|
Post by furaha on Mar 6, 2012 19:13:51 GMT 3
Interesting hypothesis indeed, Job! I need to think about al this a little more. But there seems to be one immediate weakness. Do you think that Uhuru/Muthaura were seriously concerned about what the Waki commission might yield? Did they, as far back as mid 2008, make arrangements to plan fake witnesses in the Waki commission? Going by what was the standard in Kenya, they probably thought that it would all blow over. Yes, there would be a report but the history of such reports was that they were shelved and never acted upon. I think the outcome of the Waki commission took everyone by surprise. No one expected an envelope with names to be handed to Annan as some sort of insurance policy against non-action by the Government. That may have sparked a lot of concern and the type of action that you suggest, including efforts to plant witnesses. From then on efforts to hide the tracks of PEV suspects became the order of the day. But JMK seems to have left for Swaziland in early 2008, well before the Waki commission set of the alarm bells among those who had something to account for during PEV. Would he have left if he had no reason to be concerned? If he had not been a witness to the involvement of very senior government officials in planning retaliatory attacks? Kenya's history is full of cases of mysterious disappearances and killings of witnesses. But let me think through all this again.... furaha
|
|
|
Post by job on Mar 6, 2012 19:29:15 GMT 3
Interesting hypothesis indeed, Job! I need to think about al this a little more. But there seems to be one immediate weakness. Do you think that Uhuru/Muthaura were seriously concerned about what the Waki commission might yield? Did they, as far back as mid 2008, make arrangements to plan fake witnesses in the Waki commission? Going by what was the standard in Kenya, they probably thought that it would all blow over. Yes, there would be a report but the history of such reports was that they were shelved and never acted upon. I think the outcome of the Waki commission took everyone by surprise. No one expected an envelope with names to be handed to Annan as some sort of insurance policy against non-action by the Government. That may have sparked a lot of concern and the type of action that you suggest, including efforts to plant witnesses. From then on efforts to hide the tracks of PEV suspects became the order of the day. But JMK seems to have left for Swaziland in early 2008, well before the Waki commission set of the alarm bells among those who had something to account for during PEV. Would he have left if he had no reason to be concerned? If he had not been a witness to the involvement of very senior government officials in planning retaliatory attacks? Kenya's history is full of cases of mysterious disappearances and killings of witnesses. But let me think through all this again.... furaha Furaha,It is plausible that the masterminds got wind (during the Serena Accord negotiations) that some form of investigation/inquiry into PEV would be conducted...early in 2008. Kofi Annan was a daily fixture; Mutula Kilonzo supported such inquiry - and he never keeps quiet. It's possible that by early-mid 2008, there was already resignation (amongst the ruling elite) that a probe (to be monitored by Kofi/Int'l Comm) constituting both locals and outsiders would be formed. It is thus not improbable that planning of decoys started as early as then... On the other hand, as you rightly point...it's not implausible that Kabutu was indeed an insider, fearing for his life in the immediate period after PEV. Which makes him a direct participant of PEV...why would he then take back an earlier confession now?
|
|
|
Post by job on Mar 6, 2012 23:14:04 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Mar 6, 2012 23:22:09 GMT 3
there are some people that have always been free, but do not know it, until its deprived of them.
playing political chess can be daunting, lets see where this ends up
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 7, 2012 6:25:43 GMT 3
Here is my anonymous Jukwaa regular communicating with me via email once again:
Last note for your readers REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM To: Onyango Oloo
Defence teams do not have an idea of all that Witness 4 testified to. His OTP testimony was 87 pages long. Of those, 23 pages were not given to Defence; this can be confirmed by reading the post-confirmation submissions of the Uhuru Defense. A good part of this is related to the June 2011 clarification-interview of the witness. I note in this regard that your readers have a slight misunderstanding of redactions. In theory, neither the judges nor the defense see redacted material. However, the Defense literally doesn't see it. The judges on the other hand don't see it only in the sense that they cannot base their reasoning on this material that has not been made available to the Defense. Redactions have to be requested by the Prosecutor and authorized by the Presiding Judge, who therefore actually reads them. Certain conclusions can be drawn from that.
A brief comment on the Ruto case From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:47 PM To: Onyango Oloo
In terms of how a trial might go, I thought I would make one comment on a point relating to Judge Kaul. Your readers seem to have focused on just the fact that he issued dissenting opinions and so may have missed one "interesting" aspect of those opinions.
In the first he states that
" I am satisfied that William Ruto made available guns, grenades and gas cylinders to selected perpetrators. The evidence tends to show that William Ruto promised perpetrators monetary reward in exchange for the destruction of Kikuyu buildings and every Kikuyu person killed. I am also satisfied that William Ruto was part of the coordinating efforts prior to the outbreak of the violence in Uasin Gishu and Nandi Districts between 30 December 2007 to the end of January 2008. The evidence also tends to demonstrate that Henry Kosgey promised the perpetrators immunity for the crimes. I note that the Prosecutor makes no allegation of Joshua Sang's involvement in the Military Branch."
Red vs. Blue: Therein lies the difference on whose charges got confirmed and whose were not.
In the second, a careful reading will show that he indicates that nothing presented by the Defense during confirmation has changed his mind on that front.
Job's analysis From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM To: Onyango Oloo
Without getting into whether or not the person interviewed by Defense was "the shadow", there is little doubt that "the shadow" gave testimony to the CIPEV and was interviewed by the OTP. It is also obvious that the judges took into account Defense claims in the matter. "The shadow" was definitely at the said meetings. Definitely done now.
Kindly forward this to Job as I do not have his email address From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM To: Onyango Oloo
I will not comment on all your points. However, (8) is interesting and (if correct) would still stand even if you are wrong (which we don't know) on the other points. Regardless of whether your overall hypothesis is right or wrong, we thank you for, at the very least, highlighting the complexity of the matter. Dark, powerful forces are at work here and the use of unconventional forces is a way to avoid illegalities. Keep up the good work.
Another message for Job
From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:21 PM To: Onyango Oloo
RE the judges statement "Defence stated at the confirmation .... that OTP-4 was not a member of the Mungiki". That was only part of the Defense, and it appears that Uhuru-Muthaura Defenses did not thoroughly coordinate with Ali Defense. Ali was Commissioner of Police at the time and having looked at the statement of Witness 4 concluded that he was a definitely a Mungiki. The information on "the shadow" actually comes from Witness 4, who stated that this person also attended the same meetings. Whether Defense have correctly identified "the shadow" is another matter. A key point that you have overlooked in your "hypothesis" is that *anyone* who attended these meetings or claimed to have attended these meetings could genuinely think that he is Witness 4. This therefore includes the both real "shadow" and any "decoy" that might have been planted. Of course, the Defense teams would *probably* know which is which but might not tell this to the "tool" being used. What Mr. Kabutu is is "unclear". Regardless, all have their price, and without implying that Mr. Kabutu has been "bought", it is correct to state that "the civil society is indeed dotted with many wolves in sheeps skin". However, not all wolves have always been wolves, and not all sheep have always been sheep. Time and circumstance, etc. Read through the Uhuru/Muthaura final post-confirmation proceedings and try to fill in the blanks at the redactions. Also note that in additon to key witnesses, other *named* Mungiki members attended State House meeting. See, e.g., par 312 of Confirmation Decision. OTP Witnesses 4, 11, and 12 are key and have been the focus of many discussions. However take another look at information provided by other witnesses, e.g. OTP Witness 6.
Mr. Oloo: Thank you for reading my emails and for making them available to members of Jukwaa. If you do forward my emails to Job, then I thank you. I also apologize for "using" you in this manner, my excuse being that I do not have Job's email address, and I assure you that this will be the last. Your efforts to keep Kenyans informed and educated are appreciated very widely. For your listening pleasure, a tune by my namesake: PRAYER FOR PASSIVE RESISTANCE.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Mar 7, 2012 6:42:43 GMT 3
MY HYPOTHESIS 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! Job:Without commenting further, rest assured that there was MORE I could have said regarding James Maina Kabutu but did not because of some very serious concerns about the security of other people whose lives may be at risk for various reasons. As discredited as some of you have tried to make Ambassador Kiplagat, I think you are being very unfair to him in your comments above. He worked with the SAME PEOPLE I worked with on the James Maina Kabutu case.Onyango Oloo Nairobi, Kenya
|
|
|
Post by job on Mar 7, 2012 9:37:22 GMT 3
Here is my anonymous Jukwaa regular communicating with me via email once again: Last note for your readers REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM To: Onyango OlooDefence teams do not have an idea of all that Witness 4 testified to. His OTP testimony was 87 pages long. Of those, 23 pages were not given to Defence; this can be confirmed by reading the post-confirmation submissions of the Uhuru Defense. A good part of this is related to the June 2011 clarification-interview of the witness. I note in this regard that your readers have a slight misunderstanding of redactions. In theory, neither the judges nor the defense see redacted material. However, the Defense literally doesn't see it. The judges on the other hand don't see it only in the sense that they cannot base their reasoning on this material that has not been made available to the Defense. Redactions have to be requested by the Prosecutor and authorized by the Presiding Judge, who therefore actually reads them. Certain conclusions can be drawn from that. A brief comment on the Ruto case From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:47 PM To: Onyango OlooIn terms of how a trial might go, I thought I would make one comment on a point relating to Judge Kaul. Your readers seem to have focused on just the fact that he issued dissenting opinions and so may have missed one "interesting" aspect of those opinions. In the first he states that
" I am satisfied that William Ruto made available guns, grenades and gas cylinders to selected perpetrators. The evidence tends to show that William Ruto promised perpetrators monetary reward in exchange for the destruction of Kikuyu buildings and every Kikuyu person killed. I am also satisfied that William Ruto was part of the coordinating efforts prior to the outbreak of the violence in Uasin Gishu and Nandi Districts between 30 December 2007 to the end of January 2008. The evidence also tends to demonstrate that Henry Kosgey promised the perpetrators immunity for the crimes. I note that the Prosecutor makes no allegation of Joshua Sang's involvement in the Military Branch." Red vs. Blue: Therein lies the difference on whose charges got confirmed and whose were not. In the second, a careful reading will show that he indicates that nothing presented by the Defense during confirmation has changed his mind on that front. Job's analysis From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM To: Onyango OlooWithout getting into whether or not the person interviewed by Defense was "the shadow", there is little doubt that "the shadow" gave testimony to the CIPEV and was interviewed by the OTP. It is also obvious that the judges took into account Defense claims in the matter. "The shadow" was definitely at the said meetings. Definitely done now. Kindly forward this to Job as I do not have his email address From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM To: Onyango OlooI will not comment on all your points. However, (8) is interesting and (if correct) would still stand even if you are wrong (which we don't know) on the other points. Regardless of whether your overall hypothesis is right or wrong, we thank you for, at the very least, highlighting the complexity of the matter. Dark, powerful forces are at work here and the use of unconventional forces is a way to avoid illegalities. Keep up the good work. Another message for Job
From: REDACTED Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:21 PM To: Onyango Oloo RE the judges statement "Defence stated at the confirmation .... that OTP-4 was not a member of the Mungiki". That was only part of the Defense, and it appears that Uhuru-Muthaura Defenses did not thoroughly coordinate with Ali Defense. Ali was Commissioner of Police at the time and having looked at the statement of Witness 4 concluded that he was a definitely a Mungiki. The information on "the shadow" actually comes from Witness 4, who stated that this person also attended the same meetings. Whether Defense have correctly identified "the shadow" is another matter. A key point that you have overlooked in your "hypothesis" is that *anyone* who attended these meetings or claimed to have attended these meetings could genuinely think that he is Witness 4. This therefore includes the both real "shadow" and any "decoy" that might have been planted. Of course, the Defense teams would *probably* know which is which but might not tell this to the "tool" being used. What Mr. Kabutu is is "unclear". Regardless, all have their price, and without implying that Mr. Kabutu has been "bought", it is correct to state that "the civil society is indeed dotted with many wolves in sheeps skin". However, not all wolves have always been wolves, and not all sheep have always been sheep. Time and circumstance, etc. Read through the Uhuru/Muthaura final post-confirmation proceedings and try to fill in the blanks at the redactions. Also note that in additon to key witnesses, other *named* Mungiki members attended State House meeting. See, e.g., par 312 of Confirmation Decision. OTP Witnesses 4, 11, and 12 are key and have been the focus of many discussions. However take another look at information provided by other witnesses, e.g. OTP Witness 6. Mr. Oloo: Thank you for reading my emails and for making them available to members of Jukwaa. If you do forward my emails to Job, then I thank you. I also apologize for "using" you in this manner, my excuse being that I do not have Job's email address, and I assure you that this will be the last. Your efforts to keep Kenyans informed and educated are appreciated very widely. For your listening pleasure, a tune by my namesake: PRAYER FOR PASSIVE RESISTANCE. Oloo,Please do thank the anonymous source on my behalf. I will check the references in the confirmation decision & definitely refine my hypothesis. I also appreciated the process of redaction & the fact that the Presiding Judge actually gets to first read the portions before granting OTP the leeway for redaction(s). One thing we easily agree on is the complexity of this issue.
|
|
|
Post by job on Mar 7, 2012 9:47:58 GMT 3
MY HYPOTHESIS 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! Job:Without commenting further, rest assured that there was MORE I could have said regarding James Maina Kabutu but did not because of some very serious concerns about the security of other people whose lives may be at risk for various reasons. As discredited as some of you have tried to make Ambassador Kiplagat, I think you are being very unfair to him in your comments above. He worked with the SAME PEOPLE I worked with on the James Maina Kabutu case.Onyango Oloo Nairobi, KenyaThanks Oloo for the clarification. Mine was just an assumption (not stated fact) as I clearly disclaimed. If Ambassador Kiplagat worked sincerely hard towards witness protection in this matter, he definitely deserves my positive acclamation. I have absolutely no reason to discredit or belittle any role he played. Meanwhile, I'll closely watch the developments in this Kabutu matter.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Mar 7, 2012 21:06:38 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 7, 2012 21:38:37 GMT 3
If you insist on calling it a circus, technically speaking it would be more correct to speak of an ICC or a Registry circus and not of Ocampo's circus. The protection of witnesses is not the responsibility of the OTP, it is the responsibility of the Registry. In fact, there is a firewall between the OTP and Registry as far as witness protection is concerned, reason being, among others, to prevent allegations by the defense against the prosecutor. The defense would be very happy if the prosecutor looked after his own witnesses. That would allow the defense to claim that Ocampo ensures that his witnesses live a life of relative luxury and be given the kinds of opportunities that would encourage them to work for the prosecution instead of working for truth and justice. It is the Registry that has been coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism for the way it is handling its protection programmes. Kenyans would be wrong to believe that witnesses who go abroad land in a welcoming environment where all their needs and more are looked after. The opposite tends to be true. Those operating protection programmes for the Registry have frequently failed to understand the needs of families who basically arrive as refugees in a strange and challenging environment. Under such circumstances empathy is the first requirement to put people at ease. If you read The Star article carefully you will see that the unhappiness of those involved revolved around some very basic issues. It seems these have now been addressed by the Registry, be it very belatedly. furaha
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Mar 8, 2012 13:24:02 GMT 3
Job;
Interesting hypothesis. It seems to me the timing of QC Kay's attacks on the ICC in London and the subsequent release of Matsanga's witness recantation were not coincidental.
Are some of the ICC 4 preparing to abscond on the basis that the charges are trumped up? Or are they simply attempting to sway public opinion?
An international think tank recently described the sophisticated media strategy that Uhuru and Ruto have been using to sway public opinion against the ICC cases. Is this a continuation of the same?
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Mar 8, 2012 13:52:53 GMT 3
Job;An international think tank recently described the sophisticated media strategy that Uhuru and Ruto have been using to sway public opinion against the ICC cases. Is this a continuation of the same? The media is bribable and its obviouse that some are on the pay-role of some guilty people. But this time they knew that this is something that may explode in their face if they touch it first, thats why the thugs put the Video up themselves and then called a press conference to advertice it.
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 18, 2012 0:31:00 GMT 3
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/How+they+tampered+with+Ocampo+witness+/-/440808/1368438/-/ucl9g2/-/index.htmlCheck the link to Makau Mutua's Sunday column for further and important background information about how James Maina Kabutu was forced to recant his testimony to the Waki commission (CIPEV). This story has been doing the rounds for about two years. It is no secret among those who have been active in the protection of witnesses and victims of PEV. A former KNCHR staff member and a former consultant to KNCHR, both alleged to have illegal access to a stolen copy of KNCHR's data base with PEV testimonies, were said to be tracking down (potential) witnesses against Uhuru Kenyatta, enticing them or forcing them to recant their testimony or to make sure that they would never testify. Makau Mtua must have detailed information and evidence. If not, I do not think he would have gone ahead with this story. He obviously knows the identity of the two individuals he mentions and also that all this leads to one of the O4. So let the tough talking attorney-general and the DPP move in on the individuals who have been engaging in witness intimidation!! But since all this probably leads directly to Uhuru's door step, I doubt we will see much action... furaha
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 2:03:59 GMT 3
The Mutua article appears to explain quite a bit. If it is true, then it is very good news that Mr. Kabutu is still "in the mix". The article also shows us that it is unwise to rush to judgement, in this case of Mr. Kabutu and those who went out of their way to help him.
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 19, 2012 4:36:43 GMT 3
The Mutua article appears to explain quite a bit. If it is true, then it is very good news that Mr. Kabutu is still "in the mix". The article also shows us that it is unwise to rush to judgement, in this case of Mr. Kabutu and those who went out of their way to help him. Otishotish, I agree. But it may be difficult to keep Mr. Kabutu in the mix. Lawyers for the defense generally simply love to take on a witness who recanted and then - apparently - recanted again. Mr. Kabutu's credibility has suffered a serious blow. So perhaps those intimidating him got their way after all? Let's hope Ocampo has other witnesses who back up Kabutu's story and/or - and that is the good thing about Makau Mutua's revelations - that the two individuals (formerly with KNCHR) who appear to have pressed Kabutu to recant are taken to task; prosecuted that is. And from these two an easily detectible trail seems to run to one of the O4. furaha
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 8:10:22 GMT 3
The Mutua article appears to explain quite a bit. If it is true, then it is very good news that Mr. Kabutu is still "in the mix". The article also shows us that it is unwise to rush to judgement, in this case of Mr. Kabutu and those who went out of their way to help him. Otishotish, I agree. But it may be difficult to keep Mr. Kabutu in the mix. Lawyers for the defense generally simply love to take on a witness who recanted and then - apparently - recanted again. Mr. Kabutu's credibility has suffered a serious blow. So perhaps those intimidating him got their way after all? Let's hope Ocampo has other witnesses who back up Kabutu's story and/or - and that is the good thing about Makau Mutua's revelations - that the two individuals (formerly with KNCHR) who appear to have pressed Kabutu to recant are taken to task; prosecuted that is. And from these two an easily detectible trail seems to run to one of the O4. furaha I would agree with you if this was a normal adverserial court system; however the ICC seems to take quite seriously its "duty to uncover the truth". For example, I recall a case---the Bemba one, but I would have to double-check---where a critical OTP witnesses was found to have told quite a few tall tales. In a normal court system, his credibility would have been shot. But in this case, the judges ruled that lying in some place did not mean lying everywhere and went on to find his evidence credible in other places. Interestingly, the public documents made available by the dodgy character Matsanga shows that at some point Kabutu refused to go into ICC's witness-protection program. However, his "trail" disappears at the end of 2010. Where did he go? There is also the question raised by Makau: Did the judges see his "recantation" affidavits and video? If they did, and he is witness number 4, then there must be some very solid reasons for not throwing out his testimony. All very interesting stuff, and its been a busy month for the Masters of Impunity. One wonders what they will try nect.
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Mar 19, 2012 9:46:43 GMT 3
The Mutua article appears to explain quite a bit. If it is true, then it is very good news that Mr. Kabutu is still "in the mix". The article also shows us that it is unwise to rush to judgement, in this case of Mr. Kabutu and those who went out of their way to help him. If Mutua is right, then I agree. There is clearly more to this saga. We may have rushed to judgement here. I am inclined to think Makau Mutua knows something given his links with the human rights movement. When the story broke out - I think we should have paused - when Jukwaaists who know Mr. Kabutu personally expressed shock. We should have said 'something is not right' But let us watch... the truth will unfold.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 19, 2012 10:38:03 GMT 3
I think Makau is just blwoing hot air. Kabutu was probably a HR type witness that was shopping for largesse from more than one party. His constant swings of information makes him really unreliable.
But this suggestion from Makau that the guy has recanted what he had recanted under "duress" just makes the whole thing comical and does little to help Makau's reputation!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 16:35:16 GMT 3
I think Makau is just blwoing hot air. Kabutu was probably a HR type witness that was shopping for largesse from more than one party. His constant swings of information makes him really unreliable. But this suggestion from Makau that the guy has recanted what he had recanted under "duress" just makes the whole thing comical and does little to help Makau's reputation! What if Makau is indeed telling the truth. Have you considered the implications? A thinking person will always look at both sides of the coin, if only to prepare for contingencies. The Kenyan ICC cases have provided an interesting study in mass psychology. I have been truly astonished at the number of people whose reaction on seeing reality and truth is to turn 180 degrees and head in the other direction. That's actually very dangerous for one's mental health: a mind that continually refuses to accept reality eventualy cracks when it becomes unbearable, as that is the only way to maintain a life in the world of illusions.
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Mar 19, 2012 17:25:36 GMT 3
I think Makau is just blwoing hot air. Kabutu was probably a HR type witness that was shopping for largesse from more than one party. His constant swings of information makes him really unreliable. But this suggestion from Makau that the guy has recanted what he had recanted under "duress" just makes the whole thing comical and does little to help Makau's reputation! Really? Blowing 'hot air' usually implies being vague, woolly and general. Read the prof's column again and note that two barely disguised individuals are named, a former KNCHR staff member and a consultant working for KNCHR. These must have been folks who were working for the commission around 2008 when it was researching and documenting PEV. Now how difficult can it be to establish their identities? I guess the sleuths are already on to them, including sleuths from The Hague. And who were these two working for? Who funded their trip to the US where Kabutu was filmed recanting his CIPEV testimony? Where does the trail lead? Call it comical if you like. It could also be potentially vital information that indicates how, even before Ocampo started investigating, some involved in PEV may already have been trying to cover their tracks. Furaha
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 19, 2012 17:52:16 GMT 3
There is too much uncertainty on this issue for anyone's arguments to be taken as fact - especially when that someone does not tell us anything about the sources of info. The Prof. does not tell us where he gets his info from, or if he's speculating.
Elswhere we are told Kabutu was even not an Ocampo witness .... and there too we are told of a "shadow of witness #4".
Things get very complicated when they involve undisclosed actors as well as shadows of undisclosed undisclosed actors. So Prof Mutua just adds to the many clips of information that we must juggle in our minds as we wait for the good prosecutor of the ICC to open up his Hague books and dispell the Vague out of the matter.
From personal vantage point I have stated severally (that) I am confident that at least one of Ocampo's witnesses fabricated everything he told the prosecutor. If one was an absolute fabricator, is it possible that others were fabricators as well? And if someone was a fabricator, is it likely that s/he would recant his "witness evidence" on free will?
On the other hand, with Kabutu already in safe harbour in the US, was staging a recant of his testimony in front of a notary public the best he would do to react to threats? May be, may be not! It all depends on a lot that we do not know.
There are too many things that do not fall in place. We have to wait and get the full story.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 18:36:34 GMT 3
There is too much uncertainty on this issue for anyone's arguments to be taken as fact - especially when that someone does not tell us anything about the sources of info. The Prof. does not tell us where he gets his info from, or if he's speculating. Elsewhere we are told Kabutu was even not an Ocampo witness .... and there too we are told of a "shadow of witness #4". Things get very complicated when they involve undisclosed actors as well as shadows of undisclosed undisclosed actors. So Prof Mutua just adds to the many clips of information that we must juggle in our minds as we wait for the good prosecutor of the ICC to open up his Hague books and dispell the Vague out of the matter. From personal vantage point I have stated severally (that) I am confident that at least one of Ocampo's witnesses fabricated everything he told the prosecutor. If one was an absolute fabricator, is it possible that others were fabricators as well? And if someone was a fabricator, is it likely that s/he would recant his "witness evidence" on free will? On the other hand, with Kabutu already in safe harbour in the US, was staging a recant of his testimony in front of a notary public the best he would do to react to threats? May be, may be not! It all depends on a lot that we do not know. There are too many things that do not fall in place. We have to wait and get the full story. One thing to keep in mind is that Mutua seems to actually know the individuals who forced the "recantation", and I would not be surprised if at some point he came out and named them. I haven't seen anything that points to Kabutu being No. 4 or the shadow. It seems he could be either. One possibility is that he is the shadow but the Defence think he is No. 4; that would explain several statements by the Defence which do not seem to have done them much good with the judges. The other possibility is that he is No. 4 but informed the ICC that his "recantation" was forced and that (presumably after his family's safefy was assured) he was continuing to be a witness. That would explain why all the documents put up by Matsanga end in 2010 but No. 4 was last interviewed in mid-2011. On the other hand, with Kabutu already in safe harbour in the US, was staging a recant of his testimony in front of a notary public the best he would do to react to threats? Merely being in the USA does not constitute safety if the people after you know where you are and can easily get to you. More importantly, even if safe in the USA that does not necessarily translate into safety for one's loved ones who may still be in Kenya. I'm quite prepared to believe that Kabutu was simply told, "record this recantation now, or your family in Kenya gets it". Imagine people you'd trusted all along and who know a great deal about you and your family now threatening you. As long as we are into speculations, I am inclined to believe that Kabutu is No. 4 or a person who attended the same meetings as No. 4. Given that No. 4 is a person who went around Mathare giving anti-crime speeches, I'll bet on the former. I am also inclined to believe that that he is still an ICC witness and is now in an ICC witness protection program. As for witnesses fabricating things, yes that very probably happened somewhere. (Witness no. 10 seems to be rather colourful in his testimony.) But the judges seem to have been very carefully about which witnesses they gave great credence to and on what basis.
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Mar 19, 2012 18:57:11 GMT 3
I think Makau is just blwoing hot air. Kabutu was probably a HR type witness that was shopping for largesse from more than one party. His constant swings of information makes him really unreliable. But this suggestion from Makau that the guy has recanted what he had recanted under "duress" just makes the whole thing comical and does little to help Makau's reputation! Really? Blowing 'hot air' usually implies being vague, woolly and general. Read the prof's column again and note that two barely disguised individuals are named, a former KNCHR staff member and a consultant working for KNCHR. These must have been folks who were working for the commission around 2008 when it was researching and documenting PEV. Now how difficult can it be to establish their identities? I guess the sleuths are already on to them, including sleuths from The Hague. And who were these two working for? Who funded their trip to the US where Kabutu was filmed recanting his CIPEV testimony? Where does the trail lead? Call it comical if you like. It could also be potentially vital information that indicates how, even before Ocampo started investigating, some involved in PEV may already have been trying to cover their tracks. Furaha @ furaha spot on !!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 19:10:53 GMT 3
I believe names have already been given to relevant authorities, including Kenyan ones, and Iteeres's recent statement is meant to show that he is "doing something". of course, he won't do anything, but it is rather bad news for the Masters of Impunity: as soon as the steam went out of the Matsanga circus, they quickly moved on; but now it's becoming clear that what they started won't go away and is returning to bite them in the ....
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Mar 19, 2012 19:39:12 GMT 3
I am with Kamale on this one. Mutua being one of the Human Rights officials and who must have been involved in hunting for and ferrying these witnesses to their hideouts, knows very well that recantation of statements by any of them casts aspersions on his institution and its work.
The emerging narrative paints a picture of a witness who is in a continuous search for a place that guarantees him more butter on his bread. ICC must be a cash cow for some of these fellows.
|
|