper misunderstanding of sexual violence.
“It signals a shallow and misguided understanding of sexual violence. It suggests scapegoating and reduces the issue to an assumption that sexual violence is driven by uncontrollable male desire rather than power, entitlement, and social conditioning,” argues Kibe.
“This framing responds to the wrong problem. Additionally, granting the government such extensive control over an individual’s body sets a dangerous precedent.”
For him, a system that prioritises punishment over prevention and reform ultimately fails both survivors and society at large.
“Studies show that extreme punitive measures often divert attention from root causes such as poverty, inequality, trauma, and socialisation. They can also shift focus away from the survivor, limiting access to holistic support services including psychosocial care, legal aid, and economic empowerment,” Kibe said, adding that sidelining rehabilitation can increase the likelihood of reoffending.
Drawing from work with survivors, he further pointed to systemic weaknesses within the justice system that continue to allow perpetrators to go unpunished.
“One major failure is the persistent backlog of cases and limited judicial days, which result in prolonged delays. Many survivors become exhausted by the process and eventually abandon their pursuit of justice,” Kibe explained.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
