Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and his children have been cleared of a Sh73.5 million corruption case after an anti-corruption court in Nairobi adopted a plea agreement that led to the formal withdrawal of all charges, effectively bringing years of proceedings to an end.
In a decision delivered on Friday, May 15, 2026, Senior Principal Magistrate Celesa Okore ruled that the Directorate of Public Prosecutions acted within the law in entering into the settlement and that there was no abuse of prosecutorial authority in the manner the case was concluded out of court. The court consequently accepted the agreement as its final judgment, resulting in the discharge of Obado and his co-accused.
The court further held that the plea agreement met the required legal standards under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution, noting that it satisfied the “triple test” covering public interest, the administration of justice, and the need to avoid abuse of the legal process.
It also pointed out that the arrangement was anchored in lawful provisions, including Section 137A of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution, which supports alternative dispute resolution as a way of speeding up justice.
On the question of how plea bargains may be structured, the court observed that the law allows different outcomes, including reduction of charges, withdrawal of charges, or staying of other charges. In this matter, Trial Magistrate Charles Ondieki held that withdrawal of charges was a legally valid outcome within the terms of the agreement reached between the parties.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission challenged the deal, arguing that it did not meet statutory requirements and that proper plea bargaining must involve an admission of criminal liability. However, the court rejected this position and found that the law does not limit plea agreements to conviction-based outcomes alone.
"This court found that the factual basis of this plea agreement was largely uncontroverted by EACC. What was fervently contested by EACC was the legal basis of the withdrawal," the magistrate held.
The court further stated that concerns raised by EACC on alleged non-compliance with legal standards were not supported with sufficient evidence, and no clear proof of abuse of power or procedural flaws in the negotiation process was presented.
A key factor considered in the ruling was earlier civil proceedings tied to the same facts, in which High Court asset recovery processes had already led to the forfeiture of property valued at about Sh235 million, along with two motor vehicles, to the State.
The court noted that these civil outcomes had a bearing on the criminal case, since both arose from the same set of facts. It observed that where civil forfeiture has already achieved the goal of recovering proceeds linked to corruption, similar considerations may apply in criminal plea negotiations.
In its final reasoning, the court emphasized that public interest is reflected within constitutional and legal frameworks and that the settlement process complied with those requirements. It ultimately concluded that the plea agreement was valid and properly executed.
“The agreement has surmounted the triple condition test of public interest, administration of justice, and avoidance of abuse of the legal process,” Magistrate Okore stated.
With that finding, the court formally adopted the plea agreement, leading to the withdrawal of all charges against Obado and the other accused persons under the Criminal Procedure Code.