Is the ICC using unorthodox means to justice?

The recent move by ICC judges allowing Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to use recanted testimonies in the case against Deputy President William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang is indeed mischievous.

It can be recalled that Rule 68 was amended in November 2013 during the 12th Assembly of the States Parties with assurance that it would not be applied to ongoing Ruto/Sang case.

Kenya and other African States debated strongly with the aim of getting fair trial at ICC. It was resolved then that the accused persons be guaranteed the right to cross-examination.

African states, however, were not alone. Leading human rights institutions like Amnesty International and International Bar Association were active in the enactment of the rule.

Indeed, Bensouda knows very well that her case is weak. Depending on little or no ground investigations was her big undoing. In fact, her predecessor Luis Moreno-Ocampo revealed that the “strong forces” had pushed him to make sure that Uhuru Kenyatta and Ruto are imprisoned to end their political ambitions.

To evade “embarrassment” of no case to answer, however, OTP is out to use any kind of unjust means. This amounts to judicial mischief.

The court, however, needs to go back to the drawing board by re-starting investigations into the 2007-08 post-election violence.

Opting for unorthodox means is indeed not the route to justice.