Peeling back the mask: Analysing the juxtaposition of marital rape and its legalese in Kenya
Posted: 7 April, 2025 Filed under: James Mulei | Tags: ‘unlawful’ penetration, biological abilities, bride price, cultural taboos, cultural traditions, gender-based violence, inancial security, intimate partner violence, justice to victims, Kenya, Kenya’s Sexual Offences Act (2006), lack of forensic medical experts, marital rape, non-consensual sex, physical disparity, physical effects, psychological effects, rape, rape within marriage, unconsented sex Leave a comment
Author: James Mulei
Kabarak University
“You are mad!” Resian screamed at him. “You are stark mad if you think I am your wife. He repeated quietly, smiling “Whether you scream your heart out, or jump into the deep sea, Resian, you are mine. You are my wife from now henceforth! Let us see how ‘educated’ your body is.” *
The juxtaposition of marital rape has been a subject of discussion, spanning several years if not centuries. Ideally, juxtaposition here refers to contrasting the concept of rape within marriage. Why would a man rape his wife if they are married? Isn’t rape characterised by unconsented sex, where ‘unlawful’ penetration must occur? The immunity of a husband had a long historical tradition, framed by British common law. The immunity of husbands was established by the eminent judge and jurist Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, where he pointed out that a husband cannot be guilty of rape upon his wife for a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife, as marriage implied consent. This theory treated marriage as a contractual agreement where sex was an obligation, making it impossible to prosecute marital rape.[1] This implied that a husband is incapable of raping his wife, meaning that any sexual acts perpetuated within the marriage could not be subject to judicial scrutiny.[2]
AfricLaw 