|
Post by abdulmote on Nov 19, 2013 22:02:18 GMT 3
OtishOtish, I salute you for your exemplary effort and outstanding passion towards informing us on the nitty-gritty matters concerning the ICC. I say thank you for your kind generousity. Indeed, members of Jukwaa and its readership owe you on this one. The following may be of relevance to what we are engaged on. Kindly read between the lines for apt understanding: Many Kenyans are now living with increased insecurity, caused by ethnic conflict, violence and common crime. We realise that the police work hard under difficult circumstances and highlight the importance of Kenya’s commitment to continued police reform.We emphasize the need for full respect for the rule of law and human rights, and upholding integrity and accountability. In the current legislative process, we encourage a focus on enabling police in tackling crime, and caution against allowing more latitude for the use of force. We also support the Kenyan people in the efforts to fight impunity and corruption, and welcome the government’s commitment to fulfilling its international obligations. We encourage national judicial processes to be initiated and are ready to provide support to generate justice to the victims of post-election violence.The report by the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission provides for restorative justice. It is justice, together with an intensified fight against corruption and mismanagement that is critical for democracy, a growing economy and lasting peace.In Kenya, as elsewhere, democracy rests on the mutually supporting pillars of equality, rule of law and fundamental freedoms. Indeed, a vibrant democracy thrives from a community of consenting and dissenting voices. We welcome the intention to review the recent Information and Communications Bill, and encourage efforts to ensure that the freedom of the media is protected. We encourage similar considerations of the recently proposed amendments to the Public Benefit Organisations Act, remembering that it is often to civil society organisations that the poorest Kenyans turn for support. As these two Bills are presently drafted, they could narrow the democratic space so clearly provided for in the Constitution, and restrict or even prevent the delivery of assistance in areas such as humanitarian aid, health, education, agriculture, implementation of the Constitution and other areas targeting marginalised groups. These areas are all critical to the attainment of Vision 2030 and its second Medium-term plan. This could ultimately risk curtailing Kenya’s economic progress.
Signed by Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Country Directors and Chargé d’affaires from: African Development Bank, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, The World Bank. What our Developement Partners have to say
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 20, 2013 0:09:35 GMT 3
* The UK proposal, which has some similarities proposals by others, is not a substitute. What's more, the proposal is to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, for which the process is quite different. Proposals to amend rules can and will be discussed at this ASP session. (It is however doubtful that there will be a decision on these recent rule-change proposals by Kenya, Jordan, Liechenstein, and the UK, because it is likely that there will not be sufficient time to discuss them properly.) It is a pity that a legislative body, such as Kenya's parliament, prefers to run on emotion rather than hard facts.. I see you are hopeful discussion to changes of rules and procedures will fail on account of time as opposed to support! I take it you aren't happy with that possibility. Please focus on the message, not the messenger. And remain hopeful, because mine is just an opinion that could be wrong. Let's just wait and see. In my defence, my opinion is based on looking at (a) how past proposals have gone and (b) what the 2012 ASP suggested as a good path for proposals. Nowhere does "hope" come into that.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 20, 2013 0:30:24 GMT 3
OtishOtish, I salute you for your exemplary effort and outstanding passion towards informing us on the nitty-gritty matters concerning the ICC. I say thank you for your kind generousity. Indeed, members of Jukwaa and its readership owe you on this one. The following may be of relevance to what we are engaged on. Kindly read between the lines for apt understanding: Many Kenyans are now living with increased insecurity, caused by ethnic conflict, violence and common crime. We realise that the police work hard under difficult circumstances and highlight the importance of Kenya’s commitment to continued police reform.We emphasize the need for full respect for the rule of law and human rights, and upholding integrity and accountability. In the current legislative process, we encourage a focus on enabling police in tackling crime, and caution against allowing more latitude for the use of force. We also support the Kenyan people in the efforts to fight impunity and corruption, and welcome the government’s commitment to fulfilling its international obligations. We encourage national judicial processes to be initiated and are ready to provide support to generate justice to the victims of post-election violence.The report by the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission provides for restorative justice. It is justice, together with an intensified fight against corruption and mismanagement that is critical for democracy, a growing economy and lasting peace.In Kenya, as elsewhere, democracy rests on the mutually supporting pillars of equality, rule of law and fundamental freedoms. Indeed, a vibrant democracy thrives from a community of consenting and dissenting voices. We welcome the intention to review the recent Information and Communications Bill, and encourage efforts to ensure that the freedom of the media is protected. We encourage similar considerations of the recently proposed amendments to the Public Benefit Organisations Act, remembering that it is often to civil society organisations that the poorest Kenyans turn for support. As these two Bills are presently drafted, they could narrow the democratic space so clearly provided for in the Constitution, and restrict or even prevent the delivery of assistance in areas such as humanitarian aid, health, education, agriculture, implementation of the Constitution and other areas targeting marginalised groups. These areas are all critical to the attainment of Vision 2030 and its second Medium-term plan. This could ultimately risk curtailing Kenya’s economic progress.
