Sharon Otieno's ghosts hound Obado as family demands Sh3.5 million, house and car

Eight years after Sharon Otieno’s body was found in Homa Bay, her family is seeking a Sh3.5 million house, a car and millions of shillings they say former Migori Governor Zacharia Okoth Obado promised her before her death.

The demands are contained in a Victim Impact Statement filed by Principal Probation Officer Salome Muthoni in court on August 17, 2026, ahead of Obado’s looming sentencing.

This follows Justice Cecilia Githua’s conviction of Obado alongside his former personal assistant, Michael Juma Oyamo, and former Migori County Clerk Casper Ojwang Obiero on July 23.

The 26-year-old Rongo University student, who was seven months pregnant, was killed between September 3 and 4, 2018 at Owade in Rachuonyo Sub-County.

She left behind three children, now aged 12, 11 and nine, who are currently in the custody of their maternal grandmother.

In the statement filed ahead of sentencing, Sharon’s parents, Douglas Zacharia Otieno and Melida Auma, said they had spent about Sh4.7 million dealing with the consequences of their daughter’s murder and the lengthy court proceedings.

They are also seeking consideration of promises Obado allegedly made to Sharon before her death, including a house estimated at Sh3.5 million, a car and other commitments.

Reconciliation meeting

According to the report, the demand for the house and money did not come out of nowhere. It emerged from an unlikely reconciliation meeting held at the family’s home in Magare village on August 10, 2026.

The meeting was attended by two of Obado’s brothers, Dominic Peter Akugo and Okoth Daudi Obado, and his sister-in-law, Lenah Awino, on one side, and Sharon’s parents, aunts, uncles and grandmother on the other.

The report states that representatives of the former governor’s family acknowledged that Obado had made promises to the deceased and remained committed to having them fulfilled.

“The reconciliation meeting struck some ground where representatives of the first accused/offender, that included his two brothers and a sister-in-law, met with the victim’s family and agreed that the first accused had some promises made to the deceased and they were still committed to have them fulfilled,” the report states..

Sharon’s family, led by her parents, is willing to embrace reconciliation, the report says, adding that they have “mourned enough” and are ready to forgive those who wronged them.

But while the reconciliation meeting opened the door to the possible fulfilment of promises made to Sharon, her family told probation officers that the murder had left them with a financial burden running into millions of shillings.

The family said it had spent about Sh1.2 million attending court proceedings over the past seven to eight years, in addition to approximately Sh3.5 million on funeral and burial expenses.

The combined Sh4.7 million has placed a heavy burden on a family described in the report as being of “low” socio-economic means.

Sharon’s father, Otieno, is a peasant farmer, while her mother, Melida, was an ECDE teacher whose career ended following the incident.

To meet expenses arising from the case, the family sold a one-acre parcel of land and a cow. They are also struggling to provide for Sharon’s three children, whose needs include education, healthcare, food and housing.

The emotional cost has been equally devastating. The victim impact report says family members “have lost weight, do not get enough sleep” and continue to experience psychological trauma and flashbacks. “Sharon’s father has taken to alcoholism in an attempt to forget what happened and frequently holds her photograph as a memory,” the report states.

The report says the two youngest children, who were too young to understand what happened to Sharon, are now seeking answers from their maternal grandparents about where their mother is.

Family lives in fear

The family also says it continues to live in fear following the murder. “The family still lives in fear since the other persons of interest in the heinous act were unknown and still at large,” the report states.

The relatives specifically expressed fear of Oyamo and Obiero, whom they view as bearing the “greatest burden” for the events that led to the death of their loved one.

The house and millions of shillings now being sought by Sharon’s family are linked to promises allegedly made by Obado before her death.

During the murder trial, the court heard that Obado had offered to build Sharon a house worth roughly Sh3.5 million, although she had demanded between Sh20 million and Sh25 million, a high-end car and a good job as security for herself and their child.

The issue became particularly significant after Obado told the court that they had parted ways after Sharon told him she was pregnant with his child. He cited alleged inconsistencies, including what he described as persistent financial demands and dishonesty in their relationship.

At the same time, evidence presented in court showed that Sharon’s pregnancy became central to the events that culminated in her murder.

Justice Githua found that Obado had pressured Sharon to terminate the pregnancy and gave her Sh30,000 for an abortion. She declined after seeking and receiving advice from her mother.

In her judgment, the judge rejected Obado’s claim that he had genuinely accepted the pregnancy and supported Sharon. “Obado’s claim that he had accepted Sharon’s pregnancy and was comfortable with it, which was demonstrated by financial support he offered, was, in my considered opinion, not sincere,” Justice Githua ruled.

DNA evidence later established that Obado was the father of Sharon’s unborn child.

Seeking for leniency

While Sharon’s family is asking the court to consider the devastating impact of the murder, Obado is asking for leniency.

The 64-year-old former governor, who is now being held at Kamiti Maximum Prison after his bond was cancelled following his conviction, wants the court to consider a non-custodial sentence.

In his pre-sentence social inquiry report, Obado cited his advancing age, hypertension and persistent pain in his left shoulder.

He also pointed to his lack of a previous criminal record and his compliance with bond conditions for nearly eight years.

