Constitutional lawyer Willis Otieno has raised a question that many Kenyans are now asking after the conviction of former Migori Governor Okoth Obado and his co-accused in the murder of Sharon Otieno. If the court found Obado criminally responsible alongside others, despite not being the person who carried out the killing, then why is Deputy Inspector General Eliud Lagat not facing similar charges over the death of Albert Ojwang if investigators believe he set the chain of events in motion? It is a question that goes beyond politics and speaks directly to whether justice is being applied equally.
The conviction of Obado showed that the law can hold a person accountable even when they were not physically present at the scene of a crime.
Courts have long recognized that those who plan, direct, encourage, or play a key role in a criminal act can bear responsibility alongside those who carry it out.
That principle is meant to ensure that powerful individuals cannot escape accountability simply because they never touched the weapon.
That is why many Kenyans are struggling to understand the different approach in the Albert Ojwang case.
Public reports have indicated that Lagat was the complainant whose actions allegedly triggered the events that eventually ended with Ojwang’s death.
If investigators believe those actions were central to what followed, then many are asking why he has not been charged alongside the other suspects so that a court can determine his responsibility.
Justice cannot be convincing when it appears to follow different rules depending on who is involved.
The law should not become tougher for one suspect and softer for another. If prosecutors believe the principle of shared criminal responsibility was strong enough to secure a conviction in one case, then they must clearly explain why the same legal reasoning does not apply in another case with similar public concerns.
This is not about declaring anyone guilty before trial. Every suspect is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court. However, that same principle also requires that every person whose conduct is under serious scrutiny be subjected to the same legal process without fear, favour, or political influence.
Kenyans deserve consistency from the justice system. When similar situations produce completely different prosecutorial decisions, confidence in the rule of law begins to fade.
Justice must never appear selective because the moment citizens believe that some people are beyond accountability, the credibility of the entire legal system is placed on trial.
