Authored By: Faith Nyambura Muchinji
DAYSTAR UNIVERSITY
Introduction
An African proverb teaches that if you educate a girl, you educate a nation. This statement position the female gender as the foundation of society yet the same continent records the highest killing of women globally. It is appalling that there is no single state in Africa that recognize femicide as an autonomous crime despite its prevalent nature. In 2024, a sobering report by UN Women and UN Office of Drugs and Crime revealed that every 10 minutes a woman is killed. The report further revealed that out of the 50000 female population killed globally, 22600 of the female population were from Africa where no law to defend them.
Closer to home, Femicide in Kenya has become a lethal reality that is deeply rooted in misogynistic norms and societal systems that have normalized gender-based violence, diminished female autonomy and insulated perpetrators from meaningful legal accountability.
In a bid to rewrite the story, Kenya held its first march protests against femicide aimed at disrupting the entrenched societal narratives by calling legislators to take action in introducing femicide as a crime and demanding society shift away from a victim blaming culture. This article advances that classifying gender-related killings as generic homicides is a miscarriage of justice. However, guided by sociological jurisprudence, this article recognizes that the law does not exist in vacuum, it flourishes in a society that creates and honor it. This article proceeds in three folds; first it examines the legal frameworks in place; second, it draws a comparative analysis from jurisdictions recognizing femicide as a distinct crime and lastly it proposes reforms necessary to bridge the gap in Kenya.
Existing Legal Frameworks
Femicide was first used by Diana Russel at the International Tribunal on Crimes Against Women where she was testifying about the killings of women and she later redefined it as the killing of women simply because they are women with an intention to raise awareness of misogynist crimes. It stands to be the most pervasive form of violence against women with the United Nations Statistical Framework recording that women and girls face the greatest risk of gender-motivated killing at the hands of those closest to them be it their intimate partners or family members. This article emphasizes that classifying gender- related killing under the broad ambit of homicide is a superficial legal response. It simply scratches the surface but fails to uncover the deep-rooted discrimination, unequal power dynamics and harmful social norms against women and girls. This reality has been squarely acknowledged by the United Nations in its Sustainable Development Goals on gender inequality reflecting states’ commitment to eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls.
Kenya has ratified the Maputo Protocol which is widely recognized as the most progressive regional instrument advancing women’s rights. However, it fails to define femicide. Additionally, this legal gap manifests itself in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women(CEDAW) such that while it does recognize the various forms of violence against women; it shy away from specifying femicide as a distinct offense and addresses gender related killings in generic terms. Recently, the AU implemented the African Union Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls to be read in tandem with the Maputo Protocol. The Convention recognizes the right of women and girls to live free from all forms of violence and calls for states to adopt proactive measures that promote African culture while ensuring that the frameworks implemented do not justify violence against women and girls including femicide.
Kenya is anchored by the supremacy of its constitution which extends its protective reach to women and girls on a binding constitutional imperative. It contains the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to life, equality and freedom from discrimination, inherent dignity as well as the freedom and security of an individual. It further demand the state to be proactive by addressing the needs of vulnerable groups including women who are explicitly recognized. It further extends to implementation of legal measures through formulation of policies designed to redress disadvantages suffered by individuals or groups as a result of past discrimination. The killing of a woman because she is a woman is at it core an act of discrimination in its most extreme form. Not only does it violate the right to life but manifest a gender-based inequality that the Constitution expressly demands be dismantled. A state that recognizes women as a vulnerable group deserving of proactive constitutional protection cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the gender-related killings that have gripped the nation.
For the longest time, perpetrators of gender-related killings have had their charges and judicial systems leaning on the provisions of murder with malice aforethought. For instance in R v Korir,the accused killed his wife through strangulation in a lodge hotel that he had booked to achieve his murderous intention. The accused having strangled the wife, left the room claiming he needed a jog and food. It was only after the hotel staff that realized the deceased was not answering the door that they broke in to find her dead. The prosecution advanced the case as one of femicide, urging the court to commensurate the sentence to the seriousness of the offence. However, whilst the aggravating factors of the killing were clear, including booking a hotel and constructing an alibi by leaving the room; the court could only grapple with the offence of murder that failed to recognize the history of abuse, the gender motive and betrayal of trust as the couple had been married for twelve years. The new dawn is here for legislators to realize that the blanket approach to these clustered gender killings is in contravention of the constitutional protection of women and girls as vulnerable groups. Without formal recognition, femicide is quietly erased in policy discourse and misread by the public as mere domestic tragedy rather than confronting it for what it is truly is.
III Comparative Lens of Jurisdiction Recognizing Femicide as Distinct Offence
Critics contend that singling out femicide law is unnecessary and raise debates on equality between men and women regarding whether it is acceptable to treat the killing of a woman as more serious than that of a man. They argue that the legislation underlining women as a vulnerable group is paradoxical as it perceive them as inherently weaker while advocating for the principle of equality. However, these arguments are weak per se, in that, gender inequality exists practically everywhere and the law recognizes that women are exposed to violence in peculiar ways as compared to men with data shows that 60 percent of female homicides are committed by intimate partners or family members while only 11 percent of all male homicides are recorded.
The implementation of measures based on vulnerability is an application of affirmative action that calls for an extra layer of protection for women and girls which is far from discriminatory. Another argument is that femicide is difficult to prove and even if codified there can be no harsher sentence since the sentence for homicide is maximum. This argument upon scrutiny, fails to hold water substantially because femicide is deemed as an aggravated homicide and the additional ingredients of gender motive that distinguish it are questions of fact that are provable. The contention on a greater sentence is equally misplaced because the aim of codifying femicide is not to increase the sentencing margin but to establish a commensurate sentence that reflects the seriousness of the gender-motivated killing.
