Former Migori Governor Zachary Okoth Obado will return to the High Court on September 16 for a moment that could bring a dramatic new chapter to one of Kenya’s most closely watched murder cases — the sentencing of the three men convicted over the killing of Rongo University student Sharon Otieno.
The sentencing date was set after the High Court directed that Obado and his two co-convicts, former personal assistant Michael Oyamo and former Migori County clerk Caspal Obiero, appear before the court following their conviction for Sharon’s murder.
The development comes less than two months after Lady Justice Cecilia Githua delivered a verdict that ended nearly eight years of uncertainty surrounding the case, finding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the three men were responsible for Sharon’s killing.
The court is now expected to consider the circumstances surrounding the murder, the effect of the crime on Sharon’s family and the submissions of both the prosecution and defence before determining the appropriate sentence.
The sentencing process will be informed by a victim impact report prepared by a probation officer and presented to the court, alongside submissions from both sides.
The report is expected to give the court a picture of how Sharon’s death affected her family and other victims of the crime, providing the judge with material to consider before passing sentence.
The three men have remained in custody since their conviction after the court cancelled their bond terms. Earlier reports indicated that the court ordered pre-sentence and victim assessment reports to be prepared before sentencing.
A verdict after nearly eight years
For almost eight years, the Sharon Otieno murder case remained one of the most closely followed criminal trials in Kenya.
Sharon, a 26-year-old Rongo University student, was abducted in September 2018. Her body and that of her unborn child were later found in a thicket near Kodera Forest in Homa Bay County.
The case generated intense public interest from the outset because of the circumstances surrounding Sharon’s death and her alleged relationship with Obado, who was then the serving Migori governor.
The prosecution’s case was built over years of hearings, with the court hearing evidence from 42 prosecution witnesses and considering 81 exhibits.
On July 23, Justice Githua finally delivered the long-awaited judgment.
She convicted Obado, Oyamo and Obiero of murder after finding that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge found that the three acted with a common intention, although each allegedly played a distinct role in the events leading to Sharon’s death.
The court’s conclusion brought to an end a trial that had survived multiple stages of litigation and remained under intense public scrutiny.
The chain that convicted the three
At the centre of Justice Githua’s verdict was circumstantial evidence.
The judge said the evidence presented by the prosecution, when considered cumulatively, formed a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the three accused.
“I am satisfied that the circumstances presented in this case, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, committed the offence,” Justice Githua ruled.
The significance of the finding lies in the court’s conclusion that the individual pieces of evidence did not exist in isolation.
Instead, they formed a sequence that the judge found connected the three accused to the murder.
Justice Githua’s findings, as reported after the judgment, assigned different roles to the three men.
The court found that Obado supplied what it described as the motive, instigation and funds; Oyamo facilitated the execution of the plan; while Obiero provided logistical support and helped with concealment.
The prosecution had argued that Obado had a motive to prevent his relationship with Sharon from becoming public and to deal with the consequences of her pregnancy.
Justice Githua accepted that argument, finding that Obado had reason to fear damage to his reputation if the relationship became public.
The court rejected Obado’s position that he had genuinely accepted Sharon’s pregnancy and was supporting her.
Instead, the judge found evidence pointing to a different relationship between the two and concluded that the prosecution had established a motive for the killing.
Sharon’s pregnancy at the centre of the case
Sharon was about seven months pregnant at the time of her death.
The pregnancy became one of the critical elements of the prosecution’s case because it was linked to the alleged motive and to the events preceding her abduction.
Evidence presented during the trial included allegations that Obado had urged Sharon to terminate the pregnancy.
The court also heard evidence about communications between the two and Sharon’s concerns over their relationship becoming publ
According to prosecution evidence, Sharon had demanded recognition of the relationship and support for the child, while the prosecution argued that Obado feared the political and personal consequences of the relationship becoming public.
The judge ultimately found that the circumstances provided a motive for the crime.
Oyamo and Obiero’s roles
The judgment did not treat the case as one in which Obado acted alone.
Oyamo, his former personal assistant, was found to have played a role in facilitating the events surrounding Sharon’s killing.
The court rejected his defence that he merely delivered money and then left Sharon at the hotel where she had met him and another individual.
