A significant shift is unfolding in Kenya’s criminal justice system, with the High Court issuing a series of rulings that are reshaping how foreign nationals convicted of trafficking narcotic drugs complete their prison sentences.
Rather than every offender serving a full custodial term, the court has increasingly embraced rehabilitation and proportional punishment when deciding whether continued imprisonment still serves the interests of justice.
The decisions have seen several foreigners, among them Ugandan, Nigerian and Lithuanian nationals, released before completing their sentences and immediately deported to their countries of origin after the court found they had sufficiently reformed.
But the rulings also carry a clear warning: Sentence review is not automatic simply because a prisoner is remorseful or has spent years behind bars.
In one case, the court rejected an application for sentence review, emphasising that judicial discretion cannot be exercised merely because a prisoner asks for leniency. Taken together, the decisions provide perhaps the clearest picture yet of how Kenyan courts are balancing punishment, rehabilitation and the public interest in narcotics cases involving foreigners.
Bisaso and another Ugandan national were convicted in the same trial for trafficking narcotic drugs. She was initially sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Sh254.9 million before the sentence was later reduced to 30 years. By the time she returned to the High Court, she had served about 15 years.
She argued that her co-accused had already secured his freedom in 2023 after his sentence was reviewed, yet she remained in prison despite having been convicted in exactly the same proceedings.
Bisaso told the court the disparity violated her constitutional rights, and the court agreed.
“The record shows that the petitioner and her co-accused were jointly charged, tried and convicted of the same offence of trafficking in narcotic drugs. The co-accused subsequently benefitted from a review of sentence and was released in 2023. The petitioner, however, continues to serve her sentence despite having been convicted in the same proceedings and for the same offence,” the judge said.
“The same sentences should be imposed for the same offences committed by offenders in similar circumstances,” the court quoted from the Sentencing Policy Guidelines.
The judge further relied on the Judiciary Criminal Procedure Bench Book, which states that where two or more people are convicted of the same offence, “there should be no disparity in the sentences imposed without good reasons.”
While acknowledging that sentencing differences may sometimes be justified because of previous criminal records, differing roles in the offence or other aggravating factors, the court found none existed in Bisaso’s case.
“There is therefore no discernible basis upon which one offender should continue serving a custodial sentence while the other has already secured his release,” the court said in a ruling delivered on June 4, 2026.
Maintaining that imbalance, the court held, “would offend the principle of parity in sentencing and violate the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law.”
Rather than ordering a fresh sentencing hearing, the court declared that Bisaso’s sentence had already been served. She was ordered released immediately before being deported to Uganda, with the Ugandan High Commission directed to meet the costs of her return home.
The emphasis on rehabilitation featured even more prominently in three other decisions on drug-related cases.
Nigerian national Gacheche Patience Gold had been serving a 15-year sentence and was fined Sh15 million for trafficking narcotic drugs. By the time his application came before the High Court, he had served approximately 11 years and, after accounting for remission, had less than two years remaining.
Unlike Bisaso’s case, his application focused almost entirely on his conduct in prison. Court records showed he had maintained good discipline, participated in vocational training programmes, counselling sessions and other rehabilitation initiatives. His family had also assured the court that they were ready to support his reintegration once released, factors the court found persuasive.
“In light of the period already served, the applicant’s demonstrated rehabilitation, and his positive conduct while in custody, I am satisfied that he is eligible for early release,” the judge ruled.
On June 10, 2026, his application was allowed, and the court ordered that he be deported to Nigeria after his release, with the Nigerian High Commission bearing the costs.
Another Nigerian, Nnamdi Egisimba, also secured early freedom. He had been sentenced to 16 years imprisonment but had already served nine years. Unlike ordinary sentence review applications, his case was supported by a detailed probation report assessing his conduct in custody.
The report concluded that he had undergone sufficient rehabilitation, demonstrated remorse and possessed reasonable prospects of successful reintegration into society.
“I am persuaded that the applicant has served a substantial portion of the custodial sentence and has attained a level of reform that justifies early release,” the court ruled. The judge concluded that the time already served constitutes sufficient punishment. In the ruling delivered on June 23, 2026, he was released and ordered repatriated to Nigeria.
On the same day, Lithuanian national Karolis Brencius obtained similar relief after serving over five years of his seven-year term. He had also been fined more than Sh50 million. The court again relied heavily on an assessment by probation officers.
Yet even as the court embraced rehabilitation, another decision delivered only days earlier demonstrated that the door to sentence review remains tightly controlled. Nigerian national Ezewuru Evarustus Ebuka, who had been sentenced to five years in jail for trafficking narcotic drugs, told the court he had reformed, was remorseful and wanted to return home. This time, however, the court declined.
Read together, the five rulings illustrate the evolution of Kenyan sentencing philosophy.
While drug trafficking remains a serious crime in Kenya, the decisions show that courts are increasingly asking whether offenders have accepted responsibility, undergone rehabilitation, maintained discipline and reached a point where continued incarceration adds little value to the objectives of justice.
The judge reminded him that sentence review is not an opportunity for the High Court to substitute its own views simply because an applicant seeks mercy.
“The applicant’s application essentially seeks the exercise of this court’s discretion in sentencing,” the ruling said.
According to the report, Brencius had demonstrated positive reform throughout his imprisonment and posed a low risk of reoffending. The judge accepted those findings.
“Having considered the application, the probation report, the applicant’s conduct while in custody, and the period already served, I am satisfied that the objectives of sentencing have substantially been achieved.”
The court added: “The time already served is adequate and sufficient punishment for the offence committed.”
Brencius was ordered released immediately before being handed over to immigration authorities for repatriation to Lithuania. His family was directed to meet the travel costs.
Yet even as the court embraced rehabilitation, another decision delivered only days earlier demonstrated that the door to sentence review remains tightly controlled.
Nigerian national Ezewuru Evarustus Ebuka had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment for trafficking narcotic drugs.
Like the successful applicants, he told the court he had reformed, was remorseful and wanted to return home. He pleaded for a non-custodial sentence followed by repatriation.
This time, however, the court declined.
The judge reminded him that sentence review is not an opportunity for the High Court to substitute its own views simply because an applicant seeks mercy.
“The applicant’s application essentially seeks the exercise of this court’s discretion in sentencing,” the ruling said.
“This court can only interfere with the exercise of sentencing discretion by the trial court if it determines that that discretion was wrongly exercised,” the judge stated in a ruling dated June 9, 2026.
The court relied on previous Court of Appeal decisions establishing that appellate courts interfere only where sentencing was based on wrong principles, ignored relevant considerations or produced a manifestly excessive punishment.
Read together, the five rulings illustrate the evolution of Kenyan sentencing philosophy.
While trafficking in narcotic drugs remains one of the country’s most serious criminal offences, the decisions show that courts are increasingly asking whether offenders have accepted responsibility, undergone rehabilitation, maintained discipline in prison and reached a point where continued incarceration adds little value to the objectives of justice.
