Bensouda,Annan remarks were misconstrued

By Joseph Mutua

A few days ago I read an opinion authored by the TNA director of communication Michael Waikenda in which he took great exceptions to recent comments attributed to ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and the Kenya post election violence chief mediator and former UN secretary general Koffi Annan.

The writer argued that the comments were unfair, malicious and meant to prejudice Uhuru, Ruto cases at International Criminal Court. Given this scenario, he expressed fear that the two leading candidates of Jubilee coalition will not be accorded a fair trial. He did not go into the specifics of the “offensive comments”.

For me, I tend to disagree. First when the ICC pre-trial chamber confirmed the changes against four Kenyans, the judges made it very clear that the two were free to run. The presiding judge however cautioned them against making utterances that could plunge the country to another wave of violence.

The ruling was delivered against a backdrop of unrelenting pressure mounted by their political rivals that they were not eligible to run. Indeed, reports indicated that some rivals had even called on the judges to hold them there. But in his response, then prosecutor Moreno Ocampo concurred with the judges and observed that he will not challenge the decision.

Notably, given the rules and procedures governing the office of the prosecutor, Ocampo as the team leader spoke for entire team. Then Bensouda served as his deputy before she replaced him as the prosecutor. A few months ago, Ms Bensouda visited the country. Her office had announced that the visit was meant to enhance and strengthen Kenya cooperation with the ICC, meet and interact with the victims.

The IDPs in Nakuru, Kiambaa,  Eldoret shared with her the tribulations they went through and the people they believe bore greatest responsibility for the violence. This was the first ever one-on-one meeting between the victims and prosecutor. Having followed keenly Bensouda’s visit, which was widely covered by the media, at no time, did I hear her making comments that targeted the personalities of Uhuru and Ruto.

If she ever did, Waikenda should therefore tell us the specific words. Indeed, in various occasions, she eloquently made it clear that her mission was purely meant to explain the functions of her office.

The decision as to whether or not Ruto, Uhuru are innocent lies with the judges.   At one point when she was pressed to comment on the eligibility of duo, she referred to ruling by Pre-trial chamber. The decision on who becomes the next president of Kenya lies with people of Kenya, not ICC. Still, its matter should be decided within the framework of the Kenya laws.  

As for the Koffi Annan, he has in recent past twice visited the country during which he made remarks which was widely published by the media. However, for me and I hope many Kenyans would agree, his remarks were not in any way intended to prejudice Uhuru and Ruto cases.

In various occasions, he had only been quoted as cautioning Kenyans the consequences of electing personalities facing charges of crimes against humanity at The Hague based court. His views, according to the media, were based on threats by international Community that they will impose economic and diplomatic sanctions if the two are elected.

As a former UN secretary general, Annan worked closely with the countries of west and therefore, his comments cannot be out rightly ignored. Did the comments touch on the ICC cases? Did he suggest the two will not get a fair trial? The answer to the two questions is a resounding NO.

So, unless he furnishes the country with more information, one would conclude that Waikenda’s piece was tailored to offer blind support and catch the eye, ear of the hand that feeds him.

Joseph Mutua is a Human Rights Activist and Comments on Topical Issues