|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 14, 2013 7:33:55 GMT 3
Folks, after a lot of diplomatic war games it seems KE & the AU may get their way, against all odds. The Daily Telegraph reports that Western diplomats are working on a deal at the UNSC to defer Uhuru's case for at least one year. I wonder how this will play out with trial number one already in motion while Uhuru's may be frozen.... Kenyan president Kenyatta’s war crimes trial set to be suspendedThe war crimes trial of Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta could be suspended for at least a year under a diplomatic deal to be put to the United Nations. By Damien McElroy, Mike Pflanz in Nairobi7:25PM BST 13 Oct 2013 Western diplomats are preparing a UN Security Council resolution that would put the International Criminal Court (ICC) case on hold after the African Union lodged objections to the trial. Sources said the resolution was to avoid a damaging stand-off between the court and African states over charges faced by Mr Kenyatta of orchestrating post-election violence that killed more than 1,000 people in 2007-08. Mr Kenyatta has said he is reluctant to attend the opening of his trial in The Hague on Nov 12 after judges agreed to alternate his appearances with the hearing for William Rutto, the vice-president, who is also charged. However, an extraordinary summit of the African Union on Saturday issued an ultimatum to the court to stop the case, warning judges that Mr Kenyatta must not be compelled to face trial. Mr Kenyatta, who was elected in March, welcomed the decision and criticised the court. “It stopped being the home of justice the day it became the toy of declining imperial powers,” he said. “Africa is not a third-rate territory of second-class peoples. We are not a project, or experiment of outsiders.” Diplomats fear the trial could create a impasse in which the Kenyan leader either pulls out of the process at the last minute or African states start withdrawing from its jurisdiction. Related Articles Kenyan presidential candidate faces trial for crimes against humanity 09 Feb 2013 Kenya suspends wildlife officials over poaching 06 Feb 2013 Kenya to vote amid warnings against rigging in knife-edge elections 03 Mar 2013 Uhuru Kenyatta gets green light to run for president 15 Feb 2013 “Uhuru is not an indicted figure who is defying the court like Sudan’s president (Omar) Bashir. He is someone who is working closely with the West in a region in chaos that needs to tackle a very worrying terrorist situation,” a senior European diplomat said. “A solution must be found that avoids a breakdown in relations with Kenyatta or the court’s authority.”[/font] Mr Kenyatta’s trial comes just weeks after Kenya faced its biggest security crisis in recent memory as al-Shabaab terrorists took over Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall. Sixty-seven people were killed in a bloody seige as Mr Kenyatta personally oversaw the security operation against the hostage-takers. The Telegraph understands that European officials have sought to adopt measures to ensure Mr Kenyatta is not forced to leave the country in the wake of the Westgate incident. All of the active cases before the ICC are against Africans, prompting claims by polticians that the tribunal is unfairly targeting the continent. An official in Mr Kenyatta's administration confirmed the shift in his approach to the charges and suggested it was possible he would stop cooperating. “We have been talking about the double standards of the court for some time,” the official said. “What the president told the AU was simply an extension of that.” Unless the ICC prosecutor or the court asks its member countries to endorse a postponement, the only authority that can intervene is the UN Security Council. As the US is not a member of the court, it has fallen to British and French officials to push forward a resolution, which could be adopted by the end of the month. A spokesman for the ICC said it had no scope to object if the Security Council invoked international security issues to suspend the case. “The Security Council can adopt a resolution to impose a suspension based on the protection of peace and security in world,” said Fadi al-Abullah, the ICC spokesman. “In that case it would be out of the hands of the prosecutor as the ICC has no role to advise the security council in these matters.” A spokesman for the Foreign Office said Britain had not changed its position that Mr Kenyatta and the other defendents should cooperate with the ICC. Bill Cash, the Conservative MP and chairman of the All-Party Kenya Group, called on the Government to support a suspension of the trial in a House of Commons debate last week. “The events in Kenya were horrific but the president was democratically elected by a significant majority in full knowledge of the case. That must give rise to questions over the continuation of the original application to the ICC,” he said. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10376302/Kenyan-president-Kenyattas-war-crimes-trial-set-to-be-suspended.htmlThe Daily Nation also reports the same here:  www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Uhuru-Kenyatta-ICC-case-to-be-put-off-Western-diplomats-say/-/1064/2031116/-/68jmoez/-/index.html
