The conviction of former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Juma Oyamo, and former Migori County Clerk Caspal Obiero over the murder of Sharon Otieno has once again sparked a national conversation about justice, accountability, and whether the law is applied equally to everyone.
The debate has been amplified by lawyer and Safina Party Deputy President designate Willis Otieno, who has openly questioned why Deputy Inspector General Eliud Lagat has not been charged alongside others in the Albert Ojwang case.
The court found Obado and his co-accused guilty after concluding that they shared a common intention in the events that led to Sharon Otieno’s murder.
The ruling showed that criminal responsibility is not limited to the person who carries out the final act. It can also extend to those who allegedly plan, direct, facilitate, or set events in motion.
That legal principle has now become the basis of growing public questions surrounding the Albert Ojwang case.
Willis Otieno argues that if the same legal standard was applied in the Obado case, then it should also be considered in every other case where investigators believe someone played a key role in triggering a chain of events that resulted in death.
According to his argument, Lagat’s complaint allegedly initiated the process that eventually ended with Albert Ojwang’s death.
If investigators believe others who participated in that chain of events should face charges, many Kenyans are asking why the person accused of setting the process in motion has not also been charged.
That comparison has fueled accusations of selective justice. Many citizens believe the law appears firm when dealing with some individuals but hesitant when powerful state officials are involved.
Such perceptions weaken public confidence in the justice system because people expect similar legal principles to be applied consistently regardless of a person’s title or influence.
At the same time, whether any individual should be charged ultimately depends on the evidence gathered by investigators and the decisions made by prosecutors.
Public office should neither shield someone from prosecution nor make them a target without sufficient evidence. What Kenyans expect is fairness, transparency, and consistency in the application of the law.
The Obado judgment has therefore become more than a verdict in one murder case. It has become a benchmark against which many Kenyans are measuring other ongoing investigations.
Willis Otieno’s challenge is ultimately a call for equal treatment before the law. If the same legal principles apply to a former governor, then the public expects prosecutors to explain clearly why they do or do not apply to any other public official.
Justice must never appear selective because once citizens lose confidence in its fairness, the credibility of the entire justice system is placed at risk.
