By Sam Alfan.
New evidence has revealed that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) was deeply involved in negotiations to withdraw corruption charges against former Migori Governor Okoth Obado, contradicting the commission’s claims in court.
Correspondence between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) and EACC clearly demonstrates that both state offices had been actively communicating throughout the plea bargaining process involving the former governor, his co-accused, and the anti-graft agency.
The paper trail begins with a letter dated June 5, 2023, addressed to Obado’s lawyer Sagana, in which the commission proposed holding an inception meeting at the Integrity Centre on Friday, June 16, 2023, at 11:00 AM.
This letter, written by agency director of legal services and asset recovery David Too, referenced the governor’s lawyer’s earlier correspondence from April 5, 2023, which had proposed an out-of-court settlement for three matters.
The negotiations continued with another letter dated November 3, 2023, sent to the governor’s lawyer by EACC’s deputy director for asset recovery and civil litigation, Philip Kagucia.
This letter referenced Obado’s correspondence from October 25, 2023, which contained a revised settlement proposal.
Kagucia’s letter instructed the parties to meet with EACC’s ad hoc Alternative Dispute Resolution committee at the Integrity Centre offices on Wednesday, November 8, 2023, at 3:00 PM for further directions.
These extensive negotiations bore fruit in a settlement agreement dated June 4, 2024, between EACC, Obado, and nineteen other defendants.
Under this agreement, the defendants offered to surrender assets, and the commission agreed to receive eight properties and two motor vehicles valued at the current market price of Sh235,600,000.
This out-of-court settlement was subsequently adopted by the High Court in June 2024.
Parallel to the civil settlement, plea bargaining discussions with the ODPP were also underway.
On April 22, 2025, the Director of Public Prosecutions convened a meeting with former Governor Obado and his co-accused to explore a possible plea bargain in ACC No. 18 of 2020.
Significantly, EACC was represented at this meeting by Mary Ng’anga. A subsequent joint meeting involving the ODPP, the accused persons, and EACC representatives Mary Ng’anga, Winnie Ruth, and Ann Murigih took place on August 28.
These discussions culminated in a plea bargain agreement that was presented before the Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate Court on September 1.
However, when the matter came before court, EACC shocked proceedings by claiming they had not been part of the negotiations and had not been provided with a draft of the pre-agreement between the accused and prosecution.
The commission told the court that while they had requested the pre-agreement, it had not been shared with them.
EACC claimed to follow a standard practice requiring agreements to be shared between the ODPP and the commission for review and instructions on drafts.
Despite being integral to the negotiation process, EACC maintained in court that they had6 not been able to examine the agreement to understand its contents.
The commission claimed they only learned about the pre-agreement when the DPP indicated it was on the court record.
EACC told the Anti-Corruption Court that given these circumstances, they had not been able to review the pre-agreement or seek proper instructions on it.
The DPP firmly dismissed EACC’s claims, pointing out that the negotiations had actually originated between EACC and the accused persons, with the pre-agreement stemming from discussions between the commission and the accused in a civil matter before the High Court Anti-Corruption Division.
The prosecution emphasized that all parties had been made aware of the proceedings during the meetings, noting that minutes from the final meeting were available as evidence.
The DPP informed the court that they had clearly communicated to all teams what had been agreed upon and indicated in the pre-agreement.
The court was further informed that EACC had been kept abreast of all discussions and that during the August 28 meeting when the plea agreement was finalized, the commission was informed of the content but indicated they had no instructions to provide.
The DPP expressed their expectation that since the commission had participated in all scheduled meetings and discussions, these would have been reported back to EACC’s offices accordingly.
Having followed proper procedures under section 137, the DPP proceeded to sign the agreement and dismissed EACC’s claims that they had refused to hand over the pre-agreement, maintaining that all parties were fully aware of the agreement’s contents.
The chronological evidence presented makes it unequivocally clear that EACC was not only aware of but actively participated in both the negotiations leading to the out-of-court settlement and the subsequent plea bargain discussions.
The extensive correspondence demonstrates that EACC sat at the negotiating table, signed official letters, convened meetings, and executed agreements that were ultimately adopted by the High Court.
For the commission to now claim ignorance of the plea bargaining process represents not only a distortion of established facts but also a brazen attempt to mislead both the court and the public about their central role in these proceedings.
