A murder conviction in Kenya does not automatically end the court process. After finding an accused person guilty, the High Court moves to sentencing, where it considers mitigation, aggravating circumstances, victim-impact evidence, pre-sentence reports and the individual responsibility of each convicted person. That is now the stage facing former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, Michael Juma Oyamo and Caspal Ajwang Obiero after their conviction for the murder of Sharon Otieno.
In Obado’s case, the sentencing process has already included submissions from the prosecution, defence and Sharon’s family, together with probation and victim-impact reports. Justice Cecilia Githua has postponed delivery of the sentencing decision to November 27, 2026, giving the court time to consider the material before it. The sentence will be determined separately for each convict rather than imposed automatically because they were convicted in the same case.
Conviction and sentencing are two different stages
The first question in a criminal trial is whether the prosecution has proved the accused person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Once the court answers that question in the affirmative, the case moves into sentencing.
The sentencing stage asks a different question: what punishment is appropriate for the offence and this particular offender?
That distinction explains why Obado’s conviction did not immediately result in a sentence.
Following the July 23 conviction, the court cancelled the three men’s bond terms and remanded them while the sentencing process was prepared. Justice Githua directed that pre-sentence and victim-assessment reports be prepared before sentencing directions were finalised.
The first step is gathering sentencing information
A judge does not normally determine sentence by looking only at the conviction.
Kenya’s 2023 Sentencing Policy Guidelines provide a framework for considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the offender’s circumstances, victim impact and the objectives of sentencing.
In Obado’s case, that process has included:
- pre-sentence reports;
- victim-impact material;
- mitigation from the convicted men;
- submissions from their lawyers;
- prosecution submissions; and
- the views of Sharon’s family.
Justice Githua confirmed on September 16 that the court had received submissions from the parties and the views of the secondary victims and would consider the written mitigation and other filed material before delivering the sentence.
What is a pre-sentence report?
A pre-sentence report gives the court information about the convicted person’s background and circumstances that may be relevant to punishment.
It can address matters such as family circumstances, social background, previous offending history and prospects relevant to rehabilitation.
The report does not determine the sentence.
It is evidence and information for the judge to consider alongside the submissions and the circumstances of the offence.
In Obado’s case, the reports have become particularly relevant because his defence has relied on factors including his age, health and lack of previous convictions.
What is a victim-impact statement?
A victim-impact statement gives the court information about the consequences of the offence for the victim and, where applicable, family members.
This can be particularly significant in a murder case because the victim cannot personally address the court.
Sharon’s family has described the financial and emotional consequences of her death and the continuing responsibilities arising from the loss. At the same time, her parents have told the court that they have forgiven Obado and are asking for leniency.
The family therefore has a voice in the sentencing process, but not the final decision.
What happens during mitigation?
Mitigation is the opportunity for the convicted person and their lawyers to present circumstances that they believe should reduce the severity of the sentence.
For Obado, the defence has relied on several considerations.
| Sentencing stage or factor | What it means in Obado’s case |
|---|---|
| Conviction | The High Court has found Obado, Oyamo and Obiero guilty |
| Remand pending sentence | Their bond was cancelled after conviction |
| Pre-sentence reports | Probation material has been placed before the court |
| Victim impact | Sharon’s family has explained the consequences of her death |
| Defence mitigation | Obado has asked for leniency and a non-custodial sentence |
| Prosecution submissions | The State has opposed non-custodial punishment and sought the maximum punishment available under its interpretation of the law |
| Individual culpability | The court must consider each convict’s particular role |
| Sentencing decision | Justice Githua is scheduled to deliver the sentence on November 27, 2026 |
The process therefore involves considerably more than simply deciding whether someone goes to prison.
Obado’s mitigation
Obado, who is 64, has asked the court to consider his personal circumstances.
His defence has highlighted his age, health, status as a first offender and the length of the proceedings. He has also sought a non-custodial sentence.
According to material reported from the sentencing proceedings, Obado continues to deny participating in Sharon’s killing while expressing regret over the tragedy and a desire for reconciliation with her family.
That position creates an important distinction.
Mitigation does not require an accused person to confess to an offence. But the court can consider the nature of the mitigation being offered, including any claim of remorse, when evaluating the appropriate sentence.
Why being a first offender matters
Obado and his co-convicts have been described as first offenders because they have no previous criminal convictions.
A clean criminal record can be a mitigating factor.
It does not, however, determine the sentence.
