By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court has heard that there is allegedly no direct or circumstantial evidence linking former Migori Governor Zacharia Okoth Obado to the murder of university student Sharon Beryl Otieno, with his defence urging the court to acquit him for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In final submissions filed on behalf of the first accused, Obado’s lawyers argued that the prosecution’s case rests entirely on suspicion rather than evidence and fails to establish any connection between him and the individuals who carried out the killing.
Sharon Otieno was killed on the night of September 3 and 4, 2018, and her body was discovered the following day near Owade Bridge.
A post-mortem examination established that she died from severe haemorrhage caused by penetrating force trauma, with additional findings of manual strangulation.
The court also heard that she was approximately 28 weeks pregnant at the time of her death.
The defence noted that although Sharon was abducted from Graca Hotel in Rongo town by four unidentified men, none of the alleged perpetrators has ever been arrested or identified.
DNA analysis conducted on items recovered from the scene, including used condoms, yielded profiles of unknown male origin, further underscoring the absence of a direct link to the accused persons.
Obado’s lawyers acknowledged that he had an intimate relationship with the deceased and that DNA tests confirmed a 99.9% probability that he was the father of the unborn child.
However, they argued that the relationship was widely known to both families and the public and that it did not provide a motive for murder.
The court was told that evidence on record shows that Obado had been financially supporting Sharon, including providing money for her upkeep and medical needs.
Witnesses, including Sharon’s mother and an intermediary who facilitated communication between the two, testified that there had been an agreement for Obado to purchase land and construct a house for her in Homa Bay.
The defence further argued that the relationship between the two had been amicably resolved shortly before her death, with Sharon reportedly withdrawing plans to publicise their affair.
“The prosecution has failed to demonstrate any motive whatsoever for the 1st accused to have wanted Sharon dead,” the defence submitted, adding that suspicion arising from the pregnancy was the sole basis of his prosecution.
Obado’s legal team also challenged the integrity of the investigations, arguing that investigators focused on confirming their initial suspicions rather than pursuing objective evidence.
They pointed to testimony by the investigating officer, who admitted under oath that there was no evidence placing Obado at the scene of the crime, nor any proof that he participated in the abduction or killing.
“My investigations revealed that the 1st accused was in Nairobi… I do not have any evidence that the 1st accused had knowledge or participation in the brutal murder,” the officer told the court.
The defence further highlighted that the prosecution’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which they argue does not meet the legal threshold required for a conviction.
Citing established legal principles, the lawyers submitted that circumstantial evidence must irresistibly point to the accused to the exclusion of all others, and must be incompatible with innocence, a standard they said has not been met in the present case.
They argued that key investigative gaps weaken the prosecution’s case, including the failure to identify the individuals who abducted Sharon, failure to produce CCTV footage from Graca Hotel, and failure to investigate threats received by the deceased from an unknown individual prior to her death.
The defence also questioned the credibility of certain prosecution witnesses, particularly the alleged driver of the vehicle used in the abduction, whose testimony was contradicted by call data records showing he was elsewhere at the material time.
“We submit that the evidence of this witness should be rejected in its entirety as it is contradicted by scientific evidence,” the defence argued.
In conclusion, Obado’s lawyers told the court that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and that there is no evidence linking him to the planning, financing, or execution of the crime.
“The evidence presented merely paints the 1st accused with suspicion, which however strong, cannot form the basis of a conviction,” the defence submitted.
They urged the court to find that the case against Obado has not been proved and to acquit him.
The matter has been set for 18 March 2026 for mention to set a ruling date.
