Anti-Graft Coalition Criticises Plea Bargain in Obado Sh73.4 Million Case, Raises Concern Over Impunity
Anti-Graft Coalition Criticises Plea Bargain in Obado Sh73.4 Million Case, Raises Concern Over Impunity
A national anti-corruption coalition has sharply criticised the decision by the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court to uphold a plea bargain agreement in the Sh73.4 million corruption case involving former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and his co-accused, warning that the deal could weaken public confidence in Kenya’s fight against graft.
In a press statement issued on Friday, the National Integrity Alliance (NIA)—a coalition bringing together Transparency International Kenya, Kenya Human Rights Commission, The Institute of Social Accountability, and Inuka Kenya Ni Sisi!—said the agreement risks normalising corruption as a “negotiable offence.”
The group expressed concern that individuals accused of misappropriating public funds are increasingly being allowed to avoid full trial proceedings through negotiated settlements that primarily involve restitution or asset recovery.
“Corruption is not a victimless crime,” the coalition said, arguing that stolen public resources directly affect service delivery in education, health, and infrastructure, particularly for vulnerable communities.
While acknowledging that Kenyan law permits plea bargaining and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within criminal proceedings, the alliance questioned what it termed an emerging pattern in high-profile corruption cases where accused persons “negotiate their way out of full criminal accountability.”
The statement warned that such outcomes could undermine deterrence, erode public trust in the judiciary, and create perceptions of unequal justice between ordinary citizens and politically connected individuals.
The coalition also drew a comparison between corruption-related offences and other serious crimes, arguing that economic crimes with far-reaching social consequences should not attract comparatively lenient resolutions.
The NIA further cautioned that overreliance on plea bargains in grand corruption cases could weaken efforts to fight graft by reinforcing a perception that public theft can be resolved through financial settlements after the fact.
It urged Parliament and the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) to review the legal framework governing plea bargaining in corruption and economic crime cases, and called on the Judiciary and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) to ensure that public interest remains central in such agreements.
The coalition also urged the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to strengthen safeguards against misuse of negotiated settlements and called for enhanced transparency in asset recovery processes.
The case involving Obado and his co-accused has been closely watched due to its political profile and the scale of public funds involved.
The latest ruling is expected to further fuel debate over the balance between restitution, efficiency in prosecution, and full criminal accountability in Kenya’s anti-corruption efforts.
A Nairobi anti-corruption court acquitted Obado and 17 other accused persons in a corruption case after approving a plea agreement that led to the withdrawal of all charges following the forfeiture of assets worth Sh235 million and two motor vehicles.
In the judgement, Senior Principal Magistrate Celesta Okose held that the withdrawal of charges through plea bargaining is lawful under Section 137A(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed objections raised by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission.
The court found that plea bargaining under Kenyan law provides three lawful pathways, including reduction of charges, withdrawal of charges, or staying charges with an undertaking not to pursue further prosecution.
The magistrate rejected EACC’s argument that plea agreements must result in convictions or admissions of criminal liability, terming the argument unfounded in law.
Central to the ruling was a civil settlement entered between the accused persons and the EACC in High Court ACEC Case No. 32 of 2018 and E010 of 2022, where the accused forfeited properties worth sh 235 million together with two motor vehicles.
The court held that where civil forfeiture arises from the same facts as criminal proceedings, it should be considered a key factor in determining the appropriate plea bargaining pathway.
According to the magistrate, both civil forfeiture and criminal proceedings serve the same anti-corruption purpose of depriving offenders of proceeds of corruption and discouraging similar conduct.
The court further held that the plea agreement satisfied the constitutional requirements under Article 157(11), including public interest, the administration of justice, and the need to avoid abuse of the legal process.
The magistrate also found that the Director of Public Prosecutions had not abused his powers, ruling that the EACC failed to provide specific concerns allegedly ignored during negotiations.
Consequently, the court adopted the plea agreement as its judgment and ordered that all criminal charges against the accused persons be withdrawn under Section 137A(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.