|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Sept 11, 2014 13:18:06 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 12, 2014 10:07:47 GMT 3
Kenya has not destroyed the ICC...it is the activists that have destroyed it. When their actions ceased being those of human rights for the oppressed and instead became political activists settling scores, the cause of the ICC was lost. These activists saw an opportunity of making money and became the procurement agencies of the ICC that was desperately looking for credibility - in the process the truth ceased being a factor in justice to the point where outright lies were being peddled. The latest witness in the Ruto case shows exactly where the problems of the ICC and its credibility emanate from.
If Kenyans had any faith in the court, the current duo would not be in power! Kenyans only know too well the people who should have been behind bars - and let no activist from the evil society tell you anything different! ICC destroyed most itself!
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Sept 12, 2014 16:49:07 GMT 3
Kamale, which is it? Did the NGO's contaminate the ICC (your opening statement) or did the ICC kill itself (your conclusion).
Personally I think FP has it right because whichever way you look at it, Kenyans have destroyed the ICC. Whether it's the overzealous NGO types pushing their politically skewed agenda, or hostile witnesses trying their get rich quick schemes, or Uhuruto using their new found political clout since they're in power to influence events, or a mix of ALL THE ABOVE, it amounts to the same thing. Kenyans are running rings around the ICC to the point that it doesn't know which end is up, what is real or imagined, and where the truth lies. Kenyan politics is so convoluted that the truth can only be captured at a distinct time. Case in point, post ICC charges alliance of Uhuruto who were arch enemies in '07 (PNU vs ODM) yet they were bosom buddies in '05 (ODM), but even tighter in '02 (KANU). There is no street side shell game anywhere on this planet that can trump what the Kenyan political class dish out to us on a daily basis. The ICC are just it's latest victims.
The sooner the OTP admits they were served with the KE version of a Nigerian 419 letter in the Kenya situation and drop it(aka move on), the better...
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 12, 2014 18:34:32 GMT 3
Kamale, which is it? Did the NGO's contaminate the ICC (your opening statement) or did the ICC kill itself (your conclusion). Personally I think FP has it right because whichever way you look at it, Kenyans have destroyed the ICC. Whether it's the overzealous NGO types pushing their politically skewed agenda, or hostile witnesses trying their get rich quick schemes, or Uhuruto using their new found political clout since they're in power to influence events, or a mix of ALL THE ABOVE, it amounts to the same thing. Kenyans are running rings around the ICC to the point that it doesn't know which end is up, what is real or imagined, and where the truth lies. Kenyan politics is so convoluted that the truth can only be captured at a distinct time. Case in point, post ICC charges alliance of Uhuruto who were arch enemies in '07 (PNU vs ODM) yet they were bosom buddies in '05 (ODM), but even tighter in '02 (KANU). There is no street side shell game anywhere on this planet that can trump what the Kenyan political class dish out to us on a daily basis. The ICC are just it's latest victims. The sooner the OTP admits they were served with the KE version of a Nigerian 419 letter in the Kenya situation and drop it(aka move on), the better... Interesting thing amigo, I had scripted the same observations of Kamale before I lost them to a computer freeze. ICC had an opportunity to flash out facts of the PEV after Kenya chose the vague way. But instead of getting down and dirty, like Ruto's prosecution has done, OTP seems to have outsourced the collection of evidence to individuals who masqueraded as human rights activists, but who apparently would sell souls as soon as there is a bidder. Now see the disgusting gelatin of egg York and egg white rolling down the face of an office that disgraces itself with every opportunity to present 'evidence'! Is it really Kenya that brought the OTP to this unenviable position, or did the OTP? When a person commits suicide do we say "see what the rope did", or do we ask "why would a man do such a thing"? There are lots of constructive things the man could have done with the rope. As for Uhuru and Ruto turning 180 from arch rivals to bosom buddies, if the false evidence was the strategic calculation of a competing politician, that politician has to be one of the dumbest ones. They were bound to be friends after they were cast into the 'commoness' of a dark hole. At least if they were accused of a common plot, and if they indeed were involved, the strategist could have counted on the two giving witness against each other - under the actual circumstances the only way for the two was to team up ... and did they do it well! Who ever tried to finish them will instead, catapult them forward to glory. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Sept 14, 2014 8:57:47 GMT 3
Mank, I still think blaming the rope (or the case in this case) overlooks what I find quite unique. Ocampo chose to copy paste NGO allegations and the Waki Report as his "strong" case. This strategy had always worked when he dealt with suspects of "lesser" African states. Let's not forget he had been dealing with Congolese warlords and Sudanese potentials before he faced his worst nightmare, the Kenyan politician & his subjects. The Congolese and Sudanese chose the predictable route of running away from ICC Court summons. The Kenyans took the battle to the court & therefore can always claim they have been cooperating with the court by their mere presence.
