|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 10, 2013 20:21:33 GMT 3
10. In addition, as far as the defence's request for referral of certain issues (to the Pre- Trial Chamber) is concemed,^^ the Chamber notes, at any rate, that the defence does not identify specific issues in relation to which it seeks referral. It is also not clear from the defence's submissions why clarification by the Pre-Trial Chamber is necessary in this instance. The Chamber notes in this connection that the parties' disputes over modifications to the DCC do not appear to result from the parties' difficulties in interpreting the Pre-Trial Chamber's findings. Rather, these disputes concern the impact of the Pre-Trial Chamber's findings on the content of the DCC, an issue which the Chamber may resolve itself, without referral to the Pre-Trial. [/blockquote][/i] [/quote] The court was actually referring to the Defence request to deal with certain factual allegations that had not been addressed by the Confirmation Decision. The court resolved the matter by making it clear that the OTP could include such allegations. Here is the part of the Defence submission that the above paragraph refers to: 11. At the outset, the Defence disputes the frequent assertion by the Prosecution in the Updated DCC that Pre-Trial Chamber II did not address important factual issues in the Confirmation Decision. These assertions are set out clearly in the Consolidated Defence Version of the Updated DCC in Confidential Annex B.
12. Pursuant to Article 64(4) of the Statute, the Defence submits that, in the interests of fairness and expediency, it is appropriate for Pre-Trial Chamber II to clarify whether or not, and if so, to what extent, it addressed these particular factual issues in dispute between the parties, it being the Chamber before which they were initially considered and determined. The Defence submits that these disputed facts constitute preliminary issues within the meaning of Article 64(4).
14. It is for Pre-Trial Chamber II to determine whether the Prosecution is correct in its assertion as to whether or not it addressed important factual issues in the Confirmation Decision, and to clarify the meaning of those factual findings, where unclear. The majority of the disputes between the parties concem the correct interpretation of facts determined by Pre-Trial Chamber II, which by virtue of its knowledge of the evidence and arguments submitted at confirmation, is best placed to rule on whether a given fact was denied or upheld in the Confirmation Decision.
OK, son; I'll now leave you and your friends to continue going at it. I'll rejoin you on anther day. |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 10, 2013 20:32:47 GMT 3
Sadik,
You laid it out as clearly as it can get. The circus around W4 and how the OTP has handled everything, only helps to reaffirm the long held belief that there is too much happening behind the scenes sponsored by the owners of these cases in an effort to ensure they succeed despite all the glaring weaknesses. Will they? And how much,is this damaging the reputation of this court in the eyes of the neutrals?
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 10, 2013 21:33:08 GMT 3
Something remains unanswered I am afraid and this despite Mank trying to get the same information.
The issue for this thread was the importance of W4 to the OTP and the charges she is bringing. I was looking at the extent of reliance the PTC may have had on W4 to confirm the charges and if without W4 the remaining W11 and W12 are strong enough to sustain the charges.
Of particular concern of course is the evidence of W4 being allegedly corroborated by W11. Now how does one corroborate a lie if we are to conclude the recanting of evidence by W4 means all he had said were lies?
Unfortunately we have been derailed into discussing what evidence can be carried from the confirmation hearings to the TC and that is not what I wanted to know. I will be starting a thread on that in the next few days.
For now how about channeling our debates on W4? After reading this I was just about to spend a lot of time collecting into one place the contribution by this W4. Thank God I read to the end of the thread before starting on that painstaking project. Nowayhaha has posted more than I could have mastered. I had even forgotten that W4 had been exposed (although as I recollect now, it was not a concluded fact that the person who was exposed was actually the W4 for OTP). |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 10, 2013 21:49:36 GMT 3
Fellow
To post gossip from known propaganda mouthpieces unsubstantiated by the ICC official sources can land you in big trouble.
One could easily post a link and leave it at that, copying and pasting the whole thing can be classified as publication.
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 11, 2013 2:17:00 GMT 3
I'm still a little tired of this thread, so for today I'll just rehash some what I already wrote and continue on another day.
It is certainly possible that Bwana 4 told a few fibs.
