|
Post by mank on Mar 4, 2012 23:46:44 GMT 3
[Jakaswanga, I use the services of Notary Publics quite often, and in my understanding they are equivalent to 'authorised commissioner of oaths'. But becomeing a Notary Public is not based on specialized education or such, although I believe there are basic qualifications. In my experience though, they uphold the highest standards of ethics and you won't get one to endorse something they are not convinced is authentic. So, if this lady is a Notary Public, and assuming no electronic shananegans to tamper with the clip, date of the swearing is July 28 2009. I think that's a crucial piece. See description of Notary Public www.nationalnotary.org/resources_for_notaries/what_is_a_notary/index.html Mank Thanx for the extra about Notary Public. Did not actually know about it, but it fits with certified commissioner of oaths.
{Notary: appointed by the state.. or secretary of...}
That makes it a pretty open office [transparent] and one with integrity too. I therefore have to think, that since then --2009, this office or Notary would have contacted the ICC or any other relevant body she deemed relevant, because surely she [the notary public] would instinctively know [if not legally trained] that this information [Kabutu recanting an earlier confession] could make the difference in a big case.
I would be surprised to learn this office slept on the info all these years, and that Kabutu too, let the confirmation stage roll on without either contacting the lawyers of the accused, nor the OTP who said to use his testimony.
And it seems something which the defence counsels or QCs would immidiately get on top of.Just a point of clarification, the Notary Public would not follow up the matter at all. She or her office is not attached to the matter in any way. There work is to put a stamp of authenticity on a document (or as it appears in this case, a process - as in documenting that indeed a guy sat in front of her on a marked date and swore to disavow some earlier testimony under oath). They do not own stakes in whatever is being documented, and they part with it there and then. I assume it is not professional or logically correct for the prosecutor to simply drag names of witnesses from an earlier report without confirmation of witness authenticity and willingness to participate further. So, in this case I think the question is, did the prosecutor find this guy to be a willing witness at the ICC even though he had recanted his earlier testimony, or is it that the prosecutor never got in touch with the "witness"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 0:47:04 GMT 3
Hague threatens Ugandan’s arrest SATURDAY, 03 MARCH 2012 BY NZAU MUSAU THE ICC Chief Prosecutor yesterday threatened to request the arrest of controversial Ugandan David Matsanga after he sensationally claimed that a witness had recanted his evidence to him. Matsanga convened an “international press conference” at the Norfolk Hotel yesterday claiming he had tracked down Ocampo's anonymous witness number four to a foreign country. The witness had then allegedly recanted the evidence that he gave to the Waki Commission against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Civil Service boss Francis Muthaura. Matsanga is a former spokesman for LRA rebel leader Joseph Kony and Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe. Matsanga insisted he was just working as an African investigative journalist and was not funded by anyone including the four Ocampo suspects. "It is our duty of protection not to make public or comment on the identity of OTP witnesses. Our reaction to these events will be judicial,” said a terse statement from the office of the ICC prosecutor to the Star. “We will investigate who is trying to tamper with potential witnesses and we will request appropriate measures, including arrests. Do not expect us to debate these issues in the media,”concluded the statement. In his press conference, Matsanga claimed the ICC had sent him an email threatening him and asking to remove from the website the video recording of the alleged witness recanting the statements. “If I am going to be censured for this then let it be. If they want to enjoin me in the case, let them do so and I will be ready to be enjoined. I hate Ocampo and this time round I have found him,” he told journalists. He said the witness contacted him and asked him to tell the court that he had lied on most of the statements about Uhuru and Muthaura. He provided journalists with the copies of sworn affidavits by the man. Asked how he knew that the man was witness number four, Matsanga angrily told journalists to read through the dossier. He said he had also “checked with other people". Matsanga gave out copies of video interviews with the alleged witness. www.the-star.co.ke/national/national/65162-hague-threatens-ugandans-arrest
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 5, 2012 1:22:16 GMT 3
Hague threatens Ugandan’s arrest
SATURDAY, 03 MARCH 2012 BY NZAU MUSAU THE ICC Chief Prosecutor yesterday threatened to request the arrest of controversial Ugandan David Matsanga after he sensationally claimed that a witness had recanted his evidence to him. Matsanga convened an “international press conference” at the Norfolk Hotel yesterday claiming he had tracked down Ocampo's anonymous witness number four to a foreign country.
