- Ashford Kimani reflects on the Obado conviction through the Christian principles of justice and mercy.
- He argues that Jesus would demand accountability while still leaving room for genuine repentance.
- The writer says forgiveness should never diminish Sharon Otieno’s dignity or her family’s suffering.
The murder of Sharon Otieno remains one of Kenya’s most disturbing criminal cases. It captured national attention because of the brutality of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim and the prominence of those implicated. The conviction of former Migori Governor Okoth Obado has continued to spark debate, with some celebrating the verdict as justice served while others have raised questions about forgiveness, redemption and whether punishment alone can heal society. For Christians, the deeper question is this: How would Jesus have handled Obado?
I quickly remember the many occasions in the Bible where Jesus told sinners: “You’re set free. Go and sin no more.” Punishment alone isn’t enough.
This question deserves careful consideration because many people mistakenly imagine Jesus as either excessively harsh or endlessly permissive. The Gospels present neither picture. Jesus was uncompromising about sin while being extraordinarily compassionate toward sinners. He neither excused wrongdoing nor denied the possibility of repentance. His ministry consistently held justice and mercy together.
Truth, accountability and compassion
If Jesus had encountered Obado after Sharon’s murder, His first concern would not have been political status, wealth or public reputation. Throughout His ministry, Jesus demonstrated remarkable impartiality. He confronted kings, religious leaders, tax collectors and ordinary citizens using the same moral standard. He never allowed influence or social standing to shield anyone from accountability. Obado would therefore have been treated not as a former governor or powerful politician but simply as a human being accountable before God. This is a very fair treatment.
Jesus would almost certainly have called Obado to acknowledge the truth. One of Christ’s defining characteristics was His insistence on honesty. Whether speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, Zacchaeus the tax collector or the woman caught in adultery, He brought hidden realities into the light. He never encouraged denial or deception. If Obado were guilty, Jesus would have demanded confession rather than concealment, because genuine repentance begins with truth. There can be no forgiveness without first confronting reality.
At the same time, Jesus would not have ignored the suffering of Sharon or her family. Sometimes discussions about forgiveness unintentionally focus almost entirely on the offender while forgetting the victim. Jesus consistently demonstrated deep compassion for those who mourned and suffered. He wept with grieving families, comforted the brokenhearted and defended the vulnerable. Sharon’s life would have mattered immensely to Him because every human being bears the image of God. Jesus would have acknowledged the immense pain inflicted on her loved ones and would not have minimized their loss in the name of mercy.
Forgiveness does not eliminate consequences
Would Jesus have opposed Obado’s imprisonment? The New Testament provides little support for such a conclusion. Jesus recognized the legitimacy of civil authority, even though earthly governments are imperfect. He told His followers to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, acknowledging the role of lawful institutions. Likewise, the Apostle Paul taught that governing authorities exist to restrain wrongdoing and administer justice. While courts can make mistakes and should always uphold due process, the biblical principle remains that criminal acts deserve legal accountability. Forgiveness and legal consequences are not mutually exclusive. A repentant offender may still serve a prison sentence because justice protects society and affirms the value of innocent life.
Yet Jesus would also have offered Obado hope. One of the most remarkable features of Christ’s ministry was His refusal to define people solely by their worst actions. Peter denied Him three times, yet Jesus restored him. Saul persecuted Christians, yet became the Apostle Paul. The thief crucified beside Jesus found mercy in his final hours after expressing faith and repentance. These examples do not suggest that serious crimes carry no consequences. Rather, they demonstrate that no sinner is beyond the reach of God’s grace. If Obado genuinely repented, Jesus would not reject him because of the gravity of his sin. Divine forgiveness remains available to all who sincerely turn from evil.
Repentance, however, is more than expressing regret after conviction. In biblical teaching, repentance involves a profound change of heart that produces transformed behaviour. It includes confession, acceptance of responsibility, sorrow for wrongdoing and a commitment to live differently. Where possible, it also includes restitution. Although no action could restore Sharon’s life, genuine repentance would require concern for those harmed by the crime rather than concern only for one’s own fate. Jesus consistently emphasized that transformed lives bear visible fruit.
Justice and mercy
The Sharon case also exposes broader societal issues that Jesus would likely have addressed. Throughout His ministry, He challenged cultures that treated women as disposable or powerless. He elevated the dignity of women, spoke with them publicly, defended them against injustice and included them among His followers. Sharon was not merely a name in a court file; she was a daughter, a mother, a journalist and a person of immeasurable worth. Jesus would have condemned every attitude that reduces another human being to an obstacle, a possession or a means to protect personal ambition.
Furthermore, Jesus would have challenged the culture of power that sometimes surrounds political office. He repeatedly warned against using authority for selfish purposes. “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,” He taught. Public office is a trust, not a licence for impunity. If political influence is used to intimidate, manipulate or escape accountability, it becomes an abuse of the very authority entrusted by society.
Ultimately, asking how Jesus would have handled Obado leads to a balanced answer. Jesus would have insisted on truth rather than denial, justice rather than impunity, compassion for the victim rather than indifference, and repentance rather than self-justification. He would neither excuse murder nor declare the offender beyond redemption. He would uphold the dignity of Sharon while extending the possibility of forgiveness to the guilty upon genuine repentance.
READ ALSO: If students stop reading books, the future of education is at risk
In Christ’s teaching, justice and mercy are not competing ideals but complementary expressions of God’s character. Justice affirms the value of the victim and the seriousness of sin, while mercy offers the sinner the possibility of spiritual restoration. That tension is difficult to hold, but it lies at the heart of the Gospel itself.
By Ashford Kimani
Ashford is a teacher of English and Literature and writes on education and social affairs.
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
