The proceedings of post-election violence cases against Kenyans at the International Criminal Court, ICC, are slated to resume in January 2014. That is after they officially commenced on September 16, 2013 with DP William Samoei Ruto and former radio presenter, Joshua arap Sang facing the bench of three judges headed by Chile Eboe-Osuji. The two are facing charges of murder, deportation and persecution, related to the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya. Adjournments have marred the proceedings due to withdrawal from the cases by witnesses.
President Uhuru Kenyatta’s cases should commence on February 5, 2014. He is accused at the ICC of leading organized violent retaliation against persons perceived to be Orange Democratic Movement supporters in the 2008 post-election
violence. Since all initial co-accused persons in his cases were dropped, he has successfully applied for interpretations, considerations, amendments and adjournments of provisions related to the cases thereby opening windows and pushing the dates for proceedings forward. In his latest efforts where Kenyan Government officials attended a meeting of 122 ICC states at The Hague to make concessions, Assembly of States Parties rules were changed to allow leaders and government officials to skip trials or do cases through their counsels.
Both the cases are summed up as crimes against humanity. Close to 1300 people lost their lives, property destroyed and about 600000 people displaced. The violence erupted in early 2008 after a disputed presidential election result between former President S.E. Mwai Kibaki and former PM Raila Amolo Odinga. The results, announced by the Chairman of the defunct ECK, the late Samuel Kivuitu, caused spontaneous eruptions of protests and violence that lasted over one week before reconciliation presided over by process Mr. Kofi Anan could begin.
Blunder of Ruto’s Excitements
Apart from his, perceived, involvement in the violence, the Deputy President has not been keen on studying implications of his actions in relation to the cases. His confessed maneuvers in the parliamentary proceedings to defeat local tribunal on the same and his rush to the ICC are steps in bad order. It sounded funny to hear him regret marshaling of his team of tribal legislators to shout; ‘Don’t be vague, let it be Hague!’ When he retracted and backed a local arrangement he sounded more desperately vague than The Hague.
Now, Ruto must be facing the ICC monster with dehydrated horns protruding from his head. He is casting a face of portrait confidence as he plies the route to Holland. He is vocal, yes; but a ray of distasteful audacity plays in the yard of his composure. It is betrayal of conscience. If I were him I would be duly perturbed and regretful. I would agree to the voice within me that says; ‘sometime it’s wise to go slow’.
If the DP would be thinking critically he would not rush to the ICC. He would sit down and count the costs. He would consider consequences of engaging in the cases. He would seek to stall the start of the cases by use of legal or any means necessary. The ICC is not a court of justice. It is a political institution. Like NATO, it serves to suppress uprising leaders. It is largely manipulated. It is dangerous. Whoever dreams that people with cases like ones for the Kenyans can prevail at the ICC is daydreaming. To the ICC, the world should be taught that ‘no one can commit crimes against humanity and escape because he/she can hire best lawyers in the world!’ That is the fear the rest of the world has for anyone who is indicted by the court. That fear is real.
So Ruto must be aware that he cannot have his bread and eat it. The court ‘must’ punish somebody for post-election violence of 2008. There is no way the court will excuse him but punish Uhuru; never. As they read, one case leads to another. If they are punished, it will not only have thrown them into deepest trouble but also entirely spoiled their profiles. The ICC wants to vindicate its mandate.
Birds of Different Nests
In a nutshell, the President has shown he understands the gravity of the case. His efforts portray he is careful not to face the bench. That is not, only, because he is a President but because of the tags associated with the court. President Uhuru does not, only, want to stay free but also keep his profile. He knows if no case is done he remains himself. But when the case begins it must end and that means he is headed for the drains. That is not what a careful person can opt for. That is what Ruto has put before him.
If Ruto goes on with the cases at the ICC but looks behind to see Uhuru not following him he should not be surprised. They are birds of different nests; one is careless and another is careful.
No comments:
Post a Comment