Signed by Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Country Directors and Chargé d’affaires from: African Development Bank, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, The World Bank. What our Developement Partners have to say Friend Adulmote: I thank you for your kind words. Yes, this is one of those that is called diplomatic, the message being between the lines. Kenya is getting messages that, as you put it, " no doubt call for deeper thinking in order to realise the meaning behind the same". But is there hope, given that GoK at present seems incapable of reading even what's on the line, in huge black-and-white font, or hearing what's being shouted through the world's biggest megaphones? On another thread, someone asked in Kenya is on auto-pilot; that's an interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 20, 2013 16:13:07 GMT 3
Today we have yet another bizarre possible-only-from Kenya situation: Ruto is to lead the Kenyan delegation to this session of the Assembly of States parties! Imagine a criminal, on trial, leading a parliamentary delegation to discuss changes to those laws that he finds inconvenient! It is astonishing that GoK cannot appreciate the optics involved and why this sort of thing actually damages its interests. Naturally, the OTP has strongly objected, especially given that he was not granted absence for this sort of thing: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1683931.pdf
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Nov 20, 2013 16:30:35 GMT 3
What I find to be absolutely bizzare amongst the African members of ASP's proposal, is the irony that the ICC was specifically made to try such criminals as those who for one reason or another, cannot be tried in their respective states. Either because the local mechanisn is incapable or unwilling, such as the sitting members of a ruling government, or a sitting president of a particular state who cannot be tried by 'his' or 'her' own courts of law.
But the motion of amendment the African member states of the ICC wanted to bring about, was precisely designed to counter such an objective! I think they might as well have called for the abolition of the ICC out of its existence because it is simply unsuitable for African states consideraing their nature of being! That would make more sense.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 20, 2013 17:07:21 GMT 3
What I find to be absolutely bizzare amongst the African members of ASP's proposal, is the irony that the ICC was specifically made to try such criminals as those who for one reason or another, cannot be tried in their respective states. Either because the local mechanisn is incapable or unwilling, such as the sitting members of a ruling government, or a sitting president of a particular state who cannot be tried by 'his' or 'her' own courts of law. But the motion of amendment the African member states of the ICC wanted to bring about, was precisely designed to counter such an objective! I think they might as well have called for the abolition of the ICC out of its existence because it is simply unsuitable for African states consideraing their nature of being! That would make more sense. Article 27 of the statute was put in precisely for that purpose. The pro-AU Nigerian judge, in a pro-AU opinion, has this to say: 27. With the foregoing in mind, I have read with great care the outcome documents and other documents of the recently concluded Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and Government of the AU on 12 October 2013...
30. But, the first proposition in the quote is to the effect that an individual may not be tried before an international tribunal while in office as head of state or head of government. That proposition presents the far less satisfying option. There is much that is wrong with that proposition, beyond the unfortunate impression that all that it will take to secure protection against prosecution is for any individual already facing a criminal charge to campaign successfully for election as head of state. The proposition is inconsistent with the rule of law in many ways.
