UhuRuto Must Keep Going to the Hague!

A Digital Essay by 

Onyango Oloo in Nairobi

I want to talk about that bastion against impunity feared by war criminals and felons guilty of crimes against humanity:

The International Criminal Court.

Specifically, about the trials of 

Uhuru Kenyatta and  

William Ruto.

The first thing I want to say is this:

PLEASE CUT OUT THE CRAP.

Yes.

Spare us the BULLSHIT.

We are talking about crimes against humanity.

We are talking about tendencies towards  genocide. 

Displacement of entire populations. 

Demonization of tribes. 

Rapes. 

Murder. 

Extreme violence.

Over a thousand lives were lost during the 207/2008 post election violence. 

Hundreds of thousands became homeless, internally displaced, with some seeking refuge in neighbouring countries.

We went through a difficult healing process-with many of our compatriots forever scarred and traumatized.

The Agenda Four Commissions-Kriegler, Waki and Kiplagat-unravelled some of the most sordid and uncomfortable truths about the  stolen elections, the perpetrators of  the violence and the historical roots of what ails Kenya.

This presaged the passage of the 2010 Constitution which laid firm democratic and social justice pillars and foundations for better governance.

Among the provisions in that constitution was the Bill of Rights; Chapter Six and domesticating international protocols and statutes into our own laws. Among those was our adherence to the Rome Statute.

If the Constitution was followed to the letter both Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto would have been deemed totally INELIGIBLE to vie for public office.

 In fact, if we were not too spineless as a nation, this duo should have been facing charges of committing crimes against their own Kenyan people right here in Kenya with the gates and cells of Kamiti, Naivasha,Kodiaga, Shimo La Tewa and King’ong'o waiting to usher them in  for a long extended residence  behind secure maximum security walls.

It is a SCANDAL that the people of Kenya allowed Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto to vie for the Presidency and the Deputy Presidency.

Well, they did and unfortunately some Kenyans-I was NOT among them, THANK GOODNESS- had the audacity to elect two people charged with some of the most serious crimes on earth to occupy the two top positions in the state power structure.

And now we have the gall to carp that we should let them off the hook just because they are in power?

Give me  a FREAKIN' BREAK!

But this is the same country that ELECTED at least one major drug dealer to be Governor of one of our key strategic counties!

Another notorious drug dealer who was linked to the Artur hoodlums is now sitting in our National Assembly.

I am not even going to mention the unconvicted rapists, war lords, money launderers, cattle rustlers, murderers and other felons who are lording it over us  as senators, women representatives, members of the national assembly and so on.

Look at our elected officials in Nairobi County.

One slaps a woman in public. The woman in question has been reported to the police for slapping a security guard. And our Senator Bling Bling, who has been named in a US report as one of the country’s notorious drug barons has his half naked pictures circulating on the internet in sexually compromising positions with someone already mentioned in this paragraph.

And THESE are the “leaders” we opted to catapult into public office!

SHAME ON US.

Who runs our state organs like the military and the police?

Cops are caught on tape pickpocketing matatu passengers.

Let me run that by you again.

I did not say pickpockets are caught on tape stealing from cops.

The cops ARE THE PICKPOCKETS.

Some ruthless terrorists armed to the teeth with AK-47 and swaddled and saddled with hoops upon hoops of bullet cartridges show up in one of our upscale popular shopping malls. They viciously mow down innocent women, children and men. They are only FOUR mark you.  The specialized units of the police-GSU Recce Squad, Flying Squad, the CID, go through the alphabet and name them all- are on the scene. They appear to  be FULLY in charge of the crisis situation. But wait a minute. The military guys-the same KDF guys who illegally and unconstitutionally invaded Somalia-show up and announce they will take over from there, shooting dead two surprised GSU Recce officers in the process. Against the surreal, macabre backdrop of another farce and travesty unfolding simultaneously on live television starring Three Stooges called Ole Lenku, Karangi & Omamo, our KDF boys-maybe with a couple of girls thrown in for "gender parity"-are busyLOOTING the same Westgate they were supposed to secure for Crying Out Loud!!!

