|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 30, 2012 20:42:20 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jun 30, 2012 21:07:50 GMT 3
I think Mutua's advice on the legal strategy is probably correct. Muthaura's strategy to divorce himself from the political considerations driving his co-accused may pay off. But that is where I stop. The suggestion that Muthaura might get a lesser sentence because he does not bear ultimate responsibility is not sound. The developments since Nuremberg point in another direction. And from what we know about the functioning of the Kibaki/Muthaura State House it appears that M was a critical power behind the throne and also the de facto overall security supremo. It will not be easy to dispell that perception. But Muthaura should indeed get his day in court sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Jun 30, 2012 21:15:10 GMT 3
Otish, How many can cut a deal ? after Ali and Kosgey did that to be prosecutor witnesses at latter stages of the trial ? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 30, 2012 21:37:35 GMT 3
I think Mutua's advice on the legal strategy is probably correct. Muthaura's strategy to divorce himself from the political considerations driving his co-accused may pay off. But that is where I stop. The suggestion that Muthaura might get a lesser sentence because he does not bear ultimate responsibility is not sound. The developments since Nuremberg point in another direction. And from what we know about the functioning of the Kibaki/Muthaura State House it appears that M was a critical power behind the throne and also the de facto overall security supremo. It will not be easy to dispell that perception. But Muthaura should indeed get his day in court sooner rather than later. Perhaps I should have added something about how small a sentence and what we would get in return. There were a lot of people involved, at all levels, in carrying out the PEV. Some are in government, some are not; and they are all merrily getting along with their lives. If we are to clean up Kenya, we need to know who they are and what they did. So far, it seems unlikely that we will be able to find that through local means. Now, imagine a situation in which Muthaura tells all---names, places, dates, actions, etc. For Kenya, would it be "worth" 25 years instead of 50? |
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jul 1, 2012 0:34:37 GMT 3
There were a lot of people involved, at all levels, in carrying out the PEV. Some are in government, some are not; and they are all merrily getting along with their lives. If we are to clean up Kenya, we need to know who they are and what they did. So far, it seems unlikely that we will be able to find that through local means. Now, imagine a situation in which Muthaura tells all---names, places, dates, actions, etc. For Kenya, would it be "worth" 25 years instead of 50? Otishotish, Interesting proposition. I really do not know how much (plea) bargaining goes on in the ICC. It is used a lot in the American system but it is not well known in systems based on continental European law where the judges themselves can play a role in the discovery of the truth, I guess we will have to wait and see. A lot will also depend on how much convincing evidence and information the OTP already has at its disposal. My hunch is that they already have quite a bit, enough to piece the various stories together. Whether this evidence will hold up in court remains to be seen, of course. But I think OTP knows who was present at the various January 2008 State House planning sessions, those that Kibaki did not attend and which were chaired by one Muthaura. If you list the various political dockets needed for a retaliatory operation as well as the various security services and forces involved and you throw in a couple of trusted MP's, you probably have the bulk of the list right there. And some of these people may already have become prosecution witnesses in order to save themselves public embarassment. Remember Ocampo saying that Saitoti was a witness? This is just a hunch. I do not have the facts. So the question is whether OTP really needs Muthaura in order to make its case against Uhuru and, perhaps, Ruto stick. I expect that a lot of people are having sleepless nights worrying not whether their names will come out but when and how. They may have more to fear from OTP than from Muthaura. And I hope the DP and his staff will watch with their pencils and papers at the ready, taking down the details with a view to pursuing prosecutions within Kenya... But first let's see what trial date the judges set. We should know within the next two weeks. Furaha |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 1, 2012 1:12:56 GMT 3
