As trial Judge Cecilia Githua retired to consider the evidence and testimonies presented in Sharon Otieno's murder, the court is now left to decide whether former Migori governor Okoth Obado has a case to answer or whether the prosecution's case will crumble under the weight of contradictions.
A ruling of "no case to answer" would allow Obado and his co-accused, Michael Oyamo and Caspal Obiero, to walk free.
The case started in 2019 and became an obsession in the public eye.
It had all the ingredients of a sensational drama—politics, power, scandal and now the ultimate presumed crime of murder.
Forty-two witnesses were called, with the governor maintaining his innocence in the case.
And as the gavel came down on Friday last week, signalling the end of the trial, something gnawed at Judge Githua; two key witnesses had given conflicting testimonies.
The judge observed that the witnesses presented opposing views of the same night that Sharon's body was found in a thicket in Homa Bay county.
She was heavily pregnant at the time she met her death, suffering stab wounds on her upper stomach and neck.
But the glaring accounts of two key witnesses cast aspersions on the prosecution's case.
One of the crucial witnesses was Jackson Gombe, a taxi driver who allegedly ferried Sharon to her place of death.
In his own words, Gombe told the court that he doubted the veracity of his evidence, the reason the defence repeatedly submitted that he was a 'planted witness'.
He was using a vehicle owned by Caspal's wife.
During the trial, seasoned defence counsels, Kioko Kilukumi and Rogers Sagana, took Gombe through his witness statement and that of a protected witness who was on board the same vehicle on the fateful day.
The protected witness is described as XYZ. He is the star witness in the case.
Gombe, in his evidence, said he carried Sharon, XYZ and other men in his vehicle on the fateful day.
He had picked them up at Graca Hotel after Oyamo held a meeting with Sharon and XYZ.
They were meeting to discuss how Sharon and her unborn baby would be taken care of, the court heard.
The taxi driver's account was that Sharon had covered herself with a black shawl but the testimony of XYZ reflects that Sharon was in a pink suit.
Sagana, in trying to establish who among the two witnesses was telling the truth, prodded Gombe to state what transpired minutes before XYZ managed to jump out of his vehicle for fear of his life.
XYZ had told the court that Sharon, who was seated at the back seat, screamed loudly when the strange men were strangling him. She would cry out loud, telling the men, “Please forgive me.”
But the taxi driver told trial judge that he did not hear Sharon scream, cry, or utter such words.
He said all he recalled was the wind blowing into the car and the sound of something dropping.
This 'something' in the prosecution’s case was witness XYZ who allegedly jumped out of the speeding vehicle and escaped from the vehicle that had allegedly abducted him and Sharon.
“I slowed down when I heard that thing fall and asked if all was well and was told it was. To date, I don't know what fell,” Gombe said.
But witness XYZ said while they were in the car, one of the abductors took away their phones and started asking them about the pregnancy and relationship Sharon had with the governor.
XYZ was roughed up, but Gombe who was the driver, told the court that he could not recall such a scenario.
It was a
Toyota fielder, grey in colour, he said.
These are some of the inconsistencies the defence has asked the court to look into as the judge retired to write the ruling.
The prosecution believes the witness accounts are a prima facie case against the three accused persons.
They asked the court to consider the evidence produced showing that the tracker of the car used on the night of September 3, 2019, was switched off only to be reactivated the following day.
"Only someone in ownership would know where the tracker of the car was like in this case, Caspal the third accused."
The prosecution has maintained that the three had a common intention and acted in concert to eliminate Sharon.
They said the three accused persons didn't have to be at the scene of the crime when Sharon met her death for them to be culpable.
The prosecution further pointed out to the court instances where Obado was frustrated because of how Sharon was contacting his family members and attempting to contact the media to cause him further embarrassment given his status in society.
But even as this was laid out, the prosecution's key witness testified that he did not establish any evidence that Obado had any knowledge or participation in the abduction of a witness under protection described as XYZ.
Ole Sina also testified that he didn't have evidence that Obado had any knowledge or participated in the murder of Sharon.
"I have no evidence that Obado had knowledge or consented to any of the events I have testified about regarding the fateful day," he said.
At first, Ole Sina said what linked the three accused persons to the death of Sharon was that he went through the communications and interactions between the accused persons with the deceased, and the views expressed by the deceased were that Obado was not assisting her and she needed to have the story made public to compel him to assist.
But in a rejoinder, Obado, in urging the court to acquit him and find there's no case to answer, said the sexual relationship he had with Sharon was an open secret.
"The entire case as it relates to Obado is about the relationship, pregnancy, the monies he gave her for upkeep, and plans to buy her a home," Kilukumi said.
The senior counsel submitted that when Sharon got pregnant, Obado was not sure whether or not he was responsible for the pregnancy; he doubted whether he had exclusive sexual access to the deceased.
But this was to be later confirmed by a DNA test. John Kimani, the prosecution's third witness, a medic, said from the test conducted, Sharon was carrying a baby fathered by Obado.
But Kilukumi said after it was proven that Obado was the father, he took responsibility and made plans to take care of Sharon and the child.
He further said there were plans to buy her a home in Homa Bay and a plot worth Sh800,000.
Sharon was also receiving at least Sh200,000 from Obado as proof of his willingness to take care of her and the child before she died, the defence lawyer told the court.
Kilukumi in his submissions said the case against his client is wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence.
The evidence, he said, is that Sharon and witness XYZ were lured into a vehicle, which had four male occupants.
"It is these four men who killed Sharon, and none of them stand in the dock today," Kilukumi said.
"The investigators never got a hold of the actual killers. We will never know what motivated them to kill. It will remain a matter of conjecture unless the killers are brought to book," Kilukumi said.
The four men include the taxi driver, Jackson Gombe, who allegedly ferried Sharon to her scene of murder.
Obado questioned why Gombe was never charged if indeed he was the one driving the car that fateful day.
"As you retire to write your ruling, do compare the evidence of Gombe and witness XYZ, who were in the same vehicle but gave conflicting statements regarding the events of September 3, 2018," Kilukumi said.
The court will deliver its verdict in the case on January 30, 2025.