Where you see the Uhuruto alliance as inevitable, I see it as remarkable. The PEV killing fields were primarily in RVP. The initial Mungiki retaliatory attacks at RVP were routed so softer targets were found in Nakuru and Naivasha. The level of animosity between Uhuru and Ruto at the time would never have made it possible for anyone to predict an Uhuruto political alliance that would hold. Indeed this mercenary nature of KE politicians to allow bygones be bygones & manage the herculean task of uniting their followers into their united vision is what has thrown off the ICC (& poor RAO who went down as innocent bystanders do in drive by shootings). The narrative that Kikuyu and Kalenjins are mortal enemies just doesn't hold water once the numerous "prayer rallies" succeeded into making the unholy alliance the electoral victory we saw in 2013. The case therefore ends up sounding incredible as it has done.
Add to that the mercenary nature of some of the OTP's "key witnesses" further poking holes into the ICC narrative and it becomes clear why the cases will eventually just collapse.
Kenyans have done serious damage to the ICC. The sooner it cuts its losses and drops the convoluted cases, the better for its own sake...
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 16, 2014 6:26:06 GMT 3
Amigo, we are saying the same thing on the question of whether the problem is the rope (Kenya case) or the man (OTP). You said Ocampo chose to copy paste NGO allegations and Waki report as his "strong" case. That is exactly what I was saying - he tied the rope around his neck (put the OTP on cross airs) in so doing. He could have returned the rope unused if he did not have a constructive use for it. I find this very interesting ... This strategy had always worked when he dealt with suspects of "lesser" African states. Let's not forget he had been dealing with Congolese warlords and Sudanese potentials before he faced his worst nightmare, the Kenyan politician & his subjects. It reminds me what a couple of Rwandese had told me would be the ICC's doing in Kenya (and that exactly is what was in the plan, and would have materialized ... except as you say this was not the usual Afrika case OTP prosecuted). Where you see the Uhuruto alliance as inevitable, I see it as remarkable. This was a perfect play of game theory my friend - I believe if we knew as much as Ruto and Uhuru knew about the cases at the very start we would have called this outcome to perfection! I will explain myself in a moment. Let me go to this part of your write up,: The level of animosity between Uhuru and Ruto at the time would never have made it possible for anyone to predict an Uhuruto political alliance that would hold. I will explain why you are wrong about that! The animosity was "incentive"-driven. So is the current love. ... I am a little surprised amigo Jackswanga has not picked on the prevalence of that word or concept (incentive)! After "nuance" I suspected that would follow quickly. Now let's go up the thread and pick this: The PEV killing fields were primarily in RVP. The initial Mungiki retaliatory attacks at RVP were routed so softer targets were found in Nakuru and Naivasha. ! Ironic ... and that is the point you are making. That irony makes sense if you don't factor amigo Ocampo and his NGO helpers in the mix. These parties changed the incentive system confronting our inter-earlier arch enemies, turning them into friends. I am not sure how familiar you are with game theory ... I sure don't want to assume that you are totally unaware of it, but I see that you are not looking at this friendship as the outcome of a constrained game. But game theory provides rationale for calling outcomes given full information about a given situation, assuming the decision makers in that situation are good at analyzing the scenarios. My thinking that the friendship was predestined by the incentives and the computing power of the Ocampo 2 is premised on the assumption that the two guys were innocent, and they both knew that they were innocent. If you can entertain that possibility then I am sure you will change your earlier stance that the friendship outcome would have been impossible to predict. Once the two would figure that they had a common enemy, then their enmity would be no more - each was a soldier in a war against multitudes (remember Kenya was largely on Ocampo's side). Imagine now how close each felt toward the other, knowing that that other one understood the victim position just as well, and was as motivated to fight the villain Ocampo! It was a no-brainer! The violence and anything else that had happened earlier did not count at that point. The outcome, under the circumstances, is not something that happens with politicians only. You and your enemy (assuming you have one - you need at least one  , but don't pick me) would have done the same under the circumstances. It would not have taken long for them to realize that because each man had his tribesmen fully behind him, and that their new-found friendship was enough to bring the tribes behind their union, then the situational friendship was political capital - and that is how those who wanted to pin them lifted them up. The outcome is remarkable indeed ... but more remarkable is that if we knew their situation in the same way they knew it, then we could have predicted the outcome - unless of course we failed to indulge in contemplation of their moves. If you watch chess players you will often predict a player's next move ... and if you are really good you will predict many of the moves. This was not that hard an outcome to predict, given info. Of course if Ruto and Uhuru had been on the same case, and if we assume there was some mutual guilt conscious, in that case we can envisage a "prisoner's dilemma" scenario. ... Ruto spilling the beans on Uhuru, and Uhuru doing the same. In that case the rope would have been in good use and the man from Argentina would come out looking like a genius .... quite the opposite of what he and his successor seem to be coming out to be presently. |