The witness had then allegedly recanted the evidence that he gave to the Waki Commission against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Civil Service boss Francis Muthaura. Matsanga is a former spokesman for LRA rebel leader Joseph Kony and Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe.
Matsanga insisted he was just working as an African investigative journalist and was not funded by anyone including the four Ocampo suspects. "It is our duty of protection not to make public or comment on the identity of OTP witnesses. Our reaction to these events will be judicial,” said a terse statement from the office of the ICC prosecutor to the Star. “We will investigate who is trying to tamper with potential witnesses and we will request appropriate measures, including arrests. Do not expect us to debate these issues in the media,”concluded the statement.
In his press conference, Matsanga claimed the ICC had sent him an email threatening him and asking to remove from the website the video recording of the alleged witness recanting the statements. “If I am going to be censured for this then let it be. If they want to enjoin me in the case, let them do so and I will be ready to be enjoined. I hate Ocampo and this time round I have found him,” he told journalists.
He said the witness contacted him and asked him to tell the court that he had lied on most of the statements about Uhuru and Muthaura. He provided journalists with the copies of sworn affidavits by the man. Asked how he knew that the man was witness number four, Matsanga angrily told journalists to read through the dossier. He said he had also “checked with other people". Matsanga gave out copies of video interviews with the alleged witness.
www.the-star.co.ke/national/national/65162-hague-threatens-ugandans-arrest I am no expert on the Hague protocal but I am sure the threat is without basis. Well, I withdraw that comment which was only with reference to the tape (I do not want to just delete, as someone may already be reacting to it). I do not quite know whether the meetings Matsanga has held lately are acceptable by the court. As far as the case goes though, only truth should convict individuals, and so I hope we'll know the truth regarding witness evidence on the case, whether Matsanga is a criminal or not.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Mar 5, 2012 4:05:26 GMT 3
Hague threatens Ugandan’s arrest
SATURDAY, 03 MARCH 2012 BY NZAU MUSAU THE ICC Chief Prosecutor yesterday threatened to request the arrest of controversial Ugandan David Matsanga after he sensationally claimed that a witness had recanted his evidence to him. Matsanga convened an “international press conference” at the Norfolk Hotel yesterday claiming he had tracked down Ocampo's anonymous witness number four to a foreign country.
The witness had then allegedly recanted the evidence that he gave to the Waki Commission against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Civil Service boss Francis Muthaura. Matsanga is a former spokesman for LRA rebel leader Joseph Kony and Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe.
Matsanga insisted he was just working as an African investigative journalist and was not funded by anyone including the four Ocampo suspects. "It is our duty of protection not to make public or comment on the identity of OTP witnesses. Our reaction to these events will be judicial,” said a terse statement from the office of the ICC prosecutor to the Star. “We will investigate who is trying to tamper with potential witnesses and we will request appropriate measures, including arrests. Do not expect us to debate these issues in the media,”concluded the statement.
In his press conference, Matsanga claimed the ICC had sent him an email threatening him and asking to remove from the website the video recording of the alleged witness recanting the statements. “If I am going to be censured for this then let it be. If they want to enjoin me in the case, let them do so and I will be ready to be enjoined. I hate Ocampo and this time round I have found him,” he told journalists.
He said the witness contacted him and asked him to tell the court that he had lied on most of the statements about Uhuru and Muthaura. He provided journalists with the copies of sworn affidavits by the man. Asked how he knew that the man was witness number four, Matsanga angrily told journalists to read through the dossier. He said he had also “checked with other people". Matsanga gave out copies of video interviews with the alleged witness.
www.the-star.co.ke/national/national/65162-hague-threatens-ugandans-arrest I am no expert on the Hague protocal but I am sure the threat is without basis. Well, I withdraw that comment which was only with reference to the tape (I do not want to just delete, as someone may already be reacting to it). I do not quite know whether the meetings Matsanga has held lately are acceptable by the court. As far as the case goes though, only truth should convict individuals, and so I hope we'll know the truth regarding witness evidence on the case, whether Matsanga is a criminal or not. Man K,Where in the thread did you claim the above crossed in red? I have searched the whole thread but I cannot find it. Have you already deleted it in your original post or did I get you wrong?
