Hague: Pressure continues to mount on the International Criminal Court to terminate President Uhuru Kenyatta’s case for lack of concrete evidence tying him to the 2007/08 post- election violence. Late last year, the ICC issued a press statement stating the case against the President “did not satisfy the high evidential standards required at trial” and that the prosecution needed time to complete efforts to obtain additional evidence and consider whether such evidence will enable the prosecution meet the evidential threshold required. For nearly five years, ICC prosecutors Louis Moreno Ocampo and his successor Fatou Bensouda have taken Kenya and the world through the motions of the trial of a sitting president, his deputy and a former radio presenter. Credible case The admission last year of a lack of sufficient evidence put the ICC in a precarious situation and legal experts continue to poke holes in the prosecution’s ability to sustain a credible case against the President. “Therein lies the puzzle. On one hand, the prosecution has admitted they have no case. They have insufficient evidence and unwilling or unavailable witnesses. Why then is the case still before court and allowed to continue endlessly?” argues lawyer Kennedy Ogeto. Mr Ogeto, who is part of the President’s defence team, says the ICC should dismiss the case on the basis that they have, on their own admission, no case. “And there is no prospect of them gathering any evidence in the future that would contribute to their cause,” he said. President Kenyatta, his deputy William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang were charged in 2012 with crimes against humanity in relation to their alleged role in the post-election violence. This is not the first time Kenyatta’s team is demanding that the ICC exonerates their client. In February, they made a similar argument, claiming the prosecution’s case had “collapsed”. But the court did not buy the argument, and gave the prosecution a few more months to gather evidence, in particular the all-important financial records of the President. Lying star witness The prosecution has since shifted focus to obtaining more information from the Kenyan Government. “All the prosecution is doing is to divert attention from its own failings. They never address the issue of their own lying star witnesses whom while in their protective custody chose to stand for the truth,” says lawyer Kabue Thumi. “It is unfortunate that the court meant to uphold the highest standards of justice in the world has been reduced to going through the motions in a case in which they have no evidence.”
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:37:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015