Ruth Kamande: Supreme Court throws out 'Battered Woman Syndrome' defence
In the appeal, Kamande had sought to use Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Ruth Kamande, a woman who was found guilty of fatally stabbing her boyfriend in 2025.
In the appeal, Kamande had sought to use Battered Woman Syndrome as a defence.
In its decision, the highest court stated that claims based on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) must be presented as early as possible during trial proceedings, just like any other legal defense.
"The Court held that the battered woman syndrome has not attained the status of a stand-alone defence, and it has to be raised in aid or as an extension of one of the existing legal stand-alone defences: self-defense, provocation or temporary insanity," read part of the judgment.
Kamande is currently serving a life sentence following her conviction for the 2015 killing of her boyfriend, Farid Mohamed Halim, whom she stabbed 25 times.
In her defense, Ruth Kamande claimed she acted in self-defense, but the court rejected this argument.
The court further noted that Kamande had not demonstrated the presence of Battered Woman Syndrome or how it directly related to the crime she committed.
Moreover, during the mitigation phase, she made no mention of being in an abusive relationship with the deceased.
As a result, the court held that the syndrome could not be considered part of her self-defense or provocation claims, which were the arguments she relied on during her trial.
The Supreme Court based its ruling on the testimonies of victims and witnesses, expert analysis, and the interpretation and application of relevant legal principles and statutes.
Battered Woman Syndrome is a psychological condition that can develop in individuals who have experienced prolonged and severe domestic abuse, particularly in intimate relationships.
It is considered a subcategory of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
In legal contexts, BWS can be used to explain a defendant’s mental state and reactions, particularly in cases involving self-defense.
However, courts generally require strong evidence, and it’s not always accepted as a standalone legal defense.