Interesting proposition. I really do not know how much (plea) bargaining goes on in the ICC. It is used a lot in the American system but it is not well known in systems based on continental European law where the judges themselves can play a role in the discovery of the truth, I guess we will have to wait and see. The Statute is not very clear or explicit on that; it suggests that there is some leeway of some sort before charges are confirmed but is quite hazy after that. It appears to recognize, though, that a plea of guilt can take place at any time and that there might be discussions with the OTP regarding that plea. On that point it quite clear that: (a) the judges are not bound by anything discussed between suspect and OTP; (b) even with a plea of guilt, the judges may still proceed with a trial in order to determine the truth of everything that happened. Any plea-bargaining aspect, if it exists, of the ICC has yet to be tested, but it seems likely that it would be quite different from the American approach. According to the drafting history of the statute, plea-bargaining was discussed at that stage, and an overwhelming number of delegates opposed anything that would resemble the American system. I doubt that OTP needs Muthaura in order to cook Uhuru; I believe they have enough material to cook both in the same pot. BTW, the notion that Saitoti might have been a witness came from the Defence, not the OTP. |
|
|
|
Post by wilsonle on Jul 2, 2012 15:47:55 GMT 3
OtishotishIts common knowledge that Makau Mutua is a fake dressed patriot who is too careless with his wit. John Ruganda Called them Fake patriots oversees. he should mind his own business and leave bygones and bygones..... i rest my case |
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jul 4, 2012 4:10:04 GMT 3
It seems the teams of Uhuru and Muthaura are not working together? Each man for himself. Uhuru team, ICC agree on release of evidenceUpdated 5 hrs 35 mins ago By Wahome Thuku Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta has reached an agreement with the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecution on how evidence against him will be released in court during trial. The two parties agreed on release of pre-trial briefs, which will include reference to the witnesses to call. The prosecution will also explain to Uhuru’s defence how the evidence relates to charges against him. The office of the prosecutor, however, said it had not made a similar agreement with Uhuru’s co-accused Francis Muthaura. The other two suspects in the second case are Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang. The parties had been asked by the chamber to consult and agree on several issues regarding the summary of the prosecution evidence. agreement When they appeared before the Trial Chamber on Status Conference on June 12 they had been asked to report on the agreement in ten days. The prosecutors said they had not discussed whether Uhuru’s defence would also be required to file a Pre-Trial Brief if they decide to call their witnesses. They had agreed that the issue should be addressed at the closure of the prosecution’s case. The prosecution had also prepared an analysis chart of the material they would produce if so ordered by the Trial Chamber, which include facts of their case, sources and title of sources. The court will soon be announcing when the trial will commence, which would most likely to be after March next year. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061106&story_title=Uhuru-team,-ICC-agree-on-release-of-evidence |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 4, 2012 4:27:48 GMT 3
Furaha: It's all fairly dull stuff. UK Defence and OTP made a joint, routine submission of about 7 pages; and Muthaura made a routine submission of the same length.
The only thing significant here is what the Kenyan dailies are not reporting---that Muthaura Defence is largely in agreement with UK Defence and the OTP, except for two relatively minor (as far as I can tell) points. I can say, with great confidence, that the judges will simply give each half of a very small a loaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jul 4, 2012 4:47:14 GMT 3
Furaha: It's all fairly dull stuff. UK Defence and OTP made a joint, routine submission of about 7 pages; and Muthaura made a routine submission of the same length. The only thing significant here is what the Kenyan dailies are not reporting---that Muthaura Defence is largely in agreement with UK Defence and the OTP, except for two relatively minor (as far as I can tell) points. I can say, with great confidence, that the judges will simply give each half of a very small a loaf. Thanks Otishotish. Clarification appreciated!  |
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jul 4, 2012 16:32:48 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Jul 4, 2012 23:47:35 GMT 3
And now ther AU is set to completely burry Uhuru and his Hague mates kabisa. These amigos want to demand that the AU defers the cases of Bashir and the indicted Kenyans. Are they idiots? You put those two cases together you have already lost even the remotest hope. Americans would kill Obama if he lets Bashir off the hook. Neither would the Brits and the French. Bring on The Hague. If Kibaki has the guts let him pull Kenya out of the ICC and see for himself. Here we go: www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061185&story_title=African-presidents-in-final-bid-to-stop-ICC |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 0:03:21 GMT 3