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 14, 2013 18:20:45 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 14, 2013 21:06:13 GMT 3
Actually, I enjoyed this one... Kenya now banks on UN over Hague casesBy JOSEPH MURAYA | October 14, 2013  NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 14 – Kenya is now banking on the UN Security Council to heed an African Union call to defer the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against President Uhuru Kenyatta. Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohamed says the country hopes the UN Security Council and the ICC will respect Kenya’s sovereignty and the need to give its leaders time to perform their duties. “The reaction has been positive; we are comforted by the reaction,” she said while responding to a question on reports that some Western diplomats had already joined the call for a deferral of the case. During a special AU summit at the weekend, African States reached a resolution that no charges should be commenced or continued before any international court or tribunal against any serving Head of State or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity during their term in office. “We have been waiting for this reaction for a long time. We are appeased by the outcome,” she added. She said as a member of the international community, Kenya was optimistic “that the African Union request will be positively considered.” She applauded the African Union for its solidarity and unity in asking for deferral of the case. “We were extremely humbled to have witnessed an Africa that is rising; in one accord, both the summit and the council stood with Kenya on the key question of the day,” she said. “Unanimously the council and the summit recognised very clearly that a sitting president democratically elected and with a clear mandate from the people must govern.” She added; “Kenyans and Africa expected that to happen to the President’s case.” The African Union has categorically stated that the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council must give the Kenyan presidency space to carry out its national obligations, in view of the charges that both President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto face at The Hague-based court. AU Chairman Hailemariam Desalegn – who is the Ethiopian Prime Minister – said on Saturday that the two institutions must stop distracting the Kenyan leaders from their duties by forcing them to attend their trials at The Hague, instead of having them deferred. On the issue of Journalist Joshua arap Sang, Kenya’s Foreign Secretary said his case was personal and cannot be subject of discussion at the African Union.
“Once you are elected in the office, it stops being personal. The President’s case merits the agenda of AU because he is a sitting Head of State,” she explained. In regard to the 2007-2008 post election victims, she said that the government was committed to ensure all were resettled and justice delivered. “It may not be an overnight thing but the government is going to ensure we address issue of concerns to the victims,” she assured. Mohamed revealed that the continent confirmed its intention to ensure that the Rome Statute, which the majority of its members are party to, is modified by the Assembly of State Parties beginning November, to respond to the aspirations of its largest constituency as a court of last resort of the highest possible standards and standing. President Kenyatta’s ICC trial is due to begin on November 12. www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2013/10/kenya-now-banks-on-un-over-hague-cases/ |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 14, 2013 21:30:24 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 14, 2013 22:17:16 GMT 3
Apparently not. Whilst Ruto has been jetting in & out of The Hague since the trials commenced, Sang has been confined to within Den Haag. Where is he putting up? Is he in a hotel or has he been provided with the court's own "accommodations"? Methinks the ICC lost the plot the day they allowed Ruto to come back during the Wesgate Mall siege. He won that small battle, now Uhuru is attempting to do the same albeit on a larger scale. Always push the envelope... |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 19, 2013 1:00:46 GMT 3