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 16, 2014 10:07:58 GMT 3
‘Chama cha Ugatuzi’, translated as “Devolution Party’. Read more at: www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000135071&story_title=Politics:%20plan-afoot-to-form-new-party-in-ruto-s-turf-over-falloutHe urges the Chamber not to dismiss the case against Mr Kenyatta because that will allegedly put the credibility of the ICC on the line. As I read this I wondered; will the ICC's credibility not suffer a severer blow were it to continue with a case with no evidence to back it? That the plight and loss the PEV victims suffered is unimaginable has never been in question, but to go forward with a hopelessly flawed case is to create an injustice of monumental proportions that will destroy the ICC. The tone of his submissions is unnecessarily disrespectful, hostile and the substance evidently inaccurate in many respects. For instance, he takes a swipe at President Uhuru Kenyatta accusing him of hostility towards the ICC and for creating a "climate of fear" which led to the withdrawal of witnesses and unwillingness of individuals with key information regarding the case to come forward. As an individual who has followed the ICC cases closely, I find this allegation not only inaccurate but also misleading given the Prosecutor's admissions that the reason for collapse of the case against Mr Kenyatta is the confession by Key witnesses that they had lied about Mr Kenyatta's alleged role in the PEV. In the face of the Prosecutor's admissions, it is disingenuous for anyone including the victims' ICC lawyer to attempt to convince Kenyans that these cases should proceed, nevertheless. I am familiar with the workings of the ICC and I know that those discharging their various functions at the Court enjoy generous perks and other benefits. As Mr Gaynor enjoys the comfort and "good life" that Nairobi has to offer, one wonders how many of his victim clients are able to access similar comforts including dining at the Muthaiga Country Club. Is he genuinely in touch with the reality of their status or is he using his privileged, ivory tower position to simply advance a personal agenda? www.standardmedia.co.ke/m/?articleID=2000135100&story_title=Why-ICC-lawyer-is-wrong-on-Kenyan-Judiciary |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 16, 2014 19:25:44 GMT 3
Mank, I still think blaming the rope (or the case in this case) overlooks what I find quite unique. Ocampo chose to copy paste NGO allegations and the Waki Report as his "strong" case. This strategy had always worked when he dealt with suspects of "lesser" African states. Let's not forget he had been dealing with Congolese warlords and Sudanese potentials before he faced his worst nightmare, the Kenyan politician & his subjects. The Congolese and Sudanese chose the predictable route of running away from ICC Court summons. The Kenyans took the battle to the court & therefore can always claim they have been cooperating with the court by their mere presence. Where you see the Uhuruto alliance as inevitable, I see it as remarkable. The PEV killing fields were primarily in RVP. The initial Mungiki retaliatory attacks at RVP were routed so softer targets were found in Nakuru and Naivasha. The level of animosity between Uhuru and Ruto at the time would never have made it possible for anyone to predict an Uhuruto political alliance that would hold. Indeed this mercenary nature of KE politicians to allow bygones be bygones & manage the herculean task of uniting their followers into their united vision is what has thrown off the ICC (& poor RAO who went down as innocent bystanders do in drive by shootings). The narrative that Kikuyu and Kalenjins are mortal enemies just doesn't hold water once the numerous "prayer rallies" succeeded into making the unholy alliance the electoral victory we saw in 2013. The case therefore ends up sounding incredible as it has done. Add to that the mercenary nature of some of the OTP's "key witnesses" further poking holes into the ICC narrative and it becomes clear why the cases will eventually just collapse. Kenyans have done serious damage to the ICC. The sooner it cuts its losses and drops the convoluted cases, the better for its own sake... KENYA DESTROYED IT OR NOT? Mank, like you I do not believe in an inherent animosity between Uhuru and Ruto. These guys are and were KANU damu and princelings of Arap Moi. Ruto did dilly-dally until very late before he joined the Pentagon back in 2007 in the accommodative formula. (we saw the same thing again in 2012 even after the prayer rallies of the G8-7- ...3. Later the ''eastandard paper'' did a behind the scenes expose on just how high the stakes were. Perhaps you remember Ruto joking thus: ' 'If you see Raila tell him I am also looking for him!'' In fact when Uhuru agreed to the shetani deal and accepted Mudavadi as replacement at the headof the ticket, William Ruto was ready to bolt back to Rala: no kidding! this means that for me, the qualification inevitability is still too strong to pre-define this Uhuruto union once the indictment was enacted! –-these are power games with real material issues defining calculations. And Ruto knew Mudavadi from ODM up close, a weakly wretch you wouldn't trust your fate with. Would do Moi's bidding, and Moi wanted to drink Ruto's blood then!) Ruto only joined Raila's majimboism in the run to 2007 when it was clear the Kalenjin ground had shifted, and it was suicidal not to join fates with the ground swell. A Moi protege at first, it always looked like