Very smart move by Bensouda. Khan is right that it is premature, but it is a service of notice that OTP intends to get these guys, one way or another. Regardless of whether or not the charges and the charged modes of liability remain unchanged, during the trial the Trial Chamber will now have to consider if the evidence fits on other grounds: even if they were not the leaders, did they aid and abet? The other thing it indicates is that the OTP considers Ali to still be within reach, even if he is not among those "most responsible". |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Jul 5, 2012 0:13:15 GMT 3
Very smart move by Bensouda. Khan is right that it is premature, but it is a service of notice that OTP intends to get these guys, one way or another. Regardless of whether or not the charges and the charged modes of liability remain unchanged, during the trial the Trial Chamber will now have to consider if the evidence fits on other grounds: even if they were not the leaders, did they aid and abet? The other thing it indicates is that the OTP considers Ali to still be within reach, even if he is not among those "most responsible". Aiding and abetting is why Charles Taylor is serving 50 years in jail. It is going to be hard for the suspects to say that if they only aided and abetted mass murder and rape then that means they are innocent. Same problem for the Chamber. It is going to be hard for them to rule that aiding and abetting any or all of the crimes before the court is OK. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 0:26:12 GMT 3
And now ther AU is set to completely burry Uhuru and his Hague mates kabisa. These amigos want to demand that the AU defers the cases of Bashir and the indicted Kenyans. Are they idiots? You put those two cases together you have already lost even the remotest hope. Americans would kill Obama if he lets Bashir off the hook. Neither would the Brits and the French. Bring on The Hague. If Kibaki has the guts let him pull Kenya out of the ICC and see for himself. Here we go: www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061185&story_title=African-presidents-in-final-bid-to-stop-ICCHe, he, he, ... Africa Useless at it again! One has to wonder if this group has any sort of legal advisers who are in the slightest bit awake. Even if one ignores the fact that it would take quite some time to get this "extended" court working---not that the current version ever works---this one is dead in the water for two reasons: First, going on two years, Sudan is still trying to get its deferral request on to the agenda of the UN Security Council. It has formally asked for the AU to help with that, and the AU has made a lot of noise about it, but nothing has happened. That's how much the UNSC thinks of the AU. Bye bye deferral. Second is the so-called referral (back) option. Contrary to the funny ideas that have been propagated in the media, the ICC (Rome Statute) does not recognize any such thing as referring a case back to any place; the only referral it recognizes are those in which the UNSC or States refer cases to it. A case may leave the ICC only through a successful jurisdictional challenge or a successful admissibility challenge. Deciding jurisdiction is a one-off, and that's already been determined. GoK make another admissibility challenge, but given that they have done nothing and lied about what they were doing, that would be dead in the water. The AU and any other group cannot successfully bring an admissibility challenge, even if this new court was up and running and a great success. The reason for that is very simple: the relevant articles of the Statute deal only with the State in question and not with any manamba groupings one may concoct. The AU has no standing in any case currently before the ICC, and the basis on which it could successfully apply for a standing is unclear and, as far as I can tell, non-existent. Bye bye "referral".As for a withdrawal from the ICC, there are two things to remember: (i) The AU last year threatened mass withdrawals, and nothing happened; will it work to cry wolf again? (ii) A withdrawal by Kenya would not affect the cases already before the ICC. Bye bye withdrawal. |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Jul 5, 2012 1:38:21 GMT 3
These ICC characters are proving every passing day that they have their own hollywood at the Hague. After running around like headless chickens eti oh we have the evidence and want to make the Kenyan case an example, now they are all over the map trying to justify their cases. Mara oh we want to recharacterize Ruto case, mara we want to reframe Uhuru and Muthaura's responsibility and actions etc. This Bensouda fellow has started on a very wrong footing, or is that she inherited a very flawed case? In the case of Uhuru and Muthaura, how can one even contemplate placing such a responsibility to individuals who are not Mungiki themselves, leave alone being its leaders? This just goes to prove the fact that tge court has a predetermined outcome and is only looking for a way to arrive at that outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 1:54:59 GMT 3