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 5, 2012 4:05:36 GMT 3
Mank Yours are valid points. However the ICC does seem to perform in a 'funny' way. Where the standards of evidence are expected to be high..they have been operating on an extremely low thresh hold. I think we have far too little information to draw any conclusions, even preliminary ones. I have watched the video footage. I saw an uncomfortable and unhappy looking JMK who went through he entire recording exercise in a rather mechanical manner, sticking to a well prepared script. The video was recorded in July 2009, more than 2,5 years ago. Where has it been all this time? Why does it surface now? Why do some assume that it was in Ocampo's possession? Perhaps it was. But could it have been in the possession of the defense team. Possibly. We cannot rule that out either. We simply do not know. Why would JMK have wanted yo recant his CIPEV statement? I can think of various possibilities. 1. He felt remorse because he had lied to Waki's investigators and wanted to set the reecord straight. Possible. But in that case one would have thought that he would have tried to make the video statement fairly widely available. But it only surfaced in 2012. 2. He had come under threat because of his CIPEV testimony and had been traced to his hide-out in he US by those who wished him ill. He recanted his testimony and went on camera because he was being threatened and/or he had been offered 'rewards' if he recanted. By July 2009 Oscar Kingar'a and JPO Oulu had already been murdered under circumstances that were never cleared up. They were believed to have collected 'too much' information about the Mungiki and extra-judicial killings. Later, in November 2009, Mungiki spokesman Njuguna Gitau Njuguna was murdered in broad daylight. 2009 saw several other Mungiki related killings that were never cleared up. Did JMK see the writing on the wall? Did he recant because he knew he knew too much? Possibly, but no hard evidence. 3. He linked up with Ocampo's people after the latter was allowed to start his investigations. I seem to remember the formal investigations started in early 2010. But why would JMK link up with the OTP if he had already recanted his Waki statement? It would make him an unreliable witness and one likely to crumble under cross-examination. We do not know.... Far more questions than answers which makes it risky to draw conclusions. The key question remains where that video footage was kept since July 2009 and by whom. Was it with JMK, with the defense teams, with Ocampo or with someone else? If it was with the defense teams why did they not use it to exonerate some of the suspects? Again no answer. Or could it be that the statement was given under duress and that it was too risky to use it during the confirmation of charges hearings? Your guesses are as good as mine. So unless further informaion becomes available soon, I am afraid we will have to wait until the trials before we find out. Furaha
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 5, 2012 4:17:29 GMT 3
I am no expert on the Hague protocal but I am sure the threat is without basis. Well, I withdraw that comment which was only with reference to the tape (I do not want to just delete, as someone may already be reacting to it). I do not quite know whether the meetings Matsanga has held lately are acceptable by the court. As far as the case goes though, only truth should convict individuals, and so I hope we'll know the truth regarding witness evidence on the case, whether Matsanga is a criminal or not. Man K,Where in the thread did you claim the above crossed in red? I have searched the whole thread but I cannot find it. Have you already deleted it in your original post or did I get you wrong? Einstein, Sorry for the trouble. I was referring to the exact line that I crossed out on modification (in situ). Since I had already posted that line I decided I would just cross it out rather than delete the posting.
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Mar 5, 2012 4:21:28 GMT 3
furaha some good questions however have to also admit kenyans are amazing whereas the world over, witnesses to organized crime will do anything to get into witness protection programs, kenyan witnesses are on stampede to get out of witness protection programs earlier we had two ruto case witnesses literally beg to be removed from the program now we have uhuru case witnesses do the same in my view this spells doom for the two. ask me why?