rebelling against the omnipresent Moi was the suicide. This late jump of Ruto to the rolling, popular Kalenjin land-grievance train with its anti-Kikuyu headism, is one reason why I always maintain Ruto was not part of the planning –-If there was a plan  as Martha Karua has always insisted. Ruto as a minor facilitator? Yes, because it was now mass action and he was the King of the area. But the buck ultimately stops with Raila who of course was the political captain of the forces operative under the Orange caliphate  of then. NB: I am always categorical Uhuru Kenyatta facilitated, and bears responsibility for the roasting of my tribespeople at Naivasha. WHY? Why do I never give him the benefit of doubt? Am I prejudiced against Muigai? –-A long story for another day! Mank I agree with b6k when he characterises other countries as ''lesser''. The ICC had only dealt with lesser countries. Those ones would not dare challenge Ocampo: you wouldn't even dare entertain the thought of prosecuting Tony Blair or George Bush over Iraq, would you? So you deny they committed genocide in Iraq, Ocampo? Good Ocampo could pretend he had not heard the question. –-Fool that he was! Well, Kenyans used this silence to ''prove  '' the court was RACIST, and picking on what it thought of as WEAK AFRICANS easier to INTIMIDATE.Kenyans supported the court yes, but that was because they believed it was more competent than the local Mutunga-led Jua-kali bandias. Once the veneer of competence was exposed as a dirty coat of scam no cleaner than our locals, the ICC was a gonna. There is only this loose end: The Kenyan government has behaved in a way which can be successfully argued as OBSTRUCTION of the process. A possible explanation could be, hiding incriminating evidence? If innocent, why not play open cart? –-that is the one the court is hanging on now. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 17, 2014 0:43:31 GMT 3
KENYA DESTROYED IT OR NOT? Mank, like you I do not believe in an inherent animosity between Uhuru and Ruto.... Ruto only joined Raila's majimboism in the run to 2007 when it was clear the Kalenjin ground had shifted, and it was suicidal not to join fates with the ground swell. A Moi protege at first, it always looked like rebelling against the omnipresent Moi was the suicide. This late jump of Ruto to the rolling, popular Kalenjin land-grievance train with its anti-Kikuyu headism, is one reason why I always maintain Ruto was not part of the planning –-If there was a plan as Martha Karua has always insisted. Ruto as a minor facilitator? Yes, because it was now mass action and he was the King of the area. But the buck ultimately stops with Raila who of course was the political captain of the forces operative under the Orange caliphate of then. There are no enemies in polytricks. ... by the way, should we go in with Assad to bomb the hell out of those nut jobs ... ISIS? Methinks the answer is that one way or another we shall have to ... unless we Sadam Hussein him before going for the ISIS, but then that's more than a handful of a mess. So the question is [given we are resolute about bombing the hell out of them], should we go in with him openly, or is it better to pretend that we are not in with him? NB: I am always categorical Uhuru Kenyatta facilitated, and bears responsibility for the roasting of my tribespeople at Naivasha. WHY? Why do I never give him the benefit of doubt? Am I prejudiced against Muigai? –-A long story for another day! I just hope you are wrong ... but I am never comfortably ignoring Nguyai ... see, like I was telling amigo B6K, at times an enemy is your better bet. Friends can be lousy! But it is not really that I think Uhuru is guilty of roasting my in laws (and I pray he is not), but I think Nguyai presents a gradient that even Mr. President seems very frustrated not to find in the OTP's joke of a case book. At the end of the day the question must be "how do we show that it was worth this institution's time?"  Mank I agree with b6k when he characterises other countries as ''lesser''. The ICC had only dealt with lesser countries. I agree too amigo. Kenya is no Rwanda ... although I think in Rwanda case there was evidence against many people floating at the surface. Perhaps that's what trained the office into laziness. There is only this loose end: The Kenyan government has behaved in a way which can be successfully argued as OBSTRUCTION of the process. A possible explanation could be, hiding incriminating evidence? If innocent, why not play open cart? –-that is the one the court is hanging on now. Amigo, I am curious about that. Do you think the government has been obstructionist?? Are you one of those who argue that Kenya ought to comply with OTP's demands and drop loadfulls of Uhuru's bank statements at the lazy outfit's door? I would differ vigorously - if the OTP did enough job to show criminal responsibility, and was asking for financial records only to substantiate a case they have put forward, I would see it differently. But an effort to data-mine should be frustrated with its due contempt. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 17, 2014 21:36:15 GMT 3
