Moreno Ocampo links Raila Odinga to poll violence

One of the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s witnesses accused Prime Minister Raila Odinga of financing the post-election violence, it emerged on Friday.

The revelation is in Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s final submission in the case against Eldoret North MP William Ruto, his Tinderet counterpart Henry Kosgey and radio presenter Joshua Sang.

Mr Ocampo however argued before the ICC judges that though the witness said in his statement that the PM was informed of the planning and gave money to Mr Ruto and Mr Kosgey, it is not proof that Mr Odinga was the head of the network that organised and executed the crimes.

Mr Ocampo added that any criminal responsibility that might be attached to the PM did not water down the evidence against Mr Kosgey.

This is the first time in court that Mr Ocampo is making reference to Mr Odinga’s possible involvement because when talking to the media, he insisted that he had no evidence against either the PM or President Kibaki.

The prosecutor’s case against Mr Ruto, Mr Kosgey and Mr Sang is centered on ODM planning attacks against perceived PNU supporters. (READ: Ocampo urges judges to confirm Ruto group charges)

In his second case, he accuses Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, head of civil service Francis Muthaura and postmaster general Hussein Ali of revenge attacks against perceived ODM supporters.

In his submission, Mr Ocampo has asked the Pre-Trial Chamber to confirm all charges against the three suspects because failing to do so, the three will have escaped trial for very serious crimes.

The prosecutor wants the three to go to trial for murder, forcible evictions and persecution of perceived PNU supporters in the Rift Valley and have no charges dismissed as being inappropriately cumulative.

The prosecutor also said that the defence did not present evidence that renders his insufficient for the purpose of confirming the charges.

He says that the defence offered alibi that was intended to refute the Prosecution’s evidence.

He added that the Defence presented a factual dispute concerning material issues that can only be properly during a trial.

The prosecutor dismissed the defence arguments that his evidence was inconsistent with his case against them.