 Ahem... Uhuru Kenyatta wins ICC concessionJudges at International Criminal Court agree that Uhuru Kenyatta will not have to be present for all hearings during trial Kenya's president won a significant concession from the International Criminal Court when judges agreed to his demand that he should not appear for all the hearings in his trial, due to start next month. A three-judge panel at the court ruled that "to accommodate the demanding functions of his office", Uhuru Kenyatta would only have to show up for selected sessions. The move will be seen as a significant retreat by the ICC, whose officers have always stated that its judicial processes were blind to the status of those who stand accused before it. Two of the three judges agreed to Mr Kenyatta's application and one dissented, the ICC said in a statement. "The Majority reiterated that Mr Kenyatta's excusal is strictly granted to accommodate the demanding functions of his office as President of Kenya, and not merely to gratify the dignity of his own occupation of that office," the statement said. "The Majority asserted that violations of any conditions of Mr Kenyatta's excusal may result in revocation of the partially granted request, and/or the issuance of an arrest warrant, where appropriate." Mr Kenyatta denies five charges of being an "indirect co-perpetrator" of crimes against humanity that allegedly took place during weeks of violence that followed Kenya's disputed 2007 elections. More than 1,100 people died. He went on to win the presidential election in March this year. William Ruto, his deputy, faces three similar charges, which he denies, in a separate case currently being heard at the court, which sits in The Hague. Both men have repeatedly argued that they should not have to attend every session in their cases, which could drag on for years, because of the pressures of their jobs. "This will be regarded by Uhuru Kenyatta and his supporters as the first concession that the court has given them, it'll be seen very positively," said Mwalimu Mati, director of Mars Group Kenya, a governance watchdog. "They have spun this line that the court does not recognise that he is the president of a sovereign country, and it seems now that the court has accepted that argument." Kenya recently applied for a wholesale postponement of the two trials until both men have left office. A decision on that application must be made by the UN Security Council. "Kenyatta's supporters will probably not be satisfied even with this, they want a full deferral, or the cases to be scrapped altogether," Mr Mati said. Mr Kenyatta will still have to be present for opening and closing statements of all parties and participants, hearings when victims present their views and concerns in person, the delivery of judgment in his case and any other attendance the court orders. He is also required to be present during sentencing hearings, the delivery of sentencing, the entirety of victim impact hearings, as well as reparation hearings. Njakip, it seems like UK is winning too many concessions even before his trial even commences, ama? I argued earlier that the ICC should NOT concede more ground lest it be seen as a paper tiger. Anyway, I guess perceptions don't have consequences.... www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10389810/Uhuru-Kenyatta-wins-ICC-concession.htmlPS: It seems that The Telegraph is being "purchased" as if it were a periodical or daily from KE  |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 19, 2013 2:18:29 GMT 3
b6k: A "significant concession"? At a status conference two or three months ago, Kay indicated that his client would be after the same deal that Ruto got. Could the same two judges who arranged that deal reasonably refuse such a request? And let's not forget that at this very moment Ruto is wandering the cold streets of the Hague, "significant concession" in the left pocket of his winter jacket. When they finally made a written application, Kay & His Lady Sidekick went even beyond the "Ruto deal": they asked that in addition to getting a "Ruto deal", where their client was required to "appear", he should do so via Skype. Even Oga Chief-Oh & Buddy thought that was a bit much. Team Uhuru appears to have at least three "reliable" people connected with The Telegraph: two are journalists (the most "reliable" being the one based in Nairobi) and the other is a QC friend of Kay and who has some experience in international criminal law. Even the British cannot eat grass, and I imagine that The Telegraph is easier for some to swallow than, say, The Star. Speaking of people not eating grass, have you noticed that the New York Times no longer carries any articles from a fellow who was their "correspondent" in Nairobi? To my mind, the significance of this ruling, given its timing, is that it puts The Prince in a rather awkward position: The Appeals Chamber could rule on the Ruto case before 12 Nov; but then again it might not. The "consultations" on the request to the UN Security Council could get a response before 12 Nov; but then again it might not. His friends have at the AU have followed standard procedure: (i) make a lot of noise; (ii) following day, forget all; (iii) go home and attend to own affairs. Etc. What is His Excellency's Plan B Plan F? In related matters: Githu Mugai has just informed the court that the Kenyan Parliament tends to amuse itself with withdrawal motions. He indicates that they did that in Dec 2010 (and we all know what happened in Dec 2010) and then promptly forgot about it, although they "authorized the government to take immediate action". According to him, withdrawal involves more than just a few MPigs shouting about it, and he is not aware of any real steps being taken to that end. What next on that front? www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1666073.pdfWhat we have here is what is called a mambo bado! situation? That is never good. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Oct 19, 2013 9:56:47 GMT 3
