|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on May 29, 2013 16:56:32 GMT 3
... Chile Eboe-Osuji ... It needs to be clearly said in defence of AU leaders that they must be accorded the presumption of good faith that they deserve, when they insist that justice must be done, but that they are more immediately concerned with securing peace and stability in Darfur and Sudan. Speaking on the Bashir indictment before the UN General Assembly in September 2008, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, the AU Chairman at the time, stressed the essential matter of justice, but insisted on the best sequencing of justice with the imperatives of security. As he put it: ‘Justice is a matter of essence—it must be done, it must be seen to be done. We are simply concerned with the best possible sequencing of measures so that the most immediate matters of saving lives and easing the suffering of the people of Darfur are taken care of first. ... In the circumstances, the position of the AU, thus explained, deserves serious regard. It is wrong to drown out this consideration with presumptions of corrupt motive. For the reasons that follow, the opposite presumption is more appropriate. First, AU leaders, more than most of the people who oppose their position, bear the heaviest burden of legitimate worry. ... Leaders of wealthy and able nations will be constrained to consider whether their domestic public opinion will permit them to ‘send [their] young men and women in harm’s way’ in any international military effort to stabilise a nation in chaos in distant Africa. African leaders will not have that luxury. ... The point of the foregoing is not that tyrants must be allowed to strangle their own peoples forever with vicious cords of relative stability. The point rather is that the available choices are not limited to either (a) perpetual tyranny that promises ostensible social stability or (b) instant removal and prosecution that yields instant chaos to society. There is a middle course. That course is the AU model of sequencing and balancing of the imperatives of justice and social stability. While not a perfect model, it has been known to bring eventual justice, or the immediately realizable promise of it, in certain cases where, as in the Bashir case, the need was seen for prosecution of a malignant dictator. And that brings us to the second reason why good faith must be presumed on the part of AU leaders. ... We must not be quick to forget that it is the AU leaders that passed a resolution requiring Hissen Habre (the former President of Chad) to be tried in Senegal for violations of international humanitarian norms. Similarly, the African leaders have tacitly endorsed the prosecution of Charles Taylor. Notably, ECOWAS leaders were visibly embarrassed—and they duly protested—when David Crane (the first Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone) surprised them at an ECOWAS peace conference in Accra in June 2003, by showing up unannounced and brandishing an indictment and warrant of arrest against Charles Taylor, who then was the President of Liberia and a fellow participant at the conference. Yet, neither the ECOWAS nor the AU leadership has been known to complain against the eventual arrest and trial of Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, sequenced after his prior, safe tease-out from Liberia and grant of exile in Nigeria. Indeed, it was his asylum host, Nigeria’s President Obansanjo, that eventually arrested him from his refuge in Nigeria and handed him over to the SCSL for trial. ... These antecedents are sufficient to demonstrate the folly of the suggestion that it is the motive of protection of a fellow ‘old boy’—rather than their seriousness about sequenced measures—that explains the position of the AU leaders in respect of Bashir. It is for these reasons and more that the AU leaders must be accorded a presumption of good faith, rather than not, when they seek a deferral of the Bashir prosecution. [In his own blogs, Dapo Akande has reviewed other reasons why good faith should be presumed on the part of AU leaders: see for instance, Akande, supra. See also Dapo Akande, ‘Africa and the International Criminal Court’: www.ejiltalk.org/africa-and-the-international-criminal-court/]... That question necessarily provokes the underlying inquiry as to why it was considered necessary to have article 16 in the ICC Statute in the first place. Is the AU request wholly outside those reasons? A cursory view of the Rome Statute’s travaux preparatoires does not support that conclusion. Article 16 is the product of a proposal from Singapore and Canada aimed at balancing two critical interests, to wit: (a) ICC’s judicial interest in exerting justice in the face of criminal responsibility; and (b) the Security Council’s political interest in maintaining international peace and security—sometimes in precarious circumstances. That balance was adequately captured by Mr Perrin de Brichambault of France whose remarks were recorded as follows: 'The proposed article [16] provided an excellent working basis as far as the role of the Security Council was concerned. There must be consistency between the actions of the Court and the actions of the Security