Extra TVUN

Kenyan President Fronts ICC While Witnesses Remain Intimidated

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 10 2014 (IPS) - Although Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta is the first Head of State to appear before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Kenyan civil society groups believe the case will collapse without cooperation from the government in Nairobi.

At a press briefing Friday, civil society groups said the ICC case– into post-election violence– was heading towards failure because of missing and intimidated witnesses and lack of cooperation from the government.

Stella Ndirangu of the International Commission of Jurists Kenya told reporters that “several witnesses have died, others have disappeared and still others have recounted their testimonies”.

The case now hinged on records and cooperation from the government, because “the eye witness testimony and evidence that had been secured has definitely been eroded by all the interferences and all the disappearances of witnesses” said Ndirangu.

Ndirangu added it was unrealistic to expect President Kenyatta or his government would cooperate: “you don’t expect him to incriminate himself by providing the records”.

The case would show “what happens when a state refuses to cooperate and that state is the situational state”, said Ndirangu.

Kenyatta has made it clear he was appearing as a private citizen by temporarily stepping down as President.

Abdul Noormohamed of the Open Society Initiative for East Africa told reporters there was still no justice for the victims after seven years. Noormohamed said the ICC case had done little to change this, because “nobody spoke for the victims who died”. “We need justice. The ICC is the only place where those victims can see something happen.” he added.

Although there were 4,000 files of sexually violated women, none were considered good enough for prosecution, he pointed out.

Noormohamed said, “There is no intention in the country to prosecute, instead we are trying to destroy the only thing that has focused on the justice and that is the Rome Statute.”

Kenya is pursuing an amendment to the statute but Haron Ndubi of Kenyans for Peace Truth with Justice said the proposed amendment did not align with Kenya’s own constitution.

After Kenya’s disputed 2007 Presidential election, 1,100 people were killed and more than 350,000 people were displaced in post-election violence, according toa report from Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice.

 
Republish | | Print |

Related Tags



  • mark

    Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that Kenya has had the dubious privilege of exposing a fatal weakness of the ICC, which is its lack of police powers. However that does not mean the institution is worthless. Without the efforts of the ICC prosecution, the perpetration of post-election violence, as well as the continuing impunity within the country, would hardly merit a note in the history books. And whatever political relief the failure of the cases may afford to Obama or Cameron, the fact is that Kenyatta is tarnished with evident if not proven guilt for the rest of his life.
    There is also the lingering question of Walter Barasa, for whom an arrest warrant is outstanding for the very thing which has threatened to bring Kenyatta’s case down; witness intimidation. It seems to me that the AG of the Kenya Government is in contempt of court for failing to arrest him and that this may be a way to keep the coals of justice smouldering for a while longer, in the hopes of a breakthrough on the main case.

  • mark

    There is also a question of jurisprudence. We are used to the notion that one is innocent unless proven guilty. I wonder how much sense this makes when a case against an accused person is hampered by systematic suppression of evidence even if that suppression cannot be directly linked to the accused personally..
    What if the presumption of innocence was inviolable except in the case of witness interference, which in itself would be acceptable evidence of wrong-doing relating to the initial charges?
    In the case of a government which interferes with witnesses or in other ways defies the courts rulings and whose leading figure is the person who is accused, it is quite fair to make a presumption that that leading figure is ultimately responsible for the obstruction of justice.
    Would it be possible to reform the international justice system to make witness statements irreversible so that once a statement is made, intimidation or murder of that witness will have no positive bearing on the case for the accused.
    Come on you lawyers, let’s hear what you have to say – if it’s justice you seek.

sra reading kit