Otish, This is the only line you surprises me with. To tell a fib is to tell a small but trivial lie. I would be hard pressed to think of a lie W4 would have told that would be dismissively termed a small lie if it goes directly to his evidence. What fact-seekers would have to ask is, why would he need to embellish the evidence at all, if he indeed witnessed what he alleged? I believe the court will be asking this very question! But quite a few things have also happened since (in late 2011) the Defence leaked his identity to its associates. The whole business is certainly very complicated, and we might as well just wait and see. I don't know what the court will have to say about the leak, but I totally understand it. If I was the one threatened with going under by the word of someone fabricating stuff that is obvious to natives but impossible to decipher by the foreign authority presiding over the case, I imagine it would be difficult to contain myself in total loyalty of the authority as well, and very likely I would also disclose what I know about the "witness" so the native "jury" is even better equipped to make its call. The Defence fireworks at this stage is very deliberate and is caculated for its (expected) political effect. Note that by early October or so, all of the transcripts of Bwana 4's OTP interviews had already been released to the Defence. In early December 2012, the defence made its last submissions on the Updated DCC; they said nothing about Bwana 4. The only surpise here is that they waited for so long to start the current noise; I had expected to get going in early January. See my first entry (repeated in the last entry) on this thread: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7594 I don't know why they waited this long either. To speculate, however, I think they were intimidated by prospective outcomes of the allegation of uncovering a witness. It could also be that they needed the time to put together their best case against the UDCC. Otherwise I cannot imagine that accused individuals would have been waiting with such arguments for a season to make political mileage with it - there is no political mileage when private freedom is in threat! On debates about "corroboration", there's interesting bits like this one (from a guy who was supposedly actually there):
Confirmation Decision: Another Defence witness, *** (D12-37), confirms his participation in the meeting at State House as a representative, together with Maina Diambo and of "Operation Kibaki Again". This witness also confirms that the same people mentioned by Witness OTP-4 attended the meeting at State House as well as the fact that Maina Kangethe Diambo was a member of the Mungiki at the relevant time, as referred to by Witnesses OTP-4, OTP-11 and OTP-12. Furthermore, the witness states that at the end of the meeting they received an envelope containing money. Oh yes, that's the contribution these other witnesses add! But without what W4 said, where is a crime in this contribution by D12-37? Politicians have meetings with their "so and so for president" all the time. And I doubt ICC would conclude that there is a case to answer simply because some people in such meetings happen to have been Mungiki. Mungiki people are many other things at the same time, including Kenyans and individuals, and they can be in meetings over many things. I don't think ICC will find an individual to be criminally responsible over anything just because he or she has been seen meeting with people who happen to be Mungiki. So unless D12-37 recounted the same criminal material of a meeting that W4 recounted, simply corroborating that a meeting was held would not account to evidence of value - especially not when W4 has recanted his part of the evidence - the only "evidence " of (alleged) criminal plannings. Now, ICC may initially think there is something to it because "... the witness states that at the end of the meeting they received an envelope containing money", but I cannot imagine that the Defence will not find it necessary to acquaint the court with this aspect of Kenya's political customs, which involves carrying cash troves under the jackets of candidates to dish out to voters and "operation so and so wins". The fact that the envelop is such an item in the witness's presentation, but nothing at all about a criminal agenda of a meeting, is itself very revealing about what was really going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 11, 2013 22:07:43 GMT 3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 22:11:46 GMT 3
sorry. but with enough dough, i too could pay newspapers to publish anything i want. last year the Huffington Post carried a similar story. we're onto these guys. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 11, 2013 22:31:18 GMT 3
sorry. but with enough dough, i too could pay newspapers to publish anything i want. last year the Huffington Post carried a similar story. we're onto these guys. , allow me to play the devil's advocate, for he who was overrun by mashetani, & posit that it is possible that those with even more dough than him could've paid off Ocampo to frame the chap, n'est pas? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 13, 2013 13:07:44 GMT 3
The agenda for the status conference was released on Monday and is as follows with regard to the Uhuru/Muthaura case:
1. Practical Modalities of the accused's attendance at trial
2. Delayed prosecution disclosure and the impact on the trial start date
3. Scheduling of the two Kenya trials
With a serious lack of objectivity I look at agenda items 1 & 3 as intended to address the practicality of having the accused attend court as President and of the other case involving Ruto. I think the court has recognised that it might be prosecuting a president and his deputy.
