By STANDARD REPORTER
The International Criminal Court ruling hit the Kenyan political arena like a tsunami off the waters of Indian Ocean. It committed to full trial two Presidential candidates, raised questions about integrity and added fire to the raging debate on whether they should be allowed to run.
The Hague ruling hits political arena like a typhoon. Kosgey, Ali off the hook for now. Ruto, Uhuru cases confirmed. Then on Tuesday Kenyans will hear from Ocampo [Graphics/Standard]
It got President Kibaki â who now faces pressure to force the faces of government in the ICC list to step aside until the appeal or trial process is completed â and Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka talking. But they were not alone in speaking guardedly of their indignation.
The court emphasised that the four accused, despite having moved from the category of suspects after yesterdayâs ruling, remain innocent until the second phase of hearings is completed. The burden of proving them guilty lies on the Prosecutor, who is leaving office in June, and his successor.
The country now awaits the news conference this afternoon by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, who is expected to respond to the ruling, which he had predicted, announce whether he will appeal against the dismissal of charges against Kosgey and Ali, and take the opportunity given him by the court to present fresh evidence against them.
And like the real tsunami, Kenya will continue to sway in its strong winds for a long time. It also opened the door to the next phase, which is full trial for crimes against humanity for four high-profiled Kenyans: Mr Uhuru Kenyatta, Mr William Ruto, Mr Francis Muthaura and Mr Joshua Arap Sang.
The four will now be tried by an entirely new chamber, or even two, but first a decision will have to be made on the whatever appeals they may file against yesterdayâs ruling.
In the first case involving Ruto, Sang and Kosgey the court ruled: "As to the criminal responsibility of Mr Ruto and Mr Sang, the Chamber found, on the basis of the evidence presented, that they are responsible for the charges levied against them."
Specifically on Kosgey, it determined: "The Chamber found that the Prosecutorâs evidence failed to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required. The Chamber was not persuaded by the evidence presented by the Prosecutor of Mr Kosgeyâs alleged role within the organisation."
On the second case bringing together Uhuru, Muthaura and Ali it decided: "With respect to the criminal responsibility of Mr Muthaura and Mr Kenyatta, the Chamber was satisfied that the evidence also established substantial grounds to believe that they are criminally responsible for the alleged crimes, as indirect co-perpetrators, pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, having gained control over the Mungiki and directed them to commit the crimes."
While letting off Maj Gen (Rtd) Hussein Ali, it ruled: "The Chamber found that the evidence presented does not provide substantial grounds to believe that the Kenya Police participated in the attack in or around Nakuru and Naivasha. Since Mr Ali was charged with contributing to the crimes through the Kenya Police, the Chamber declined to confirm the charges against him."
