Loading...
Here to Help!
By Donald O. Magambo
Treasurer, HUSIKA | Researcher in Digital Governance and Public Participation
Nearly eight years after the killing of Rongo University student Sharon Otieno sent shockwaves across Kenya, the country now awaits one of the most closely watched criminal judgments in its recent history.
Today, at the Milimani High Court in Nairobi, Justice Cecilia Githua is expected to determine whether former Migori Governor Zacharia Okoth Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Juma Oyamo, and former Migori County Clerk Caspal Ojwang Obiero are guilty of Sharon's murder.
All three have pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and remain presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty by the court.
The judgment will conclude a case that has stretched across almost eight years, becoming more than a criminal trial. It has evolved into a national conversation about power, accountability, gender-based violence, and whether justice can prevail regardless of political influence.
Sharon Otieno was a 26-year-old diploma student at Rongo University and a mother of one when her relationship with then-Governor Okoth Obado became public. During the trial, Obado did not dispute that the two had been in an intimate relationship, and DNA evidence presented before the court indicated that he was almost certainly the father of the unborn child Sharon was carrying.
The prosecution alleged that Sharon's pregnancy became a source of conflict because it threatened Obado's political reputation during his second term in office. The defence has consistently denied that allegation and maintained that no evidence links Obado to a plot to kill Sharon.
According to evidence presented during the trial, Sharon and a journalist with whom she had been meeting were lured to Graca Hotel in Rongo on the night of September 3, 2018. Prosecutors alleged that the pair were subsequently abducted. The journalist escaped from the moving vehicle and alerted police. Sharon was unable to escape.
The following day, Sharon's body was discovered in a thicket near the Owade River in Homa Bay County. A post-mortem examination found that she had sustained multiple stab wounds to the neck, abdomen, and back. Medical evidence presented during the proceedings also suggested that she may have been sexually assaulted. She was approximately 28 weeks pregnant at the time of her death.
Later that month, investigators arrested Obado, Oyamo, and Obiero, charging all three with Sharon's murder.
The proceedings commenced in 2019 but advanced slowly over the years owing to numerous adjournments, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and personal circumstances affecting one of the accused persons.
By mid-2024, the prosecution had closed its case after calling 42 witnesses. Prosecutors argued that phone records, forensic findings, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence established a coordinated plan that culminated in Sharon's abduction and killing.
In January 2025, Justice Githua ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case requiring all three accused persons to present their defence on the charge relating to Sharon's death.
However, the court acquitted them on a separate count concerning the death of Sharon's unborn child, holding that under Kenyan law a murder charge applies only where a child is born alive.
Taking the witness stand in April 2025, Obado acknowledged having had a relationship with Sharon and accepted the DNA findings identifying him as the father of her unborn child.
He testified that he had financially supported Sharon throughout her pregnancy and intended to purchase land and build a home for her. While expressing sorrow over her death, he firmly denied any involvement in her killing, maintaining that the prosecution's case rested entirely on suspicion rather than direct evidence.
His defence team, led by Senior Counsel Kioko Kilukumi, argued that none of the prosecution's witnesses testified that Obado planned, ordered, financed, or participated in Sharon's murder. They further submitted that evidence placed him in Nairobi approximately 350 kilometres from the crime scene on the night Sharon disappeared.
The defence urged the court to find that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In their final submissions, prosecutors contended that the evidence demonstrated careful planning, coordination, and attempts to conceal the crime. They argued that phone records connected the three accused persons before and after the murder and placed Oyamo and Obiero near Graca Hotel shortly before Sharon's reported abduction.
The defence rejected those assertions, maintaining that the prosecution's case remained wholly circumstantial and lacked any direct evidence linking Obado to the planning or execution of the killing.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Githua reserved judgment, explaining that the court required sufficient time to carefully evaluate the extensive evidence accumulated during the lengthy proceedings.
Few criminal cases in Kenya have attracted the sustained public attention generated by the death of Sharon Otieno.
The case reignited national debate over the vulnerability of young women involved in relationships with influential public figures, gender-based violence, abuse of power, and whether political office can shield individuals from criminal accountability.
Civil society organisations, including FIDA-Kenya, have consistently called for justice while emphasising that the verdict should be determined solely by the evidence presented before the court and the applicable law.
Beyond the courtroom, the case became a significant test of public confidence in Kenya's criminal justice system. Its lengthy duration highlighted both the complexity of prosecuting high-profile murder cases and the challenges courts face in balancing thorough investigations with the constitutional imperative of delivering justice without undue delay.
The proceedings have also underscored the importance of judicial independence. Regardless of the public interest surrounding the case, the court's responsibility has remained the same: to evaluate the evidence impartially and determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Whatever the outcome, today's judgment will bring to a close nearly eight years of investigations, courtroom proceedings, legal arguments, and intense public scrutiny.
For Sharon Otieno's family, the accused persons, and a nation that has closely followed every stage of the proceedings, the decision marks the conclusion of one of Kenya's most consequential criminal trials.
Whatever the court ultimately decides, the judgment will represent far more than the conclusion of a single criminal case. It will stand as a significant moment for Kenya's justice system, demonstrating how the courts resolve allegations involving powerful public figures through evidence, due process, and the rule of law.
For the family of Sharon Otieno, no judgment can undo the profound loss they have endured. For the accused persons, the court's decision will determine their legal responsibility under the law. For Kenya, the verdict will serve as another measure of the strength, independence, and credibility of its justice system.
In a constitutional democracy, justice is not determined by public opinion, political influence, or media attention. It is determined by evidence, the law, and the impartial judgment of the courts. As the nation awaits Justice Githua's decision, that principle remains the foundation upon which public confidence in the rule of law ultimately rests.
Sources: This article is based on proceedings before the High Court of Kenya, publicly available court records, and reporting by Nation Africa, Citizen Digital, NTV Kenya, The Standard, Capital FM, and other Kenyan media organisations covering the trial.
Editor's Note: This article was written immediately before the scheduled delivery of judgment and reflects the status of the case at that time. The accused persons remain presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty by the court.
Comments
Be respectful and constructive in your comments.