Justice Githua found that the meeting at Graca Hotel was connected to Sharon’s eventual handover to her killers.
Obiero, the former Migori County clerical officer, was also found to have played a role after the murder.
The court found that he was involved in efforts aimed at concealing the crime and that he helped Oyamo access a clinical officer who allegedly fabricated a medical report intended to support a false account that Oyamo had been abducted.
The judge also referred to the disabling of a vehicle tracking device on the day Sharon was abducted as evidence pointing to preparation and concealment.
It was this combination of motive, planning, facilitation and concealment that the court found formed a complete evidential chain.
From conviction to sentencing
The July 23 conviction was not the final step in the proceedings.
Once the three men were found guilty, the court cancelled their bond terms and ordered that they be held pending the sentencing process.
The court directed that reports concerning the accused persons and the impact of the crime be prepared before sentencing.
The victim impact report now becomes particularly important.
Such a report allows the court to understand the consequences of the crime beyond the legal evidence presented during trial.
For Sharon’s family, the murder did not end with the discovery of her body.
Her parents have described the years of court appearances, financial strain and the emotional burden of repeatedly revisiting the circumstances of her death.
Sharon’s father, Douglas Otieno, said after the conviction that while the family welcomed the verdict, they remained anxious about what sentence the court would impose.
He described the nearly eight-year legal journey as financially and emotionally exhausting, with the family repeatedly travelling to Nairobi for hearings.
He also spoke of the continuing effect of Sharon’s death on her children and wider family.
The victim impact report will give the court a formal account of those consequences.
What the judge will consider
When Obado, Oyamo and Obiero return to court on September 16, the judge will have several pieces of information before her.
These will include the victim impact report, the relevant pre-sentence material and submissions from the prosecution and defence.
The defence teams are expected to make mitigation submissions, while the prosecution will present its position on sentence.
The court will then determine the appropriate punishment after considering the circumstances of the offence and the factors placed before it.
The sentencing hearing is therefore different from the July conviction.
In July, the central question was whether the prosecution had proved that the accused committed murder beyond reasonable doubt.
On September 16, the focus will shift to punishment.
A dramatic fall from power
For Obado, the sentencing hearing represents another extraordinary turn in the career of a politician who once wielded considerable influence in Migori and South Nyanza politics.
He became Migori’s first elected governor under the devolved system and built a reputation as one of the region’s influential political figures.
The murder case radically changed that trajectory.
He spent years attending court while out on stringent bail conditions, including surrendering his passports, as the prosecution presented its case.
That freedom ended immediately after the July conviction when the court cancelled his bond and ordered that he be taken into custody.
Images of the former governor being escorted to a prison van after the judgment provided a stark contrast to the political power he once commanded.
The conviction has consequently been described as a dramatic fall for a politician who had once been at the centre of Migori’s political establishment.
A family’s wait for justice
For Sharon’s family, however, the case has never been about political power.
It has been about a daughter who was killed while carrying an unborn child and the years spent waiting for an answer from the courts.
Her parents attended the July judgment and welcomed the conviction, but acknowledged that the sentencing would be another difficult moment.
The family’s concerns reflect a broader reality of criminal justice: conviction establishes responsibility, but sentencing determines the punishment.
The September hearing will therefore carry a different emotional weight.
The family will have an opportunity, through the victim impact process, to have the consequences of the crime formally placed before the court.
What happens after September 16?
The sentencing may not necessarily mark the end of the legal battle.
The convicted persons retain avenues of appeal against their conviction and/or sentence under Kenyan law.
The September proceedings will nevertheless be a defining moment because they will establish the punishment imposed by the High Court after a trial that has consumed almost eight years.
For now, all eyes are on September 16.
The court has already answered the central question of guilt.
Justice Githua found that the evidence formed a chain so complete that it left no reasonable escape from the conclusion that Obado, Oyamo and Obiero were involved in Sharon’s murder.
The next question is one of consequence.
After nearly eight years of waiting, what sentence will the court impose on the three men convicted of taking Sharon Otieno’s life?
That is the question that will bring the former governor, his two co-convicts and Sharon’s family back before the High Court on September 16.
About The Author