32. It must also be said very clearly that the obstacles obstructing the proposition in question, as a matter of international law, is not only Article 27 of the Rome Statute. It is also the case that customary international law does not recognize immunity for a head of state against prosecution before an international tribunal. In the Ruto Excusai Decision, it was clearly explained that customary international law had granted prosecutorial immunity to heads of state and heads of government and other senior officials of a state. But that immunity was only to protect them from prosecution before the domestic courts of other states. As regards prosecution before international tribunals, the situation has always been different—certainly since World War II The judge also notes that even the Kenyan constitution does not allow such immunity, something that GoK and the AU are not keep to talk about: 34. A second legal reason that the first proposition in the AU Summit outcome documents is not together with the rule of law is that it is apparently inconsistent with the terms of the Constitution of Kenya. That constitution follows Article 27 of the Rome Statute and international law in general in denying immunity for the President of Kenya as regards crimes proscribed in the Rome Statute. This is because the Constitution of Kenya specifically provides in s 143(4) that the immunity that even the President enjoys from criminal proceedings 'shall not extend to a crime for which the President may be prosecuted under any treaty to which Kenya is a party and which prohibits such immunity.' A well-known treaty that primarily comes to mind in the context of that provision is the ICC Statute under which the accused is now being prosecuted. It is a matter of respect for the rule of law and the constitution to respect the provisions of the Constitution of Kenya which has denied immunity to the President of Kenya for the crimes within the Rome Statute.
That is why any efforts to change Article 27 will always be doomed to failure: nobody will change "international law in general" simply because a couple of Kenyans don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 20, 2013 19:31:44 GMT 3
Today we have yet another bizarre possible-only-from Kenya situation: Ruto is to lead the Kenyan delegation to this session of the Assembly of States parties! Imagine a criminal, on trial, leading a parliamentary delegation to discuss changes to those laws that he finds inconvenient! It is astonishing that GoK cannot appreciate the optics involved and why this sort of thing actually damages its interests. Naturally, the OTP has strongly objected, especially given that he was not granted absence for this sort of thing: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1683931.pdfBensouda reacting to rumours from the civil societies......and being very well set up by the defence!!! Ruto was never going to to the Hague for the ASP assembly and was not even listed to speak today as it was the foreign Minister who had been listed to talk. What is even strange is the allegation that now Ruto the accused and Ruto the Deputy President of Kenya are the same person when the court has been very clear that it was not the official that was accused!!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 20, 2013 19:36:14 GMT 3
What I find to be absolutely bizzare amongst the African members of ASP's proposal, is the irony that the ICC was specifically made to try such criminals as those who for one reason or another, cannot be tried in their respective states. Either because the local mechanisn is incapable or unwilling, such as the sitting members of a ruling government, or a sitting president of a particular state who cannot be tried by 'his' or 'her' own courts of law. But the motion of amendment the African member states of the ICC wanted to bring about, was precisely designed to counter such an objective! I think they might as well have called for the abolition of the ICC out of its existence because it is simply unsuitable for African states consideraing their nature of being! That would make more sense. Article 27 of the statute was put in precisely for that purpose. The pro-AU Nigerian judge, in a pro-AU opinion, has this to say: 27. With the foregoing in mind, I have read with great care the outcome documents and other documents of the recently concluded Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and Government of the AU on 12 October 2013...
30. But, the first proposition in the quote is to the effect that an individual may not be tried before an international tribunal while in office as head of state or head of government. That proposition presents the far less satisfying option. There is much that is wrong with that proposition, beyond the unfortunate impression that all that it will take to secure protection against prosecution is for any individual already facing a criminal charge to campaign successfully for election as head of state. The proposition is inconsistent with the rule of law in many ways.
32. It must also be said very clearly that the obstacles obstructing the proposition in question, as a matter of international law, is not only Article 27 of the Rome Statute. It is also the case that customary international law does not recognize immunity for a head of state against prosecution before an international tribunal. In the Ruto Excusai Decision, it was clearly explained that customary international law had granted prosecutorial immunity to heads of state and heads of government and other senior officials of a state. But that immunity was only to protect them from prosecution before the domestic courts of other states. As regards prosecution before international tribunals, the situation has always been different—certainly since World War II The judge also notes that even the Kenyan constitution does not allow such immunity, something that GoK and the AU are not keep to talk about: 34. A second legal reason that the first proposition in the AU Summit outcome documents is not together with the rule of law is that it is apparently inconsistent with the terms of the Constitution of Kenya. That constitution follows Article 27 of the Rome Statute and international law in general in denying immunity for the President of Kenya as regards crimes proscribed in the Rome Statute. This is because the Constitution of Kenya specifically provides in s 143(4) that the immunity that even the President enjoys from criminal proceedings 'shall not extend to a crime for which the President may be prosecuted under any treaty to which Kenya is a party and which prohibits such immunity.' A well-known treaty that primarily comes to mind in the context of that provision is the ICC Statute under which the accused is now being prosecuted. It is a matter of respect for the rule of law and the constitution to respect the provisions of the Constitution of Kenya which has denied immunity to the President of Kenya for the crimes within the Rome Statute.