The report says he enjoys extensive family and community support.

It further states that although Obado denies committing the offence, he respects the court’s decision despite disagreeing with it.

According to the report, Obado blames other people for contributing to his predicament.

Since his breakup with Sharon, the convict has attributed the situation partly to political intrigues, which he said took advantage of the victim and their relationship.

Notably, the pre-sentence report states that the former county boss still maintains that he was not responsible for Sharon’s brutal murder. He also said his relationship with his co-accused was purely work-related.

However, he admitted entrusting Oyamo, his personal assistant, with handling matters concerning Sharon, including providing support and facilitating communication.

In his conclusion, Assistant Director of Probation Benard Musitia noted that although Obado had expressed remorse over Sharon’s brutal murder, the probation officers did not consider him remorseful. “The relationship between him and his co-accused was said to be out of work engagements at the time while serving at the County Government of Migori. He, therefore, does not take responsibility for the murder of the victim; thus, remorse was not established,” part of the report reads.

Probation officers warned that his denial could be viewed as an attempt to evade accountability. “Obado would ordinarily be suitable for community-based rehabilitation because of his age, health, clean record and reconciliation efforts,” the report states.

However, it cautions that these factors must be weighed against the seriousness of the offence and the needs and concerns of Sharon’s family.

The report does not directly recommend a non-custodial sentence, leaving the decision to Justice Githua.

The promise of a house and other compensation demands has now returned to the centre of the case, not as evidence of guilt, but as part of the family’s plea for redress and closure.

The development has opened a new dimension to a case largely defined by the questions of who killed Sharon and why.

Her family is now asking that the promises allegedly made before her death be honoured even as the criminal process moves towards sentencing.

An attempt to engage Oyamo’s family, however, did not produce the same outcome. The report states that the engagement amounted to a meeting without any deliberations.

Obiero’s family had not reached out to Sharon’s relatives by the time the report was prepared.

The three were found guilty of murder after the prosecution called 42 witnesses during the lengthy trial and relied on circumstantial, forensic and telecommunications evidence to establish the circumstances surrounding Sharon’s death.

Justice Githua found that Obado, Oyamo and Obiero acted together with other people who were not before the court.

“It is, therefore, my finding that the prosecution has proved its case against the first, second and third accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I consequently find each accused guilty of the offence of murder. Each accused is accordingly convicted.”

The judge found that Obado financed and instigated the execution of the crime, Oyamo played a key role in carrying it out, while Obiero was involved in its logistical execution and concealment.

Justice Githua found that Obado had a strong motive to prevent his relationship with Sharon and her pregnancy from becoming public.

“The first accused had a strong motive to ensure that his illicit relationship was not known by the public, thus making him a beneficiary of the death of the deceased,” the judge ruled.

She rejected Obado’s argument that his relationship with Sharon was already known to the public.

“It cannot be entirely true that members of the public knew about his relationship with the deceased,” she observed.

Threat to his reputation

The judge concluded that Obado wanted to eliminate what he regarded as a threat to his reputation.

“I am persuaded to agree that to eradicate the imminent threat of having his name or reputation dragged through the mud by publication in the mainstream media of this relationship with Sharon, the first accused instigated a scheme to eliminate Sharon,” she stated.

Obado was not physically present when Sharon was abducted and killed, but the judge found that this did not absolve him.

The court found that he acted together with other people who were not before it.

The court found that Oyamo played a key operational role in Sharon’s abduction.

Justice Githua found that he arranged a meeting at Graca Hotel under the guise of delivering money on Obado’s behalf. According to the judgment, the meeting formed part of the plan through which Sharon was handed over to the men who later abducted and killed her.

The court also considered evidence that Oyamo obtained an Airtel SIM card using another person’s identification details shortly before the murder. The line was used to communicate with Sharon.

The court further found that Oyamo attempted to construct a false alibi after the murder, including through forged medical documents linked to a claim that he had been abducted.

Obiero, the former Migori County Clerk, was found to have played a logistical role in the events surrounding Sharon’s abduction and murder.

Justice Githua considered his communications with Obado around the time of the killing and evidence linking him to the execution and concealment of the crime.

The judge said the evidence against the three formed a complete chain. “I am satisfied that the circumstances presented in this case, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, committed the offence,” she ruled.

The three convicts, who are in custody, are expected to return to court on September 16, for mitigation, before the judge fixes the actual sentencing date.

Murder under Sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code carries a maximum sentence of death. However, following the Supreme Court’s 2017 Francis Muruatetu decision, the death penalty is no longer mandatory for murder.

Justice Githua will consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the roles played by each convict, their personal circumstances and the impact of Sharon’s murder on her family.

For Sharon’s parents, however, no sentence can restore the daughter they lost.

The probation report describes her death as an irreplaceable loss that has fundamentally shattered the structural, emotional and economic foundation of her family.

Eight years later, her parents are still raising Sharon’s children, carrying the financial burden of the case and living with the trauma of losing their daughter.

As Obado asks the court for mercy, Sharon’s family has placed before Justice Githua a different plea: that the court recognise not only the murder, but also the enormous price they have paid since Sharon’s death.