There is only this loose end: The Kenyan government has behaved in a way which can be successfully argued as OBSTRUCTION of the process. A possible explanation could be, hiding incriminating evidence? If innocent, why not play open cart? –-that is the one the court is hanging on now. Amigo, I am curious about that. Do you think the government has been obstructionist?? Are you one of those who argue that Kenya ought to comply with OTP's demands and drop loadfulls of Uhuru's bank statements at the lazy outfit's door? I would differ vigorously - if the OTP did enough job to show criminal responsibility, and was asking for financial records only to substantiate a case they have put forward, I would see it differently. But an effort to data-mine should be frustrated with its due contempt. Mank, outrightly I am a mean chap on this. Just like I do not believe in Kenya surrendering any citizen of hers/ours –-extradition-- to foreign shores (like the guys Gichangi and Saitoti sold to Guantanamo and the other ones Mutula Kilonzo sold to Yoweri alleging terrorists before a Kenyan court shifted the evidence and determined the cases on merit), I do not believe in Kenyan intelligence services furnishing their records to foreign organisations whose bureaucrats we know not who they work for. Remember the International Atomic Energy under Mohamed el Baradei during the INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ to deny Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons? Now we know 2/3s of those guys were working for foreign intelligence organisations and running completely different agendas. International treaties my foot. So we signed the Rome statutes. I were there I would only have signed selected portions. By my problem now is, having signed the whole deal, and now recanting without honesty, puts the AG Muigai in an obstructionist guilt. Because he is forced to use stupid arguments, and embarrass himself in that court. If you have watched, you have seen the judges treat him with disdain, and he has had to accept embarrassing corrections. This is not because Muigai Githu is stupid. This is because however clever one is, defending a stupid position is always stupid. And if one is defending against those at least as intelligent as one is, then one appears even more stupid as to be the degree of a moron. That is why I believe we better pass a law at home calling it quits on these cases. But if we maintain total allegiance to statutes we made even part of our local KATIBA, and we want to selecteively dilly-dally in court without repudiating the scam wholesale, professor Githu Muigai will continue looking like a village joke before the Japanese lady and her panel of learned friends. Good thing Githu has no pride. So his ritual degradation must continue. At least former DGI Gichangi told Ocampo Kenya is sovereign in some intelligence matters even if he, Ocampo, were god. That, is the law. Red line specified boldly. These guys at the ICC could be working for who knows!? Enemies of Kenya's future. I wouldn't take the risk, trusting El Baradei!You get me clear Amigo!? |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 18, 2014 6:18:50 GMT 3
Amigo, I am curious about that. Do you think the government has been obstructionist?? Are you one of those who argue that Kenya ought to comply with OTP's demands and drop loadfulls of Uhuru's bank statements at the lazy outfit's door? I would differ vigorously - if the OTP did enough job to show criminal responsibility, and was asking for financial records only to substantiate a case they have put forward, I would see it differently. But an effort to data-mine should be frustrated with its due contempt. Mank, outrightly I am a mean chap on this. Just like I do not believe in Kenya surrendering any citizen of hers/ours –-extradition-- to foreign shores (like the guys Gichangi and Saitoti sold to Guantanamo and the other ones Mutula Kilonzo sold to Yoweri alleging terrorists before a Kenyan court shifted the evidence and determined the cases on merit), I do not believe in Kenyan intelligence services furnishing their records to foreign organisations whose bureaucrats we know not who they work for. Remember the International Atomic Energy under Mohamed el Baradei during the INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ to deny Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons? Now we know 2/3s of those guys were working for foreign intelligence organisations and running completely different agendas. International treaties my foot. So we signed the Rome statutes. I were there I would only have signed selected portions. By my problem now is, having signed the whole deal, and now recanting without honesty, puts the AG Muigai in an obstructionist guilt. Because he is forced to use stupid arguments, and embarrass himself in that court. If you have watched, you have seen the judges treat him with disdain, and he has had to accept embarrassing corrections. This is not because Muigai Githu is stupid. This is because however clever one is, defending a stupid position is always stupid. And if one is defending against those at least as intelligent as one is, then one appears even more stupid as to be the degree of a moron. That is why I believe we better pass a law at home calling it quits on these cases. But if we maintain total allegiance to statutes we made even part of our local KATIBA, and we want to selecteively dilly-dally in court without repudiating the scam wholesale, professor Githu Muigai will continue looking like a village joke before the Japanese lady and her panel of learned friends. Good thing Githu has no pride. So his ritual degradation must continue. At least former DGI Gichangi told Ocampo Kenya is sovereign in some intelligence matters even if he, Ocampo, were god. That, is the law. Red line specified boldly. These guys at the ICC could be working for who knows!? Enemies of Kenya's future. I wouldn't take the risk, trusting El Baradei!You get me clear Amigo!? I get you clear amigo. And I am impressed by your thought that if you were our representative at the signature table you would only have signed portions of the statute. I wonder whether it is still possible to withdraw out commitment on parts of the statute ... OTP should never lazy around expecting its work to be done by the state just because of a signature that was put years ago without the knowledge of all circumstances that would bring the state to the court. You make a great point too, with the El Baradei pointer. It's a buggy buggy world out there! |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Sept 19, 2014 22:16:30 GMT 3