These ICC characters are proving every passing day that they have their own hollywood at the Hague. After running around like headless chickens eti oh we have the evidence and want to make the Kenyan case an example, now they are all over the map trying to justify their cases. Mara oh we want to recharacterize Ruto case, mara we want to reframe Uhuru and Muthaura's responsibility and actions etc. This Bensouda fellow has started on a very wrong footing, or is that she inherited a very flawed case? In the case of Uhuru and Muthaura, how can one even contemplate placing such a responsibility to individuals who are not Mungiki themselves, leave alone being its leaders? This just goes to prove the fact that tge court has a predetermined outcome and is only looking for a way to arrive at that outcome. I would encourage you to spend more time in trying to understand what is going on and less dribbling all over your keyboard---that's a sure way to quickly destroy it. As far as anything to do with Kenya goes, one would get the impression that you just arrived from Mars, with kamalet as co-pilot. You should consider if that is how you want to be seen. If you want to believe that anything proves that the OTP, the judges, the ... are out to arrive at a given outcome, then that is just fine. It is just fine because it will not change the slightest bit of reality. But, in making comments here, you really should take into account Jukwaaists are mostly a thinking lot. There are many other Kenyan websites where you would reap more fruit; try them. P.S. Bensouda is not a "fellow". Also, even Ruto no longer thinks this is from Hollywood. |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Jul 5, 2012 2:52:10 GMT 3
These ICC characters are proving every passing day that they have their own hollywood at the Hague. After running around like headless chickens eti oh we have the evidence and want to make the Kenyan case an example, now they are all over the map trying to justify their cases. Mara oh we want to recharacterize Ruto case, mara we want to reframe Uhuru and Muthaura's responsibility and actions etc. This Bensouda fellow has started on a very wrong footing, or is that she inherited a very flawed case? In the case of Uhuru and Muthaura, how can one even contemplate placing such a responsibility to individuals who are not Mungiki themselves, leave alone being its leaders? This just goes to prove the fact that tge court has a predetermined outcome and is only looking for a way to arrive at that outcome. I would encourage you to spend more time in trying to understand what is going on and less dribbling all over your keyboard---that's a sure way to quickly destroy it. As far as anything to do with Kenya goes, one would get the impression that you just arrived from Mars, with kamalet as co-pilot. You should consider if that is how you want to be seen. If you want to believe that anything proves that the OTP, the judges, the ... are out to arrive at a given outcome, then that is just fine. It is just fine because it will not change the slightest bit of reality. But, in making comments here, you really should take into account Jukwaaists are mostly a thinking lot. There are many other Kenyan websites where you would reap more fruit; try them. P.S. Bensouda is not a "fellow". Also, even Ruto no longer thinks this is from Hollywood. , You do come across as some very raw character. You see even your homies in Kondele normally demonstrate some reason before they land their blows on Tuju. But you must be in good company if your assessment of jukwaa is anything to go by. Having said that though, I have no control over how you want to perceive the goings-on in this case and my perspective of them, that is a province I have no jurisdiction over. However, even those of us who arrived from Mars yesterday have had enough time to realize that we are dealing with a case whose schemers and shakers have no interest in justice but fixing a few individuals, more reason why we must have a 'recharacterization'. So even as you arrogate yourself express rights of thought, know that it only applies to those with whom you share similar background and view and who are already sold to the mzungu court. But not some of us, sawa? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 3:33:52 GMT 3
Mwalimu: Everyone has a "right of thought", but some of us appear to have no interest in exercising it.
Look, friend, there is no need to for us to quarrel over this. All I wanted to point out is that if you wish to discuss "schemers and shakers [who] have no interest in justice but fixing a few individuals", then Jukwaa might not be the best place. But there are plenty of other places on the Internet, and they are way ahead of you when it comes to conspiracy theories and all that stuff.
Me myself, I just look at history: Everyone cried all over the place, and one even took the pre-emptive step of going to set the record straight, but the summons were issued. Teeth were gnashed and hair was torn out, but the charges got confirmed. Millions threatened to march over there and millions more threatened to give their signatures, but all the appeals were thrown out. This mzungu court is something else! Home-style, something small could have settled these cases long ago.
