Plea Bargaining: How Politicians Use It to Escape Jail in Corruption Cases

Plea bargaining is a legal process where an accused person agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or fewer charges in exchange for a lighter sentence, dropped charges, or other favorable terms.

This process is common worldwide and is seen as a way to resolve cases faster, reduce court backlog, and recover stolen assets — especially in corruption cases involving high-profile politicians.

In Kenya and many other countries, plea bargaining is governed by specific legal frameworks that allow prosecutors and defense lawyers to negotiate settlements before or during trial.

Why Politicians Use Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining has become a preferred route for politicians facing corruption charges. Here are the main reasons:

1. Reducing Risk and Uncertainty

Court trials are unpredictable. A full corruption trial can last for years, with witnesses, forensic evidence, and multiple appeals. For politicians, a plea bargain offers a safer bet: they avoid the risk of a long jail term by agreeing to a predetermined lighter punishment.

2. Saving Time and Resources

Corruption cases are complex and expensive to prosecute. Prosecutors may opt for a plea deal to save time and free up resources for other cases. This allows courts to unclog their dockets and focus on more pressing matters.

3. Recovering Stolen Assets

One major advantage of plea bargaining is that it often includes an agreement to return stolen public funds or forfeit assets. For the government, recovering money quickly can sometimes be more beneficial than engaging in a drawn-out legal battle.

4. Protecting Political Stability

Full corruption trials can expose embarrassing details about the accused and sometimes even implicate other senior government officials. Plea bargaining limits public scandal by resolving the matter quietly, helping protect the political system from instability.

5. Leveraging Power and Influence

Politicians typically have high-profile lawyers, networks, and resources that ordinary citizens cannot access. These connections often help them negotiate favorable deals, sometimes resulting in minimal jail time, probation, or fines.

6. Exploiting Weak Sentencing Laws

In some jurisdictions, the legal framework does not impose strict minimum sentences for corruption offenses. As a result, politicians may walk away with reduced fines or suspended sentences even after admitting guilt.

Benefits of Plea Bargaining

Even though it’s controversial, plea bargaining has its merits:

• Speeds Up Justice: Cases are resolved faster compared to lengthy trials.
• Reduces Case Backlog: Courts can focus on other pending matters.
• Guarantees Conviction: Prosecutors secure at least some accountability instead of risking acquittal.
• Recovers Public Money: Often, assets are forfeited or funds are repaid to the state.

Kenyan Case Example: Former Migori Governor Okoth Obado

One of the clearest recent examples is the plea bargain deal involving former Migori County Governor Okoth Obado.

What happened

• Obado was charged (alongside 17 co-accused persons) with misappropriating KSh 73.4 million from the Migori County government during the period 2013–2017. The charges included conspiracy to commit economic crime, conflict of interest, money laundering, and unlawful acquisition of public property.
• Rather than go through a full trial, Obado and his co-accused wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) seeking to resolve the matter via Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is allowed under Kenyan law (Criminal Procedure Code, etc.).
• Under the plea bargain, Obado surrendered assets valued at KSh 235 million — roughly three times the amount originally alleged to have been misappropriated. These assets include: eight parcels of land, two Toyota Land Cruiser vehicles, residential and commercial properties (e.g. a house in Loresho Ridge, a commercial block in Suna East, apartment blocks in Greenspan, etc.)
• Following the deal, the ODPP intends to withdraw the corruption charges pending the approval of the court.

Points of Controversy

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) raised objections, arguing that it was not properly consulted or provided with a draft of the agreement, which potentially violates requirements for joint participation in such deals involving public assets.

There have been legal challenges over whether the plea bargain followed all procedural requirements (for example, under Sections 137A-O of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining) Rules, 2018) and whether withdrawal of charges should be allowed without full participation of all relevant agencies. 

Criticism and Concerns

Critics argue that plea bargaining, especially in corruption cases, undermines justice.

• Weakens Deterrence: Light sentences may encourage more corruption.
• Erodes Public Trust: Citizens lose faith in the justice system when powerful individuals avoid prison.
• Unequal Application: Ordinary citizens rarely get such lenient treatment.
• Lack of Transparency: Plea deals are often struck behind closed doors, leaving the public in the dark.

The Way Forward

Legal experts argue that plea bargaining should not become a tool for elites to evade justice. Stricter guidelines, transparency in negotiations, and mandatory asset recovery clauses are necessary to ensure the public does not feel short-changed.

Some jurisdictions have started publishing details of plea bargains to promote transparency. Others have imposed minimum mandatory sentences to ensure that corruption remains a risky venture.

Conclusion

Plea bargaining is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it speeds up justice and recovers stolen wealth. On the other hand, it risks making corruption appear like a negotiable offense.

To restore public confidence, governments must strike a balance — encouraging plea bargaining while ensuring that punishment is meaningful and deters future crimes.