With regard to Agenda 1, it is possible there will discussions on location of the trial and also physical attendance or electronic appearance which is something I suspect the defence will try to push for.
As regards Agenda 2, this has to be with regard to the matter of Witness 4 where an application for delay in commencement of the case was made by the defence and curiously has not elicited a filing by the prosecutor.
Interesting times on tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 13, 2013 16:55:44 GMT 3
The agenda for the status conference was released on Monday and is as follows with regard to the Uhuru/Muthaura case: 1. Practical Modalities of the accused's attendance at trial 2. Delayed prosecution disclosure and the impact on the trial start date 3. Scheduling of the two Kenya trials With a serious lack of objectivity I look at agenda items 1 & 3 as intended to address the practicality of having the accused attend court as President and of the other case involving Ruto. I think the court has recognised that it might be prosecuting a president and his deputy. With regard to Agenda 1, it is possible there will discussions on location of the trial and also physical attendance or electronic appearance which is something I suspect the defence will try to push for. As regards Agenda 2, this has to be with regard to the matter of Witness 4 where an application for delay in commencement of the case was made by the defence and curiously has not elicited a filing by the prosecutor. Interesting times on tomorrow! As far as I can tell (3) routine in every case, trial and pre-trial; it would be hard to imagine a trial being run without a schedule. In particular, in this case the Defence has expicilty asked the court how it will alternate between the two cases. The court as earlier specified (1) as being about "practical, financial and/or legal matters related to the attendance of the accused at trial, including the modalities of the accused's stay on the territory of the Host State during the trial" [incl. visas etc] (2) has to do with the fact that disclosure is still going on, with over 250 items dumped on Uhuru and Muthaura in the last 3 days. You will also notice that the same item appears for the Ruto-Sang case. The issue was raised by Ruto-Sang Defence team, thus: (iii) In respect of other urgent issues the defence wishes to draw to the attention of the Chamber the difficulties that now confront the defence in preparing the case in an adequate manner given the late disclosure of prosecution material. The conduct of that disclosure is well known to the Chamber. It is submitted that such extensive late disclosure, still continuing, was anticipated by neither the defence nor the Chamber. In those circumstances the defence invites the Chamber to consider providing the defence with more time to prepare its case |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 13, 2013 18:27:32 GMT 3
Another way of looking at it ....but as I said mine lacked objectivity :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by joblesscorner on Feb 13, 2013 19:26:36 GMT 3
Judge Sang-Hyun Song President of the International Criminal Court Speech on KENYA.. www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/liveThe International Criminal Court and the Fight Against Impunity for Atrocity CrimesDate: February 12, 2013 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM Location: The Italian Academy, 1161 Amsterdam Avenue Description: This World Leaders Forum program features an address by Judge Sang-Hyun Song, President of the International Criminal Court, followed by a question and answer session with the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 26, 2013 17:52:59 GMT 3
Here is what the OTP has to say: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557330.pdfA particularly significant point relates to Muthaura (but not Uhuru):
"9. The Prosecution agrees, however, that Mr Muthaura’s request is different. The witness whose statement is at issue was essential on the issue of Mr Muthaura’s criminal responsibility and, in fact, was the only direct witness against him. Hence, the confirmation decision, if stripped of references to the witness’ evidence, might not establish substantial grounds as a matter of law. The Prosecution also acknowledges that its disclosure error limited the Defence’s ability to challenge the critical witness’ testimony, which appears to have been the principal evidence relied upon by the Pre-Trial Chamber in its decision to confirm the charges against Mr Muthaura. In the particular circumstances of Mr Muthaura’s case, and given that he has elected to waive his Article 67(1)(c) right to go to trial without undue delay, the Prosecution does not oppose new confirmation proceedings with respect to him, should the Trial Chamber determine that there is a legal basis for such relief."... "The Kenyatta Application should be denied. a. The Prosecution’s decision to not rely on Witness 4’s evidence at trial does not render the confirmation fundamentally unfair or vitiate the confirmation decision ... Even without Witness 4, the evidence relied upon by the Pre-Trial Chamber in the confirmation decision was sufficient to commit Mr Kenyatta to trial.
