President UhuruKenyatta should not even think of skipping ICC

By READERS DIALOGUE

Dishonest politics is sordid, but honest politics is absolutely scary. This is best proved by what goes on during election campaign periods – when promises are made right, left and centre.

During the presidential campaign debate, Uhuru Kenyatta was particularly asked not to vie for the presidency until he clears his name with the ICC.

But he emphatically stated that the ICC case against him was a personal challenge and that at no point would he drag the entire nation into the case. He also promised the electorate that he would abide by the dictates of the ICC.

Six months down the line, he appears too panic-stricken to stick to a vow of scrupulous honesty and all indications are that he is not about to be embarrassed for back-pedalling.

Suddenly, Uhuru has realised the ICC case against him is no longer a personal challenge. Now, like Siamese twins, Kenya is conjoined to this hitherto “personal issue”. Judging from Uhuru’s body language, he no longer wants to co-operate with the ICC.

He has also succeeded in courting the African Union into abrogation talks. African countries are now clawing ferociously at ICC. They are threatening to pull en masse out of the Rome Statute that created the court if it does not recognise the immunity of a sitting president.

An attempt to clean up this woolly concept of sovereignty beneath this veneer of sovereignty is an attempt to ward off any incursion at the African heads of states’ comfort zones, characterised by a common denominator: Impunity.

Supposing this ill wish is granted, does it mean heads of state can kill and maim while in office because they are immune to prosecution?

World’s stance

The world must unreservedly guard against the leadership of countries that may wittingly use the caveat of “sovereignty” and “immunity for sitting presidents” to discredit the ICC in an attempt to circumvent retributive justice.

It is wrong for anyone to lie to Kenyans that it is unconstitutional for Uhuru to be prosecuted at ICC.

Finally, with the consequences of non-compliance with the Rome Statute clear, I dread Kenya may be turned into a Harare or Khartoum. I am not sure that, like Harare and Khartoum, Kenyans will willingly accept to become collateral damage in the event Uhuru refuses to co-operate with the court.

This is why I exhort Uhuru to go to ICC and valiantly defend himself. If, indeed, he has evidence of witness tampering by the ICC, then he has nothing to worry about. All he has to do is to go to ICC and prove his claims.

{Tome Francis, Bungoma}

 

If Kenya pulls out of the Rome Statue, then procedural consequences on the case facing Uhuru, William Ruto and Joshua Sang will turn dramatic.

African presidents should be sober and conscious enough not to mislead Uhuru over his case at the ICC.

Their deliberations over the future of Africa’s ties with the court should borrow substance from the history of political violence in Africa, consider the facts on political abuse of human rights in Africa, the value of meta-governance, global governance and political moves that have been executed in the name of testing and proving African political sovereignty.

{Alexander K Opicho, Eldoret}