Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado admitted in court that he had an intimate relationship with Sharon Otieno and that he was the father of her unborn child. But he strongly denied any involvement in her killing. In testimony before Justice Cecilia Githua in April 2025, Obado presented the relationship as one that had ended months before Sharon’s death while insisting that he continued to support her financially during the pregnancy. His defence argued that these circumstances undermined the prosecution’s claim that he had a motive to have Sharon killed.
The High Court ultimately rejected important parts of that account. In its July 23, 2026 judgment, the court found that Obado’s claim that he had accepted Sharon’s pregnancy and was comfortable with it was not sincere or truthful. The judge pointed to evidence that Sharon had been pressured to terminate the pregnancy and found that the pregnancy formed part of the chain of events that culminated in her killing. Obado was nevertheless convicted on the murder charge only after the court assessed the totality of the prosecution and defence evidence; his admission of the relationship itself was not equivalent to an admission of involvement in the murder.
What Obado admitted about the relationship
Obado’s testimony removed one major point of dispute from the case: he acknowledged that he and Sharon had been romantically involved.
He told the High Court that they met at an Interpol conference in Nairobi and subsequently began a relationship. He acknowledged that Sharon became pregnant and that he was the father of the unborn child. He also acknowledged that he was not prepared to marry her.
His account was therefore not that the relationship never existed. His defence was built around a different proposition: that the relationship had ended before Sharon was killed and that there was no reason for him to arrange her murder.
Obado said he ended the relationship around February or March 2018 because of what he described as inconsistencies in the relationship. He denied that the pregnancy was the reason for the breakup.
That distinction became central to the defence.
Obado’s account of Sharon’s pregnancy
According to Obado’s testimony, Sharon initially told him she was pregnant in January 2018 and sent him ultrasound images. He said there was subsequently an episode in which she told him she was not actually pregnant and had wanted to see how he would react.
Later, he said, Sharon told him she was pregnant again.
Obado testified that although he had doubts about the pregnancy, he eventually accepted responsibility for the unborn child. He maintained that the relationship ended for reasons unrelated to the pregnancy.
The defence sought to use this account to challenge the prosecution’s theory that Sharon’s pregnancy created a motive for the murder.
But that became one of the areas where the prosecution’s evidence and Obado’s account sharply diverged.
The alleged pressure to terminate the pregnancy
The High Court’s eventual judgment was particularly significant on this issue.
Justice Githua found that evidence from prosecution witnesses, including Sharon’s mother, indicated that Obado had pressured Sharon to terminate the pregnancy. The court referred to evidence that Sh30,000 had allegedly been offered for the procedure and that Sharon subsequently decided to keep the pregnancy after consulting her mother.
The judge concluded that this evidence was inconsistent with Obado’s claim that he had simply accepted the pregnancy and continued to support Sharon.
That finding mattered because it affected the court’s assessment of the relationship itself.
The prosecution did not need to prove that a romantic dispute automatically resulted in murder. It needed to establish the accused’s criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the pregnancy dispute as part of the wider evidentiary picture.
Obado said the affair was an “open secret”
Another important part of his defence concerned whether Obado had a reason to fear the relationship becoming public.
Obado testified that the relationship was already widely known. He said employees within the Migori County Government knew about it and that his family eventually became aware of Sharon and the pregnancy. He also described how his wife, Hellen Adhiambo, confronted him about the relationship during a governors’ conference in Kisumu in May 2018.
He further testified that his son Dan already knew Sharon and that the relationship had become a matter of public discussion.
The defence’s underlying argument was significant: if the affair and pregnancy were already known to people around him, Obado argued, there was less reason for him to regard Sharon as a threat who needed to be silenced.
A senior investigating officer, Chief Inspector Nicholas Ole Sena, also testified that investigators found the relationship was not a secret and that it was known among county employees.
But the High Court drew a different inference from some of the evidence.
The court’s response to the “open secret” argument
Justice Githua found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Obado was entirely unconcerned about the relationship becoming more widely known.
The judgment referred to testimony that Obado had asked a witness not to disclose Sharon’s pregnancy. The judge also considered evidence concerning attempts to control information contained in mobile phones belonging to Sharon and journalist Barrack Oduor.
The court therefore distinguished between the affair being known to some people and Obado being indifferent to the information becoming more widely publicised.
That distinction was important to the court’s assessment of motive.
| Issue | Obado’s defence | High Court’s finding |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship with Sharon | He admitted the romantic relationship | The relationship was established |
| Father of pregnancy | He acknowledged being the father | The court accepted the relationship and pregnancy evidence in assessing the case |
| Why the relationship ended | He said it ended because of inconsistencies, not pregnancy | The court found his account did not fit the wider evidence |
| Attitude toward pregnancy | He said he accepted it and supported Sharon | The court rejected this aspect of his account |
| Public knowledge of affair | He described it as an “open secret” | The court found evidence that he nevertheless wanted aspects of the matter contained |
| Financial support | He said he continued supporting Sharon after the breakup | The court considered the evidence but found other conduct inconsistent with his explanation |
| Involvement in murder | He categorically denied killing or conspiring to kill Sharon | The court ultimately convicted him after assessing the full body of evidence |
The financial-support argument
Obado also relied heavily on financial support as part of his defence.