Interesting reads here. That the ICC was never serious from the get go has never been in doubt. The OTP for some very unfortunate reasons decided to transform a legal process into a political game. The biggest mistake they made was to have a predetermined outcome and then try to work backwards. This opened them up for what they are experiencing now. But the court is hard of learning, just when one thinks that the court is waking up to the realities of how deep a hole they are in, they turn back and straight go into digging themselves further deeper. For instance, of what use is the latest move of summoning Kenyatta for the status conference? Just to show that they are capable of summoning anyone, for anything and nothing? standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000135501/president-uhuru-summoned-to-attend-icc-status-conference~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~ |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Sept 21, 2014 13:52:05 GMT 3
Mank, I've heard about game theory but only in passing. It's interesting that you mention players can only make the best decisions based on game theory if they have full information. I still believe that the only player within the Dynamic Duo who would've come close to having that full 411 was UK, being the godson of Mwai & fighting a white hot battle against the "No Raila No Peace" army. If you think about it with hindsight, which is always 20/20, it explains why the ICC trials were sold as though Raila (Barabas) sold not only Uhuru, which he did, to Ocampo but Ruto as well, which we have subsequently found out he didn't. Where Uhuru would've been privy to more information by virtue of being in the group in power, WSR would've been operating in the dark as not only did he have the state machinery against him but he felt betrayed by ODM as only he (& his community by extension when you look at the ODM half of the original O6) was apparently held responsible of the violence instigated by the ODM side.
Allow me to expound a bit. Of course when I say Raila I don't necessarily mean he personally did the Barabas act. The so called "progressives" in KE who would've preferred a Raila win were more than happy to oblige as we saw with letters from ODM to the court or from NGO's that wanted to make it impossible for the Dynamic Duo to run for office. Naturally the son of a Ker also made it easy to sell the narrative that he sold Ruto to the ICC when he made reckless comments like the duo ought to have been in jail at a very early stage in the process, contrary to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
All this may have compelled WSR to not only willingly work with UK but to convince his community, almost to a man, to throw in their lot with UK since they were betrayed by Arap Mibei.
When you fast-forward to the current state of affairs I wonder whether all the fallout within URP is emanating more from this perceived hoodwinking of a people over the ICC question when what was ultimately the "personal challenge(s)" of a handful of individuals was sold as an attack against the community. It seems increasingly unlikely that WSR has the kind of clout he had only last year within the former RVP.
This "who-stitched-Ruto-up" still affects all of us as was demonstrated when WSR overruled UK on the need for dialogue. As you said earlier, very peculiar things going on in KE "polytricks"...
Mwalimumkuu, when one takes into consideration what the ICC actually said when they summoned UK, that the case has reached a "critical juncture", I find it myopic of those arguing against the summons. Like a junction, juncture can imply something that can go either way. For all we know they may be summoning him in order to defer the case for a longer period of time or or even to withdraw the charges all together. Given how Uhuru trounced the former prosecutor when he was last allowed to address the court, I doubt they'll be very eager to turn up the heat on him. I presume even a president has the right not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Dec 4, 2014 12:37:24 GMT 3
So it looks like it's taken the judges 2 months to make the decisive action they promised in a couple of weeks when UK was summoned to The Hague. Fatou Bensouda has finally been put on the spot to either drop the charges or proceed with the OTP case. Before Uhuru breaks out the champagne, the judges have not acquitted him, they have refused to further adjourn the case against him. This may leave a narrow opportunity for Bensouda, or any other prosecutor in the future, to file fresh charges against Uhuru, possibly at a time when he may be a citizen of KE and not a president anymore. Being a relatively young man, that's not an entirely comforting scenario as he may have to look over his shoulder for many years to come. Another issue that may arise will be how the dropping of the case against Uhuru will play out with his relationship with his deputy, WSR. Ruto will remains embroiled in a case while Uhuru will enjoy having Njakip's monkey off his back at least during his presidency. Given Mutahi Ngunyi recently tweeted cryptic missives as to the originators of the Mandera attacks, it will be interesting to see how the TNA & URP alliance will fare once one of the Dynamic Duo Siamese twins is freed from the clutches of the ICC... Here's how one analyst documented what could be the end of Uhuru's troubles with the court: Kenyatta Trial On Its Last Legs? ICC Trial Chamber V(b) in the case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has given the prosecution one week to file a notice on the way forward indicating either: “its