The prosecution is opposing a lenient sentence for former Migori Governor Okoth Obado despite Sharon Otieno’s parents telling the High Court that they have forgiven him and would not object to a non-custodial punishment. The State’s position is that forgiveness cannot erase the seriousness of the murder, the circumstances in which Sharon was killed or the individual culpability the court found in Obado and his two co-convicts.
The disagreement illustrates an important feature of Kenyan sentencing: a victim’s family can express its wishes and describe the consequences of an offence, but the family does not determine the sentence. The court must consider those views alongside the prosecution’s submissions, defence mitigation, the circumstances of the offence and the applicable sentencing law. In Obado’s case, the prosecution has asked for punishment reflecting the gravity of the murder, while Sharon’s parents have asked the court to spare Obado imprisonment.
Why forgiveness does not end the sentencing question
Sharon’s parents made their position clear during the September 16, 2026 sentencing proceedings.
Her father, Douglas Zachariah Otieno, told Justice Cecilia Githua that he had forgiven Obado and would not oppose a non-custodial sentence. He said Obado had reached out through relatives seeking reconciliation and that he regarded the former governor as remorseful.
Sharon’s mother, Melinda Auma, also pleaded for mercy and asked the court not to send Obado to prison. The family proposed that a probationary arrangement could allow him to support Sharon’s four children.
The prosecution acknowledged the family’s right to express those views. But it maintained that the views of Sharon’s relatives cannot determine the punishment.
That distinction follows from the nature of a murder prosecution. The offence is prosecuted by the State, and sentencing is ultimately a judicial function.
The State is asking the court to consider the offence as well as the offender
The prosecution’s argument centres on circumstances established during the trial.
The High Court convicted Obado, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero after finding that the prosecution had proved the murder charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the killing involved planning and coordination and attributed different roles to the three men.
For the State, those findings remain relevant when the court moves from determining guilt to determining punishment.
The prosecution has therefore asked for sentences it considers proportionate to the offence while urging the judge to assess the individual culpability of each convict.
That is different from arguing that Sharon’s parents should not be heard.
The State’s position is that family forgiveness is one sentencing consideration, not the only one.
What the court found about Sharon’s death
The prosecution can point to findings already made by the trial court rather than asking the sentencing judge to rely on allegations that were never established.
Sharon was abducted in September 2018 and later found dead in Homa Bay County. She was about seven months pregnant.
The High Court found that the murder was planned and that the three accused acted together. It also found different forms of participation by Obado, Oyamo and Obiero.
Those findings provide the factual basis for the prosecution’s argument that the case warrants substantial punishment.
They are particularly relevant because sentencing follows conviction. The judge is not deciding again whether those facts happened; she is considering their significance when determining punishment.
Why planning matters
The State has characterised Sharon’s murder as a planned and coordinated offence rather than an impulsive act.
That distinction can matter in sentencing because the circumstances surrounding an offence help the court assess its gravity.
The prosecution has argued that the manner in which Sharon was killed and the coordination involved constitute aggravating features.
The judge must decide what weight those circumstances deserve.
They do not automatically dictate a particular sentence, but they provide the State with a basis for arguing against treating the case as one where the offender’s personal circumstances should dominate the sentencing assessment.
Individual culpability remains important
The prosecution has not argued that Obado, Oyamo and Obiero must necessarily receive identical sentences.
Instead, prosecutors have asked the court to consider their individual culpability.
| Sentencing consideration | Sharon’s family’s position | Prosecution’s position |
|---|---|---|
| Forgiveness | Parents say they have forgiven Obado | Relevant but cannot determine the sentence |
| Non-custodial punishment | Parents support it for Obado | State opposes leniency |
| Obado’s remorse | Father cited his remorse and reconciliation efforts | Court should assess its significance alongside the conviction findings |
| Circumstances of killing | Family has focused on reconciliation and the children | State points to planning, coordination and the manner of killing |
| Individual roles | Family has expressed its views about the convicted men | Court should assess each convict’s individual culpability |
| Public interest | Family prioritises Sharon’s children | State argues punishment must also serve criminal-justice objectives |
The difference between these positions is important. The prosecution is not simply rejecting the family’s experience. It is arguing that sentencing has a broader legal function.
