ICC rejects appeal on William Ruto, Joshua Sang witnesses' summons

THE HAGUE: Deputy President William Ruto suffered a blow Thursday after ICC's top judges rejected his plea to reverse an earlier order compelling eight prosecution witnesses to testify in his trial.

In the unanimous decision read out Thursday, the Appeals Chamber upheld the decision by the Kenyan government to compel the witnesses to testify.

Mr Ruto, alongside his co-accused Joshua arap Sang, had appealed the decision, arguing the court did not have the powers to compel the witnesses to appear before it and that the Kenyan government did not have an obligation to do the same.

On April 17, trial judges Chile Eboe-Osuji and Robert Fremr ordered the appearance of witnesses 15, 16, 336, 397, 516, 524, 495 and 423 before the court to testify in the case. Witness 15 was left out of the list although he was set to testify as well.

Almost all witnesses who have testified against Ruto thus far have been declared hostile.

Kenyan MPs and other leaders who were still in The Hague Thursday did not attend the delivery of the ruling.

In their decision, the judges rejected Ruto and Sang's arguments that the court operates on the principle of voluntary appearance.

FINANCED VIOLENCE

While applying to compel the witnesses, Bensouda said they gave her "highly relevant potential evidence".

The trial judges ordered Kenya to facilitate "by way of a compulsory measure as necessary" their appearance and take care of their security until they appeared and completed their testimony.

Part of the evidence they had given earlier, according to Bensouda, was that Ruto hosted and participated in planning meetings and financing the violence.

Witness 15 claimed to have participated in 11 meetings attended by Ruto where procurement of arms, selection of field commanders and other logistics were allegedly discussed. He also claimed to have participated in some of the attacks.

Witness 16 told the prosecution he attended two meetings with Ruto in his Sugoi home. He also claimed to have participated in the attack on Turbo town and was crucial in offering a first account of the violence and its planning.

In their appeal, Ruto and Sang had argued that the trial judges resorted to "implied powers" to compel the witnesses to testify.

They said Article 64's wording did not afford the court to compel the witnesses to appear. They said the word used in the relevant provision was "require" which cannot amount to "order."

They further argued that only witnesses who appear in the court can be compelled and subsequently sanctioned under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the court.