The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP clashed for the third time in court earlier this week over the proposed withdrawal of the Sh505 million graft case against former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, his four children, and several associates.
The anti-graft agency has accused the DPP of sidelining it in secret plea bargain negotiations aimed at terminating the high-profile corruption case, despite earlier court orders directing that all parties be fully involved in the process.
Appearing before Milimani Anti-Corruption Court Magistrate Charles Ondieki, EACC lawyers told the court that although the accused persons had formally written to the DPP seeking Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the commission was deliberately locked out of the final plea bargain talks.
“In a letter addressed to the DPP, the accused persons were seeking an alternative dispute resolution. In a response dated May 19, 2025, the EACC indicated that it was not opposed to negotiations, but with a rider that there must be a structured framework under Sections 137A to 137O of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the court was told.
EACC said it later attended several meetings convened by the DPP, with the last sitting held on August 28, 2025. However, during that meeting, the commission was informed that a plea bargain agreement had already been finalized and was only pending signing.
“We were informed that the matter was to be withdrawn under Section 137(1)(d) and Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. We requested to be allowed to peruse the plea agreement before signing, but we were told we could not be given a copy,” EACC submitted.
The commission added that it was shocked when it was told the matter was “unique” and did not follow the ordinary practice of involving investigators in plea negotiations.
“At that point, we were ordered to leave the meeting by the DPP and we never saw the plea agreement,” the EACC lawyer told the court.
EACC further argued that the proposed mode of withdrawal was legally flawed and amounted to an abuse of the court process.
“The plea agreement seeks to withdraw the charges under Section 137 of the CPC, yet at paragraph 12(g) of the same agreement, it clearly states that the prosecution wishes to withdraw all charges under Section 87(a) of the CPC. This creates a legal conflict and confusion. You cannot sneak in a withdrawal through plea negotiations when the law requires a formal application with leave of the court,” the commission argued.
The anti-graft body also dismissed attempts to link the criminal case to civil forfeiture cases that had been settled earlier in the High Court.
“We were informed by the DPP that there was a settlement in two High Court civil forfeiture matters. We confirm that those civil proceedings were independent of this criminal trial, and Section 193A of the CPC allows both to proceed concurrently. The settlement in the civil matter cannot be used as a basis to terminate this criminal prosecution,” EACC lawyer mary Ng’anga submitted.
The commission specifically highlighted Count 12 of the charge sheet, which involves money laundering and the transfer of Sh256,730,688.
“We urge the court to look closely at the charges, including Count 12, where the accused persons are charged with money laundering and the transfer of Sh256,730,688, as this was never addressed in the civil settlements and should not be overlooked,” EACC stated.
“The EACC vehemently opposes the withdrawal of this case and urges that it proceeds to a full trial, as the plea agreement was signed without our involvement and does not address all the charges, including serious money laundering allegations.”
The DPP, through State Counsel Nora, told the court that a valid plea bargain agreement had been entered into between the prosecution and all the accused persons.
“The DPP urged the court to adopt the plea bargaining agreement, saying that the parties had engaged in extensive discussions to explore an alternative dispute resolution, and that the agreement was reached voluntarily with the accused persons to ensure a fair and efficient conclusion to the matter,” Prosecutor Nora said.
She stated that the decision was informed by previous forfeiture agreements reached in two High Court cases involving assets valued at over Sh1.9 billion and Sh75 million.
According to the prosecution, Obado and his co-accused had already forfeited assets worth Sh235.6 million to the government, which included two motor vehicles, a house in Loresho, a commercial block in Suna East, Migori, two five-storey residential blocks in Migori, two apartments and a maisonette in Greenspan, Nairobi, and a residential property in Kamagambo, Migori.
Obado, his children and the co-accused all individually confirmed to the court that they supported the plea bargain agreement.
“I fully understand the consequences of the plea bargaining agreement, including sentencing and compensation if need be. I was not forced or coerced into entering the agreement. I fully support it,” Obado told the court.
The former governor and his four children,Dan Achola Okoth, Susan Scarlet Akoth, Jerry Zachary and Evelyne Adhiambo, are charged with conspiracy to commit economic crimes and money laundering alongside their associates.
Others charged include Jared Peter Odoyo, Christine Akinyi Ochola, Joram Opala, Patroba Ochanda, Penina Auma, and Carolyne Anyango, as well as their companies.
The case has been in court since 2018, and only one prosecution witness, the investigating officer, has testified so far.
Magistrate Ondieki granted EACC and the DPP 14 days to file written submissions on the matter, while the defence was given seven days to respond.
The case will be mentioned on January 21, 2026.