...
The Defence argument ignores the totality of the evidence relied upon by the Pre-Trial Chamber. For example, there is no mention of the following findings that were based on other evidence, including Witnesses 11 and 12, and not on Witness 4 NUMEROUS DETAILS OF THE FINDING ARE GIVEN IN THE ABOVE FILING. For example: " This is particularly true with respect to the 30 December 2007 State House meeting, meeting, for which Witness 4 provided no evidence ... Together with the other factual findings listed above, the “substantial grounds” threshold is comfortably surpassed, even discarding Witness 4’s evidence in its entirety."and "Direct evidence that at a January 2008 meeting at the Kenyatta family’s Blue Post Hotel in Thika, Mr Kenyatta told a group of Kikuyu elders that he had obtained a commitment from the Mungiki to participate in retaliatory attacks."Earlier on this thread, you will find The Story of Pablo & Friends: "The entire Confirmation Decision did not depend on Witness 4, although it is clever of the Defence to try and portray it that way (especially for public fireworks) ... Consider the following scenario. It has alleged that on 19 June, Pablo and his friends robbed the state bank on Mexicali St. It is also alleged that to plan the robbery, they held meetings on 8 June, 12 June, and 14 June. They are charged and indicted. Later the prosecutor has problems with the witness who testified about the alleged meeting on 8 June; so the prosecutor withdraws all claims on that meeting and drops the witness. Can the charges still stand based on the facts that the bank was indeed robbed and there were planning meetings on 12 June and 14 June?" Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7906&page=2#ixzz2M3tlxdRrOther interesing bits in the OTP application: "Witness 4 revealed in the May 2012 interview that he had been offered, and accepted, money from individuals holding themselves out as representatives of the Accused to withdraw his testimony regarding the PEV, and provided emails and bank records that confirmed the bribery scheme. " |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 26, 2013 18:40:32 GMT 3
Otishotish
Whatever you might want to say, looks like Muthaura is walking away from this.
The Uhuru case seems so centred around Witness 11 & 12 such that if one cracks the case falls.
Bensouda is not sounding very confident.
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by bob on Feb 26, 2013 18:50:43 GMT 3
Other interesing bits in the OTP application:
"Witness 4 revealed in the May 2012 interview that he had been offered, and accepted, money from individuals holding themselves out as representatives of the Accused to withdraw his testimony regarding the PEV, and provided emails and bank records that confirmed the bribery scheme. "[/quote]
Looks like the digital mboys are doing a terrible job,leaving too much paper trail. Welcome to the party, witness interference can only aggravate the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 26, 2013 19:24:41 GMT 3
Otishotish Whatever you might want to say, looks like Muthaura is walking away from this. The Uhuru case seems so centred around Witness 11 & 12 such that if one cracks the case falls. Bensouda is not sounding very confident. Kamale: Whatever I might want to say is (a) No Muthaura is not walking away. I believe his case will most likely go back to the PTC, but the OTP need not be, and will not be, restricted to its earlier Confirmation submissions and this time will have much stronger evidence. (b) The reference to Witness 11 & 12 are only with respect to the Confirmation Decision, and the OTP's argument is solely intended to indicated the Defence's funny reading of the Confrimation Decision. Even the Defence admits, and indeed complains, that since Confirmation the OTP has gathered many new witnesses and a mountain of evidence. I not able to read how Bensouda "sounds", but I imagine you have your own "system" for such. Gourd + 11 Beans (not beads!) + Ancient Leopard-Skin. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 27, 2013 12:32:47 GMT 3
Otishotish
Why will Muthaura not walk when the OTP acknowledges that the decision to confirm Muthaura's case was based directly on the evidence of Witness 4? As you can see the OTP prefers the matter not go back to the PTC for(I believe!) fear of recrimination that would also have an impact on the other cases.
