The corruption case against former Migori Governor Okoth Obado has taken an unexpected turn after the Anti-Corruption Court directed the Director of Public Prosecutions, Renson Igonga, to first consult with the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission before withdrawing the charges.
The court issued a 14-day order for the two offices to prepare a joint report on their agreed position and submit it by November 7, 2025.
This decision came after the DPP informed the court that his office had reached a plea bargain deal with Obado to end the KSh505 million corruption case, a move that the EACC quickly distanced itself from, saying it was not part of any such agreement.
The court noted the conflicting statements and emphasized the need for unity between the two agencies before any final action is taken. The development has added a new layer of uncertainty to a case that has already stretched for more than four years.
It dates back to allegations that Obado, together with his associates, orchestrated a plan to divert county funds through ghost companies and fake contracts during his time in office.
Investigations by EACC revealed that over KSh1.9 billion could have been lost in total, with the KSh505 million forming part of a broader scheme of financial misconduct.
According to court documents, Obado is accused of abusing his position, laundering public money, and acquiring assets illegally. The case also includes four of his children who are said to have received payments from companies that did business with Migori County between 2013 and 2017.
These payments, allegedly deposited directly into their personal bank accounts, raised further questions about the involvement of the family in the suspected corruption network.
Obado and ten others were arrested in 2020 after months of joint investigations by EACC and the DPP’s office. Their arrests led to a series of court appearances where investigators detailed how funds were allegedly moved through various firms linked to the former governor.
Despite the serious nature of the charges, the case has seen several postponements, often attributed to requests for more time to examine evidence or reach out-of-court agreements.
The new disagreement between the two key institutions has reignited public debate about coordination in the fight against corruption.
Legal experts argue that differences between the EACC and the DPP could undermine ongoing efforts to hold powerful individuals accountable.
Others point out that the case reflects the challenges faced in prosecuting complex financial crimes involving high-ranking officials.
The next steps will depend on the joint report to be presented in court, which will determine whether the case proceeds, is withdrawn, or takes a completely different direction.