Anyway, that's how it is. And the trial dates will soon be announced. It's a tough, bad world! ;D
P.S. I am not "Otieno". Try not to make rash assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Jul 5, 2012 5:03:48 GMT 3
Otieno,I never said you are Otieno but only referred to you as such, there is a difference remember. Anyway, here is another fellow from Mars, but decided to live outside Kenya and we seem to share a thinking which as per you, is different from Jukwaa's. Try listening to him and connect the dots. The project seems to be falling apart boy. The International Criminal Court is hurting AfricaBritain's support for the International Criminal Court is wrong and undermines its credibility in African countries, writes Courtenay Griffiths. By Courtenay Griffiths, QC3:20PM BST 03 Jul 2012 Imagine the British Government appointed as minister for Africa a man close friends with a mercenary who attempted to overthrow an African President. Imagine this same minister was fully supportive of an international court that, during its nine-year history, had only prosecuted black Africans. Imagine that this court’s most high-profile case, against the deputy prime minister of Kenya, had been based solely on evidence from a single witness chosen by associates of his political opponent, the favourite of the British Government. This is not a Frederick Forsyth novel, but the dangerous reality of Britain’s foreign policy towards Kenya. Henry Bellingham, our Minister for Africa, is a close friend of Simon Mann, the mercenary who tried and failed to orchestrate a coup in Equatorial Guinea. Mr Bellingham has publicly supported the work of the International Criminal Court that has so far only tried black Africans, when, from Libya to Syria, there are many more victims who still await justice. But as I learnt during my time as chief defence counsel to Charles Taylor, the requirement of international justice is not the raison d’etre of the International Criminal Court at all. Instead, the court acts as a vehicle for its primarily European funders, of which the UK is one of the largest, to exert their power and influence, particularly in Africa. Some would argue it is reasonable for countries to exercise their power in foreign countries through legal means. If this is the case, it is surely sensible to support both the institutions and legal cases that might realise this goal. However, Britain’s support for the ICC, and in particular our country’s funding of the Kenya case, is seriously undermining its credibility and influence in Africa. The case against Uhuru Kenyatta, the deputy prime minister of Kenya, is of serious concern, not only because of the serious lack of evidence against him, but also because of the methods used to obtain this evidence. The ICC did not directly source witnesses for this case, nor has it done so in any other case heard before the court. Instead it outsourced evidence-gathering to local intermediaries. In the Kenya case, these intermediaries happened to be well known associates of Raila Odinga, the current prime minister of Kenya, and Mr Kenyatta’s long-term political opponent. This case, which revolves around a single witness sourced by those close to Mr Odinga, should set off alarm bells in the Foreign Office. Instead, the FCO has funded the witness protection scheme for the case and given its full support for the trial to proceed. Britain does not want Mr Kenyatta to be President of Kenya. It sees its interests as best served through the election of Mr Odinga in the forthcoming contest, a peculiar position given Odinga’s former support for East Germany and Cuba (his son is named Fidel Castro Odinga). The Western-educated Kenyatta appears a more obvious choice, had the British not been involved in the incarceration of his father. Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya, was imprisoned by the colonial administration on charges of facilitating the Mau Mau rebellion against British rule. He was later released from prison following the discovery that his trial witnesses were from sources loyal to the British government. Fifty years after Kenyan independence from Britain, history is repeating itself. Uhuru Kenyatta is considered likely to win the presidential election scheduled for 2013, not Britain’s man Odinga. For Britain to maintain its influence in Kenya and therefore in Africa it needs to withdraw its support and funding of the Kenyatta case. The FCO can retreat with its honour still intact, while maintaining its support for international justice by calling for a review of the Kenya case – even for its end – if politically unbiased evidence does not materialise. Britain should encourage other countries that fund the ICC to pay for the witness protection scheme in its place. The parallels between the Jomo and Uhuru Kenyatta cases of funding politically biased witnesses are all too obvious. And Britain should make its impartiality towards the forthcoming Kenyan election explicit. This means inviting all credible Presidential candidates to the UK for discussions with officials at the FCO, not only Odinga, as has been the case for far too long. It may be possible for Britain to maintain its support for the ICC, despite the criticism that it is a means to exert power for its funders rather than to deliver international justice. But while Britain continues to undermine Kenya’s national sovereignty through intervening in its political sphere this will remain unlikely. There, as with other African countries, it is for their citizens to decide who rules them, not any foreign power. And Britain would do well to remember this; Uhuru in the Swahili language means “freedom”. If Kenyatta wins the election this may mean that Kenya finally frees itself 50 years after independence from the influence or obligation to its former colonial master. Courtenay Griffiths QC is a leading international expert in criminal law who acted as Chief Counsel to former Liberian President Charles Taylor at the Special Court for Sierra Leonewww.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/9373188/The-International-Criminal-Court-is-hurting-Africa.html