Even if the chamber decides not to refer the matter to the PTC, is it possible for it to decide prior to trial commencement to throw out the charges or advice the OTP to take that route to save the court time since the OTP can withdraw a case at any time?
As regards the admission of error, is it sufficient to convince the judges that there was no mischief on the part of the OTP which means that like the Lubanga (?) case where the court had initially thrown out the case if the judges think that the non disclosure was laced with mischief?
The Kenyatta case whilst different as the OTP wants to claim is not helped by the fact that her arguments on witnesses 11 & 12 were corroborating what witness 4 had said rather than the other way round. I would like to believe that Fatty Bensweetheart was left holding a stinker that she is struggling to clean up!
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 27, 2013 16:41:58 GMT 3
Otishotish Why will Muthaura not walk when the OTP acknowledges that the decision to confirm Muthaura's case was based directly on the evidence of Witness 4? As you can see the OTP prefers the matter not go back to the PTC for(I believe!) fear of recrimination that would also have an impact on the other cases. First, the Trial Chamber has two choices: put Muthaura on trial or refer the matter back to the Pre-Trial Chamber. I believe that the latter is more likely, but let's consider both possibilities. If he is put on trial, then the OTP simply goes ahead to present a great deal of evidence that it did not present at Confirmation or which it has gathered since. If it goes back to the PTC, then the OTP does exactly the same thing. Second, keep in mind that the OTP can bring new charges at any time and can seek even seek reconfirmation of old charges. (That is why, for example, Ali and Kosgey cannot be said to be completely off the hook.) So, even in the very, very unlikely event that the TC decided to let him go, the OTP can simply go back to the PTC. Third, recall Trendfilova's repeated explanations of the limited purpose of the Confirmation Hearings---that it was not a trial and parties were to select only a few pieces of evidence (that they thought best served their case) and to limit live witnesses. Would the OTP have had other witnesses and evidence had Witness 4 been dropped before that? We don't know, and here too we should not second-guess. Fourth, keep in mind the Trial Chamber's ruling that "the Confirmation Decision cannot be expected to serve as the only authoritative statement of the charges for the trial" because "the Pre-Trial Chamber in its Confirmation Decision appears to have focused on evidence which it found relevant and sufficient to evaluate elements of a given crime according to the requisite threshold and chose not to analyse in detail each of the facts and circumstances described in the charges contained in the DCC". This has a whole bunch of implications. The point I'm trying to get at is that the matter can only be properly addressed if it goes back to the PTC. I doubt that even the Appeals Chamber would do that. The court's jurisprudence shows that the court consistently maintains the stand that one chamber will not second-guess another chamber. The question here is whether the PTC would have confirmed the charges against Muthaura had the evidence of Witness 4 not have been included. Would they, for example, have looked at other evidence instead? Coming to a conclusion on what they would have done is second-guessing them, and that is very, very unlikely to happen. Not as far as I can tell. The Lubanga issue was very different, and it was clear that Ocampo was more or less trying to defy the court. That, to my mind, is a very superficial reading. That was simply the way the court put it. It could just as well have stated that Witness 4 was corroborating a statement that had been made by Witness 11 or 12. Let me continue with another piece in the story of Pablo and his friends. We are still not sure whether the witness who was dropped withdrew his statements because he had been bribed, but that's for another day. Let's assumed he lied, since that is now the official position. In that case he must have heard many details of the meetings from people who were actually there, just as any one of us can know a great deal about events at which we were not present. Anyway ... it turned out that among those who confirmed the details of one meeting was none other than a Defence witness that both Defence and Prosecution agree was present at the meeting. (The witness admits the meeting took place but denies that it was for the purposes claimed.) Was this fellow too perhaps lying, and if so, why? At any rate, after a lot of back-and-forth, Pablo and his friends were eventually put on trial. In the case at hand, answers will come soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Feb 27, 2013 18:06:28 GMT 3
my view:
with OTP having agreed with muthaura's defence regarding the fact that his confirmation hearing was based on an unreliable witness, in all likelihood, the trial chamber will refer his case back to PTC - where OTP can maybe re-introduce new evidence if they have it.
