How Long Could Obado Remain in Prison? Understanding Kenya’s Murder Sentencing Framework

Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado faces a sentencing decision on November 27, 2026, after the High Court convicted him and his two co-accused, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero, over the murder of Sharon Otieno. The Director of Public Prosecutions has asked the court to impose the death penalty, while Obado’s defence has sought leniency and a non-custodial sentence. The court has not yet decided the punishment, so there is currently no lawful basis for stating that Obado will spend a particular number of years in prison.

Kenya’s Penal Code still lists death as the punishment for murder under Section 204, but the Supreme Court’s landmark Muruatetu decision means that death is not a mandatory sentence in a murder case. A judge must consider the circumstances of the offence and the offender before imposing sentence. If the High Court chooses a fixed prison term instead, the actual time served can also be affected by statutory remission and by credit for time already spent in custody. Life imprisonment is a different category: the Prisons Act excludes life sentences from ordinary one-third remission.

What punishment can the court impose?

The starting point is Section 204 of Kenya’s Penal Code. Its wording provides for the death sentence following a murder conviction. But that provision cannot be read in isolation from subsequent constitutional jurisprudence.

In Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory nature of the death penalty for murder was unconstitutional because it prevented courts from considering mitigating circumstances. In 2021, the Supreme Court clarified that the Muruatetu decision and its sentencing guidelines apply specifically to murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code.

That leaves the High Court with sentencing discretion in a murder case. The possibilities relevant to Obado therefore include:

The table describes the legal framework, not predictions about which sentence Justice Cecilia Githua will impose.

Why the death penalty is still legally possible

It would be incorrect to say that Muruatetu abolished the death penalty in Kenya.

It did not.

The Supreme Court challenged the mandatory character of the death sentence for murder. The distinction is crucial. The law continues to recognise death as a possible punishment, but a murder conviction does not automatically require the judge to impose it.

That explains the prosecution’s position in the Obado proceedings.

On September 16, 2026, the DPP asked the High Court to impose the death sentence on Obado and his two co-convicts, relying on Section 204 and arguing that the circumstances warranted the maximum available punishment.

The prosecution’s request is therefore a sentencing submission, not the sentence itself.

The final decision belongs to the High Court.

What will the judge consider?

The sentencing process is designed to distinguish between cases rather than impose an identical punishment on every person convicted of murder.

The Muruatetu framework requires consideration of mitigating circumstances. These can include matters relating to the offender and the circumstances in which the offence occurred. The impact of the offence and other aggravating factors can also be relevant.

For Obado, the sentencing court has received mitigation and other material, including probation reports and victim-impact information. His defence has asked for leniency, while the prosecution has argued for the maximum penalty. Sharon Otieno’s parents have separately asked the court to consider a non-custodial sentence.

Those competing submissions do not mean that the court simply chooses whichever side makes the strongest emotional argument.

The judge must apply the law to the facts established in the case.

Could Obado receive a fixed prison term?

Yes.

The fact that Section 204 states that a person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death does not mean the court is constitutionally compelled to impose death after Muruatetu. A determinate custodial sentence is therefore legally possible.

If the court chooses a fixed term, another part of Kenya’s criminal-justice framework becomes important: remission.

Under Section 46 of the Prisons Act, prisoners serving determinate terms exceeding one month can earn remission of up to one-third of their sentence through industry and good conduct, subject to statutory restrictions and the possibility of losing or being deprived of remission. The provision expressly excludes prisoners serving life imprisonment.

So, for illustration only, a 30-year determinate sentence should not automatically be reported as 30 years physically spent behind bars. If the prisoner qualifies for the full statutory remission, the arithmetic could produce a shorter custodial period. But remission is not a promise of release on a particular date: it can be lost or withheld under the circumstances set out in law.

Life imprisonment is different

Life imprisonment should also not be treated as simply another way of saying “a very long sentence.”

Section 46 of the Prisons Act expressly states that remission does not apply to prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life. Kenyan courts have also described life imprisonment as imprisonment for the natural life term of the convict, meaning there is no ordinary fixed number of years that can simply be calculated from the sentence.

This distinction is particularly important when discussing how long Obado could remain incarcerated.