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Jul 5, 2012 5:37:47 GMT 3
Otieno,I never said you are Otieno but only referred to you as such, there is a difference remember. Anyway, here is another fellow from Mars, but decided to live outside Kenya and we seem to share a thinking which as per you, is different from Jukwaa's. Try listening to him and connect the dots. The project seems to be falling apart boy. The International Criminal Court is hurting AfricaBritain's support for the International Criminal Court is wrong and undermines its credibility in African countries, writes Courtenay Griffiths. By Courtenay Griffiths, QC3:20PM BST 03 Jul 2012 Imagine the British Government appointed as minister for Africa a man close friends with a mercenary who attempted to overthrow an African President. Imagine this same minister was fully supportive of an international court that, during its nine-year history, had only prosecuted black Africans. Imagine that this court’s most high-profile case, against the deputy prime minister of Kenya, had been based solely on evidence from a single witness chosen by associates of his political opponent, the favourite of the British Government. This is not a Frederick Forsyth novel, but the dangerous reality of Britain’s foreign policy towards Kenya. Henry Bellingham, our Minister for Africa, is a close friend of Simon Mann, the mercenary who tried and failed to orchestrate a coup in Equatorial Guinea. Mr Bellingham has publicly supported the work of the International Criminal Court that has so far only tried black Africans, when, from Libya to Syria, there are many more victims who still await justice. But as I learnt during my time as chief defence counsel to Charles Taylor, the requirement of international justice is not the raison d’etre of the International Criminal Court at all. Instead, the court acts as a vehicle for its primarily European funders, of which the UK is one of the largest, to exert their power and influence, particularly in Africa. Some would argue it is reasonable for countries to exercise their power in foreign countries through legal means. If this is the case, it is surely sensible to support both the institutions and legal cases that might realise this goal. However, Britain’s support for the ICC, and in particular our country’s funding of the Kenya case, is seriously undermining its credibility and influence in Africa. The case against Uhuru Kenyatta, the deputy prime minister of Kenya, is of serious concern, not only because of the serious lack of evidence against him, but also because of the methods used to obtain this evidence. The ICC did not directly source witnesses for this case, nor has it done so in any other case heard before the court. Instead it outsourced evidence-gathering to local intermediaries. In the Kenya case, these intermediaries happened to be well known associates of Raila Odinga, the current prime minister of Kenya, and Mr Kenyatta’s long-term political opponent. This case, which revolves around a single witness sourced by those close to Mr Odinga, should set off alarm bells in the Foreign Office. Instead, the FCO has funded the witness protection scheme for the case and given its full support for the trial to proceed. Britain does not want Mr Kenyatta to be President of Kenya. It sees its interests as best served through the election of Mr Odinga in the forthcoming contest, a peculiar position given Odinga’s former support for East Germany and Cuba (his son is named Fidel Castro Odinga). The Western-educated Kenyatta appears a more obvious choice, had the British not been involved in the incarceration of his father. Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya, was imprisoned by the colonial administration on charges of facilitating the Mau Mau rebellion against British rule. He was later released from prison following the discovery that his trial witnesses were from sources loyal to the British government. Fifty years after Kenyan independence from Britain, history is repeating itself. Uhuru Kenyatta is considered likely to win the presidential election scheduled for 2013, not Britain’s man Odinga. For Britain to maintain its influence in Kenya and therefore in Africa it needs to withdraw its support and funding of the Kenyatta case. The FCO can retreat with its honour still intact, while maintaining its support for international justice by calling for a review of the Kenya case – even for its end – if politically unbiased evidence does not materialise. Britain should encourage other countries that fund the ICC to pay for the witness protection scheme in its place. The parallels between the Jomo and Uhuru Kenyatta cases of funding politically biased witnesses are all too obvious. And Britain should make its impartiality towards the forthcoming Kenyan election explicit. This means inviting all credible Presidential candidates to the UK for discussions with officials at the FCO, not only Odinga, as has been the case for far too long. It may be possible for Britain to maintain its support for the ICC, despite the criticism that it is a means to exert power for its funders rather than to deliver international justice. But while Britain continues to undermine Kenya’s national sovereignty through intervening in its political sphere this will remain unlikely. There, as with other African countries, it is for their citizens to decide who rules them, not any foreign power. And Britain would do well to remember this; Uhuru in the Swahili language means “freedom”. If Kenyatta wins the election this may mean that Kenya finally frees itself 50 years after independence from the influence or obligation to its former colonial master. Courtenay Griffiths QC is a leading international expert in criminal law who acted as Chief Counsel to former Liberian President Charles Taylor at the Special Court for Sierra Leonewww.