Tag: Sharon Otieno murder

Last week, former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and two of his aides were found to have a case to answer in Sharon Otieno’s death but were all acquitted of the murder of her unborn baby and here is why.

Justice Cecilia Githua in her ruling explained the reason for acquitting the three saying they ought not to have been charged with murder.

Justice Githua said this is because at the time of the alleged murder, the baby was not a person capable of being killed or murdered under section 203 of the Penal Code that provides the offence of murder.

“A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not and whether it has an independent circulation or not…” the judgement reads.

Justice Githua agreed with Lawyer Kioko Kilukumi who had defended Obado arguing that the offence of murder can only be committed against a person and not an unborn child.

Kilukumi had argued that by virtue of the born alive principle, an unborn child or fetus was actually not a person for the purpose of section 203 of the Penal Code hence the prosecution erred in law by charging the accused persons with the offence of murdering Baby Sharon.

The judge concurred with Kilukumi, ruling that Sharon’s baby had not completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother.

The judge said that although there was undisputed evidence that at the time Sharon Otieno met her death, she was pregnant and the fetus was 28 weeks old, the government pathologist confirmed that the Baby was killed while inside her mother’s womb.

“From the above uncontested evidence, it is clear that Baby Sharon was a fetus which had not proceeded from its mother’s body and did not therefore fit the definition of a person capable of being killed…” the court ruled.

The judge faulted the state for charging them with murder instead of the offense of killing an unborn child which carried a life imprisonment if convicted.

“I find it difficult to understand why the prosecution who obviously had possession of the evidence and must have analyzed it before making the decision to charge chose to charge the accused persons with murder in count 2 knowing full well the evidence in their possession supported a different offence. Each accused person is accordingly acquitted of the charge of murder in respect to count 2” the judge ruled.

Obado will now have to defend himself and convince the court that he did not kill the late Sharon.

The High Court Thursday ruled former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and two co-accused persons have a case to answer in the murder of university student Sharon Otieno.

Sharon and her unborn baby were killed on the night of September 3, 2018, in Homa Bay County.

Obado, along with Michael Oyamo and Caspal Obiero are facing charges related to the brutal killing of the expectant university student in 2018.

On November 8, 2024 parties completed final submissions in the case, with Obado arguing that the prosecution failed to present a strong case against him.

Through his lawyers Kioko Kilukumi and Rodger Sagana, the former governor submitted that he had an open relationship with Sharon Otieno and was willing to support her and their unborn child.

The defence also argued that there is no legal basis for charging murder in relation to a foetus, asserting that murder charges apply only to a person who has been born alive.

The prosecution led by Gikui Gichui and Allan Mulama concluded its case against the accused last year (2024) with the testimony of investigating officer Moses Ole Sena.

A total of 42 witnesses testified in the six-year-old case.

Obado’s lead lawyer senior counsel Kioko Kilokumi asked trial judge Cecilia Githua to find that the former Migori governor has no case to answer.

The prosecutors asked the court to find that Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Oyamo and a former Migori county employee Caspal Obiero have a case to answer and should be put on their defence.

They presented evidence showing that Oyamo is the one who allegedly liaised with Sharon on the fateful day before she rode in a vehicle that drove her to the death field in Homa Bay.

Justice Githua made her ruling Thursday.

Justice Githua said the evidence adduced by the Prosecution established that a prima facie case had been made to warrant the three being placed on their defence.

The Judge was in agreement with submissions made by the defense that by virtue of born alive principle which state that for a child to be a victim or anyone to be accused of murder, that child must be born alive.

“I have considered these submissions and I am in agreement that indeed the evidence adduced by the Prosecution in support of baby Sharon doesn’t support the charge of murder,” she said.

Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and two others will know their fate in January on whether they will be found guilty of killing late university student Sharon Otieno.

Lady Justice Cecilia Githua will deliver the judgement for the murder case on January 30 next year.

The prosecution has closed its case after making their closing remarks when they were highlighting their submissions on why the three should be found guilty.

In his defense, the former county boss said the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against him and consequently, prayed that he be acquitted from the charges.

Through his lawyer Kioko Kilukumi, Obado said that the prosecution’s murder charges against him had been brought because his Personal Assistant and Clerical Officer at the County Assembly Michael Oyamo and Caspal Obiero are suspected of the offence, then he is suspected or assumed to have either enabled, aided, abated, counselled or procured the commission of the murder.

According to Obado, there is no cogent evidence to sustain the charges against him.

Kilukumi further submitted that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case to warrant putting the Obado on his defence.

Obado said that he can only be held personally liable for his own actions that violates Criminal Laws.

He told Court that he cannot be held criminally liable for acts (if any) of others including Oyamo and Obiero and it matters not that they were employed by the County Government that he headed.