 Check out the full Westgate expose by Jicho Pevu's courageous and intrepid Kiswahili investigative television journalist  

Mohamed Ali:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7Ptpr8XMM_c

A progressive Kenyan blogger that I very much respect,  

 Patrick Gathara has just posted a fascinating piece on what he calls The Kenyan Lootocracy.

When this din of “We Are One” dies down, the circus regarding the ICC process continues.

By the way, We are NOT so called “ONE”.

Have we such SHORT memories?

Have we ALREADY forgotten about the TYRANNY associated with ETHNIC NUMBERS?

Who rushed out into the streets in the wee hours of March 9, 2013 when someone blurted that Jubilee had “won” the Presidential contest?   

I certainly was NOT among those delirious TNA/URP throngs that day at 4 o'clock in the morning. 

Who was doing the tribal chest thumping, the parochial yodeling, the regional sneering? 

Members of ONLY TWO TRIBES-the Agikuyu (and affiliated GEMA communities) and the Kalenjin. 

Two does NOT equal One. 

Nor does Two equal Forty Two. 

Kwani, did we all use to  jump out of the window and run away as fast as our Math allergic limbs would take us when we heard the Arithmetic Teacher approach in primary school??

The Second Thing  I want to say is this:

Forget the BALONEY about Kenya being "sovereign" "independent" "free to determine her own destiny" and  that whole wheelbarrow load of COW DUNG.

We are not free. 

We are a Banana Republic; a Tea Estate; a Coffee Plantation; indeed a NEO COLONY to the very West we keep spitting at.

Who designed Jubilee's vacuous, but FAKE anti-West election rhetoric?

A Tory linked firm called BTP Advisers.

Read this:

BRITISH Public Relations firm BTP was contracted by Uhuru Kenyatta to manage Jubilee campaigns.

This firm developed the Anti-ICC and Anti-western strategies which Uhuru used to project the ICC and most western countries as ‘interfering’ with Kenya’s domestic affairs. This firm used media connections and ‘international contacts’ to market Uhuru as a victim of politically instigated fabrications by his Main Challenger, Raila Odinga.

Here was a man whose campaign was based on anti-West sentiments, yet employed propaganda minted by a western (European) PR firm to ascend to power.

For close to a year, Uhuru readily used the services offered by the West. It was all politics. All PR spin. . .and it worked.

Here is the list of BTP operatives which surrounded Uhuru even as he unashamedly lectured off the West and created a siege mentality among his followers:

1. Mark Pursey-Briton, Head of BTP kenyan operations.
2. Charles Anglin-Advisor(Briton)
3. Simon Waddington-Strategist(Briton)
4. Milan Starcevic-Strategist(Briton)
5. Charlie Tarr-Strategist(Briton)
6. Anuuret Rai- Strategist (Briton)

This team was assisted by local representative Nana Gecaga and TNA media pointman Moses Kuria.

Another Uhuru lawyer Stephen Kay, another Briton; and Ed Staite, former advisor to British Chancellor of Exchequer, also a Briton joined this long list of expatriates working for Uhuru.

Having studied the Kikuyus and Kalenjins, these foreigners concluded a triple dose of lies (on sovereignity), fear (of Odinga) and hollow nationalism (tell them the problem is the West and ICC) would produce a change in attitudes and portray Uhuru and Ruto as the best revenge for the International =Community.

To prove the last point, they roped in former US Undersecretary for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer (who was invited for the swearing in) to tell off the ICC.

But even with all these mechanizations; the final bit was to temper with electoral process, and, massively doctor the results.

It was revealed during the petition hearing at the Supreme Court that Jubilee misused all institutions to get to power. They have killed our once vibrant media, the civil society, the courts and even independent-minded central province residents who believe Kenya is multi-ethnic and that progress, if true, must appreciate this fact.

Who is bloodier?

The man who used the West to romp to power by projecting himself as anti-west?

Or, a patriot who believed that Kenya, though sovereign, cannot isolate herself from the Community of Nations?

 SOURCE: Kenya Today

Who is William Ruto's LEAD Counsel at the Hague?

A QUEEN's Counsel by the name of

Karim Khan.