That is why any efforts to change Article 27 will always be doomed to failure: nobody will change "international law in general" simply because a couple of Kenyans don't like it. Are actually sure that the resolution by the AU was what the AU was taking to the ASP? I actually do not think so and the correct position is that the AU is doing something completely different at the ASP if the proposal is a request for "a special segment" rather than a proposal to amend the Statute which surely the mandarins at the AU would know very well!!!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 20, 2013 21:41:50 GMT 3
Are actually sure that the resolution by the AU was what the AU was taking to the ASP? I actually do not think so and the correct position is that the AU is doing something completely different at the ASP if the proposal is a request for "a special segment" rather than a proposal to amend the Statute which surely the mandarins at the AU would know very well!!! The resolution by the AU (at its Extraordinary Summit) included a part stating that sitting heads of state should be immune from prosecution. Kenya, citing that resolution in support, has asked for the Rome Statute to be amended to give such immunity. I hope the connection is now clear, but don't hesitate to let me know if you need further explanation.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 20, 2013 21:53:47 GMT 3
Bensouda reacting to rumours from the civil societies......and being very well set up by the defence!!! Ruto was never going to to the Hague for the ASP assembly and was not even listed to speak today as it was the foreign Minister who had been listed to talk. What is even strange is the allegation that now Ruto the accused and Ruto the Deputy President of Kenya are the same person when the court has been very clear that it was not the official that was accused!! I know you love to rail at the civil society, but, surely you can take the facts into account and still indulge in your favourite activity. You did not read that document, did you? Read it again, and pay attention to this part: " 6. On 15 November 2013, the Kenyan delegation notified the ASP of the full credentials of the Kenyan delegation to the ASP Twelfth Session commencing 20 November 2013 in The Hague, and that Ruto would in fact be leading the Kenyan delegation. The ASP was requested to rearrange the speaking schedule accordingly, indicating that Ruto intends to personally address the Assembly." See where the information came from?
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 21, 2013 2:57:48 GMT 3
Bensouda reacting to rumours from the civil societies......and being very well set up by the defence!!! Ruto was never going to to the Hague for the ASP assembly and was not even listed to speak today as it was the foreign Minister who had been listed to talk. What is even strange is the allegation that now Ruto the accused and Ruto the Deputy President of Kenya are the same person when the court has been very clear that it was not the official that was accused!! Ms Bensouda also submitted that Mr Ruto’s absence from Kenya could be a demonstration that his and Mr Kenyatta’s absence from the country at the same time was not anchored in the Constitution. “The Prosecution requests Trial Chamber V(A) to reconsider and vacate its decision to grant the excusal of the accused, Mr William Samoei Ruto from attending his trial on 21 November 2013,” she said in her application. “The Prosecution has been informed that Ruto is set to lead the Kenyan delegation to the Assembly of States Parties’ (ASP) 12th session, which commences on 20 November 2013 in The Hague. “The prosecution notes that Ruto’s excusal request was premised on the fact that he would be constitutionally required to be present in Kenya until 21 November, due to the absence of Kenya’s President, Mr Uhuru Kenyatta during that time.”
