NAIROBI, KENYA: International Criminal Court suspect former journalist Joshua Arap Sang is opposed to deferral of his trial and says he would be happy to have the case against him proceed and concluded as soon as possible.
Sang however admits that he understands the circumstances of the deferral push for the trial of president Uhuru kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto bearing in mind their constitutional mandate to govern the country.
“Personally i do not support this deferral thing, I know for them, president Uhuru and his deputy William Ruto, they really need it, i understand they need a deferral, they are only a few months in office, they need it so that they can govern this country but for me my preference is that i want the case concluded as soon as possible,” said Sang.
High powered diplomatic offensives are ongoing in New York among Kenya and the AU and the UN Security Council member states to have the cases facing president Uhuru and his deputy William Ruto deferred for at least a year.
AU has cited Kenya’s role in the fight against terrorism in the region and argues that much of the grand constitutional and institutional reforms that Kenya has posted since the 2007 post election violence will be at stake if the UN Security Council fails to intervene.
However, about 20,000 victims of the post election violence through their legal representative Fergal Gaynor have written to the UN security council to reject the deferral bid by Kenya and the AU arguing among other things that deferring the cases will be counter productive to the fight against impunity.
Previously, deputy president William Ruto who is Sang’s co-accused also seemed not to be in support of the ongoing deferral shuttle engagements saying he too wanted his case brought to a logical conclusion as soon as possible so that he could concentrate in discharging his constitutional obligations.
ICC has already postponed the trial of Uhuru to February 5, 2014. On 24 October 2013, Kenyatta’s Defence had requested the Chamber to postpone the initial November 12 date.
The Prosecution accepted that certain factual matters raised by the Defence merited further investigation and submitted that additional time would allow it to present its evidence, namely witnesses’ testimony, in a logical and coherent sequence.
