Lawyer Willis Otieno has reignited a difficult national conversation after questioning what he sees as a glaring inconsistency in the way justice is applied in Kenya.
Following the conviction of former Migori Governor Zacharia Okoth Obado and his two co-accused in the murder of Sharon Otieno and her unborn child,
Otieno argued that the legal principles used in that case should be applied consistently in every other case, regardless of the position or influence of those involved.
The Obado judgment showed that criminal responsibility is not always limited to the person who commits the final act.
The court relied on legal doctrines such as common intention, joint enterprise, aiding and abetting, and command responsibility in reaching its decision.
That ruling has now raised fresh public debate about whether similar legal reasoning should also be considered in other investigations where questions have been raised about who initiated or directed the events that followed.
Referring to the ongoing investigations into the death of Albert Ojwang, Willis Otieno questioned why Deputy Inspector General Eliud Lagat has not been charged alongside other suspects.
Otieno argued that if prosecutors believe someone can be held responsible for setting events in motion in one case, then the same standard should be examined wherever the available evidence supports it.
His remarks reflect his legal opinion and criticism of the prosecution’s approach, not a judicial finding against Lagat, who has not been convicted of any offence.
That argument has resonated with many Kenyans who are increasingly demanding consistency from the justice system. The concern is not simply about one individual or one investigation.
It is about whether the law is applied equally to everyone or whether different standards exist depending on a person’s office or influence.
The Constitution promises equal protection under the law. That promise carries little meaning if similar legal principles appear to be applied differently from one case to another.
Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Any perception that powerful individuals receive different treatment weakens public confidence in prosecutors, investigators, and the courts.
The Sharon Otieno case demonstrated that accountability can reach beyond those accused of carrying out a crime directly. It is therefore understandable that some members of the public are asking whether the same legal tests are being considered in other high-profile cases. Those questions deserve clear and transparent answers based on evidence and the law.
Justice cannot depend on a person’s title, political connections, or rank. If investigators believe there is sufficient evidence against any individual, the law should take its course. If there is not, the reasons should be explained openly.
Kenya’s justice system will earn lasting public trust only when every case is handled with the same fairness, the same courage, and the same commitment to equality before the law.