If he receives a determinate sentence, there is a mathematical sentence length from which applicable remission can potentially be calculated.

If he receives life imprisonment, there is no equivalent one-third-remission calculation.

If he receives the death sentence, the issue is different again because death is not an ordinary term of imprisonment to which remission can meaningfully be applied.

What about the years already spent in custody?

Another important issue is pre-sentence custody.

Section 333(2) of Kenya’s Criminal Procedure Code requires a sentencing court to take account of the period an accused person spent in custody before sentence. Kenyan courts have repeatedly applied this provision when determining the effective commencement of imprisonment.

That matters in Obado’s case because the murder prosecution dates back to 2018 and the accused have spent periods in custody during the lengthy proceedings.

But the exact calculation depends on the court’s sentencing order and the custody history recognised by the court. It would therefore be misleading to subtract a particular number of years from any hypothetical sentence before the judge makes that determination.

Does good conduct guarantee early release?

No.

Remission is sometimes presented as though every prisoner automatically serves two-thirds of a fixed sentence. The legal position is more qualified.

Section 46 allows remission based on industry and good conduct. It also permits remission to be forfeited and provides circumstances in which it can be withheld. The Kenya Court of Appeal has explained that remission is subject to those statutory conditions.

This means that calculations such as “a 30-year sentence means 20 years in prison” are useful only as simplified illustrations—not as guarantees of the date on which a particular prisoner will be released.

The same caution applies to claims that a murder sentence automatically results in release after a particular fraction of the term.

Why the eight-year trial matters at sentencing

The length of the Sharon Otieno case is relevant to the sentencing context, but it does not dictate the outcome.

The murder occurred in September 2018. The High Court delivered its conviction in July 2026, nearly eight years later. On September 16, 2026, the judge heard the parties’ final sentencing submissions and postponed the decision to November 27.

The defence can raise the period spent in custody and other personal circumstances as mitigation. The prosecution can point to circumstances it considers aggravating. The judge must then determine what weight the law permits those factors to carry.

This is one reason sentencing should not be reduced to a simple calculation based solely on the seriousness of the offence.

The victim family’s position is relevant—but not decisive

One of the unusual features of the current sentencing stage is the position taken by Sharon Otieno’s parents.

They have asked the court to spare Obado from a custodial sentence. That request is part of the victim-related material before the court, but it does not legally bind the judge. The State has separately argued for the death penalty.

The difference illustrates an important principle in criminal sentencing: victims’ families can have a voice without having the final power to determine punishment.

The court must balance their representations with the legal principles governing sentencing and the competing submissions of the prosecution and defence.

That makes the November decision particularly significant—not because the family’s position automatically determines the result, but because it forms part of the information the court is required to consider.

Could Obado’s age or personal circumstances change the sentence?

They can be relevant to mitigation, but they do not establish a predetermined reduction.

Reports from the September hearing indicate that Obado’s defence relied on factors including his age, health, previous record and the length of the proceedings. A pre-sentence report reportedly recommended a non-custodial sentence.

The weight given to such considerations is a matter for the sentencing court.

Similarly, the fact that a person is a first offender does not automatically convert a murder conviction into a non-custodial sentence. Mitigation informs the exercise of judicial discretion; it does not replace it.

The November 27 decision is only the next stage

The High Court has scheduled November 27, 2026, for delivery of the sentences against Obado, Oyamo and Obiero. Justice Githua said the court would consider the parties’ submissions, written mitigation, probation reports and victim-related material before delivering its decision.

After sentencing, the legal process does not necessarily end. Kenyan criminal procedure provides avenues of appeal, meaning the eventual sentence could become the subject of further judicial review if an appeal is filed.

For that reason, the most accurate answer to “How long could Obado remain in prison?” is necessarily conditional.

**He could face the death penalty, life imprisonment, a fixed term of imprisonment or, if the court finds it legally appropriate, a non-custodial sentence. If a fixed term is imposed, statutory remission and credit for time spent in custody could affect the effective period served. If life imprisonment is imposed, ordinary one-third remission does not apply. And until the High Court delivers its sentence on November 27, 2026, any precise number of years would be speculation rather than law.**