She said that considering Mr Ruto’s scheduled presence at the talks, his rationale for an excusal was no longer valid.www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Ruto-absence-from-court-irks-Bensouda/-/1064/2082088/-/ng5ofc/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 21, 2013 8:23:33 GMT 3
Are actually sure that the resolution by the AU was what the AU was taking to the ASP? I actually do not think so and the correct position is that the AU is doing something completely different at the ASP if the proposal is a request for "a special segment" rather than a proposal to amend the Statute which surely the mandarins at the AU would know very well!!! The resolution by the AU (at its Extraordinary Summit) included a part stating that sitting heads of state should be immune from prosecution. Kenya, citing that resolution in support, has asked for the Rome Statute to be amended to give such immunity. I hope the connection is now clear, but don't hesitate to let me know if you need further explanation. .....have you actually seen that request from Kenya??? The resolution of the AU cannot be an application to amend the Rome Statute, and the AU knowing this very well asked for something different rather than a resolution to amend!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 21, 2013 8:28:18 GMT 3
Bensouda reacting to rumours from the civil societies......and being very well set up by the defence!!! Ruto was never going to to the Hague for the ASP assembly and was not even listed to speak today as it was the foreign Minister who had been listed to talk. What is even strange is the allegation that now Ruto the accused and Ruto the Deputy President of Kenya are the same person when the court has been very clear that it was not the official that was accused!! I know you love to rail at the civil society, but, surely you can take the facts into account and still indulge in your favourite activity. You did not read that document, did you? Read it again, and pay attention to this part: " 6. On 15 November 2013, the Kenyan delegation notified the ASP of the full credentials of the Kenyan delegation to the ASP Twelfth Session commencing 20 November 2013 in The Hague, and that Ruto would in fact be leading the Kenyan delegation. The ASP was requested to rearrange the speaking schedule accordingly, indicating that Ruto intends to personally address the Assembly." See where the information came from? ...and that notification included Ruto as being in the Hague on 20th and as a speaker at the ASP on the same day??? Is that not the extent of the naivety of the OTP in working with rumours from the usual suspects once they saw Ruto's name in the list of Kenya's delegation? As perhaps well explained by Khan, he is only deemed to lead Kenya's delegation by virtue of seniority! And what do you say of the attempt by the OTP on who should speak for Kenya at the ASP?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 21, 2013 9:21:13 GMT 3
The resolution by the AU (at its Extraordinary Summit) included a part stating that sitting heads of state should be immune from prosecution. Kenya, citing that resolution in support, has asked for the Rome Statute to be amended to give such immunity. I hope the connection is now clear, but don't hesitate to let me know if you need further explanation. .....have you actually seen that request from Kenya??? The resolution of the AU cannot be an application to amend the Rome Statute, and the AU knowing this very well asked for something different rather than a resolution to amend! One more time. Please read slowly this time. 1. At its Extraordinary Summit, the AU passed a resolution that sitting heads of state should be immune from prosecution.2. On that basis, Kenya (among its several requests to amend the Rome Statute) included one to amend Article 27 of the Rome Statute, which deals with such immunity.Pause. Read the above again. Can you see the statement that the AU resolution is an application to amend the Rome Statue? Can't find it? Ah, that's because there is none! Can you identify who submitted the proposal to amend Article 27 of the Rome Statute? No? Go back and read it again. Hint: look at the fonts. Found it? Excellent! Let's continue ... 3. Several African countries have continued to press the point during the 2nd plenary yesterday---with Amina Mohamed doing her best to make a decent pitch for Kenya's proposed Rome-Statute amendments etc.---and you can expect them to do the same during the special "AU session" today. At the end of the day, it should be clear even to the Kenyans that the very silly request to tinker with the Rome Statute, solely to save two criminals, will go nowhere. Absolutely nowhereBy the way, I have some rather bad news for you: the probability that even a change of Rules regarding "presence" and "video" will be pushed to a much later date now stands at 90% by my reckoning. Yes, I have seen all of Kenya's requests to amend the Rome Statute (Articles 27, 63, 70, and 122), the preamble to the statute, as well as the one to amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Rule 34). I had a very hearty laugh.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 21, 2013 11:17:18 GMT 3