Ahem... Uhuru Kenyatta wins ICC concessionJudges at International Criminal Court agree that Uhuru Kenyatta will not have to be present for all hearings during trial Kenya's president won a significant concession from the International Criminal Court when judges agreed to his demand that he should not appear for all the hearings in his trial, due to start next month. A three-judge panel at the court ruled that "to accommodate the demanding functions of his office", Uhuru Kenyatta would only have to show up for selected sessions. I told you this is a patomime court! Demanding functions  of his office exempts him from court sittings! ---Can any lawyer here tell me if brother Joseph Kony has lesser demanding functions? I can tell you running a guerrilla outfit in the jungles of Afrika is a hell of a demanding functions! We will attend to Eboe Esuji when we wish, and have the time for his drawling deep articulated pleasantry's! --We all have demanding fuctions, least of which could attending to nymphomanic multiple wives! |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Oct 20, 2013 6:51:04 GMT 3
Uhuru should be worried.
ICC is anxious to put a necklace on one of the Kenyans ... and so far, it is a done deal for all but Uhuru. Ruto and Sang are still at the Hague, but they are just having fun .. . for them it is LOL all day, their cases long done with, except for the sake of keeping that club busy. So ICC has only one candidate for its objectives.
Your excellency, if anyone tells you that you should not worry, that's one to fire right away. In your place I would be very worried. ... and your buddy helped them immensely .. you know who I am talking about!
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 20, 2013 12:25:06 GMT 3
b6k: A "significant concession"? At a status conference two or three months ago, Kay indicated that his client would be after the same deal that Ruto got. Could the same two judges who arranged that deal reasonably refuse such a request? And let's not forget that at this very moment Ruto is wandering the cold streets of the Hague, "significant concession" in the left pocket of his winter jacket. When they finally made a written application, Kay & His Lady Sidekick went even beyond the "Ruto deal": they asked that in addition to getting a "Ruto deal", where their client was required to "appear", he should do so via Skype. Even Oga Chief-Oh & Buddy thought that was a bit much. Team Uhuru appears to have at least three "reliable" people connected with The Telegraph: two are journalists (the most "reliable" being the one based in Nairobi) and the other is a QC friend of Kay and who has some experience in international criminal law. Even the British cannot eat grass, and I imagine that The Telegraph is easier for some to swallow than, say, The Star. Speaking of people not eating grass, have you noticed that the New York Times no longer carries any articles from a fellow who was their "correspondent" in Nairobi? To my mind, the significance of this ruling, given its timing, is that it puts The Prince in a rather awkward position: The Appeals Chamber could rule on the Ruto case before 12 Nov; but then again it might not. The "consultations" on the request to the UN Security Council could get a response before 12 Nov; but then again it might not. His friends have at the AU have followed standard procedure: (i) make a lot of noise; (ii) following day, forget all; (iii) go home and attend to own affairs. Etc. What is His Excellency's Plan B Plan F? In related matters: Githu Mugai has just informed the court that the Kenyan Parliament tends to amuse itself with withdrawal motions. He indicates that they did that in Dec 2010 (and we all know what happened in Dec 2010) and then promptly forgot about it, although they "authorized the government to take immediate action". According to him, withdrawal involves more than just a few MPigs shouting about it, and he is not aware of any real steps being taken to that end. What next on that front? www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1666073.pdfWhat we have here is what is called a mambo bado! situation? That is never good. Njakip A lie a tiny wee bit.....Uhuru's application for video link appearance was as an alternative to the excusal rather than part of the excusal application. The video link application preceded the Ruto application and was retained as an alternative prayer if the Ruto one was declined. I am surprised you are yet to comment on the application for permanent stay or are you waiting on what benshuta has to say to before coming to bark after her? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 20, 2013 16:18:29 GMT 3