withdrawal of the charges”; or “that the evidentiary basis has improved to a degree which would justify proceeding to trial.” By M A In its ruling published today, the judges noted that: “although impeding access to evidence, including on the part of states parties, must not be permitted to be considered as a viable policy to frustrate prosecutions,” the concerns have to be context specific, and “balanced against the interest of justice, including the rights of the accused and the integrity of the proceedings.” The chamber indicated that when they granted the last adjournment request in the case, they raised concerns about: ~“prosecution’s admission about the insufficiency of the then available evidence" ~"the speculative prospect of obtaining further relevant evidence to support the charges" ~"the timeliness and thoroughness of prosecution investigations" According to them, these matters influenced their decision to reject the prosecution’s request for an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings, pending the Kenyan government’s fulfilment of an outstanding cooperation request for documents, which include Kenyatta’s financial records. Noting that the prosecution had ample time to prepare the case against Kenyatta (five years), the judges indicated that the right of an accused to be “tried without undue delay” should not be compromised, especially in light of the questions raised about the diligence of the prosecution. Moreover, although the prosecution suggested that Kenyatta may have interfered with the proceedings in his case, the chamber pointed out that the “prosecution has conceded that it has no evidence to support such an allegation.” Thus, given the forementioned inadequacies of the prosecution, the chamber felt that Kenyatta’s state duties did not warrant any further adjournment. However, indicating the need to balance justice for the victims and justice for the accused, the judges were categorical: “refusal to grant a further adjournment in this case does not prejudice the right of the prosecution to bring new charges against the accused at a later date.” In its ruling, the judges also rejected a request by the defence to terminate the case, indicating that the application lacked clarity and did not meet the necessary threshold. Moreover, the chamber stated that its decision to deny the prosecution’s adjournment request would likely mean an end to the proceedings. Overall, the chamber sighted a lack of sufficient legal basis for the two requests from the prosecution and the defence: “while both parties have sought to rely upon the exceptionality or uniqueness of the present circumstances, the chamber considers that this does not obviate the need for grounding the requests on a clear legal basis.” Editorial note: some sections of this report were copy-edited on 4 December 2014. thehaguetrials.co.ke/article/kenyatta-trial-its-last-legs |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Dec 8, 2014 6:01:20 GMT 3
So it looks like it's taken the judges 2 months to make the decisive action they promised in a couple of weeks when UK was summoned to The Hague. Fatou Bensouda has finally been put on the spot to either drop the charges or proceed with the OTP case. Before Uhuru breaks out the champagne, the judges have not acquitted him, they have refused to further adjourn the case against him. This may leave a narrow opportunity for Bensouda, or any other prosecutor in the future, to file fresh charges against Uhuru, possibly at a time when he may be a citizen of KE and not a president anymore. Being a relatively young man, that's not an entirely comforting scenario as he may have to look over his shoulder for many years to come. Another issue that may arise will be how the dropping of the case against Uhuru will play out with his relationship with his deputy, WSR. Ruto will remains embroiled in a case while Uhuru will enjoy having Njakip's monkey off his back at least during his presidency. Given Mutahi Ngunyi recently tweeted cryptic missives as to the originators of the Mandera attacks, it will be interesting to see how the TNA & URP alliance will fare once one of the Dynamic Duo Siamese twins is freed from the clutches of the ICC... Here's how one analyst documented what could be the end of Uhuru's troubles with the court: Kenyatta Trial On Its Last Legs? ICC Trial Chamber V(b) in the case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has given the prosecution one week to file a notice on the way forward indicating either: “its withdrawal of the charges”; or “that the evidentiary basis has improved to a degree which would justify proceeding to trial.” By M A In its ruling published today, the judges noted that: “although impeding access to evidence, including on the part of states parties, must not be permitted to be considered as a viable policy to frustrate prosecutions,” the concerns have to be context specific, and “balanced against the interest of justice, including the rights of the accused and the integrity of the proceedings.” The chamber indicated that when they granted the last adjournment request in the case, they raised concerns about: ~“prosecution’s admission about the insufficiency of the then available evidence" ~"the speculative prospect of obtaining further relevant evidence to support the charges" ~"the timeliness and thoroughness of prosecution investigations" According to them, these matters influenced their decision to reject the prosecution’s request for an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings, pending the Kenyan government’s fulfilment of an outstanding cooperation request for documents, which include Kenyatta’s financial records. Noting that the prosecution had ample time to prepare the case against Kenyatta (five years), the judges indicated that the right of an