Council where there were situations endangering peace. The Statute should provide for the Security Council to be able to ask the Court to defer action in situations coming under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations ....' [Emphasis added.] [United Nations, United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 15 June - 17 July 1998, Official Records, Vol II, Doc No A/CONF.183/13 (Vol. II) p 189]. Similar comments were made by other delegations that spoke in favour of article 16. See, particularly, the comments of Mr Mwangi of Kenya [op cit, p 317] and Mr Rowe of Australia [op cit, p 299] who respectively spoke of the need to strike a ‘balance’ in the suggested manner. Justification for the resistance to AU’s deferral request must be founded upon the proposition that the request may rightly be seen as unduly tipping that scale. But that would be a hard proposition to sustain, keeping fully in view the case of good faith made above in favour of the AU. ... How then do we move forward in order to bridge the gulf of tension between the AU and the ICC? Important consideration in the effort to heal the rift is that the views of the AU must be treated with respect and dignity and given due regard. Failure to do that runs a great risk of alienating one of the—if not the—most important constituencies of this young Court. For obvious reasons, alienation of the AU will not augur well for the Court. I anticipate here a demurrer to the effect that this amounts to mixing justice with politics. It certainly is. For, it will be a painful show of naïveté to presume otherwise. But, the presence of restraining politics in the affairs of the Court ought not impede it in substantially achieving the central aim for which it was founded: being the aim of banishing impunity from the minds of persons who abuse humanity and threaten international peace and security in alarming ways. The task for the Court then is to negotiate around these political obstacles and pitfalls and fog-spots, and remain dogged in its pursuit of justice and accountability. Granted, the potential achievements of the Court in those circumstances will be attenuated, as compared to the achievements of a court operating in a political vacuum. Yet, those attenuated achievements will be far superior than would be the lot of modern civilisation in a vacuum of international criminal justice. That is to say, the glass of justice represented by the Court, operating in a political reality, is not an empty glass. It is a glass half full. That is precisely the sort of balance contemplated by article 16 of the Court’s Statute.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on May 29, 2013 17:21:27 GMT 3
... Chile Eboe-Osuji ... It needs to be clearly said in defence of AU leaders that they must be accorded the presumption of good faith that they deserve, when they insist that justice must be done, but that they are more immediately concerned with securing peace and stability in Darfur and Sudan. Speaking on the Bashir indictment before the UN General Assembly in September 2008, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, the AU Chairman at the time, stressed the essential matter of justice, but insisted on the best sequencing of justice with the imperatives of security. As he put it: ‘Justice is a matter of essence—it must be done, it must be seen to be done. We are simply concerned with the best possible sequencing of measures so that the most immediate matters of saving lives and easing the suffering of the people of Darfur are taken care of first. ... In the circumstances, the position of the AU, thus explained, deserves serious regard. It is wrong to drown out this consideration with presumptions of corrupt motive. For the reasons that follow, the opposite presumption is more appropriate. First, AU leaders, more than most of the people who oppose their position, bear the heaviest burden of legitimate worry. ... Leaders of wealthy and able nations will be constrained to consider whether their domestic public opinion will permit them to ‘send [their] young men and women in harm’s way’ in any international military effort to stabilise a nation in chaos in distant Africa. African leaders will not have that luxury. ... The point of the foregoing is not that tyrants must be allowed to strangle their own peoples forever with vicious cords of relative stability. The point rather is that the available choices are not limited to either (a) perpetual tyranny that promises ostensible social stability or (b) instant removal and prosecution that yields instant chaos to society. There is a middle course. That course is the AU model of sequencing and balancing of the imperatives of justice and social stability. While not a perfect model, it has been known to bring eventual justice, or the immediately realizable promise of it, in certain cases where, as in the Bashir case, the need was seen for prosecution of a malignant dictator. And that brings us to the second reason why good faith must be presumed on the part of AU leaders. ... We must not be quick to forget that it is the AU leaders that passed a resolution requiring Hissen Habre (the former President of Chad) to be tried in Senegal for violations of