This is what I want to tell 

Foreign Secretary Amina Mohamed:

Madam, Please Stop LYING To Us.  

We are NOT Lithuanians. 

Or Greeks. 

Or Inner Mongolians. 

Or for that matter Cameroonians.

We are KENYANS.

We were right here in Kenya our eyeballs glued to that idiot television box during those debates as Uhuru Kenyatta explained 

that the ICC issue would not be difficult to handle when he became President because it was, to use his indelible words, “a personal matter.”

So Ms. Amina Mohamed, why do you imagine we can forget what the President said just a few months ago?  

 In case we did forget, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and all those digital gadgets and spaces Jubilee is so giddy about is on stand by to remind us.

So Ms. Foreign Secretary, stop being economical with the truth.

Why is Museveni, Haile What’s-His-Name, former liberation hero Mugabe MISLEADING Uhuru and Ruto to abscond from the ICC  process?

And talking of the Ethiopian head of state, here is what his compatriot, 

 Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam had to say.

I urge our President to listen to our respected columnist

Barack Muluka talking to us in his current piece dated October 19, 2013.

I want to persuade William Ruto to sign Desmond Tutu’s petition asking Africans to STAY WITHIN THE ICC PROCESS. 

By the way, Mr. Deputy President, who misadvised you to convene that unnecessary press conference at The Hague? 

I will tell you this for FREE: 

Big BLUNDER. It was a RECKLESS move that you will live to regret. 

Have you ever heard of this word: “sub judice”?

 Well, if you haven’t, then GOOGLE it.

While you do that, this is how www.dictionary.com defines the word:

sub ju·di·ce

[suhb joo-di-see; Latin soob yoo-di-ke] 

noun

before a judge or court; awaiting judicial determination.

Origin:
1605–15;  < Latin sub jūdice

And turning to you, President Uhuru Kenyatta, before you rub your fingers in glee after the October 18th ICC ruling giving you abreak from attending ALL the sessions, ponder on these DISSENTING words from the

Judge Kuniko Ozaki very slowly and very, very carefully:

   ...I respectfully disagree with the decision of the Majority to grant the Defence's request for the accused to be conditionally excused from continuous presence at trial…I share the Majority's conclusion that Article 63(1) of the Statute imposes a duty on the accused to be present at trial and that such presence at trial is the "default position". Where I part company with the Majority is in respect of the inter-related findings that (i) Article 63(1) imposes no corollary obligation on the Chamber to require the accused's presence and (ii) that the Chamber retains a discretion, by virtue of Articles 64(2) and 64(6)(f), to set aside this duty and to excuse an accused from attending substantially all of the trial. The presence of the accused is a requirement of the trial. Reading the provision in its context only strengthens support for this interpretation  and the section governing trial proceedings, in my view the object and purpose can be summarised as ensuring an end to impunity for the perpetrators of serious violations of international criminal law, without distinction based on the capacity or seniority of those perpetrators, in accordance with the highest standards of justice…I cannot accept the Majority view that the Statute's aim of ending impunity compels a contrary interpretation of Article 63(1) of the Statute whereby the Chamber may in its discretion waive the requirement for an accused, who is voluntarily cooperating with the Court and not subject to arrest, to attend substantially all of the trial. In particular I am not convinced by what appears to be the underlying rationale of the Majority in arriving at this view, which is that this level of discretion must be recognised to prevent a future hypothetical scenario of a trial being indefinitely stalled if an accused absconds after an initial appearance. Additionally, the clear statutory obligation on the Chamber is to treat all accused equally without distinction on the basis of official capacity or other status. While I agree with the Majority this does not compel identical treatment of, or the granting of identical relief to, all persons regardless of their particular circumstances it does, in my view, prohibit special legal accommodation being granted to Mr. Kenyatta simply by virtue of his position as President of Kenya. Therefore, I must dissent from the opinion of my colleagues to the extent that a contrary impression may be conveyed. I further note that I find no conflict between the presumption of innocence and the obligation on an accused to attend trial. I do not agree with the Majority that the requirement of an accused's presence at trial is only a question of judicial control. In my view, the fairness and integrity of the proceedings are also implicated. Finally, I disagree with the Majority's reading of the travaux préparatoires. In my view these secondary sources, to which it is appropriate to have recourse for the purposes of confirmation, support an interpretation of Article 63(1) of the Statute which would prevent the Chamber from granting the Request on the terms sought by the Defence or granted by the Majority. In particular, as submitted by the Prosecution, the drafting history reveals that the drafters intentionally rejected a proposal that presence at trial be established as a general principle and incorporated only one specific exception to ongoing physical presence of the accused at trial, namely that codified in Article 63(2). As indicated above, I consider that Article 64(2) and (6)(f) of the Statute nonetheless does reserve a limited discretionary power for the Chamber which would permit granting an accused, irrespective of his or her official status, a conditional excusal from presence at trial in certain exceptional circumstances. Given that this discretion arises from an inherent power of the Chamber it should be restrictively interpreted. Moreover, any such excusal would represent an exception to the requirement for presence under Article 63(1) of the Statute and therefore should be exercised in a manner which does not render that provision meaningless. Determinations regarding excusal should only be considered on a case by case basis, considering presence of the accused at trial as a whole and taking into account factors including the fairness and expeditiousness of the proceedings, the stage of proceedings, the rights of the accused under Article 67 of the Statute, the impact on victims and witnesses and the reason submitted to justify such an excusal. It is a question of fact and degree in each circumstance. Consequently, temporary absences due to truly exceptional circumstances- such as occurred in the Bemba case - or indeed to allow for the handling of national tragedy such as the recent attack at Westgate in Nairobi - could be appropriate. Additionally, in each instance, the Chamber should satisfy itself that the accused's decision not to be present at trial is made voluntarily, knowingly and unequivocally. Turning to the portion of the Request seeking permission for Mr.  Kenyatta to participate in the trial by means of video-link, and notwithstanding the limited manner in which the request for this relief was pleaded, I consider it useful to set out my views on the issues raised. In my opinion. Article 63(1) of the Statute requires the physical presence of the accused in the courtroom. Although the Defence submissions have sought to draw a parallel with the situation of victims and witnesses who may, in certain circumstances, be permitted to testify via video-link, it is noted that specific provision is made for the presentation of victim and witness evidence by "electronic or other special means" in Article 68(2) of the Statute. Notwithstanding this finding of a requirement of physical presence, and on similar reasoning to that applied at paragraphs 16 and 17 above, I consider that the Chamber retains a limited discretionary power to permit an accused to participate by means of video-link where this is specifically justified by the circumstances. However, where such discretion is exercised it represents an exception to the general requirement of physical presence and any such determination should again be made on a case-by case basis. Finally, it is necessary to note that I find portions of the Majority decision reasoning to be repetitive, irrelevant to the question before the Chamber (including the use of selective quotations from various authorities) and/or, in some cases, incorrect. In my opinion, the Chamber should confine itself to consideration of the specific legal and/or factual matters before it. Additionally, while there may be a place for proper policy considerations in the context of legal decision making, it is important to make a distinction between such proper policy considerations and the realpolitik of the day. Therefore, although I have not individually identified above all elements of the Majority decision with which I disagree, such silence should not be interpreted as representing agreement. For the foregoing reasons, without prejudice to subsequent specific requests for excusal being raised for consideration on a case by case basis, I would not have granted either the primary or alternative relief sought in the Request.

In other words Mr. President, consider yourself LUCKY that Judge Ozaki’s opinion happened to be the dissenting one, because she is after all the PRESIDING Judge in YOUR CASE.

In my opinion, she would convict you, President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and sentence you WITHOUT BLINKING  if she thought that evidence against you was overwhelming. Make no mistake about that. In other words, even though you are indeed the President of Kenya who is backed by some of Africa’s most blood stained despots like Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, to her as a trained, independent and impartial legal/judicial official who is a citizen of Japan, you are just another suspect before the International Criminal Court who could easily suffer the fate of your fellow African President, Charles Taylor formerly of Liberia, but now an involuntary permanent resident of the Netherlands.