A court must still consider the seriousness of the offence and any aggravating circumstances. The sentencing guidelines are designed to ensure that mitigating factors are considered alongside, rather than in isolation from, the circumstances of the crime.
Why the circumstances of the murder matter
The sentencing court is also required to consider aggravating features.
The prosecution has argued that Sharon’s murder involved planning and coordination and that the punishment should reflect the seriousness of what the court found had occurred.
The significance of those circumstances is for the judge to determine.
Importantly, sentencing is not a second trial. The court does not start from zero after the conviction. It works from the factual and legal findings already established in the judgment and considers how those findings affect punishment.
Why the three men may receive different sentences
A conviction arising from the same murder does not necessarily mean that all convicted persons must receive identical punishment.
The sentencing court must consider individual culpability.
The High Court found that Obado, Oyamo and Obiero played different roles in the events surrounding Sharon’s killing. The sentencing exercise therefore requires the judge to examine each man’s responsibility rather than treating the three as interchangeable.
This is a central principle of proportionate sentencing.
Two people can be convicted of the same offence while the circumstances of their participation, personal mitigation and aggravating factors differ.
The prosecution’s position
The prosecution has taken a substantially different position from Sharon’s parents.
The State has opposed non-custodial sentences and asked the court to impose the maximum punishment available under section 204 of the Penal Code.
The Penal Code provides the statutory framework for murder, but modern Kenyan sentencing law must also be understood in light of constitutional jurisprudence concerning the death penalty and judicial discretion.
The Supreme Court’s Muruatetu jurisprudence changed the legal treatment of mandatory death sentences by holding that the mandatory nature of the death penalty for murder was unconstitutional, making individual sentencing consideration central to murder cases. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have clarified the scope and application of that jurisprudence.
Consequently, the prosecution’s request for the death penalty is a submission to the court, not an automatic result of the conviction.
Why Sharon’s parents cannot determine the sentence
Sharon’s parents have asked for mercy and a non-custodial sentence.
Their position is legally relevant because victim participation is part of the sentencing process.
But Kenyan criminal proceedings are not privately controlled by the victim’s relatives.
The State prosecutes murder because it is an offence against the criminal law, and the court retains responsibility for deciding the appropriate punishment.
That is why the prosecution can oppose leniency even when the victim’s parents support it.
The judge must consider both positions without treating either as binding.
Does time already spent in custody count?
Time spent in custody can become relevant when the court determines the final sentence.
Obado and his co-convicts were remanded after their bond terms were cancelled following conviction.
The precise treatment of any period already spent in custody depends on the applicable law and the terms of the sentencing order. It should therefore not be assumed that every day spent in pre-sentence custody will automatically translate into an equivalent reduction without the judge addressing the issue.
The sentencing judgment should make clear how the court treats the relevant period.
What the judge is not deciding again
Several issues that dominated the trial are no longer the central question at sentencing.
The judge is not deciding whether Sharon was murdered. The conviction has already established criminal responsibility.
Nor is the sentencing hearing an opportunity for the family or prosecution to obtain a second conviction.
Instead, the court is determining punishment based on the established offence and the material properly placed before it.
That distinction is important because sentencing submissions can discuss the circumstances of the offence, but they do not reopen the entire evidentiary trial.
What happens on November 27?
Justice Githua has set November 27, 2026 for delivery of the sentencing decision at the Milimani Law Courts. The judge said the court needed time to consider the parties’ oral and written submissions, mitigation material, probation reports and victim-impact evidence.
The court could impose different sentences on the three convicts depending on its assessment of their individual culpability and the applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
The precise outcome cannot be established until the judge delivers the decision.
The sentencing judgment will matter beyond the number of years
The significance of the November ruling will not lie solely in whether the sentences are custodial or non-custodial, or in the length of any prison term.
The judgment should also explain how the court balanced the competing considerations: the seriousness of Sharon’s murder, the individual roles of the convicted men, their mitigation, the family’s position, victim impact and the objectives of sentencing.
That reasoning is particularly important in a case that has attracted sustained public attention.
For the families involved, sentencing marks another stage in a process that began with Sharon’s killing in 2018. For the justice system, it is the point at which the court must translate a murder conviction into a lawful and proportionate punishment. **The next decisive document is therefore not another prosecution argument or mitigation plea, but Justice Githua’s sentencing judgment on November 27, 2026, which will show exactly how Kenya’s sentencing framework has been applied to the facts and individuals before the court.**