.....have you actually seen that request from Kenya??? The resolution of the AU cannot be an application to amend the Rome Statute, and the AU knowing this very well asked for something different rather than a resolution to amend! One more time. Please read slowly this time. 1. At its Extraordinary Summit, the AU passed a resolution that sitting heads of state should be immune from prosecution.2. On that basis, Kenya (among its several requests to amend the Rome Statute) included one to amend Article 27 of the Rome Statute, which deals with such immunity.Pause. Read the above again. Can you see the statement that the AU resolution is an application to amend the Rome Statue? Can't find it? Ah, that's because there is none! Can you identify who submitted the proposal to amend Article 27 of the Rome Statute? No? Go back and read it again. Hint: look at the fonts. Found it? Excellent! Let's continue ... 3. Several African countries have continued to press the point during the 2nd plenary yesterday---with Amina Mohamed doing her best to make a decent pitch for Kenya's proposed Rome-Statute amendments etc.---and you can expect them to do the same during the special "AU session" today. At the end of the day, it should be clear even to the Kenyans that the very silly request to tinker with the Rome Statute, solely to save two criminals, will go nowhere. Absolutely nowhereBy the way, I have some rather bad news for you: the probability that even a change of Rules regarding "presence" and "video" will be pushed to a much later date now stands at 90% by my reckoning. Yes, I have seen all of Kenya's requests to amend the Rome Statute (Articles 27, 63, 70, and 122), the preamble to the statute, as well as the one to amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Rule 34). I had a very hearty laugh. Moonki I know about the resolution by the AU and also know it is not an application to amend Article 27. I know of a debate as a special segment requested by the AU will discuss the issue of immunity for seating heads of state. I know NOT of an application by anyone to amend Article 27 as per the Rome Statute including Kenya. I know of statements made by many commentators about amending Article 27 but that continues to be a misstatement as opposed to a possibility! The 'video' rule change failing should really disappoint the sponsors...Britain?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 21, 2013 17:07:18 GMT 3
Moonki I know about the resolution by the AU and also know it is not an application to amend Article 27. I know of a debate as a special segment requested by the AU will discuss the issue of immunity for seating heads of state. I know NOT of an application by anyone to amend Article 27 as per the Rome Statute including Kenya. I know of statements made by many commentators about amending Article 27 but that continues to be a misstatement as opposed to a possibility! The 'video' rule change failing should really disappoint the sponsors...Britain? The world of reality is not limited to what you know. Read this one too slowly. 1. I have seen the application by Kenya to amend Article 27. It was submitted to the Working Group on Amendments on 7 Nov, by Koki Muli Grignon, (Kenyan UN Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative.) 2. You need to stop relying on The Daily Nonsense and The Stunted. Here are the facts: - Kenya (via Macharia Kamau) submitted to the Working Group on Amendments a request on the use of video. - Kenya's request (because of its scope) borders on a joke, and it was clear that it would go nowhere. - What the UK did was submit a similar but more modest and seemingly practical version. For that it has been paid back with asante ya punda.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 21, 2013 17:11:51 GMT 3
Moonki I know about the resolution by the AU and also know it is not an application to amend Article 27. I know of a debate as a special segment requested by the AU will discuss the issue of immunity for seating heads of state. I know NOT of an application by anyone to amend Article 27 as per the Rome Statute including Kenya. I know of statements made by many commentators about amending Article 27 but that continues to be a misstatement as opposed to a possibility! The 'video' rule change failing should really disappoint the sponsors...Britain? The world of reality is not limited to what you know. Read this one too slowly. 1. I have seen the application by Kenya to amend Article 27. It was submitted to the Working Group on Amendments on 7 Nov, by Koki Muli Grignon, (Kenyan UN Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative.) 2. You need to stop relying on The Daily Nonsense and The Stunted. Here are the facts: - Kenya (via Macharia Kamau) submitted to the Working Group on Amendments a request on the use of video. - Kenya's request (because of its scope) borders on a joke, and it was clear that it would go nowhere. - What the UK did was submit a similar but more modest and seemingly practical version. For that it has been paid back with asante ya punda. So we have to take you word for it that ...you saw the application! Give us a link or just STFU
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 21, 2013 17:23:11 GMT 3
So we have to take you word for it that ...you saw the application! Give us a link or just STFU STFU ?!? He, he, he ... you don't seem very happy. You really need to calm down as you will need all your strength when reality hits. What makes you think it's all accessible via a public link? Look, whether or not you "accept my word" on anything is your concern, not mine. But for further information, I encourage you to closely follow the proceedings of the ASP. (a) I expect that iscussions of the proposed amendments will start today, at the special "AU session" (Article 27 on immunity). (b) I expect that all the proposed amendments will be discussed explicitly during and after the two scheduled meetings of the Working Group on Amendments.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 21, 2013 19:50:57 GMT 3
Comedian Githu Muigai made a most astonishing statement at the "special AU session". According to him, the reason for asking for immunity for a head of state is not to protect an individual but to preserve the state.
