A fresh legal storm has erupted following the conviction of former Migori Governor Okoth Obado in the murder of university student Sharon Otieno, after prominent defence lawyer Cliff Ombeta openly questioned the High Court’s decision.
Reacting to the landmark judgment, Ombeta argued that the prosecution failed to present evidence directly placing Obado at the scene of the crime or proving that he personally carried out the killing. According to him, the case did not meet the legal standard of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
«”Obado did not commit that offence… even the circumstantial evidence could not put him at the scene or link him to the actual act,” Ombeta said.»
The veteran criminal lawyer further criticized the court’s reasoning, claiming the conviction relied heavily on assumptions rather than conclusive evidence. He also questioned whether all possible explanations surrounding the murder had been thoroughly considered.
Despite Ombeta’s arguments, Justice Cecilia Githua reached a different conclusion. In her ruling, the judge held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, finding that Obado acted with a common intention alongside his co-accused.
The court determined that although Obado was not physically present when Sharon Otieno was killed, he financed and facilitated the murder, making him criminally liable.
Following the verdict, the court revoked the bond terms of Obado, Michael Oyamo and Caspal Obiero, ordering that they remain in custody as they await sentencing.
Ombeta’s remarks have already ignited fresh public debate over the judgment and are widely expected to form part of a planned appeal. The case, one of Kenya’s most closely watched murder trials, continues to draw intense national attention as the country awaits the sentencing of the convicted men.
APPEAL ROUTE
Although former Migori Governor Okoth Obado has been convicted over the 2018 murder of university student Sharon Otieno, the High Court’s decision does not necessarily mark the end of his legal battle.
Under Kenya’s justice system, Obado still has several avenues to challenge both his conviction and any sentence that may be imposed, potentially extending one of the country’s most closely followed criminal cases.
First Stop: The Court of Appeal
Obado’s immediate option is to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal, where his lawyers will seek to overturn the High Court’s judgment.
His legal team is expected to argue that the trial court may have misinterpreted the law, improperly evaluated the evidence, relied on inadmissible material, or reached conclusions that were not supported by the facts presented during the trial.
The appeal can also challenge the severity or legality of the sentence handed down by the High Court.
After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal has several options. It may uphold the conviction, quash it and acquit Obado, order a fresh trial, or uphold the conviction while reducing or varying the sentence if it finds part of the appeal persuasive.
Can the Case Reach the Supreme Court?
If the Court of Appeal upholds the conviction, Obado’s legal path becomes significantly narrower.
Unlike appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, there is no automatic right to appeal criminal cases to the Supreme Court.
For the country’s highest court to hear the matter, the appeal must involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution, or the case must be certified as raising an issue of general public importance.
As the sentencing phase approaches, attention is now shifting to whether Obado’s legal team will launch an appeal—and whether Kenya’s appellate courts will ultimately uphold or overturn one of the country’s most high-profile murder convictions.