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 5, 2012 4:54:50 GMT 3
furaha some good questions however have to also admit kenyans are amazing whereas the world over, witnesses to organized crime will do anything to get into witness protection programs, kenyan witnesses are on stampede to get out of witness protection programs earlier we had two ruto case witnesses literally beg to be removed from the program now we have uhuru case witnesses do the same in my view this spells doom for the two. ask me why? TNK, That is very true. I myself have often wondered what it is with the ICC protection programmes that makes them unpopular with Kenyan witnesses. I guess it is no joke to leave your country in the depth of night, leaving loved ones, relatives and friends behind. I don't know why so many seem to think that witnesses are driven by the prospect of a life of opportunity and milk and honey. It seems that in reality the going is tougher than many expected. In Kenya one can expect at least some support and empathy from family and friends. But when you go abroad and you leave your job, your prospects and particularly your circle of relatives and friends behind, the going gets very tough. It seems that in many cases you are condemned to unemployment, lack of prospects and also lack of empathy. The folks in your new country have no idea what you have been going through and they don't care. So you really have to feel very strongly about justice and dealing with impunity to stick it out. There are few incentives and the bureaucratic protection programmes often lack time and empathy. So there is no land of milk and honey out there. It tends to be a harsh and unwelcoming environment.... That being said, I do not know whether James Maina is under protection by the ICC. It could be a bilateral arrangement with he country he is in - if he is still there.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 5, 2012 6:17:56 GMT 3
Mank Yours are valid points. However the ICC does seem to perform in a 'funny' way. Where the standards of evidence are expected to be high..they have been operating on an extremely low thresh hold. .... The video was recorded in July 2009, more than 2,5 years ago. .... Why do some assume that it was in Ocampo's possession? Perhaps it was.Furaha, I do not think it would be reasonable for anyone to expect that the record was in Ocampo's poessession. The only way he would have it is if either JMK or his appointee forwarded it. But I do not think possession of the clip on the part of OTP is of any relevance. What I find to be the message in all this, at least what I think Matsanga is insinuating, is that Ocampo may not have gathered evidence from witness #4 - but who knows ... it could even be that JMK is not the guy Ocampo had on list as witness #4, or if he could flip flop once he probably flip flopped at least once more to give O assurance!
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 5, 2012 7:37:14 GMT 3
Furaha, ...... What I find to be the message in all this, at least what I think Matsanga is insinuating, is that Ocampo may not have gathered evidence from witness #4 - but who knows ... it could even be that JMK is not the guy Ocampo had on list as witness #4, or if he could flip flop once he probably flip flopped at least once more to give O assurance! Precisely, we agree that there is very little that we are certain about in this whole saga. Speculations are rife but certainties are far and few between... That makes one wonder even more about Matsanga's eagerness to expose as 'facts' sketchy information that raises more and more questions. But then one expects that from this gentleman.. Furaha
|
|
|
Post by patriotism101 on Mar 5, 2012 8:06:52 GMT 3
Two observations,
1. They could not get someone else to get the deposition? 2. Did they have to do it under the turnpike?
Kweli kuna watu na viatu!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 5, 2012 9:25:44 GMT 3
Furaha
If you run you assumptions against the factual information presented by Oloo, then you will be quite intrigued as to what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by barmasaiengkeiyo on Mar 5, 2012 9:33:33 GMT 3
Anything from "Dr." David Matsanga is Rubbish.....anyone who is friends with Joseph Kony should zip up
|
|
emali
Full Member
Posts: 219
|
Post by emali on Mar 5, 2012 10:24:04 GMT 3
Nothing makes sense on this...
1. Why would Matsanga claim JMK is witness #4 if he isn’t? Assuming he is working for his masters (O4) this hurts their case or maybe Matsanga is just looking for cheap publicity.
2. Why would JMK recant in 2009 and testify in 2010? Unless he was scared stiff and posed as a compromised witness to scuttle Ocampo’s case or simply he never testified for the ICC & recanted in 2009 & kept the tape as security in case the powers that be ever came looking for him and sought out Matsaga to prove he ‘lied’ to stay safe...Matsaga proceeded to use the tape for his own purposes...
