Ruto’s lawyer denies his client spoke in code to call for the removal of Kikuyu in Rift Valley

A lawyer for Deputy President William Samoei Ruto denied that his client spoke in code to call for the removal of the Kikuyu from the Rift Valley region. Instead, the lawyer sought to show that Ruto is a popular Kenyan politician.

Essa Faal, one of Ruto’s lawyers, began the defense of his client on Friday, questioning prosecution Witness 376 on the context in which Ruto used the Kiswahili word madoadoa, or “spots” in English. The witness had testified on Wednesday that Ruto used the term in campaign rallies as a code to his Kalenjin supporters that the Kikuyu should be removed from the Rift Valley. The campaigns in question were in the lead up to the December 2007 General Elections.

Faal played a video of a news report on one of the campaign rallies to illustrate his argument. He argued that the speaker in the video, Raila Odinga, used the word madoadoa to encourage Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) supporters to vote for the party’s candidates in three elective posts (councilor, National Assembly member and president), in order to avoid spoiling the vote. This, Faal argued, is referred to in Kenyan politics as a three-piece suit, and madoadoa meant spoiling that vote. Witness 376 disagreed, saying some people may have interpreted it that way, but to others such as the Kikuyu, it meant removing them from the Rift Valley. Faal also asked Witness 376 about the derogatory terms that the Kikuyu used when referring to the Kalenjin.

The witness was also questioned about whether he knew of any fighting in the Langas area that took place between the Luo and Kikuyu living there. Witness 376 said that he heard about it but he did not know the details. He told the court in response to questions from Faal that the Luo in the area were supporters of ODM. He also told the court that tensions rose in the area due to rumors that the election was being rigged in favor of Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking re-election as president in 2007, and ODM were angered by those rumors.

Faal asked whether he knew that no Kalenjin were killed on December 28 and 29, 2007 in the Langas area. The witness said he agreed but only because no Kalenjins lived in Kisumu Ndogo, the region where the Luo lived and where the clashes between them and the Kikuyu took place. When Faal asked him whether he knew that a number of Luos were killed, beheaded and their heads displayed on sticks in Langas, the witness said that he was not aware. He, however, said that he knew the chief of Langas had a meeting with the two warring groups of the Luo and Kikuyu.

Faal also took the witness through a list of the dead recorded at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital during the violence that followed the December 2007 poll. As the witness is testifying under protective measures in court and should not be identified to the public, Faal asked him to identify people he knew on the list by the number against their name. When Faal needed to get more details from the witness on a particular name, he asked to go into private session so as to avoid possibly revealing information that would make it easy to identify the witness to the public. About a third of the testimony of the witness on Friday was heard in private session for this reason.

Friday’s hearing started mid-morning, about an hour later than usual. Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji said the delay was caused by an urgent matter the judges had to attend to, but he did not elaborate. Witness 376 will continue being cross-examined by Faal on Monday.

3 Comments

  1. is there hidden agendas in this kenyan case? why is is that the mungiki gangs are featuring so much while other criminal gangs seems to be shielded by the prosecution?we had the kam jeshi, land defence forces ,shingololo etc,etc who are never mentioned anywhere.they were in operation in parts of rift valley and western kenya. again i fail to understand why this court wants to make the world believe that the voilence was only between kikuyus and kalenjins? one what i see is that odm party cant be kalenjin community neither can it be mr ruto. pnu cant be kikuyu neither can it mr uhuru. thre seems there is some bias in that case.one madam bensouda was in kenya to collect views from the affected.infact he was told by the idos that the so called witnesses are fake, unknown and liers.now i wonder where the other witnessess came from and bensouda have never talked about it.why? secondly we thought ocampo was genuine which now proves he never investigated anything.he shows that wherever he got his evidence, those fellows were only hungry.it is unfortunate and sad.violence started in nairobi.more so mathare and kibera.after people running away, thats when it spread to riftvalley and elsewhere.anyway there might be that this case is just a fix by our enemies but with time, time will tell.madam bensouda should tell icc what she was told by the idps in the tents here in kenya.

    Reply

  2. The matter of fact is that the post election violence was sponteneous meaning that it started immediately the flawed election results was announced.
    The specific war in Langas was between the majority Kikuyus and Luos. The election results spark the violence in Mombasa, Nairobi, Nakuru, Molo, Londiani, Eldama Ravine, Kericho, Kisii, Kisumu, Kakamega,Bungoma,Busia, Narok, Kitale, Malava, Malindi, Naivasha and Eldoret. Nobody planned the violence. Apart from Naivasha and Eldoret, the prosecution should tell us the people who were responsible for PEV in the other towns listed above.

    Reply

  3. The most disagreed question is, who stopped the violence when raila and kibaki share power, if uhuru and ruto were master. Everywhere, it was no raila no peace, hence peace was there when he raila got his share of leadership. As stupid as iam i feel raila and kibaki must be to icc to clean themselves. I feel someone removed their names in waki report

    Reply

Post a Comment

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