Murderers to get just 30 years in proposed changes to Penal Code

Proposed changes align Penal Code with constitutional principles

A new Bill has been submitted to Parliament seeking to amend the Penal Code and lessen punishment meted out to capital offenders, allowing discretion for convicted felons to be jailed for just 30 years instead of the mandatory death sentence.

The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, proposes amending Section 4 of Cap 63 of the Penal Code of the principal Act by assigning a new meaning to “imprisonment for life” as imprisonment for a term of 30 years.

The Bill further proposes the scrapping of the mandatory death sentence against convicted felons for capital offences, including treason, murder and armed robbery.

It instead prescribes an alternative maximum sentence of 30 years for the capital offences at the judge's discretion, currently punishable only by death.

“Section 40 of the principal Act is amended in subsection (3), by deleting the words ‘shall be sentenced to death’ appearing immediately after the word ‘treason’ and substituting therefor the words ‘is liable to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years’,” the Bill says.

It proposes similar changes to Section 204 on sentencing of convicted murderers as well as Section 60 of Cap 63 of the Penal Code for all felony charges.

A felony charge is a formal accusation of a serious crime—such as murder, robbery or aggravated assault—punishable by imprisonment for life or, in extreme cases, the death penalty.

“Section 60 of the principal Act is amended by deleting the words ‘shall be sentenced to death’ appearing immediately after the words ‘felony and’ and substituting therefor the words ‘is liable to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years’.”

The Bill proposes changes to Section 295 and redefines robbery with violence as aggravated robbery.

Clause 25 of the Bill provides for the insertion of new sections 298A, 298B, 298C and 298D to provide for the offences of robbery, aggravated robbery, attempted robbery and attempted aggravated robbery and their respective punishments, slashing the severity of the sentences.

It caps the maximum sentence for robbery while using or threatening to use actual violence at 14 years, seven years for attempted robbery, while attempted and aggravated robbery while armed with any firearm or any offensive weapon or chemical material is prescribed the death penalty or imprisonment for a term of not less than 30 years.

Section 295C in particular states: A person who steals anything and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person, and is armed with any firearm or any offensive weapon, or any obnoxious or chemical material, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any other personal violence to any person, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to be sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term of not less than 30 years.

If enacted into law, the Bill states that the provisions of the new Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, will not apply to convicted felons sentenced before the Act came into force.

It will also not affect ongoing trials of a person or any sentence already passed for violations committed before the commencement of the Act.

However, it states that the provisions of the Act shall not affect the right of an accused person to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments for an offence, if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing.

The power of the President to exercise a power of mercy in accordance with Article 133 of the constitution or any written law will also not be affected.

The Bill also seeks to align the provisions of the Penal Code relating to sentencing of children with the provisions of the Children's Act, 2022.

It proposes amendments to Section 25, stating a sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against any person convicted of an offence if it appears to the court that at the time when the offence was committed the person was under the age of 18 years.

The court, it states, shall sentence such a person in accordance with Sections 238 and 239 of the Children Act.

Beyond the capital offences, the Bill also amends Section 132 of the principal Act and shifts the burden of proof for the offences of incitement to violence and disobedience from an accused person to the prosecution, in line with the general principles of criminal law.

This means police officers and other entities such as the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) will have to be more thorough in collecting evidence against persons accused of any form of incitement.

Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs George Murugara states in his memorandum of objects and reasons that the principal object of the Bill is to amend the Penal Code Cap 63 to align it with the Constitution and other statutes.

“Clauses 15 to 22 of the Bill provide for the repeal of Sections 194–200 of the Penal Code to abolish libel and defamation as offences under the Penal Code and to align the Penal Code with Article 33 of the Constitution,” he states.

He adds that the constitution introduced new principles with regards to sentencing and freedom of expression which need to be incorporated into the Penal Code.

The proposed changes have drawn mixed reactions, with some welcoming the reforms while others have termed them “dangerous”.

“You kill someone, you are jailed for 30 years. The victim's family funds your prison lifestyle, prison education, soap escapades and you get to come out. Vigilantism will settle most scores here,” one said.

“How are these amendments dangerous? Our jurisprudence has been tilting us towards this direction. The amendments are effectively a response to that jurisprudence that is more aligned with the dictates of the constitution,” added another.

“Human right activists have won again, the murder victims have no rights,” another said.