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Mar 5, 2012 11:00:52 GMT 3
Nothing makes sense on this... 1. Why would Matsanga claim JMK is witness #4 if he isn’t? Assuming he is working for his masters (O4) this hurts their case or maybe Matsanga is just looking for cheap publicity. 2. Why would JMK recant in 2009 and testify in 2010? Unless he was scared stiff and posed as a compromised witness to scuttle Ocampo’s case or simply he never testified for the ICC & recanted in 2009 & kept the tape as security in case the powers that be ever came looking for him and sought out Matsaga to prove he ‘lied’ to stay safe...Matsaga proceeded to use the tape for his own purposes... to make some observations i dont think this tape was made for matsanga, i think what emali and others say is true that by the time this tape is made, already key mungiki leaders have been eliminated, their lawyers eliminated as well. JMK has already been threatened and escaped death himself according to OO's account by 2009 july, although the threat of ICC was there, this was a time when there was still the local STK mind games still being played. it might be an act of desperation (self preservation) either in response to a direct threat (to self or family) or simply the act of someone resigned to the possibility that he cannot be on the run forever. remember also in this period some computers were stolen from the human rights office and confidential data compromised. much of this (compromised) information is seeping out and most of it will be evident during the trials, but the confidence of the O6 going to the PTC was largely dependent on piecing large chunks of this information including obtaining the IDs of witnesses in the protection programs (my view) so whereas we can speculate on whether JMK lied to CIPEV or lies in this video, frankly i dont think it matters at all from what i read, the OTP follows two channels namely leads and/or evidence once they obtain leads they investigate and try to trace the supporting evidence now the ICC is not investigating a hungry neighbor stealing chicken or goat from across the fence. they are well aware that due to the nature of crimes, perpetrators are powerful individuals with clout or connections and have ability to reach, intimidate and/or otherwise compromise witnesses and their testimony. therefore once they have obtained a lead or testimony, even if the witness recants, the OTP may still pursue the leads/evidence if they are credible or if not drop them altogether at this point in time i see no reason for the OTP to disregard any testimony provided earlier and subsequently recanted especially of other unrelated pieces corroborate such testimony. all that this points to is that some of the accused (have somehow broken into the witness protection programs and ) are intimidating witnesses in this regard, it was extremely foolish for muthaura and uhuru to maintain proximity to institutions that were in charge or associated with witness protection/security etc in this saga, matsanga is a scavenger having smelt blood and spotted what he thinks is a weakened prey ready to drop dead .......
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 5, 2012 12:05:05 GMT 3
This is what someone deposited in my inbox last night: Witness 4: This might interest Jukwaa readersKabuti says that he was interviewed from 23 Sep 2010 to 27 Sep 2010. That's a total of 5 days inclusive and counting Sat and Sun. Ocampo says Witness 4 was interviewed over a period of 9 days. The statement by Kabuti saying that he no longer wants to do anything with the ICC is dated 20 Nov 2010 as you correctly note. On the other hand, court transcripts show that on 3 June 2011 Witness 4 gave another statement to OTP to clarify some things.You can find this: Your Honour, we have compared some of the statements that have been provided by this witness. One is the letter to ‐‐ he sends to either Kenyan National Commission for Human Rights or to Open Society, the statement he has given to the Waki Commission on 2nd September, the initial statement to the OTP on the 27th September, and the 3rd June 2011 clarification statement, and they differ in significant respects, and I will point out a few of them.On page 50, paragraphs 18 to 24, here: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1236514.pdfAll the transcripts for the 2nd case are here: www.icccpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situati ... hamber+II/ FROM ALI DEFENCE: The sole source describing this alleged call is Witness 4. By way of background, Witness 4 is a known Mungiki member who has openly expressed his utter contempt for the police. He claims to have been arrested more than oncefound here: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1280619.pdf ALSO FROM COURT TRANSCRIPTS: The Prosecution interviewed this witness twice over a period of nine days, resulting in 87 pages of internally consistent witness testimony. During the interviews, the witness was probed on various aspects of his testimony for the purpose of eliciting as much details as possible, and in his statement, he clarified a number of the so‐called inconsistencies with his previous statements. Regarding his first statement, Prosecution Witness 0004 explains that he did not want people to know that he was present at the State House with the Mungiki on 26th November 2007, because he wanted to keep his Mungiki membership hidden. I refer your Honours to EVD‐PT‐OTP‐00248 at 0054, 0055, paragraph 277. This earlier two‐page statement had a limited purpose as explained on page 0056, paragraph 286, and I quote; ʺI gave my statement voluntarily. I did it because my life was in danger and because of the threats and phone calls that I was receiving. I wanted to record a statement about these issues. ʺConcerning his CIPEV statement, this is what Prosecution Witness 0004 had to say, and I quote again: ʺI also confirmed that despite having signed all the pages of that document,ʺ referring to his CIPEV statement, ʺI did not read any of the pages of that document, because I did not have the time to do that. I was asked to sign in a hurry. It is possible that I also made mistakes about some dates concerning my Mungiki membership and related events. I think I may have made mistakes about these dates because the CIPEV investigator was in a hurry. She was pushing a lot to obtain information, and because of the time pressure, I was just not sure about some of the details that I gave, but I was not lying.ʺ See pages 0059, paragraphs 303 to 304. It is for this reason that the Prosecution has presented only those CIPEV statements it has found to be reliable through corroboration.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 5, 2012 12:38:45 GMT 3
This is getting a lot more interesting.
