By Andrew Kariuki
The case of the killing of university student Sharon Beryl Otieno, in which former Migori Governor Zacharia Okoth Obado is charged alongside Michael Juma Oyamo and former Migori County Clerk Caspal Ojwang Obiero continued before the Milimani Law Courts.
The trial proceedings of former Migori Governor Zacharia Okoth Obado and his co accused took a turn after the absence of the second accused, Michael Juma Oyamo, who is said to be unwell and currently admitted to hospital.
Through his legal team, the court was informed that Oyamo had been admitted to Rapogi Hospital in Wendo on the recommendation of a doctor.
His advocate stated that a letter explaining his condition had been filed in court on February 19, 2026, and copied to all parties, including the prosecution.
The defence added that the second accused remains hospitalized and expressed regret over his absence.
However, no medical documents were presented in court to confirm his admission, with the defence arguing that such records are typically issued upon discharge.
Counsel for Oyamo urged the court to grant an adjournment, stressing that illness is not something that can be anticipated.
“Nobody premeditates sickness. It is at the time of discharge that one is given those records,” the lawyer submitted, questioning the expectation for immediate documentation.
The prosecution opposed the application, noting that there was no formal proof before the court to demonstrate that the second accused was indeed admitted.
State counsel argued that even a basic document such as an admission note or doctor’s letter would have sufficed to explain the absence.
The prosecution expressed concern that doing so without proper documentation could raise issues on appeal.
They urged the court to give clear directions and require written confirmation that the accused consents to the proceedings continuing in his absence.
Meanwhile, counsel for the first and third accused persons indicated that they were ready to proceed and were willing to forgo highlighting their submissions, stating that the written submissions already on record were sufficient.
In her ruling, the judge stated that she required time to review the submissions filed by all parties before making a determination on whether the proceedings could continue in the absence of the second accused.
The court subsequently set March 18, 2026, as the date for judgment, which will be delivered virtually. Additionally, the judge directed that the second accused must attend the next mention and produce documentation to confirm that his absence was due to genuine medical reasons.
