By Doris Moraa | July 24, 2026
Prominent criminal defence lawyer Cliff Ombeta has strongly criticized the High Court’s conviction of former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, arguing that the judgment was founded on speculation rather than concrete evidence linking his client directly to the murder of Rongo University student Sharon Otieno.
Speaking after the landmark ruling, Ombeta maintained that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Obado was directly involved in planning or executing the killing, insisting that the evidence presented during the trial did not satisfy the legal threshold required for a murder conviction.
The High Court on Thursday found Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Oyamo and former county aide Caspal Obiero guilty of the 2018 murder of Sharon Otieno, bringing to an end one of Kenya’s longest and most closely watched criminal trials.
However, Ombeta dismissed the verdict, saying the court relied heavily on inferences instead of direct evidence.
He argued that prosecutors were unable to place Obado at the scene of the crime or produce evidence showing that he physically participated in the abduction or murder of Sharon Otieno.
According to the senior advocate, the prosecution’s case was largely built on circumstantial evidence and assumptions regarding motive rather than clear proof of criminal participation.
Ombeta also challenged the court’s conclusion that Obado orchestrated the murder to avoid public embarrassment over his relationship with Sharon Otieno and her pregnancy.
He questioned whether investigators had adequately explored other possible suspects or alternative theories before concluding that the former governor was responsible for the killing.
The defence lawyer further warned against allowing public opinion and emotional reactions surrounding high-profile cases to influence judicial decisions.
He emphasized that criminal convictions must be based solely on credible evidence presented before the court and not on public pressure or widespread media attention.
“Our justice system must remain anchored on evidence, facts and the law, not speculation or public sentiment,” Ombeta said.
Despite the defence’s objections, Lady Justice Cecilia Githua ruled that Obado’s absence from the actual crime scene did not exempt him from criminal liability.
The judge found that the three accused acted with a common intention, with Obado providing the motive and financial support, Michael Oyamo coordinating the execution of the plan and Caspal Obiero facilitating logistical arrangements that enabled the crime.
Justice Githua held that under Section 20 of the Penal Code, a person who aids, finances or facilitates the commission of an offence can bear equal criminal responsibility as those who physically carry it out.
The court therefore concluded that the evidence presented during the trial established a coordinated criminal enterprise involving all three accused persons.
Following the guilty verdict, the court cancelled the bond terms previously granted to Obado, Oyamo and Obiero and ordered that they remain in custody pending sentencing.
The case attracted national attention after Sharon Otieno, a 26-year-old Rongo University student, was abducted and later found murdered in Homa Bay County in September 2018 while she was heavily pregnant.
Over the course of the trial, the prosecution presented testimony from dozens of witnesses alongside forensic evidence, DNA analysis, mobile phone records and other exhibits in support of its case.
Ombeta’s remarks now signal the beginning of what is expected to be another lengthy legal battle, with the defence team preparing mitigation submissions before sentencing and indicating that it intends to challenge the High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal.
Legal analysts say the appeal process is likely to focus on whether the trial court correctly interpreted circumstantial evidence, the doctrine of common intention and the legal standard required to sustain a murder conviction where an accused person was not physically present at the crime scene.
The case continues to generate significant public interest as Kenyans await the sentencing of the three convicted individuals and the next phase of the legal proceedings.