This article leans toward Italy and Belgium as European Union countries that most recently codified femicide into law. Through both lenses, Kenya can attest to the blueprint that femicide legislation is a stepping stone to holstering the protection of women and girls against violence.
In honor of the day dedicated to the elimination of violence against women worldwide, Italian policymakers passed the femicide bill ranking it the most recent state to codify femicide. Similar to Kenya, the gender related killing of women were extreme with the murder of a lady whose body was wrapped in body bags and dumped by the lakeside after being stabbed by her ex- boyfriend made headlines. The legislation adopts a punitive approach imposing life imprisonment penalty imposed to perpetrators involved in killing a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred for being a woman. However, the reception of the law by civil society is lukewarm especially since it fails to reflect their core priorities. First, it raises the question of proportionality because aggravated murder is already codified with a life imprisonment penalty. Second, the reform was of penal populism that offers symbolic reassurance rather than effective protection. This argument stems to the fact that, while prosecution and policy is crucial, the legislation fails to capture the whole framework laid out by the Istanbul Convention on prevention and protection such as promoting women empowerment and having support services where women can access social services and safe shelters with ease.
A different approach is recorded in Belgium, where it not only recognizes femicides but also sets out prevention measures against femicides. It law meticulously defines four different categories of homicides including intimate femicide, non – intimate femicide, indirect femicide and gender-based femicide. The law’s primary focus is on defining, measuring femicide trends and protecting women against violence leaving the existing criminal code to handle prosecution. Belgium’s law on femicide is precisely nuanced and showcase a structural recognition of deeply rooted causes of femicide. Nevertheless, the state experiences shortcomings in functional data collection system with reports attributing delays due to inadequacy of information sourcing.
It goes without saying, that Rome was not built in a day and neither are the legal frameworks in place to fight femicide. Though the journey to effective implementation is far from over, the codification of the femicide law showcases the state’s commitment in not tolerating femicide.
IV Proposed Reforms
This article recognizes the progressive measures taken by the state amidst the femicide crisis including establishing a taskforce on gender-based violence including femicide whose primary focus is to analyze trends, enforcement gaps and societal factors that contribute to these crimes. However, these measures are temporary, calling for adoption legislative measures that thoroughly deal with femicide.
The reforms proposed are as follows: first, the implementation of a stand-alone femicide law that extensively captures all forms of femicide drawing inspiration from Belgium’s laws on femicide while still carrying equal normative authority as the Penal Code when it comes to the enforcement of penalties. Secondly, in propagating a sociological jurisprudence, this article takes the firm view that enacting the law without the society evolving is a nugatory effect. Enforcement agencies must be vigilant in addressing reports on femicides with mechanisms in place to record reported cases. This builds public confidence and trust in reporting femicides without fear of being dismissed. The case of Gonzalez and others v Mexico showcases the bad precedent set by enforcement officers who responded with no urgency to families seeking to find their lost loved ones, dismissing the missing claims of the women as having gone to have a good time with their boyfriends only for them to be found dead in the cotton fields.
Lastly, this article compels a shift in societal views; statements like ‘that why you people get killed’ reflect ignorance and symptoms of deeply entrenched cultural values that normalize gender-based violence. The societal mindset should shift from victim blaming to calling out the perpetrators of such heinous acts.
V Conclusion
This article demonstrates the inadequacies of the existing frameworks in Kenya and the obligation of the state to treat the femicide crisis as no ordinary crime. Moreover, the comparative analysis of Belgium and Italy stand as a pivotal shift to showcase the blueprint that codification of femicide is essential for the effective protection of women and girls as vulnerable groups. It further calls for a society that is willing to challenge the misogynistic attitudes that have permitted femicide to thrive and most importantly emphasize the vigilance of enforcement agencies in handing reports on femicides
VI Bibliography
International Instruments
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
African Union Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Istanbul Convention
National Instruments
Constitution of Kenya 2010
Penal Code
Books
P Neumann If It’s Not Femicide, It’s Still Murder: Contestations Over Femicide in Nicaragua (2022) 140-145
DE Russell & Van de Ven (eds) Crimes Against Women: The Proceedings of the International Tribunal (1976)
Journals
A Nicastro & E Corn ‘Does Italy’s New Femicide Law Comply with International Law’ (EJIL 2025)
M Kovacevic & M Maljkovic ‘Femicide- certain controversial issues and Comparative law review’ (Criminology and Criminal LJ) (2024)
Case laws
Benjamin & 3 others v Presidential Taskforce on Technical Working Group on Gender Based Violence Including Femicide & 55 others [2025] KEHC 6797 (KLR)
Gonzalez et al v Mexico (Cotton Field case) (IACHR 2009)
Republic & another v Korir & another [2025] KEHC 7830 (KLR)
UN Reports
UNODC & UN Women, Femicides in 2023: Global Estimates of Intimate Partners and Family Member Femicides (United Nations publication 2024)
UNODC & UN Women, Femicides in 2024: Global Estimates of Intimate Partners and Family Member Femicides (United Nations publication 2025)
UN Women ‘Five Essential Facts to Know About Femicide’ (2024)
UN Women ‘Fact and Figures: Ending Violence Against Women’ (2025)
Articles
K Mutethia ‘Codification of a Femicide Law in Kenya’ (2025)
Blogs
S Rainsford Italian Parliament Unanimously Vote to make Femicide a Crime (BBC blog 2025)
E Ouma ‘The Myth of the Slay Queen and Kenya’s Lackluster Response to Femicide’ (Women’s Media Centre 2024 report)