A lie a tiny wee bit.....Uhuru's application for video link appearance was as an alternative to the excusal rather than part of the excusal application. The video link application preceded the Ruto application and was retained as an alternative prayer if the Ruto one was declined. Kamale: You were in such a hurry to score a point that you did not bother to read the actual application. I strongly encourage you to try and sometimes familiarize yourself with the relevant facts and then take them into account; that requires a little effort, but I'm sure even you can do it. What the Defence application said: (a) We want to skip most sessions, (b) where appearance is required, we want to appear by video. So, it was a core part of the request for excusal (par. 38). In was also in an alternative (par. 39). Please read the following. Carefully and slowly. Pay attention to 38(ii). www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1649093.pdf38. For the reasons set out above, the Defence requests that:
(i) President Kenyatta is conditionally excused from continuous presence at
trial whereby he attends in person the opening and closing of trial and
delivery of judgment before the International Criminal Court; and
(ii) In respect of all other hearings wherein the Court requires the presence of
Uhuru Kenyatta, or he requests to be present, such presence is fulfilled by
way of video-‐‑link.
39. In the alternative, the Defence requests that:
(i) In the event that the Chamber does not conditionally excuse President
Kenyatta from continuous attendance at trial, President Kenyatta’s
continuous presence at trial be by means of video link.
Respectfully submitted,
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 20, 2013 23:10:13 GMT 3
If you read para 127 of the judgement you will realise that the court joined the prayer in 38(ii) with the primary relief soughtin the Excusal request, the rejection is at that level.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 21, 2013 0:02:49 GMT 3
If you read para 127 of the judgement you will realise that the court joined the prayer in 38(ii) with the primary relief soughtin the Excusal request, the rejection is at that level. You started with the statement "A lie a tiny wee bit.....Uhuru's application for video link appearance was as an alternative to the excusal rather than part of the excusal application"I think everyone can see what the request states. You really ought to be apologizing, rather than omwengarizing things. Asking you to read slowly and carefully doesn't seem to have done you much good; so let me break it down for you. PART AThe primary request--what is termed the "Excusal Request''--is in paragraph 38 and consists of two parts: 38. For the reasons set out above, the Defence requests that:
(i) President Kenyatta is conditionally excused from continuous presence at
trial whereby he attends in person the opening and closing of trial and
delivery of judgment before the International Criminal Court; and
(ii) In respect of all other hearings wherein the Court requires the presence of
Uhuru Kenyatta, or he requests to be present, such presence is fulfilled by
way of video-‐‑link. Parts (i) and (ii) are joined; in particular, where part (ii) refers to " all other hearings", it means all other hearings not included in part (i). If there are any doubts, note that part (i) ends with "; and", after which comes part (ii). The court accordingly responded by stating that:127. As part of the relief sought in the Excusal Request, the Kenyatta Defence
requests that for all occasions (other than the opening and closing of trial, as well as
the delivery of judgment) for which the attendance of Mr Kenyatta is required by the
Chamber, or for which he wishes to be present, he is permitted to do so by way of
video link.and then went on to deal with it. PART BAlternatively--what is termed the "Alternative Request''--the Defence had this: 39. In the alternative, the Defence requests that:
(i) In the event that the Chamber does not conditionally excuse President
Kenyatta from continuous attendance at trial, President Kenyatta’s
continuous presence at trial be by means of video link.
To that the judges response was:Separately, having determined to grant, in part, the Excusal Request, the Chamber
does not consider it necessary to proceed to an analysis of the Alternative Request.
|
|
of his office exempts him from court sittings! ---Can any lawyer here tell me if brother Joseph Kony has lesser demanding functions?
