A man has moved to court in a bid to save his 13-year-old son who has been charged with defiling his four-year-old cousin.

The man (name withheld) claimed that it is not fair to subject his underage son to the legal process and the humiliation of being tried in court at such a tender age for a crime he does not understand.

His argument is that it is not possible for two underage children to commit an indecent act and that the charges against his son are defective.

The application is likely to rekindle the debate of whether to review the Sexual Offences Act which critics say is too harsh for minors, with some judges stating in their decisions the need to overhaul the Act.

Last week, the Court of Appeal proposed that the consent age should be lowered to 16 years in consideration of young men who suffer lengthy jail terms as a result of the Sexual Offences Act.

Appellate Judges Roselyn Nambuye, Daniel Musinga and Patrick Kiage stated that the country should discuss challenges of maturing children, morality and proportionality in punishing sexual offenders.

The man in his suit states that on February 22, he returned home with his wife at 5AM after an overnight prayer vigil and found police officers at the homestead looking for his son.

“Police came to arrest my son after my brother’s wife claimed that he had defiled her daughter aged 4 years within the homestead where all of us, including their family dwell together,” he said.

He pleaded with the police not to arrest his son and promised to take him to the station but upon arrival, the young boy was locked up for two days.

The 13-year-old was then presented to court and charged with defilement and committing an indecent act with a child. He denied the charged before the senior resident magistrate and was released on a cash bail of Sh40,000.

He wants the court to stop his son’s trial, arguing that his prosecution goes against international convention for welfare and protection of children’s rights.

“The charges are defective and a threat to my son’s constitutional right as a child. They pose uncertainties and psychological stress to the boy and likely to deny him the opportunity to develop into his full potential,” said the father.

His lawyer Stephen Arunda argued that the boy, who is a class 8 pupil, was traumatised and coerced by police officers to append his thumb print to a statement that had already been written without his knowledge.

According to the lawyer, the officers failed to have a children’s officer when interrogating the minor which made him more vulnerable to admitting things he did not do.

“The minor’s best interests were not given primary consideration. By handcuffing him in broad daylight yet the child did not show any sign of hostility infringed his right to dignity. It made him prone to stigma, fear and depression which is likely to hinder his proper growth,” said Arunda.

He added that one of the officers even threatened the boy if he refused to admit defiling his cousin which he claimed was tantamount to self incrimination.