Judges grant defense limited disclosure about prosecution intermediary

Trial judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have ordered the prosecution to make limited disclosure about the latest witness to take the stand and his interaction with the prosecution’s go-between after the defense team of Deputy President William Samoei Ruto requested the information.

Ruto’s lead lawyer, Karim Khan, had also asked Trial Chamber V(a) on Monday to order the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) to reveal to the defense the cost of relocation, upkeep, and other expenses of prosecution Witness 268. Presiding Judges Chile Eboe-Osuji said the chamber granted the defense limited disclosure about the intermediary, who interacted with Witness 268 on the basis of the chamber’s ruling on the question of intermediaries that was made on September 4.

Judge Eboe-Osuji said the chamber declined to grant the request on costs related to Witness 268’s relocation and other expenses. He said that it was the chamber’s view it was not necessary to reveal the information on costs to the defense because any witness who testified in court would have an income whether it is their own or through a relocation program administered by the VWU.

Khan made his application before Witness 268 took the stand on Monday. Khan, the prosecution, and other participants in the case took the first morning session to argue their submissions. The details of the submissions are unknown because they made them in private session. Judge Eboe-Osuji summarized the defense and prosecution submissions when announcing the chamber’s decision on the application.

When Witness 268 took the stand later on Monday morning, prosecution lawyer Lucio Garcia asked him a series of questions about the key issues that informed the campaigns leading up to the 2005 referendum on a draft constitution and the political environment during and after those campaigns.

Witness 268 told the court that one of the key issues was land, which, he said, was a subject of particular interest to the Kalenjin. He also said that the issue was a major campaign subject in Kenya’s coastal region. Witness 268 said that during election campaigns, with the exception of the 2002 campaign, Kalenjin politicians made the question of who owned the land in the Rift Valley region an issue. This, Witness 268 said, made the Kikuyu the subject of negative campaigns.

The witness will continue testifying Tuesday.

3 Comments

  1. Indeed the 2005 referendum was thought to be a dry run of the 2007 election. Unfortunately, Raila Odinga, William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta (NO) were on one side against Mwai Kibaki (YES) and his team.

    I do not see how this became an anti-Kikuyu issue, since Uhuru and others were Kikuyu. “YES” lost the referendum to “NO”. How did the Kikuyus lose that referendum?

    On the basis of their win “NO” group thought this would an open door to power in 2007. They forgot many Kenyans who did not agree with them on economics and property ownership among others voted “NO”.

    For instance, many Kenyans were against the two centers of power of (elected president and elected prime minister) as spelt out the proposed constitution. They were also opposed to a parliamentary system of govt with its immensely powerful prime minister because of the corruption it engendered.

    Reply

  2. It should be known to the whole world that clashes in Kenya are never planned but instead are sparked off by trivial occurrences such as one accidentally hurting another from a different clan or tribe, or sometimes big ones like in this election where both the big parties grossly rigged the ballot.

    It is impossible to imagine that anyone at all planned the eventual disturbance.Both the parties were out to outsmart each other in rigging and when it came to pass that their candidate had not succeeded even after the rigging, the crowd became rowdy. The police made it worse by interfering because they were thought to be on one side even if that was not the case.

    It is common knowledge that in some stations where a certain group was the majority, youths took over the polling station to force the clerks to stuff the ballot boxes with votes of their preferred candidate, and it is this very youths who were later to become rowdy.
    Politicians like Mr. Ruto, Mr. Odinga or even president Kibaki did not have time to plan for the clashes. They were busy counting the votes and making statements.

    When Creigler says he could not tell who the winner was, this exactly what he meant. It was later confirmed by others like Waki who also repeated the same words. Even the Late Kivuitu was not sure who actually did win.

    I conclude that in Africa more especially Kenya, Two tribes may co-exist side by side for a very long time, but one day two children hurting one another in a play may cause a tribal disturbance of a considerable magnitude. There after without the ICC co-exist again as if there is nothing that occurred. Kenya has healed and the ICC is just like trying to open up a scar.

    Reply

  3. I HUMBLY REQUEST THE ICC TO ENCOURAGE AND JOIN KENYANS IN THEIR RECONCILATORY PROCESS. THIS CAN HAPPEN THROUGH “LETTING THE PAST BE A GONE DEAL”. KENYA IS A VERY COMPLEX COUNTRY.
    THE KIKUYUS AND KALENJINS HAVE FORGIVEN ONE ANOTHER, WE ARE ONE REJOICING TOGETHER.

    Reply

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately.
See our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.