Kenya = Kenyatta? Will Kenya collapse if Uhuru goes on trial?
Wow.
The Dutch representative has helpfully pointed out that it is individuals that get charged for international crimes, not states, and that individuals must be held to account regardless of their official capacity.
Several states have spoken against immunity for heads of state and any attempts to tinker with Rome-Statute Article 27 (which removes such immunity). On the other side, several African states spoke for impunity immunity for sitting heads of state. But best African performer was Senegal, with made an excellent anti-impunity, anti-immunity, pro-ICC statement.
It has been pointed out to the assembly that Article 143(4) of the Kenyan constitution removes immunity for the president in cases as those before the ICC. Githu Muigai and the AU have conveniently glossed over that one.
Representatives of the civil society speaking today gave GoK one heck of a beating.
Quote for today: "We have to be mindful that it is a criminal court. By definition the criminal court is not able to have only friends." (Tina Intelmann, ASP President, Yesterday)
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 21, 2013 23:15:15 GMT 3
This just in, RE Amina Mohamed who did not get much from this afternoon's "special AU session": hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_INTERNATIONAL_COURT_KENYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT"Kenya's foreign minister said Thursday her country will push ahead with moves to have the International Criminal Court's founding document amended to grant sitting heads of state immunity from prosecution. ... Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed told The Associated Press on Thursday that Kenya wants a special meeting of the ICC's Assembly of States Parties to discuss amending the Rome Statute that created the court."Said push is for amendment dead on arrival even if such a meeting is held. Deader than a stone.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 22, 2013 0:27:54 GMT 3
Moonki The 'video' rule change failing should really disappoint the sponsors...Britain? Here are the facts: - Kenya (via Macharia Kamau) submitted to the Working Group on Amendments a request on the use of video.
- Kenya's request (because of its scope) borders on a joke, and it was clear that it would go nowhere.
- What the UK did was submit a similar but more modest and seemingly practical version. For that it has been paid back with asante ya punda.Well, well, well. What do you know! It appears that even The Daily Nonsense is unable to keep sitting on the truth. Might as let it out, given that it was all about to come out on the world stage. This just in: www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Kenya-on-the-spot-over-trial-via-video-link/-/1064/2083778/-/169v1m/-/index.html"Kenya has backtracked on one of the amendments it initially proposed to the international law which created the ICC.
On November 4, Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Mr Macharia Kamau, had asked that a clause allowing attendance through “communication technology” be included as part of the amendments to the Rome Statute.
In a letter to Mr Paul Seger, the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN who was then chairing the UN Working Group on Amendments of the Rome Statute, Mr Kamau had asked for support for the proposed amendment which if accepted, would allow President Uhuru Kenyatta to attend court sessions via video link from Nairobi.
“Kenya wishes to submit the attached proposal for consideration by your working group at the meeting scheduled for Tuesday 5 November, 2013,” said part of the letter seen by the Nation.
One of the proposals included “changes to the trial schedule or temporary adjournment or attendance through the use of communications technology or through representation by counsel”.
Mr Kamau had asked Mr Seger’s team to consider his proposal alongside another by Botswana which also proposed amendments to the same clause.
However, the Kenya government is now up in arms after the British government submitted a similar proposal to allow some accussed to participate in trial through video link to ease of the burden of having to be physically present in the courtroom. Kenyan leaders say the British-sponsored amendment was meant to water down the changes being proposed by Kenya and the African Union for immunity for serving Heads of State.
CRITICISED BRITISH
On Wednesday, Jubilee MPs led by the Leader of Majority in Parliament, Mr Aden Dualle, criticised the British government for the proposal saying it was meant to create unnecessary confusion and water down Kenya’s move to push for deferral."
