DPP Ingonga seeks deterrent sentence for Obado, two aides over Sharon Otieno murder

Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and his co-accused arrive at the Milimani Law Courts ahead of mitigation after being convicted of the murder of Sharon Otieno by   Justice Cecilia Githua on September 16, 2026. [David Gichuru,Standard]

The DPP Renson Ingonga has urged the High Court to impose a deterrent sentence on former Migori governor Okoth Obado and his two aides citing the planned nature of Sharon Otieno’s murder, abuse of trust and the harm caused to her family.

Ingonga, through State prosecutor Gikui Gichuhi, submitted that the circumstances surrounding the murder called for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the three convicts and the public interest.

Gichuhi made the submissions before Justice Cecilia Githua on Wednesday during the sentencing hearing of Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Juma Oyamo and former Migori County clerk Caspal Ojwang Obiero.

She said the court subsequently considered the evidence and convicted the three of Sharon’s murder.

The prosecution asked the court to exercise its constitutional mandate and impose a sentence commensurate with the offence, the culpability of the convicts and the public interest.

Gichuhi said the ODPP was guided by Article 157 of the Constitution, which requires the DPP to have regard to the public interest, the administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process.

The prosecution also cited sections 4 and 14 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, which require prosecutors to act independently, impartially and objectively and place before the court circumstances favourable and unfavourable to an accused person.

Gichuhi further relied on the 2023 Sentencing Policy Guidelines, which require the prosecution to assist the court by placing before it all relevant matters, including applicable law, an offender’s criminal record, aggravating circumstances and other issues relevant to sentencing.

On the criminal records of the three convicts, Gichuhi said the Directorate of Criminal Investigations had informed the prosecution that none had previous offences recorded against them.

“The DCI has informed us they have no past offence against each of the three convicts. They may be treated as first offenders,” she submitted.

The prosecution, however, urged the court to consider what it described as several aggravating circumstances surrounding Sharon’s killing.

Gichuhi cited paragraph 5.2.4 of the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, which sets out aggravating factors that may justify a more severe sentence.

She argued that the murder was planned and was not a spontaneous act, adding that the three acted pursuant to a common design and performed distinct roles.

“As this court likely found in its judgment, this murder offence was planned and was not spontaneous. Accused persons acted to a common design and acted to distinct roles,” she said.

“This planning elevated their culpability in the murder of Sharon Otieno.”

The State also cited the manner in which Sharon was killed and the resulting harm to her family as aggravating circumstances.

Gichuhi said the court had identified multiple injuries suffered by Sharon and the consequences of her death on her family.

The prosecution further asked the court to consider abuse of trust and position in determining the sentence.

Gichuhi submitted that the three convicts were associated with public institutions and held positions of trust, arguing that their relationship to Sharon and their respective positions were relevant to sentencing.

She also said there was no evidence of provocation or any sudden event that could reduce their culpability.

“From the evidence availed, no evidence of provocation and of no sudden existed to reduce the culpability of the three,” she said.

The prosecution nevertheless acknowledged that the court was required to consider mitigating circumstances.

Gichuhi said mitigation did not erase the convictions but was intended to assist the court in arriving at a considered sentence.

Among the factors she listed were the circumstances surrounding the offence, whether the convicts were first offenders, their previous character, guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility, mental and physical condition, prospects of rehabilitation, remorse, reconciliation measures, personal circumstances and time spent in custody.

Gichuhi told the court that the prosecution was aware of the victim-impact statement, the pre-sentencing report prepared by probation officers and statements made by Sharon’s parents and family.

“My Lady, we are aware of the victim impact statement and pre-sentencing report that are tabled in this court as well as statements from parents’ family which they seek reconciliation engagement,” she submitted.

The prosecutor said the State did not question the right of Sharon’s parents to address the court or express their views on sentencing.

She, however, submitted that the family’s views were relevant but could not determine the sentence to be imposed.

“The offence we are here today is an offence against the State, community and the sentence to be given should be deterrent and promote judicial trust,” Gichuhi said.

The prosecution further reminded the court that it remained the ultimate decision-maker and was required to act within the Constitution and the law.

The State also addressed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Muruatetu, which declared the mandatory nature of the death sentence for murder unconstitutional.

Gichuhi said the DPP was aware of the decision and its implications on sentencing, but urged the court to consider the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances in which Sharon was killed.

“The seriousness of this offence before you, we submit as the prosecution, that we as a republic stand in the place of the deceased and request for justice,” she submitted.

She asked the court to impose a sentence that reflects justice, public interest and the gravity of the offence.

In the case, the court convicted Obado, Oyamo and Obiero on July 23 after Justice Githua found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the three acted jointly, with each playing a distinct role in the events leading to Sharon’s death.

Sharon, a Rongo University student, was killed in September 2018 while she was pregnant.

The case attracted national attention and lasted about eight years before the July 2026 conviction.

Following the conviction, the court cancelled the three convicts’ bond terms and ordered that pre-sentencing and victim-impact reports be prepared before mitigation and sentencing.

The sentencing hearing continues before Justice Githua.