Just what is the aim of it all and is the discrediting of the evidence intended to achieve a particular outcome?
|
|
|
Post by topnotch on Mar 5, 2012 13:33:32 GMT 3
This is getting a lot more interesting. Just what is the aim of it all and is the discrediting of the evidence intended to achieve a particular outcome? Uhuru, Muthaura and/or Ruto are setting the stage to dishonor future ICC appearances. What they are currently doing is etching the 'ICC is a political tool' in the psyche of Kenyans bit by bit. They hope that by the time they inevitably dishonor the ICC, most Kenyans will be on their side and, thus, they can be internal fugitives like Bashir.
|
|
|
Post by amunra on Mar 5, 2012 14:19:57 GMT 3
Talk about intrigues .Really sounds like a tony/Ridely scott script.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 5, 2012 17:06:41 GMT 3
The suspense is electrifying! This movie will win all the awards there are.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 5, 2012 18:04:54 GMT 3
In early 2011 as ODM and PNU squabbled before AU heads of state meeting in Addis over ICC deferral. A video allegedly produced by officers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the President entitled “Restorative or Retributive Justice: When Fighting Impunity Becomes Endorsement of Impunity” was played before the gathering. It featured one Matsanga the former negotiator for the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda and an American, Prof David Hoile
The DVD directed blame over PEV to the ODM and the yet to be suspects as unwitting victims of Ocampo’s politicised vendetta. The 2 ‘experts' further argued that ICC caused more problems than it solved and is as a hindrance and a bully to peace and justice in Africa.
Prof Hoile equated ICC to a cancer and claimed Ocampo concocted evidence at a Nairobi hotel by gleaning from the ‘inconclusive’ reports of Justice Philip Waki, Commission and KNCHR’s. Matsanga accused Ocampo of politicising the process and added a racial undertone by describes the Argentine as a "rogue prosecutor bent on portraying Africa as the ‘dark continent’ incapable of dealing with its own problems".
Attacks were also directed toward, Kofi Annan the PEV peace broker and former UN Secretary General.
The shock and empathy from the clips accentuate by ‘expert analysis’ and a group of NGO activists imported from Kenya to picket outside the venue in opposition to ICC drove the message home.
Fast foward to now. Similarities that remain are:
Matsanga is experienced in representing people accused of crimes against humanity.
He continues on the same script of compromised witnesses/bullying by ICC.
He enjoys peddling videos to make his point.
To hide the fact that he is himself a foreigner he styles himself as African. Charity begins at home and he could do well addressing issues in Kampala.
Conclusion: Just another hired propaganda tool. Expect more from him .......
|
|
|
Post by mintos on Mar 5, 2012 18:12:50 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Mar 5, 2012 20:10:07 GMT 3
Obviously very interesting developments, but not overly surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 6, 2012 15:58:57 GMT 3
Another message in my inbox from a person who uses the name of a famous African-American jazz great as his/her pseudonym: Jukwaa readers may wish to recall, from the Confirmation Hearings, that there is another person closely "related" to Witness 4, alluded to by the Defence, which claims (no proof is given) the so-called shadow was not interviewed by the OPT. This will be found in the transcripts, pages 22 to 24: Now, in the second statement he gave, EVD‐PT‐OTP‐00041, confidential, this was a statement that was for the Waki Commission in September of 2008, and at 0490 of that document, he claims that on the 25th of November, he met with Uhuru Kenyatta with other Mungiki members, including a man we ask you to look very carefully at, somebody who I will call the shadow of Witness 0004. The shadow of Witness 0004 is not an individual that was interviewed by the Office of the Prosecution. One wonders why, but it was not the case. The shadow of Witness 0004 was interviewed by the team of Mr. Muthaura, and you will know him as D12‐0037, at confidential EVD‐PT‐D12‐00054.
…..
There are many, but letʹs just dwell with one of the key sources, perhaps, a man, the shadow, who Witness 0004 says was by his side at Yaya, the State House, and the Nairobi Members Club.