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/9373188/The-International-Criminal-Court-is-hurting-Africa.html hehehehehee. Chaps looking like deers in the headlight and blaming the driver for daring to use the highway where they are sitting completely confused. What else do they expect drivers to do? Drive in the bush to avoid them? Not going to happen. Nothing new about the whining about "sovereignty". Nobody in Africa or elsewhere has the "sovereign" right to butcher and murder the citizens of their country and claim that they are protected by the sovereignty of their country to do so. This crappy "logic" has failed over and over again. The OTP is doing their job within the parameters of the Rome Statute and they have it right on the money, leaving nothing to chance. The confused and bewildered are doing what they do best. Looking for petty excuses. As usual they are going nowhere. What else is new? What is coming is already here. Get it? May not. That is your problem. |
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jul 5, 2012 6:13:13 GMT 3
Otieno,Anyway, here is another fellow from Mars, but decided to live outside Kenya and we seem to share a thinking which as per you, is different from Jukwaa's. Try listening to him and connect the dots. The project seems to be falling apart boy. The International Criminal Court is hurting AfricaBr By Courtenay Griffiths, QCl Mwalimukuu, You and Griffiths might want to try a little harder if you want to convince anyone with a little knowledge of the ICC and of international criminal law. Please note that the verb 'imagine' appears twice in the first paragraph of the articlle. There is indeed a high degree of imagination and wishful thinking in the piece. All that has little to do with reality and with the law. Griffiths' is a purely political piece which nicely fits in the ongoing campaign to discredit the ICC, among others in the run-up to the upcoming AU meeting. I have nothing against criticism of the ICC. It is welcome and healthy but let it be based on facts, not on supposition and make belief. And let the evidence against the Uhuru Kenyatta speak for itself during the trials. If it is tainted or based on only one witness, as the article suggests, time will tell. And yes, the ICC may not be an ideal solution. After all, it is a court of last resort. Kenya had every opportunity to establish a credible local mechanism but it rejected that opportunity. And as the last KNDR report of June 2012 suggests, well over 50 procent of Kenyans still support the ICC process. They support it despite the efforts to discredit the court, to politicize the trials and despite being told that violence will occur in case the trials proceed. They would like to see justice done. I do not think that these Kenyans are going to be swayed by Griffith's propaganda. And as far as African leaders' supposed disdain for the ICC is concerned, it is good to remember what Desmond Tutu once said: Because the victims in Sudan are African, African leaders should be the staunchest supporters of efforts to see perpetrators brought to account. www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03tutu.html |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 12:13:04 GMT 3
Mwalimu, we could go back and forth on this until the oceans run dry. So, here it is: there is no stopping the ICC train. Unless there is something you think you can do about it, for your peace of mind, I encourage you to move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilsonle on Jul 5, 2012 18:17:06 GMT 3
Mwalimu, we could go back and forth on this until the oceans run dry. So, here it is: there is no stopping the ICC train. Unless there is something you think you can do about it, for your peace of mind, I encourage you to move on.
Otishotish et al,ICC is a monster that can be defeated. the first step is establishment of ACC- African Criminal courtread this informative article to know the next step. here is the linkhttp://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061185&story_title=African-presidents-in-final-bid-to-stop-ICC very soon we gonna sing...bye bye ICC neocolonialists |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 18:28:05 GMT 3
Mwalimu, we could go back and forth on this until the oceans run dry. So, here it is: there is no stopping the ICC train. Unless there is something you think you can do about it, for your peace of mind, I encourage you to move on.
Otishotish et al,ICC is a monster that can be defeated. the first step is establishment of ACC- African Criminal courtread this informative article to know the next step. here is the linkhttp://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061185&story_title=African-presidents-in-final-bid-to-stop-ICC very soon we gonna sing...bye bye ICC neocolonialists How lazy can one get? If you go back along this thread, you will find that the link has already been posted and the story commented on. In one of the comments, you will find all the bye-byes you need. |
|
