As the first Kenya case opened at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague last week, one of the suspects, Deputy President William Ruto, made a conspicuous change to his defence strategy. From the confrontational Mr Ruto who appeared to have an axe to grind with former Prime Minister Raila Odinga during the pre-trial hearings, ICC watchers saw a completely different man. The video clips that his lawyer, the combative Mr Karim Khan, displayed in court when he made the opening submissions last Tuesday were a sharp contrast to the submissions during the pre-trial phase. The videos, most of them interviews with former K24 presenter Jeff Koinange as well as from 2007 ODM campaign rallies and post-election press conferences, portrayed Mr Ruto as a peace-loving and development conscious politician, concerned with the welfare of the people. One of the clips shows Mr Ruto calling for calm just as the news of the Kiambaa church attack was breaking. This is amplified by Mr Khan who called on the trial bench made up of Judges Chile Eboe-Osuji (Presiding Judge), Olga Herrera Carbuccia and Robert Fremr to determine if the statement by Mr Ruto is “of a man that was inciting and planning and financing the burning of a church and was saying, effectively, ‘To hell with it. Let everything burn. I’ve won my office, ‘I’ve won my election, but still let everything burn,’ because of some other reason?” SERIOUS LEADER In contrast, Mr Ruto appeared to have decided at the pre-trial stage to make the former PM the subject of his defence as he questioned the prosecution’s logic of settling on him yet he was not the 2007 ODM presidential candidate. East African Law Society president James Mwamu attributed the change in the defence strategy to Mr Khan. According to Mr Mwamu, Mr Ruto’s new strategy is to show that the former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s investigation was shambolic, instead of carrying on with his domestic political battles with Mr Odinga. “A brilliant lawyer Khan is. He has set to establish that Mr Ruto was a victim of circumstances; that he is a serious leader who is after spearheading Kenya’s socio-economic development and, therefore, cannot destroy what he wants to build and that ODM and its leaders preached peace and violence was instigated by PNU,” Mr Mwamu remarked. The DP’s defence metamorphosis was also noted by Ol Jororok MP John Waiganjo who pointed out the differences at the pre-trial phase and the current trial stage. “He has a new team of lawyers who have properly advised him. Remember he is not an ordinary suspect but the Deputy President of Kenya and Kenyans in general, and more specifically the people who voted for him, are watching. So he has to be very careful,” said Mr Waiganjo. More importantly, Mr Waiganjo and the executive director of the International Centre for Policy and Conflict Ndung’u Wainaina concur that the shift could be as a result of the realisation of the gravity of the charges he faces. Mr Ruto and his co- accused Joshua arap Sang are accused of crimes against humanity consisting of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of populations and persecution allegedly committed during the 2007-2008 post-election violence. If they are found guilty, they could be jailed for up to 30 years. This is not something an ambitious politician like Mr Ruto or anybody else would play around with, according to Mr Wainaina. “The shoe he was wearing at the pre-trial stage has changed. At this stage, if the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt, it’s clear conviction. So he has no option but to humble himself and invest less on embarrassing the court but on his defence,” said Mr Wainaina. Furthermore, and in a demonstration of the seriousness of the charges he faces, much of the 64-page prosecution’s brief revolved around him with Mr Sang joining the network, as the brief refers to them, much later. The only way out, said Mr Wainaina, is for him to portray a different image. Mr Sang, who chose to share the two hours given for his opening statement with his defence lawyer Katwa Kigen to personally address the court, on the other hand, opted to use the Christian card, portraying himself as a religious man who would do no harm to others. However, analysts note that the opening statements, though important, are of little consequence in the final determination by the judges. Instead the judges would be concerned with the evidence the prosecution lays before them. “Opening statements do not carry a lot of weight. However, as the trial continues a good trial lawyer could, for instance, question whether it is a coincidence that he (Mr Ruto) is using video clips from a media house associated with another indictee,” said Mr Mwamu in reference to the K24 television station which is associated with President Uhuru Kenyatta. Mr Kenyatta’s trial over his alleged role during the violence starts on November 12. The first witness will take the stand on Tuesday when Mr Ruto and Mr Sang resume their place in the courtroom. The prosecutor, Ms Fatou Bensouda, had requested for an adjournment from Wednesday to enable witnesses arrive in The Hague. The court has said the accused persons are free to travel when the court is not in session but must sit through the trials in person. “There are no arrest warrants for Mr Ruto or Mr Sang. They are free persons and are only requested to be present at the hearings, in accordance with the schedule that is established by the ICC Judges. Outside of this presence, and on condition of continuing the compliance with the judges’ orders and conditions of no interference with witnesses, there are no restrictions imposed on them by the ICC,” ICC spokesman Fadi El Abdallah said on August 29.
Posted on: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 06:05:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015