…
He did state that he attended a State House meeting on the 26th of November, but crucially, not as a member of the Mungiki. Here: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1237782.pdf
|
|
|
Post by job on Mar 6, 2012 18:45:30 GMT 3
MY HYPOTHESIS James Maina Kabutu - whose witness?1) After cross-checking the ICC chamber transcript above, it is apparent this Kabutu witness (on Matsanga’s video) is NOT the OTP Witness -4, a point first noted here by Reporter. 2) It appears that during their witness-fishing expeditions, Muthaura and Uhuru’s defense(s) devised a plan to send a decoy to the Waki Commission with false testimony that was to be recanted later. James Maina Kabutu was their choice. 3) The goal was simple. Kabutu was to claim Mungiki credentials and participation in PEV; bear false testimony at the Waki Commission; attract or even solicit OTP’s interest; again bear false testimony to the OTP; then later recant that testimony at the eleventh hour – to collapse the entire OTP theory/case (getting the accused off the hook). 4) The other aim of this plot must have been to have Kabutu penetrating the various witness protection programs (local KNCHR one; any by donors; and eventually ICC’s witness protection program). That would have possibly given him (& the defenses) access to other potential witnesses – in case the witness programs had them occasionally lumped or domiciled together at their hide-outs. The aim was to get to those other REAL insider witnesses (motive – your guess is as good as mine). 5) It is safe to assume Kabutu’s sojourn in Swaziland and the US was probably part of this fishing expedition – for accessing other REAL insider witnesses. 6) As probably planned, Kabutu successfully gave testimony to the Waki Commission. This must have been facilitated by the civil society. From the latter, he must have fished-out a great wealth of info (for the benefit of the accused & their defenses). For instance, which individuals, organizations, bilateral partners, Embassies… were pushing forth the PEV prosecution process. 7) Kabutu likely attracted automatic interest of KNCHR from which he must have gathered some crucial info on subjects such as witness processing and protection. Whereas many in the civil society may have assumed facilitating Kabutu’s testimony and protection was a surreptitious process, it likely wasn’t (in the eyes of the accused/defense). It is safe to assume that some of Kabutu’s ushers in this process were genuine and serious about the entire process (a key JUKWAA member comes to mind) while others (an embattled TJRC leader comes to mind) were probably acting in concert with Kabutu. Caution - the civil society is indeed dotted with many wolves in sheep skin! 8) Giving all credit to the OTP – they did not find James Maina Kabutu worthy being a prosecution witness. This gives more credence to the OTP witness vetting system. 9) Kabutu’s rejection by the OTP was a big blow to the Muthaura and Uhuru Kenyatta defense teams; to the extent that Ms. Higgins, Queen's Counsel (QC for Uhuru) wondered in courtroom why the OTP hadn’t interviewed Kabutu. 10) Ms. Higgins QC even went ahead to baptize Kabutu as “the shadow of OTP Witness-4”. Uhuru and Muthaura’s defenses were keen to paint Kabutu as a real Mungiki insider close to OTP-Witness 4; therefore attempting to tag Kabutu’s testimony to OTP Witness 4’s testimony. In fact Muthaura’s defense picked Kabutu as one of their witnesses. In short, James Maina Kabutu is a “weapon” that Uhuru and Muthaura’s defense teams hoped to use to discredit OTP Witness-4. ICC Judges didn’t buy it. 11) The accused are now using the propagandist Matsanga (& the video) to try convincing/confusing the public regarding Kabutu. Unless you comb the details, some will assume Kabutu is indeed OTP Witness 4 (now recanting his testimony); others will assume that Kabutu was always present with OTP Witness-4 – thus his recanting also applies to the crucial Ocampo witness. I myself, at first glance, gave Matsanga more credibility than he deserves - by listening to his con narrative. It's now clearer their goal is to discredit the OTP and discredit the entire ICC process as a sham. 12) Notice that this attempt to deceive the public & discredit the ICC is coming shortly after Stephen Kay QC (Uhuru’s lawyer) recently lambasted the ICC proceedings as being mere “show cases” (at a London Public Debate). Karim Khan QC (Muthaura’s lawyer) also recently derided the decision of PTC Judges in confirming the 4 cases on Kenyan TV (Jeff Koinange’s “The Bench” show). 13) Why is the continued discrediting of Witness OTP- 4 so crucial to the Uhuru and Muthaura defense teams?(a) Because it is Witness OTP-4’s statement that primarily relates the planning of the attack by Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta and others to the actual violence. His version is corroborated by the evidence given by Witnesses OTP-12 and OTP-11 and others. He fingered the meeting locations and attendees…which other pieces of evidence (including NSIS) corroborated. More importantly, he recounted discussions during the meetings, such as the September 2007 Mungiki double-request for Njenga’s release and an end to extra-judicial killings.