Forgiveness does not remove the State’s interest
A murder conviction concerns more than the relationship between an offender and the victim’s relatives.
The State prosecutes serious crimes because criminal law protects the wider public as well as individual victims.
A family can therefore forgive a convicted person without automatically extinguishing the State’s interest in punishment.
This also explains why a family’s refusal to seek a severe sentence does not necessarily lead to a non-custodial outcome.
The judge has to consider whether the proposed punishment meets the recognised purposes of sentencing, including accountability, deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of the public where relevant.
But the family’s wishes are not irrelevant
It would be equally wrong to suggest that Sharon’s parents’ forgiveness has no relevance.
Victim participation allows the court to hear directly about the consequences of an offence and the views of those affected by it. In this case, the parents have provided an unusually clear account of their position.
Her father said Obado had sought reconciliation through relatives. Her mother argued that imprisoning him could deprive the family of support for Sharon’s children.
Those are matters the judge can consider.
What the court cannot do is treat forgiveness as a private settlement that legally disposes of a murder conviction.
Sharon’s children add another dimension
Sharon’s four children are central to the family’s argument for leniency.
Her parents have told the court that the children remain dependent on family support and that allowing Obado to remain outside prison could help provide for them.
This introduces a difficult sentencing consideration.
A custodial sentence affects not only the person being punished but also people who depend on that person.
At the same time, the court cannot simply substitute the welfare of dependants for the other purposes of sentencing. It must determine how much weight the children’s circumstances should receive within the legal framework.
Obado’s personal mitigation is separate
Obado has asked for leniency on personal grounds.
His defence has cited his age, health, lack of previous criminal convictions and the length of the proceedings. A pre-sentence report has also been placed before the court.
Those factors are separate from Sharon’s parents’ forgiveness.
The judge must therefore consider at least two different categories of mitigation: the circumstances of the offender and the views and consequences described by the victim’s family.
Neither category automatically determines the outcome.
The prosecution’s request for a severe sentence
The State has sought the death penalty for Obado and his co-convicts.
That request is legally significant but does not determine what the court will impose. Kenya’s Penal Code provides for the death penalty for murder, while constitutional jurisprudence has established judicial discretion in murder sentencing rather than treating death as unavoidable in every case.
The sentencing judge must therefore consider mitigation and aggravating circumstances before determining the appropriate punishment.
The prosecution’s request represents its position; it does not bind the court.
Why the family’s forgiveness could still matter
Although forgiveness does not determine the sentence, it can influence how the judge evaluates particular sentencing considerations.
If the family believes reconciliation and continued support for Sharon’s children are more important to them than imprisonment, the judge has information about the victim family’s priorities that would otherwise be unavailable.
Similarly, Obado’s reported attempts at reconciliation can form part of his mitigation.
But the judge must distinguish genuine remorse from simply expressing regret about the consequences of a conviction. Obado has continued to deny responsibility for Sharon’s murder, so the court may consider how that position affects any claim of remorse.
The deeper issue: whose interests does sentencing serve?
The disagreement in the Obado case highlights a broader question about criminal sentencing.
Victims’ families have legitimate interests in seeing justice done, but criminal punishment is not solely a mechanism for satisfying a particular family’s preferred outcome.
The court must also consider the seriousness of the offence, accountability, deterrence, proportionality, rehabilitation and the protection of society, as applicable under the sentencing framework.
That is why the prosecution can oppose leniency even when the victim’s parents themselves request it.
It is also why the judge can consider the parents’ forgiveness without being required to follow it.
What November 27 could clarify
Justice Githua has set November 27, 2026 for sentencing Obado, Oyamo and Obiero. The court will have to consider the competing submissions and sentencing material before deciding the punishment for each convict.
Until that decision is delivered, it would be premature to state that any particular sentence is certain.
What is clear is that the family’s forgiveness will form only part of a much broader sentencing exercise.
The eventual decision will show how the court balances Sharon’s parents’ desire for reconciliation and concern for her children against the State’s arguments about accountability, the seriousness of the offence and the individual culpability established at trial.