accused to be “tried without undue delay” should not be compromised, especially in light of the questions raised about the diligence of the prosecution. Moreover, although the prosecution suggested that Kenyatta may have interfered with the proceedings in his case, the chamber pointed out that the “prosecution has conceded that it has no evidence to support such an allegation.” Thus, given the forementioned inadequacies of the prosecution, the chamber felt that Kenyatta’s state duties did not warrant any further adjournment. However, indicating the need to balance justice for the victims and justice for the accused, the judges were categorical: “refusal to grant a further adjournment in this case does not prejudice the right of the prosecution to bring new charges against the accused at a later date.” In its ruling, the judges also rejected a request by the defence to terminate the case, indicating that the application lacked clarity and did not meet the necessary threshold. Moreover, the chamber stated that its decision to deny the prosecution’s adjournment request would likely mean an end to the proceedings. Overall, the chamber sighted a lack of sufficient legal basis for the two requests from the prosecution and the defence: “while both parties have sought to rely upon the exceptionality or uniqueness of the present circumstances, the chamber considers that this does not obviate the need for grounding the requests on a clear legal basis.” Editorial note: some sections of this report were copy-edited on 4 December 2014. thehaguetrials.co.ke/article/kenyatta-trial-its-last-legsB6K, The curtain has finally come down for one of the Kenyan cases at the Hague. The other one is struggling badly. There are obviously many lessons ICC must learn from these cases, the court does not just have the capacity to deal with organized systems such as Kenya. The OTP committed many acts of omission at the start of the process that has come back to haunt it badly. As the state parties conference starts in New York, Kenya is pushing for a slot on the agenda to introduce some far reaching changes to the statute, which is causing jitters among the courts establishment. It will be an interesting week. All said and done, the court has suffered an irreparable damage. ~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~ |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Dec 8, 2014 6:23:12 GMT 3
As the state parties conference starts in New York, Kenya is pushing for a slot on the agenda to introduce some far reaching changes to the statute, which is causing jitters among the courts establishment. It will be an interesting week. Kenya's unpleasant jokes on behalf of Kenyatta won't be on the agenda, unless you want to count one of the numerous, little side-shows that normally go with the annual session. Try and look beyond the bought-and-paid-for Kenyan media. Perhaps one "positive" about all this is that people now know of the annual ASP sessions! Even when Uhuru, Ruto, etc. were first indicted, these ASP sessions were considered (by Africans especially) to be largely dull affairs. Never heard of them. Couldn't distinguish them from a huge lump of mud ... But---2013---as soon as Uhuru & Ruto got into power! Aiiiiyyaaaaiiiiieeee! Anyways ... Enough is enough. Will the AU fight for Kenyan and African Right? Hmmm. Let's see ... Since the Kenyan cases started, and while the AU argued that the ICC was controlled by nasty Western Imperialists---never mind the self-referrals---some African countries were very busy doing more "un-African" things: * Mali (2012) asked the ICC to open an investigation in that country. Not a single word from the AU & Pan-Africanists.* CAR (2014!) asked the ICC open an investigation in that country. Another one! Not a single word from the AU & Pan-Africanists.* The Big One: Nigeria has been pestering the ICC to open an investigation on Boko Haram, and, finally, it looks like that they are getting some traction. Not a single word from the AU & Pan-Africanists. Maybe not such a "good" idea to oppose what Nigeria is proposing? And so on, and so forth. Unless one of their own is in trouble, is there a single person who believes that the AU & Pan-Africanists really care about justice and whatever? Yes, that's it. And everyone else knows it too. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Dec 8, 2014 11:51:49 GMT 3
Mwalimumkuu, the main problem of the OTP was to fully rely on third party reports, some of which may have been compromised by "evidence" given by those with axes to grind with certain individuals. Ocampo ought to have conducted his own independent investigations, which for all intents & purposes I presumed he had done since there were ICC investigators in Kenya at several points in time.
Also what was the role for the ICC office in KE led by Maria Camara? If I were in her shoes I'd have been doing some of those tasks the OTP was commanding the government to do such as make applications in court to get Uhuru's phone & financial records. If her applications had met roadblocks & the government still stonewalled requests for assistance, only then could the charge that GK wasn't cooperating ring true. The fact that Camara & her West African colleagues had cushy jobs all these years in Nairobi doing none of the "legwork" that builds a convincing case makes the ICC look inept as ever.
|
|
, but don't pick me) would have done the same under the circumstances.
as Martha Karua has always insisted. Ruto as a minor facilitator? Yes, because it was now mass action and he was the King of the area. But the buck ultimately stops with Raila who of course was the political captain of the forces operative under the Orange caliphate 
of then.
'' the court was RACIST, and picking on what it thought of as WEAK AFRICANS easier to INTIMIDATE.