international humanitarian norms. Similarly, the African leaders have tacitly endorsed the prosecution of Charles Taylor. Notably, ECOWAS leaders were visibly embarrassed—and they duly protested—when David Crane (the first Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone) surprised them at an ECOWAS peace conference in Accra in June 2003, by showing up unannounced and brandishing an indictment and warrant of arrest against Charles Taylor, who then was the President of Liberia and a fellow participant at the conference. Yet, neither the ECOWAS nor the AU leadership has been known to complain against the eventual arrest and trial of Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, sequenced after his prior, safe tease-out from Liberia and grant of exile in Nigeria. Indeed, it was his asylum host, Nigeria’s President Obansanjo, that eventually arrested him from his refuge in Nigeria and handed him over to the SCSL for trial. ... These antecedents are sufficient to demonstrate the folly of the suggestion that it is the motive of protection of a fellow ‘old boy’—rather than their seriousness about sequenced measures—that explains the position of the AU leaders in respect of Bashir. It is for these reasons and more that the AU leaders must be accorded a presumption of good faith, rather than not, when they seek a deferral of the Bashir prosecution. [In his own blogs, Dapo Akande has reviewed other reasons why good faith should be presumed on the part of AU leaders: see for instance, Akande, supra. See also Dapo Akande, ‘Africa and the International Criminal Court’: www.ejiltalk.org/africa-and-the-international-criminal-court/]... That question necessarily provokes the underlying inquiry as to why it was considered necessary to have article 16 in the ICC Statute in the first place. Is the AU request wholly outside those reasons? A cursory view of the Rome Statute’s travaux preparatoires does not support that conclusion. Article 16 is the product of a proposal from Singapore and Canada aimed at balancing two critical interests, to wit: (a) ICC’s judicial interest in exerting justice in the face of criminal responsibility; and (b) the Security Council’s political interest in maintaining international peace and security—sometimes in precarious circumstances. That balance was adequately captured by Mr Perrin de Brichambault of France whose remarks were recorded as follows: 'The proposed article [16] provided an excellent working basis as far as the role of the Security Council was concerned. There must be consistency between the actions of the Court and the actions of the Security Council where there were situations endangering peace. The Statute should provide for the Security Council to be able to ask the Court to defer action in situations coming under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations ....' [Emphasis added.] [United Nations, United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 15 June - 17 July 1998, Official Records, Vol II, Doc No A/CONF.183/13 (Vol. II) p 189]. Similar comments were made by other delegations that spoke in favour of article 16. See, particularly, the comments of Mr Mwangi of Kenya [op cit, p 317] and Mr Rowe of Australia [op cit, p 299] who respectively spoke of the need to strike a ‘balance’ in the suggested manner. Justification for the resistance to AU’s deferral request must be founded upon the proposition that the request may rightly be seen as unduly tipping that scale. But that would be a hard proposition to sustain, keeping fully in view the case of good faith made above in favour of the AU. ... How then do we move forward in order to bridge the gulf of tension between the AU and the ICC? Important consideration in the effort to heal the rift is that the views of the AU must be treated with respect and dignity and given due regard. Failure to do that runs a great risk of alienating one of the—if not the—most important constituencies of this young Court. For obvious reasons, alienation of the AU will not augur well for the Court. I anticipate here a demurrer to the effect that this amounts to mixing justice with politics. It certainly is. For, it will be a painful show of naïveté to presume otherwise. But, the presence of restraining politics in the affairs of the Court ought not impede it in substantially achieving the central aim for which it was founded: being the aim of banishing impunity from the minds of persons who abuse humanity and threaten international peace and security in alarming ways. The task for the Court then is to negotiate around these political obstacles and pitfalls and fog-spots, and remain dogged in its pursuit of justice and accountability. Granted, the potential achievements of the Court in those circumstances will be attenuated, as compared to the achievements of a court operating in a political vacuum. Yet, those attenuated achievements will be far superior than would be the lot of modern civilisation in a vacuum of international criminal justice. That is to say, the glass of justice represented by the Court, operating in a political reality, is not an empty glass. It is a glass half full. That is precisely the sort of balance contemplated by article 16 of the Court’s Statute.
