Sharon Otieno’s parents have asked the High Court to show mercy to former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and consider a non-custodial sentence after saying they have forgiven him. Their position is legally relevant, but it does not determine the punishment. Kenyan law gives victims and, in cases involving death, their families a recognised opportunity to tell the sentencing court about the consequences of the offence and their views. The final decision, however, remains with the judge.
The distinction matters in Obado’s case because the parents’ request for reconciliation exists alongside a murder conviction and the prosecution’s opposition to leniency. The court must consider the family’s views without treating forgiveness as a withdrawal of the criminal case or as a direction on what sentence must be imposed. In other words, Sharon’s parents can ask the court for mercy, but they cannot legally decide Obado’s punishment.
What Sharon’s parents have asked the court to do
The parents have taken an unusual position in a murder sentencing proceeding.
Rather than seeking a severe punishment, they have asked the court to consider reconciliation and a non-custodial sentence for Obado. Their stated concern includes the welfare of Sharon’s children and the possibility that Obado could continue providing support outside prison.
Their position also includes forgiveness.
That does not mean the murder conviction disappears. It means the family has communicated to the sentencing court that, from their perspective, reconciliation and the welfare of Sharon’s children should be given significant consideration.
The judge can hear that position without being bound by it.
What Kenyan law says about victims at sentencing
The Victim Protection Act recognises a victim’s right to make a victim-impact statement to the court sentencing a convicted person.
Section 12 provides that such a statement may be considered when the court determines the offender’s sentence. The legislation also provides for assistance to victims who wish to prepare such statements.
The Criminal Procedure Code similarly provides for victim-impact statements after conviction and before sentencing.
In a case where the primary victim has died, the law specifically accommodates a statement from a family victim concerning the impact of the death on the immediate family.
This is the legal foundation for bringing the family’s experience into the sentencing process.
A victim’s family has a voice, not a veto
The most important legal distinction is between participation and decision-making authority.
Victims can tell the court what the offence has done to them. They can explain financial, emotional, psychological or other consequences. They can also express views relevant to sentencing.
But the sentencing decision belongs to the court.
The 2023 Sentencing Policy Guidelines recognise the importance of victim-impact statements while placing them within the wider sentencing framework. The guidelines do not turn sentencing into a process in which the victim or family chooses the punishment.
This is particularly important for serious offences such as murder, where the State has a continuing interest in the administration of criminal justice.
What forgiveness means—and what it does not mean
Forgiveness is not the same as legal exoneration.
Sharon’s parents can forgive Obado personally without having the legal power to undo his conviction. The High Court has already determined his criminal responsibility in the murder case.
Their forgiveness is therefore relevant principally to the sentencing exercise.
It may tell the judge about the family’s attitude toward punishment, reconciliation and the consequences of imprisonment. It may also form part of the broader victim-impact material before the court.
But it cannot transform a conviction into an acquittal.
Why the prosecution can still oppose leniency
The prosecution represents the public interest in criminal proceedings.
That means the State can take a different position from the victim’s family.
In the Obado case, the prosecution has opposed leniency and has urged the court to consider the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances established during the trial. The State has also asked the court to assess the individual culpability of the three convicted men.
There is no legal contradiction in this.
The family is expressing its wishes. The prosecution is presenting the State’s position. The judge must consider both.
The circumstances of Sharon’s death remain relevant
The family’s forgiveness does not alter the facts established at trial.
The High Court convicted Obado, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ojwang Obiero of Sharon’s murder. The sentencing stage therefore begins from the court’s findings about the offence and the individual participation of the convicted men.
Those findings remain relevant when assessing the seriousness of the crime.
The sentencing court must consequently consider both sides of the equation: the personal and family circumstances presented in mitigation and the aggravating circumstances arising from the offence.
Sharon’s children are an important part of the family’s argument
The family’s request for mercy is closely connected to the children Sharon left behind.
Her parents have argued that a non-custodial sentence could enable Obado to support Sharon’s four children.
