Wamae proposes castration for fathers who reject post-inheritance court ruling
By Ascah Mwango, July 17, 2025Former Roots Party presidential running mate Justina Wamae has proposed that men who refuse to take responsibility for children born out of wedlock should be castrated.
Her comments come in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that declared children born out of wedlock to Muslim fathers are entitled to inherit from their father’s estate.
Taking to her X account on Thursday, July 17, 2025, Wamae responded to reports that some religious leaders had rejected the ruling.
“Now that religious leaders have rejected the Supreme Court ruling on inheritance of children born out of wedlock, then the alternative should be castration (nipping the problem at the bud) if they are not willing to be part of the children’s lives,” Wamae wrote.
Adding:
“Kenya is governed by the Constitution of Kenya 2010, not the Bible or Koran.”
Court’s ruling
The Supreme Court ruling, delivered in June 2025, upheld decisions by the High Court and the Court of Appeal that found it unconstitutional to deny inheritance to children born outside of a formal Islamic marriage.
The judges emphasised that such exclusions amount to unfair discrimination and violate the principles of equality and the rights of the child as protected in the Constitution.
“Denying children inheritance simply because they were born out of wedlock is unjustifiable and unreasonable, especially when viewed against the best interests of the child, as enshrined in Article 53(2) of the Constitution,” the court stated.
In their judgement, the justices stressed the importance of balancing Muslim personal law with constitutional protections. They cited Article 24(4), which allows the limitation of certain rights under personal laws such as Islamic law. However, they insisted that any limitations must be reasonable, justifiable, and narrowly defined.
The Supreme Court also commended the Court of Appeal for harmonising Islamic inheritance laws with constitutional values. The ruling highlighted Article 20 of the Constitution, which requires all laws to be interpreted in a manner that promotes and protects human rights and freedoms.