Lawyer Miguna Miguna has sharply criticised the conviction of former Migori Governor Okoth Obado in the murder of Sharon Otieno, arguing that the ruling was based on speculative reasoning rather than firm legal proof.
In a social media statement issued after the High Court verdict, Miguna said personal relationships, including extra-marital affairs, should not be used as a basis for criminal liability in the absence of concrete evidence directly linking an accused person to a killing.
“There is no person anywhere in the world engaged in extra-marital affairs who would not try to limit exposure. But that is not credible material evidence to prove murder,” he stated.
Obado was convicted alongside his former aides in a case that has drawn national attention since 2018.
The court found that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to a coordinated plan that led to Otieno’s abduction and killing.
However, Miguna dismissed the reliance on such evidence, warning against what he termed as the transformation of “rumours, speculation and desperation” into proof that meets the legal threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
He outlined what he described as internationally accepted standards for circumstantial evidence in murder cases.
These include situations where an accused person was the last to be seen with the deceased without a credible alibi, the presence of DNA evidence, electronic communication showing threats or intent, confessions from co-conspirators, or clear financial transactions linked to the crime.
“In the absence of all the foregoing, a court cannot construct something else as constituting circumstantial evidence strong enough to secure a conviction,” he argued.
Miguna further pointed to global practices where individuals in illicit relationships often take steps to conceal such affairs, including the use of non-disclosure agreements and financial arrangements.
He maintained that these actions, while potentially unethical, do not amount to proof of murder.
The High Court, in its ruling, held that the accused acted with common intention and that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain leading to Otieno’s death.
The judge also found that there was sufficient proof of motive linked to the relationship between Obado and the deceased.
Miguna has now called for the appellate court to re-examine the case, insisting that the conviction “must not stand” if tested against strict evidentiary standards.