Witness: Ruto Called for the Expulsion of Kikuyus in 2005

Today,  the trial of William Samoei Ruto and former journalist Joshua arap Sang resumed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) after a six week break. In the first hearing since October 6, a witness told the ICC that Ruto called for the expulsion of the Kikuyu from part of the Rift Valley region ahead of a 2005 referendum on a draft constitution.

Witness 800 said he heard Ruto make this call on October 1, 2005 during a meeting attended by more than 1,000 people, including members of parliament. The witness identified the venue of the meeting in open court as location nine. Witness 800 is testifying under court-ordered protective measures that include using pseudonyms for the witness, people close to the witness, locations, and organizations.

At the time of the 2005 referendum referred to by Witness 800, Ruto was a member of parliament and a key leader of the opposition party, the Kenya National African Union. Today Ruto is Kenya’s deputy president.

Ruto and Sang are on trial on three counts of crimes against humanity each for their alleged roles in the violence that followed the December 2007 presidential election.

Witness 800 told the court on Monday that when Ruto called for the expulsion of the Kikuyu, he did so while speaking in code in Kalenjin. The witness said Ruto told the October 1, 2005 meeting he could see there were still white mushrooms in location nine, and he wanted them uprooted or eaten. The witness explained that he understood the white mushrooms Ruto referred to to mean the Kikuyu because many Kikuyus in the area wore white turbans on their heads as prescribed by the church they followed.

The witness said that the Kikuyu who were at the meeting were not happy with Ruto’s pronouncement. He also said the Kalenjin in attendance approved and applauded what Ruto said. Witness 800 said he thought Ruto made the call because the Kikuyu were expected to vote for the draft constitution that the Kalenjin opposed. He also said that most Kalenjin believed the Kikuyu had taken their lands and controlled the economy and were now seeking political control through the draft constitution.

The witness’s testimony stopped there because he began testifying on Monday afternoon. He has a lawyer present in court to advise him in case his testimony incriminates him. The earlier part of the day was taken up with preliminary issues that the judges and lawyers addressed in private session.

Witness 800 will continue testifying on Tuesday.

6 Comments

  1. Referendum 2005 was all about securing votes against the draft constitution at that time.

    Then Ruto was in the No side of the plebiscite and he needed to amass as big a number of votes for a victorious outcome.

    If his actions would alienate potential votes from Kikuyu or any other region for that matter, the target is lost long before the actual voting commences.

    It is therefore defeatist to believe that Ruto the politician that he is could go so far as shooting himself in the foot while aiming to score big in the plebiscite.

    Two, that Ruto campaigned and got votes to his side in the greater mount Kenya Region.

    Voters read, hear and analyze the intentions of a campaigner before making informed choices and so mount Kenya voters could not donate votes/power that could be used against them.

    And so for that to happen the campaigner must sweet -talk the voters. That’s why I find it illogical to postulate the position taken by the witness

    Reply

  2. AHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! LAKINI WATU WETU! LET’S FORGIVE HIM,ALISHATU SURPPORT KWA KURA, INGAWA AM SURE THE DOG WILL REMAIN IN THE DOCK.
    SO DONT WORRY,JUSTICE ITATENDEKA.

    Reply

  3. This is a classical kind of someone that has been routinely coached on what to tell the ICC by the prosecution who have no evidence whatsoever in this case.We are now taken back to 2005 referendum where are we heading?The confusion of 2005,2007,and 2008 are the creation of a prosecution that want to rely on hearsay,the unproven,untested reports and witnesses who have admitted to have been promised good living,money and other benefits if they give testimonies that may be believable and yet they are not believable.

    Reply

  4. My friend your view is divergent to many.whether they were tutored on what to day or not, am sure justice will be done to whoever did wrong. Those pple who were killed were not irrelevantly created by God nor worse the killers.what am saying,you cannot just rubbish the whole issue as being propaganda.y specifically them and not others?.ICC does not lot at serius
    issues the Kenyan style.LET JUSTICE TAKE ITS OWN WAY UNTILL JUSTICE
    IS MATED ON THE CULPRITS

    Reply

    1. I will believe you when those who coined and bewitched us with the phrase:41 against 1…’mass protests’ and ‘no peace’ without them in power are finally brought to justice.

      Reply

Post a Comment

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