(b) Because Witness OTP-4, a Mungiki insider, witnessed his fellow participants whom they attended State House meetings, including Maina Diambo, all murdered. That’s precisely why he is in Witness Protection.
(c) Because it is Witness OTP- 4 who clearly explained to the Judges, the “organizational” and “hierarchal” structure of Mungiki and its quasi-military capabilities. This effectively made it easy for Judges to see Mungiki as fitting the Rome Statute’s legal definition of an organization. Witness OTP- 4 (with fantastic clarity) explained Mungiki’s hierarchy working around a central leadership (Maina Njenga – who the Kenyatta’s have now tried to rebrand as an evangelist); Mungiki’s upper ranks that comprised Charles Ndungu Wagacha, mid-upper rank of Maina Diambo and 2 other members (whose names were redacted), and local regional Chairmen; Mungiki’s territorial organization into regions (led by the Chairmen); Mungiki’s preferred mode of communicating orders – via mobile phones; and Mungiki Chairmen roles in managing illegal and legal social roles – illegal provision of water and electricity, violence for hire, personal protection, security for Matatus, Businesses etc; Mungiki’s special military wing comprising ex-cops, ex-military people with arms and militia skills; and Mungiki’s recruitment and oathing practices.
(d) The defense particularly want to discredit witness OTP-4 because Judges took into account portions of his statements (which were corroborated) despite acknowledging inconsistencies in his two versions (respective statements to CIPEV & to OTP). The defense failed to convince Judges that Witness OTP-4’s contradictions were enough to render all his evidence useless. They want the public to agree with them that the Judges erred. But the Judges explained their reasoning clearly:
91. The Chamber observes that the Defence teams have on several occasions drawn attention to alleged inconsistencies in specific items of evidence relied upon by the Prosecutor at the confirmation of charges hearing, in particular with respect to Witness OTP-4.
92. The Chamber is aware of possible inconsistencies within one or amongst several pieces of evidence and considers that inconsistencies may have an impact on the probative value to be accorded to the evidence in question. However, inconsistencies do not lead to an automatic rejection of the particular piece of evidence and thus do not bar the Chamber from using it. The Chamber will assess whether potential inconsistencies cast doubt on the overall credibility and reliability of the evidence and, therefore, affect the probative value to be accorded to such evidence. The said assessment must be conducted with respect to the nature and degree of the individual inconsistency as well as to the specific issue to which the inconsistency pertains. In fact, inconsistencies in a piece of evidence might be so significant as to bar the Chamber from using it to prove a specific issue, but might prove immaterial with regard to another issue, which, accordingly, does not prevent the Chamber from using it regarding that issue.
And
187. The Chamber's findings rest primarily on the evidence provided by witnesses who are former members of the Mungiki. Therefore, the Chamber considers it appropriate to address as a preliminary point an issue raised by the Defence of Mr. Muthaura in respect of one such insider witness. Witness OTP-4. The Defence stated at the confirmation of charges hearing that Witness OTP-4 was not a member of the Mungiki and "just fabricated the evidence for his own personal ends".
188. The Defence cited in support of this argument the statements of witnesses REDACTED and REDACTED (D12-37) states that Witness OTP-4 "was never a Mungiki member" . REDACTED (D12-48), another member of the Mungiki, in turn states that he does not even know Witness OTP-4. The Chamber observes, however, that both REDACTED and REDACTED (D12-48) are described by the core witnesses relied upon by the Prosecutor as having had significant roles in the organization of the violence in Nakuru and Naivasha. While these witnesses are naturally motivated to deny the allegations against them, no personal interest in implicating them can be discerned on the part of Witness OTP-4. Therefore, the Chamber, also taking into account that the detailed evidence regarding the nature of the Mungiki provided by Witness OTP-4 is corroborated by several other independent sources, does not find the challenge of the Defence of Mr. Muthaura persuasive; rather it considers that Witness OTP-4 was at the relevant time a member of the Mungiki, and that his evidence must be duly considered.
|
|