A Chinese woman serving 18 years imprisonment for drug trafficking has been allowed to challenge her conviction after expressing fears of execution once repatriated to China.
Qui Xiaoting told Court of Appeal judge Joel Ngugi that she intended to appeal against her conviction and sentencing, especially after the trial court ruled that she be repatriated to China, upon completion of her jail term.
The woman added that upon being returned to China, she would be immediately executed, given the nature of the offence for which she was sentenced.
“Her appeal is, also, not idle, especially her concern about the repatriation order which she says, in the circumstances of her case, was unnecessary and would lead to the violation of her right to life,” Justice Ngugi said.
The court said at a minimum, Qui deserved an opportunity to present her arguments for consideration by the court.
“Differently put, I find that she has an arguable appeal. Consequently, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the deployment of judicial discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for the extension of time,” the judge said.
Qui was intercepted at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) on July 4, 2018, at the transit lounge area, gate 10, with 2520 grams of Methamphetamine, a psychotropic substance with a market value of Sh20 million.
After the trial, the court ordered her to pay a fine of Sh40 million or serve 18 years imprisonment, in default.
Qui appealed against the decision, but it was dismissed by High Court judge Lilian Mutende, who said she deserved life imprisonment, given the seriousness of the offence.
The Chinese woman said she was late in preparing for the second appeal because she had no legal representation at Lang’ata Women’s Prison, where she is being held.
As a foreigner, Qui said she felt helpless to manoeuvre through the legal system in order to pursue her right of appeal.
She told the court that she managed to bring the application when she obtained the assistance of legal counsel pro bono through a Chinese friend.
She submitted that the delay in bringing the application was not inadvertent or disinterested, but she was intent on appealing against both the sentence of imprisonment and the repatriation order.
Qui submitted that the sentence imposed on her was manifestly excessive and, in particular, that the repatriation order was unnecessary, perhaps, unlawful.
