ICC office of prosecutor in a spot as another witness quits Ruto case


The withdrawal of another key witness in the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Deputy President William Ruto has turned the spotlight on the Prosecution, raising questions on how it will manage to sustain trials in the present circumstances.

The performance of the Prosecutor is expected to come under scrutiny during a status conference Tuesday at The Hague.

Victims of the 2008 violence have placed much faith in the ICC, but recent events continue to dampen their spirits.

Charges have been dropped against three of the six initial suspects because of the difficulty of building cases.

And even as the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda continues to put on a brave face with declarations that she has strong evidence, the withdrawal of key witnesses would appear to weaken her case ahead of Mr Ruto’s trial expected later this year.

So far, the prosecution has lost 13 key witnesses in the twin cases involving President Uhuru Kenyatta, Mr Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang. Mr Kenyatta’ co-accused, former head of Public Service Francis Muthaura, has been discharged.

Through his lawyer Paul Gicheru, the witness who had told the prosecutor that he attended meetings to plan violence at Mr Ruto’s home now says he lied. He says he has never visited any of Mr Ruto’s homes.

Not true

“I would like to solemnly swear that all the allegations that are attributed to me in the said interviews and statements are not true.

“To the best of my knowledge the 2007/2008 violence was spontaneous and was not planned or financed by anybody in Rift Valley including Henry Kosgey, Joshua arap Sang and William Ruto,” the witness said in a February 19, 2013 affidavit.

Developments in Case One of Mr Ruto and Mr Sang have not made things any rosier for the prosecutor due to the unwillingness of some witnesses to co-operate with the office.

The big question now is: is the Kenyan case at the ICC collapsing?

There are also questions whether the Prosecution conducted credible investigations as required by the Rome Statute under which the court was founded.

One of the trial judges reportedly withdrew from the case last month citing prosecution misconduct, although the court leadership was quick to deny that line.

Before pulling out, Lady Justice Christine Van den Wyngaert had expressed reservations about the conduct of the prosecution.

“I am of the view that there are serious questions as to whether the prosecution conducted a full and thorough investigation of the case against the accused prior to confirmation,” she said in the decision discharging Mr Muthaura. She then asked to be released because of her work load. The presidency accepted, but court leadership concealed her other reasons for the move in the document released to the public.

After his clearance, Mr Muthaura also had very unkind words for the prosecution.

“To the prosecutor I say, please be fair – please investigate your cases – please look for the truth and make sure that your staff live by this guiding principle.”


- Advertisement -

Comment on the article

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

%d bloggers like this: