|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 20:00:58 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. I am far from being a bright fellow, and one of the things I like about internet forums is the sheer number of people who make me feel that I am.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 19, 2012 20:05:56 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. We could speculate till donkeys grow horns, or be saved from that agony by a transparent process of the actual case. It won't be too long before we get an impression of the prospect of the latter scenario.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 19, 2012 20:17:00 GMT 3
Ndugu mank: It is not just a matter of speculation. The Masters of Impunity are hard at work, and, if we are not to be fooled, then we must think about whatever is thrown up. What the Masters of Impunity are relying on is the average Kenyan's gullibility and willingness to swallow whatever is thrown up, especially through the media. So it behooves all of us who have a sufficient number of functional neurons to consider the different possibilities and different interpretations of whatever information is available. The minute we stop to think and take a closer look at things is the minute they win.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 11, 2013 18:27:10 GMT 3
I am shocked to the core.
I know James Maina Kabutu very well. I am one of the people who assisted him in getting asylum in Swaziland, and later the United States of America. He remains one of my Facebook friends.
I will be doing an entire piece on this matter over the weekend.
Onyango Oloo Nairobi, KenyaOO, I wish you would tell us more about this fellow. I say he is a fraud! Would you agree? Could you shine a little light? I have no intention to ask for more than you are comfortable to share, but I hope you are comfortable sharing a little more than you did.
|
|