This introduces a genuine sentencing consideration because punishment can have consequences for people who depend on the offender.
But the children’s interests do not automatically require a particular sentence.
The court must determine how their welfare fits within the broader objectives of sentencing and the circumstances of the offence.
The family’s position can be considered without controlling the outcome
Kenyan sentencing law requires the court to consider a range of factors rather than simply count the number of people supporting or opposing imprisonment.
The family’s position is therefore one piece of information among several.
| Issue | Legal significance |
|---|---|
| Sharon’s parents forgive Obado | Relevant to their views and the sentencing process |
| Parents request a non-custodial sentence | The court can consider the request but is not bound by it |
| Family describes consequences of Sharon’s death | Can inform the court about victim impact |
| Sharon’s children depend on surviving relatives | Relevant to the consequences of different sentencing outcomes |
| Prosecution opposes leniency | Presents the State’s position on punishment |
| Obado presents personal mitigation | Court must consider relevant circumstances of the offender |
| Murder conviction | Establishes the offence for which punishment must be determined |
| Judge’s sentencing discretion | Final sentence remains a judicial decision |
The framework makes clear why the parents’ request matters without making it decisive.
Why this is different from a private settlement
In some disputes, the parties can reach an agreement and bring the matter to an end.
A murder prosecution does not work that way.
Once a person has been convicted of murder, the victim’s relatives cannot privately negotiate away the conviction or require the court to impose a particular sentence.
Their participation instead recognises that the criminal justice system should hear from people directly affected by the offence.
That is why forgiveness can coexist with continued prosecution and sentencing.
The accused also retains sentencing rights
Victim participation must be balanced against the convicted person’s rights.
The sentencing process cannot become an opportunity to introduce unsupported allegations or impose punishment based solely on emotion. The court must remain guided by law and the evidence properly before it.
This balance is part of the reason victim-impact statements have a defined place in the sentencing process rather than giving families control over the proceedings.
The same principle applies in the Obado case: Sharon’s parents are entitled to be heard, while Obado remains entitled to present his mitigation and have the court determine his sentence independently.
What could give the family’s request practical weight?
The strength of the parents’ position does not come simply from the fact that they have asked for mercy.
Its relevance comes from the information behind the request.
If the family explains the continuing responsibilities created by Sharon’s death, the circumstances of caring for her children, the effects of the proceedings or its reasons for supporting reconciliation, the judge has concrete information to consider.
Similarly, if Obado’s defence presents evidence about his personal circumstances, the judge can consider those matters alongside the family’s position.
The sentencing decision will ultimately depend on the whole record rather than a single request for mercy.
Why forgiveness does not necessarily mean the family thinks no harm occurred
There is also an important human distinction.
Forgiving an accused person does not mean denying that a serious crime occurred or pretending that its consequences disappeared.
A family can acknowledge the loss, describe years of hardship and still decide that it does not want imprisonment to be the central response.
That is precisely why victim participation is broader than simply asking for a harsh sentence.
The family is allowed to communicate its own experience and priorities.
What the judge must ultimately decide
The central legal question for the High Court is not whether Sharon’s parents have forgiven Obado. That fact is already clear from their submissions.
The question is what legal weight their position should receive alongside all the other sentencing factors.
The judge must consider the circumstances of the offence, each convict’s individual culpability, mitigating and aggravating factors, victim-impact material and the purposes of sentencing.
The parents’ request can therefore influence the sentencing discussion without controlling its outcome.
November 27 remains the key date
The High Court has set November 27, 2026 for sentencing in the Sharon Otieno murder case. Until the judge delivers the sentencing decision, neither the prosecution’s request for a severe punishment nor the family’s plea for mercy should be treated as the final outcome.
The legal significance of Sharon’s parents’ position is ultimately straightforward: Kenyan law gives victims and their families a meaningful voice at sentencing, but not the power to dictate punishment. Their forgiveness can be considered as part of the court’s assessment, particularly in relation to family circumstances and reconciliation, while the judge remains responsible for deciding a lawful and proportionate sentence based on the entire case.