Ruto to fight ICC evidence from witnesses who recanted testimony

Deputy President William Ruto has outlined seven points that will help him fight the admission of damning evidence against him from witnesses who have since disowned their testimony ahead of his 'no case to answer' motion at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

LEFT: Jubilee MPs led by National Assembly Majority Leader Aden Duale (right) consult before addressing a press conference at Parliament buildings in Nairobi, yesterday. This was in response to a remark made by former Prime Minister Raila Odinga on the International Criminal Court case against Deputy President William Ruto. RIGHT: Orange Democratic Movement MPs led by Chairman John Mbadi address a press conference at Parliament buildings yesterday on the ICC case against Ruto. (PHOTOS: BONIFACE OKENDO/STANDARD)

In a filing dated October 6 and made public yesterday, Ruto's lawyers led by Karim Khan argued that Trial Chamber V (a) made at least seven fundamental errors in admitting the statements of the witnesses who have since recanted their evidence.

The 'no case to answer' motion is expected to be filed not later than October 23. The 52-page written submission argues the judges erred to apply the amendment to Rule 68 that permits prior recorded testimony to ongoing cases and whether the circumstances the five witnesses are in warrant for their appearance to be substituted with written statements and transcripts of interviews.

The lawyers also requested an opportunity to make oral hearings of the case before the judges."The evidence is largely uncorroborated, mutually inconsistent and contradicted by other trial evidence, including independent media reports," Mr Khan argued.

"It is also the product of interviews carried out by the prosecution which were not audio or video recorded. The interviews also permitted one of the witnesses to consult during the interview," he added.

Khan argued that the witness statements admitted as evidence, which judges will rely on in making a judgement in Ruto's case, remain unsworn and are still disavowed by the concerned witnesses.

Needed assistance

He also asserted the interviews that yielded the statements were flawed as they were conducted without needed assistance of an interpreter in respect of two witnesses.

In addition, he submitted that the witness statements are not verbatim transcripts of what they said, but summaries written by the prosecution rather than an independent third party.

Khan requested that due to the weight of the matter, the judges of the Appeals Chamber should allow oral hearings before reaching a decision of the matter.

"An oral hearing would be beneficial to assist the Appeals Chamber in resolving the seven grounds of appeal," said Khan.

On August 19, this year, ICC trial judges allowed statements of five witnesses who recanted them in court or failed to testify, to be admitted as evidence against Ruto and former journalist Joshua arap Sang.

Four of the witnesses whose statements have been admitted as evidence following Wednesday's decisions had been compelled by court order to testify.

Once they appeared before the chamber via video link, each of the four witnesses recanted in part or in whole their previous statements to prosecution investigators and they ended up being declared hostile prosecution witnesses.