I have watched in awe
at what was personal problem mature into a national problem ending in
parliament and eventually to a continental one in the hands of the United Nations
Security Council. It is either Kenya or the scion of Jomo is too influential
otherwise this issue would have escalated to such unprecedented proportions the moment Sudan’s Al Bashir was
handed an arrest warrant,
or even when Gbagbo’s case commenced. If we are to view The Hague based court
as imperial, Ivory Coast is the most ideal example to use! We all heard the
office of the prosecutor relentlessly insist that there has to be a lesson made
out of the Kenyan case. I am from the school of thought that out of that out of
the three cases, the prosecutor has will have to nail one or two, if she fails;
she will have nailed the three! Given the political nature of these cases,
there might be collateral damage (not justice) at the end. All along we all have witnessed that the deputy president has literally taken the bull by its horns
while the president has seemed to cower. Don’t be quick to judge him; we
haven’t yet heard from the horse’s mouth that he won’t attend. Remember the
presidential debate?It never came from his mouth that he wouldn’t attend but
there were all indications only for him to resurface in the last minute. While the son of Jomo enjoys his early
Christmas gift, methinks arap Ruto should be a worried man. He needs to
remember how the ‘don’t be vague, go to Hague’ phrase boomeranged on him. I
would prescribe to him a little caution when it comes to
matters on ICC lest he gets beaten in his own Waterloo. I might have no prowess in
legal matters, looking at the cases you’d be forgiven to think Uhuru Kenyatta is
swimming deeper in the murky waters of The Hague but actually Ruto could be.
To begin with,how admissible are these cases? In his dissenting opinion,
ICC judge and international law scholar,
Hans-Peter Kaul was evidently squandering about the admissibility of the
Kenyan situation in Ruto’s case, as stipulated in article 7(2)a of the Rome
statute. Ruto’s case has been marred by setback after another each falling like
a sledgehammer. Where he was lucky to have the time he was required in the
court waived, the prosecutor pinned him through the appeals chamber, terming it
as “a blanket excusal.” Earlier when the case was beginning, the prosecutor managed
to get an extra week to organize witnesses, despite the fact that the
commencement of the case was long overdue. Now the prosecutor needs time to
gather more evidence, in a case whose commencement is also long overdue. I
still find it difficult to understand how two witnesses could knock a case of
as heavy magnitude as the president’s off balance. She has come back with the same
story she had a few months ago when she needed the case of Muthaura dropped.
Remember the day Uhuru’s case was pushed to 5th February 2014? Did
it have to coincide with the UNSC deliberations on the same while the two were
totally independent? One must have been pre-empting the other in a well thought
and orchestrated manner!Am yet to hear a radio recording of arap Sang presented
in the court. This could be part of the collateral damage already! How, in three
months, will the Gambian attorney fish more evidence from Kenya? For such a short time, I think I need
optimism lessons from her. It essentially sounds like a nolle prosequi
declaration. It’s evident that there are more setbacks in the case against Ruto
than there are reprieves in the one against Kenyatta. As a result, my constant
fear has been and is still; the fate of these cases is pre-determined!
With all this noise of
witness procurement by the OTP and witness bribery by the defence, we ought to
be a worried lot if we are actually seeking justice. I can only admire the
resilience of that man at the heart of Uasin Gishu County, who had the courage
to put up another house besides the ruins of the one that was burnt 5 years
ago. Shall we trust the OTP while Matsaanga is still walking scot-free,
shouting witnesses’ names at the top of his voice? In fact, he has dared the
ICC to issue an arrest warrant. Well he could be right after all; he is now
having the last laugh. The Walter Barasa case, could it have been a deal gone
sour if in deed witnesses were procured?
At the end of the day
we seem to be having more questions than answer but we need to be even more
worried, justice delayed is justice denied,it’s now more than ever we need
these cases concluded logically for the sake of the victims at least, or
dropped if it is pointless politics and seek justice elsewhere! How I wish we
had gone the Rwanda or Yugoslavia way, perhaps an ad hoc tribunal would have served justice. We had better realise that expecting justice from
The Hague is no different from expecting a voluntary retirement from Mugabe or
a voluntary surrender to the same court by Al Bashir! I now choose to exonerate
Kenyans from any blame for choosing The Hague court to seek justice; it is the
ICC that has failed for not reciprocating our trust!
