Nick Amita Ikoka v Republic

The record showed the appellant entered a plea of not guilty on arraignment, then independently informed the court at least twice that he wished to change his plea. The charge was read and explained to him in Kiswahili, he admitted the facts, and he was convicted on his own plea. Nothing on the record showed confusion or lack of understanding, so the plea satisfied the Adan procedure and section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code barred interference with the conviction.

The Court held that the Constitution does not automatically grant state-funded representation for all offences or require counsel before a guilty plea. Entitlement depends on the accused's inability to afford an advocate and the risk of substantial injustice, considering the potential penalty and the accused's ability to understand the case. As the appellant initiated the plea himself and understood the charges, no substantial injustice arose.

The appellant argued he was held in custody for eight days without explanation. The Court held that numerous cases establish that the remedy for unconstitutional delay in presentment for plea is not an automatic acquittal; the accused must sue the State for the violation of his constitutional rights. The guilty plea was therefore unaffected by the delay.

While acknowledging serious aggravating factors - an elderly 65-year-old victim, life-threatening injuries, and the violent, gender-based nature of the offence - the Court found the two courts below failed to consider extenuating circumstances: the guilty plea which saved judicial time and spared the victim further trauma, first-offender status, and remorse. The sentence was set aside and twenty years imposed, computed under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code from the date of arraignment.