Is Bensouda misleading the International Criminal Court over Ruto and Sand case?

International criminal court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda PHOTO: COURTESY

The manner in which the international Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is handling cases facing Deputy President William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang is a clear demonstration that politics is taking a centre stage.

It has now become clear that Bensouda is misleading the court for reasons known to her.

Reports that Bensouda misled the court about the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of a witness is  a clear message that she is not interested in justice for the accused and the victims of the 2008 post-election violence.

It was only recently that a witness admitted to the judges that he lied in Deputy President William Ruto’s case.

This comes in the wake of the recent revelations by former International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Moreno Ocampo that some diplomats asked him to do more to prevent Kenyatta and Ruto from contesting the last General Elections is a clear indication that cases facing the three Kenyans at The Hague based court are political.

President Kenyatta’s case has since been dropped due to lack of enough evidence.

It is discouraging that five years have been wasted and these cases are journey to nowhere.

But if the manner in which the witnesses have resolved to withdraw from the case are anything to go by, then it has become evidently clear that they were coached to testify against the Deputy President.

Most of these witnesses had been made to believe that the process they were engaging in was neutral and aimed at achieving justice for post-election victims but instead they have realized that politics is becoming the order of the day as they have been forced to lie before the judges.

But for the sake of fairness plus judicial efficiency and economy, the core of the Prosecution case should be tested at the outset of trial, particularly when the Defense has sound reason to believe that this core is rotten.

As the former prosecutor, Ocampo was fully aware about the far reaching implications of his latest revelations touching on the ongoing cases and efforts should be made to compel him (Ocampo) to shed more light on the recent revelations that some diplomats approached him to do more to prevent Uhuru and Ruto from contesting the last election.

It is time ICC moves quickly to investigate the truth about the latest revelations with a view to bringing to book those who wanted Ocampo to do more to stop Uhuru and Ruto from participating in the last elections.

ICC should start probe on how investigations to post election violence were carried out and to unmask the diplomats who tried to bear pressure on Ocampo to block Uhuru and Ruto from running for presidency.

 

But to demonstrate that the Kenyan cases were political from the word go, before announcing what used to be the six names, Ocampo had made it very clear that he would use Kenya as a lesson, something he kept on repeating forgetting that he is only a prosecutor.

ICC should also be made to understand that Ocampo on the other hand announced the six names through the media without informing the suspects who contravenes its (ICC) rules.

 The Rome Statute in Article 16 stipulates that the Trial Chamber is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused persons and this was never done in the first place.

And the fact that a witness told the ICC judges that he lied in Ruto’s case is an indication that witnesses in this case were indeed coached to testify against Ruto.

If the manner in which the witnesses have resolved to withdraw from the case are anything to go by, then it has become evidently clear that they were coached to testify against the Deputy President.

Most of these witnesses had been made to believe that the process they were engaging in was neutral and aimed at achieving justice for post-election victims but instead they have realized that politics is becoming the order of the day as they have been forced to lie before the judges.

It was recently when reports indicated that a local civil society group was behind the International Criminal Court’s rejection of Ruto’s application to have his trial moved to Kenya or Tanzania shows that politics is the order of the day as far as the cases are concerned.

In fact the recent revelations by ICC Trial Chamber judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, in a detailed statement that an “open letter” by African Centre for Governance (Africog) executive director two days before the plenary of judges swayed some of his colleagues to vote against holding part of the trial away from The Hague should have guided the court to believe that the Kenyan cases are politically motivated.

No wonder the Nigerian judge said the “politicisation” of the case convinced five of his colleagues against sittings in Nairobi or Tanzania meaning that politics are the order of the day as far as this case is concerned.

The latest development is a clear indication eight witnesses in the case involving Ruto’s s case are liars and should be investigated.

This follows recent move by Ruto’s lawyers to make application to ICC over eight witnesses they deem to be liars.

 Perhaps this is the reason why these human rights activist and NGOs have been opposed to any move to have the cases heard in Kenya or Tanzania.

 ICC should be made to understand that some local NGOs and human rights groups coached witnesses to testify against Ruto and this should not be taken for granted.

 

 But the truth of the matter is that cases before the ICC are politically motivated and ICC should take time to investigate the circumstances under which the three Kenyans facing charges were arrived at.

In any case, it is time the international community gives Kenyans the opportunity to solve its own problems since no outsider can solve problems facing this country.

ICC should therefore go back to the drawing board, terminate cases involving Ruto and journalist Sang and launch investigations into the claims that the witnesses in their cases were coached to lie before the judges.

The Hague based court should also get the truth about claims that Bensouda is misleading the court.

 

Joel Onyango comments on topical issues