It is, however, incorrect to state that "Kenya backtracked on one of the amendments". Until there is an official notification to that effect, from GoK or the ASP, all we can say is that some confused Kenyan MPigs don't know what is going on. As things stand at the moment, the Working Group on Amendments will discuss all the proposals it has received on "presence" and "video". On the latter, the British one actually looks half decent and something could be made of it. The question is whether there is sufficient time before the end of the ASP sessions. There could be, but I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 22, 2013 8:34:59 GMT 3
Here are the facts: - Kenya (via Macharia Kamau) submitted to the Working Group on Amendments a request on the use of video.
- Kenya's request (because of its scope) borders on a joke, and it was clear that it would go nowhere.
- What the UK did was submit a similar but more modest and seemingly practical version. For that it has been paid back with asante ya punda.Well, well, well. What do you know! It appears that even The Daily Nonsense is unable to keep sitting on the truth. Might as let it out, given that it was all about to come out on the world stage. This just in: www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Kenya-on-the-spot-over-trial-via-video-link/-/1064/2083778/-/169v1m/-/index.html"Kenya has backtracked on one of the amendments it initially proposed to the international law which created the ICC.
On November 4, Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Mr Macharia Kamau, had asked that a clause allowing attendance through “communication technology” be included as part of the amendments to the Rome Statute.
In a letter to Mr Paul Seger, the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN who was then chairing the UN Working Group on Amendments of the Rome Statute, Mr Kamau had asked for support for the proposed amendment which if accepted, would allow President Uhuru Kenyatta to attend court sessions via video link from Nairobi.
“Kenya wishes to submit the attached proposal for consideration by your working group at the meeting scheduled for Tuesday 5 November, 2013,” said part of the letter seen by the Nation.
One of the proposals included “changes to the trial schedule or temporary adjournment or attendance through the use of communications technology or through representation by counsel”.
Mr Kamau had asked Mr Seger’s team to consider his proposal alongside another by Botswana which also proposed amendments to the same clause.
However, the Kenya government is now up in arms after the British government submitted a similar proposal to allow some accussed to participate in trial through video link to ease of the burden of having to be physically present in the courtroom. Kenyan leaders say the British-sponsored amendment was meant to water down the changes being proposed by Kenya and the African Union for immunity for serving Heads of State.
CRITICISED BRITISH
On Wednesday, Jubilee MPs led by the Leader of Majority in Parliament, Mr Aden Dualle, criticised the British government for the proposal saying it was meant to create unnecessary confusion and water down Kenya’s move to push for deferral."
It is, however, incorrect to state that "Kenya backtracked on one of the amendments". Until there is an official notification to that effect, from GoK or the ASP, all we can say is that some confused Kenyan MPigs don't know what is going on. As things stand at the moment, the Working Group on Amendments will discuss all the proposals it has received on "presence" and "video". On the latter, the British one actually looks half decent and something could be made of it. The question is whether there is sufficient time before the end of the ASP sessions. There could be, but I doubt it. ....I see you also got copies of the British High Commission propaganda that was being circulated by Ben Agina yesterday afternoon!!! Oh now Kenya is to blame?!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2013 9:36:15 GMT 3
* The UK proposal, which has some similarities proposals by others, is not a substitute. What's more, the proposal is to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, for which the process is quite different. Proposals to amend rules can and will be discussed at this ASP session. (It is however doubtful that there will be a decision on these recent rule-change proposals by Kenya, Jordan, Liechenstein, and the UK, because it is likely that there will not be sufficient time to discuss them properly.) It is a pity that a legislative body, such as Kenya's parliament, prefers to run on emotion rather than hard facts.. I see you are hopeful discussion to changes of rules and procedures will fail on account of time as opposed to support! Kamalet reminds me of Energizer dry cells adverts (Never say die). They do die eventually though. So today is D-Day for Mr Patience but am sure he will downplay the imminent "unwise" outcome of the ASP. Kama, do let us know what the next best thing for Uhuru is? Otish×2 hats off to you man. I know you are well plugged into the ASP ins and outs. Please continue with the "miseducation" of these hirelings of impunity.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Nov 22, 2013 10:40:34 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Nov 22, 2013 10:58:11 GMT 3
|
|