He told the court that even after ending the romantic relationship, he continued helping Sharon financially. He said the assistance included money for her welfare and pregnancy.
He further testified that he intended to help her establish a home and had discussed a housing arrangement. At one point, he said, the budget he had considered was about Sh3.5 million.
The defence used this evidence to argue that Obado was acting responsibly toward Sharon and her unborn child, rather than seeking to eliminate them.
The prosecution’s interpretation was different. It argued that the relationship and pregnancy had created circumstances in which Obado had a motive to prevent information from becoming public.
The court therefore had to assess not simply whether money changed hands, but what the broader pattern of conduct demonstrated.
The August 2018 payment
One piece of evidence Obado highlighted was a payment made shortly before Sharon’s death.
He testified that on August 17, 2018, Sharon acknowledged receiving Sh100,000. According to the defence, the payment was connected to discussions about housing.
Obado argued that the exchange demonstrated that relations between them were sufficiently normal shortly before Sharon’s death and contradicted the suggestion that he was planning to harm her.
The significance of the payment, however, had to be assessed alongside all the other evidence.
A financial transaction can demonstrate a relationship or an interaction without, by itself, proving or disproving a person’s involvement in a subsequent crime. That is why the High Court assessed the payment within the wider chronology rather than treating it as conclusive evidence of innocence or guilt.
Obado’s central denial
Despite acknowledging the relationship, Obado consistently denied involvement in Sharon’s murder.
In his defence, he said he did not kill Sharon, did not conspire with Oyamo or Obiero and did not procure anyone to kill her. His lawyers maintained that the prosecution had failed to establish a sufficiently direct connection between him and the killing.
This was an important legal distinction.
Admitting to an affair, acknowledging paternity or admitting to financial support does not establish participation in murder. The prosecution still had to prove the criminal charge to the required standard.
The court’s eventual conviction therefore rested on its assessment of the entire evidentiary record, rather than simply on Obado’s admission that he and Sharon had been romantically involved.
What the defence was trying to establish
Taken together, Obado’s testimony advanced several connected propositions:
- The relationship was genuine but had ended months before Sharon’s death.
- The breakup was not caused by Sharon’s pregnancy.
- He accepted responsibility for the pregnancy.
- He continued providing financial support after the relationship ended.
- The affair was already known to people around him and was therefore not a secret that needed to be eliminated.
- His continued dealings with Sharon, including discussions about housing, were inconsistent with an intention to harm her.
- He had no involvement in her abduction or murder.
The prosecution challenged that narrative by presenting evidence concerning the pregnancy, communications, relationships among the accused and events surrounding Sharon’s final days.
The High Court ultimately found the prosecution’s case sufficient to convict all three accused.
What the July 2026 judgment changed
The July 2026 judgment is particularly important because it provides the court’s assessment of Obado’s defence rather than simply a summary of what the defence alleged.
Justice Githua rejected his claim that he was comfortable with Sharon continuing the pregnancy. The judge found that evidence concerning pressure to terminate the pregnancy undermined that account and concluded that the pregnancy was central to the subsequent events.
The court also found that Obado had a strong motive to prevent information concerning his relationship with Sharon and her pregnancy from reaching a wider public audience.
Those are findings of the trial court, not facts that should be attributed independently of the judgment.
They also need to be distinguished from the allegations that were made before the court reached its verdict.
Why the relationship matters beyond the personal details
The intimate details of the relationship attracted considerable public attention, but their legal significance lies elsewhere.
The relationship became relevant because the prosecution relied on it as part of the circumstances surrounding the alleged motive and subsequent events. The defence, conversely, sought to show that the relationship’s history made such a motive implausible.
That makes the case a useful reminder of how circumstantial evidence works.
A single fact—such as an affair, a payment, a disagreement or a communication—does not necessarily establish criminal responsibility. Courts assess whether individual pieces of evidence, taken together, establish the necessary elements of an offence beyond reasonable doubt.
In Obado’s case, the High Court concluded that the evidence met that threshold.
The distinction between motive and proof
One of the most important points for readers following the case is that motive is not the same thing as proof of murder.
A motive can help explain why a crime might have been committed, but the existence of a possible motive does not itself establish that the accused committed the offence.
Likewise, the absence of an obvious motive does not automatically establish innocence.
The prosecution’s case therefore had to go beyond the relationship and establish Obado’s participation in the murder through the evidence presented at trial.
That distinction is particularly important when discussing a case that has generated intense public interest. The personal relationship provides context, but the conviction ultimately depends on the court’s findings about criminal responsibility.
What remains important about Obado’s testimony
Obado’s account remains significant because it shows how the defence sought to reinterpret the same relationship at the heart of the prosecution’s case.
For the defence, the relationship demonstrated responsibility toward Sharon after their breakup and undermined the alleged motive for murder.
For the prosecution, the pregnancy and the circumstances surrounding the relationship formed part of a broader explanation for why Sharon’s death occurred.
The High Court ultimately rejected key elements of Obado’s narrative and convicted him and his two co-accused. The court’s findings now form the basis for the sentencing stage, with the three men scheduled to return to court on November 27, 2026.
The enduring significance of the relationship evidence is therefore not simply what Obado and Sharon were to each other. It is how the court assessed conflicting accounts of that relationship—and how those findings fitted into the much larger body of evidence used to determine criminal responsibility.