As for Uhuru, OTP rejects his defence and asserts that without w4, there is still a case to believe other witnesses and hence confirmation decision was right.
However, in OTP admitting that w4 was unreliable, it is asking the trial chamber to review the decision of PTC and confirm that w4 is not necessary for a confirmation hearing.
Yet, the trial chamber is not an appeal chamber to which you review PTC decisions. Neither does the trial chamber have the power to assess the threshold required for a confirmation of charges.
Therefore I see the trial chamber referring everything to the PTC for the uhuru-muthaura case.
Added to this is that if, as is most likely, muthaura's case goes back to PTC, uhuru's charges then become defective.
Remember uhuru is charged with, among other, co-perpetration and acting with a common purpose jointly with muthaura.
With muthaura's case going back to PTC, then who would uhuru be charged of co-perpetration with? with who would he have a common purpose with when muthaura is not under trial?
Summary - we are headed back to PTC.
PS - the timing of the defence application is unique and, IMHO deliberate. They knew of w4 and his inconsistencies but awaited disclosure of additional info so that if the case does go back to PTC, they will have more info to tackle confirmation charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 27, 2013 18:22:42 GMT 3
my view: with OTP having agreed with muthaura's defence regarding the fact that his confirmation hearing was based on an unreliable witness, in all likelihood, the trial chamber will refer his case back to PTC - where OTP can maybe re-introduce new evidence if they have it. As for Uhuru, OTP rejects his defence and asserts that without w4, there is still a case to believe other witnesses and hence confirmation decision was right. However, in OTP admitting that w4 was unreliable, it is asking the trial chamber to review the decision of PTC and confirm that w4 is not necessary for a confirmation hearing. Yet, the trial chamber is not an appeal chamber to which you review PTC decisions. Neither does the trial chamber have the power to assess the threshold required for a confirmation of charges. Therefore I see the trial chamber referring everything to the PTC for the uhuru-muthaura case. Added to this is that if, as is most likely, muthaura's case goes back to PTC, uhuru's charges then become defective. Remember uhuru is charged with, among other, co-perpetration and acting with a common purpose jointly with muthaura. With muthaura's case going back to PTC, then who would uhuru be charged of co-perpetration with? with who would he have a common purpose with when muthaura is not under trial? Summary - we are headed back to PTC. PS - the timing of the defence application is unique and, IMHO deliberate. They knew of w4 and his inconsistencies but awaited disclosure of additional info so that if the case does go back to PTC, they will have more info to tackle confirmation charges. Very sober as always. At this rate Otishotish may need to look for another job, this project is dying without any tangible results. It is what we call a bad investment. |
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Feb 27, 2013 18:28:51 GMT 3
my view: with OTP having agreed with muthaura's defence regarding the fact that his confirmation hearing was based on an unreliable witness, in all likelihood, the trial chamber will refer his case back to PTC - where OTP can maybe re-introduce new evidence if they have it. As for Uhuru, OTP rejects his defence and asserts that without w4, there is still a case to believe other witnesses and hence confirmation decision was right. However, in OTP admitting that w4 was unreliable, it is asking the trial chamber to review the decision of PTC and confirm that w4 is not necessary for a confirmation hearing. Yet, the trial chamber is not an appeal chamber to which you review PTC decisions. Neither does the trial chamber have the power to assess the threshold required for a confirmation of charges. Therefore I see the trial chamber referring everything to the PTC for the uhuru-muthaura case. Added to this is that if, as is most likely, muthaura's case goes back to PTC, uhuru's charges then become defective. Remember uhuru is charged with, among other, co-perpetration and acting with a common purpose jointly with muthaura. With muthaura's case going back to PTC, then who would uhuru be charged of co-perpetration with? with who would he have a common purpose with when muthaura is not under trial? Summary - we are headed back to PTC. PS - the timing of the defence application is unique and, IMHO deliberate. They knew of w4 and his inconsistencies but awaited disclosure of additional info so that if the case does go back to PTC, they will have more info to tackle confirmation charges. Jubilee presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta is confident the charges facing him at the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be dropped. Mr Kenyatta drew a parallel to the case against his co-accused former head of public service Francis Muthaura saying it was "collapsing" and his would suffer the same fate. "The trumped up charges against former head of public service Francis Muthaura have started collapsing," Mr Kenyatta told supporters in Meru town Wednesday. "If Muthaura's case is collapsing, is that not an indication even mine will go nowhere? he posed. Mr Kenyatta noted that ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has "neither opposed the defence application for a postponement nor Muthaura's plea for his (case) to return to pre-trial". On Tuesday, Ms Bensouda said the April 10 trial start date could be pushed to August due to lack of courtrooms at The Hague and safety of witnesses. “An August 2013 start date would therefore provide the defence with several months after receiving the delayed disclosure witnesses’ identities and unredacted materials to review those materials and conduct the associated preparations before trial begins,” she said. The ICC accuses Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura of bearing the greatest responsibility for the post election violence in which 1,133 people were killed and 650,00 displaced. Also accused are former Eldoret North MP William Ruto and former radio presenter Joshua arap Sang. Mr Kenyatta is seeking the presidency while Mr Ruto is his running mate. In Meru, Mr Kenyatta said a Jubilee government would complete the construction of Isiolo Airport saying this would boost the miraa (khat) trade. "The people of Meru will not have to transport miraa all the way to Nairobi," he said. He urged locals to vote en-masse so that the election "ends in round one". Mr Kenyatta later campaigned in Nkubu, Chogoria, Chuka, Runyenjes and Embu town. He was scheduled to address a Jubilee rally at Suswa, Narok County. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 27, 2013 19:08:36 GMT 3
With muthaura's case going back to PTC, then who would uhuru be charged of co-perpetration with? with who would he have a common purpose with when muthaura is not under trial? Let us suppose that Muthaura is completely let go, which, of course won't happen. The answer to your question is to be found in the other ICC cases in which just one person is on trial. First, is not necessary that the other people involved in the "common plan" also be in the dock . In this particular case, for example, Maina Njenga is featured quite prominently in the "common plan". Second, keep in mind that in one other case where two people were jointly charged, the court decided to separate the case into two and re-characterize the charges. So it would unwise to make any assumptions about how the court might handle this one. Third, the fact that the charges are not confirmed against a person does not mean that all allegations about them then disappear. So, for example, if you look at the Updated Documents Containing Charges, you will find that Ali and Kosgey are still very much in the thick of things. The gourd+11 beans+ancient leopard skin have confirmed that neither Uhuru nor Muthaura is walking away. With that I leave you to it. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 27, 2013 19:20:52 GMT 3
Otishotish
Maina Njenga is on the list at the insistence of the defence and the plan of the prosecution is to have finally the blame on Maina (and perhaps is current principal!) which means that without a formal charge at PTC, Maina goes no where and Uhuru cannot still hold the can.
I beg to differ that Ali or Kosgey are on the radar of the OTP and they can sit pretty knowing there is nothing more against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 27, 2013 19:36:39 GMT 3
Otishotish Maina Njenga is on the list at the insistence of the defence and the plan of the prosecution is to have finally the blame on Maina (and perhaps is current principal!) which means that without a formal charge at PTC, Maina goes no where and Uhuru cannot still hold the can. No, no, no. Maina Njenga is not "on the list at the insistence of the Defence". He was there at Confirmation and is still there in the same "capacity". What the Defence tried to do was to get him formally included as a "co-perpetrator". (That was the skirmish over the "Annex D".) The judges agreed with the prosecutor in rejecting that attempt by the Defence. That's your interpretation. I don't share it. As I have stated, whether Maina is charged or not does not mean that he is not part of the common plan; nor does the failure to charge him help Uhuru. In other cases at the ICC, there is only one person in the dock; the other people in the "common plan" have not been charged. We can disagree about whether they are "on the radar or not". What we cannot (or should not) argue about is that they still feature prominently in the OTP cases; that's what the Updated Documents Containing Charges and other documents say. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 27, 2013 21:56:13 GMT 3
|
|