I cant in anyway fault this reasoning, safe for the fact that, in the Kenyan case, the wrong people are before the ICC for the wrong if not no reasons at all. This is where the conflict between the Kenyan state and AU on the one hand and the ICC on the other begins, and the court has been given the opportunity to wriggle itself out of this self-made quagmire by simply either terminating the cases without conditions or referring them back to Kenya. ~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~ |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on May 29, 2013 22:28:48 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on May 30, 2013 0:20:24 GMT 3
Jakaswanga: In 5+ years not even the lowest manamba perps have been held to account for their roles in the PEV. But now the Kenyan legal system is ready to start with none other than the president and deputy president. I can see why JUBILEE beat CORD: for high-level comedy, this is way above "Jakom, they are planning to finish you".I especially like this bit: "The AU has pitched for brinkmanship where the ICC’s choices are stark — it either gets its hands off Kenya or face a looming mass walk-out of majority of its 34 African members. President Salva Kiir (above) of South Sudan, Africa’s youngest state, vowed not to join the ICC."The AU promised a mass withdrawal in 2009, over the Bashir case. The AU threatened a mass withdrawal in 2011, if the Kenyan cases weren't deferred. This is perhaps a coincidence, but in the same week that Kiir was supporting Uhuru and beating up the ICC, his African Brother, Bashir, in a show of African Unity, was threatening to cut off the transportation through his country of South Sudanese oil. Where has the Sudan/AU request for a deferral gone after 5 years? Look at the communication that the AU routinely sends to any African country that happens to be on the Security Council. I understand that in Kenya just getting a please-bugger-off session at the UNSC is considered "no mean feat". After 5 years, Sudan and the AU "management" have different views. "pitched for brinkmanship" reminds of of a sticker I once read on the back of some car: "It's you and me against the world. And we're gonna get creamed." Call me conservative, unadventerous, reactionary ... I'm going to make a "safe" bet on this "AU vs. The World". I also liked one too: "Left to their own devices, many African countries would have voted the ICC way."Nice to know that Kenya is keeping the AU on the strait-and-narrow. With the Kolonel gone, the organization needs a firm hand at the tiller. A bit of imagination never hurts: "The prosecution has issued a hard-hitting statement accusing the AU of plotting a mass walk-out."No such statement has come from the OTP, but why let facts get in the way of some good professing? Professor, eh? It's the 21st, but in places like Kenya the word still conjures up inages of Moses coming down from the mountain, tablet in hand---and even these days it would still be a tablet (digital). So ... where's the hero been professing (Kenyan media excluded), in what capacity, for long, etc.? Reminds me of this "commentary": www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/the-poppletonian/to-a-professor-are-you-a-professor/420770.article |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on May 30, 2013 0:49:50 GMT 3
Jakaswanga, double O tish, et al. Wouldn't a win at quiet diplomacy as the article states then be if the ICC drops the cases or refers them back to the dark continent? To me all that happened was the AU collectively issued a threat to walk out of the rome statute if... They didn't even give a timeframe as would be the norm in normal negotiations and threats. One has to understand that we ratified and signed the rome statute as individual countries and not as the AU and that's where the problem with these baseless threats will start. One has to go back in time to understand how all these countries were coerced/made to sign onto the statute. Each individual country has different ways it is inexorably linked to the ICC and western bosses. That's why Museveni will not retire himself from the statute while the americans are busy helping him hunt down kony and take him to the icc despite the noises he makes. Imagine the international and local ramifications ? He knows this. The article, in as much as it tries to spin it actually brings to light the serendipity in the weekend's actions by the AU. They went into it thinking wameweka ICC baridi only for the hague to harden its stance by sending a representative to nairobi breathing fire and brimstone ati witnesses dissapearing, threatening to go awol on hague etc. Those may be grounds for the issuance of an arrest warrant. The actions by the AU may have inadvertently hastened the process. What these folks don't and I have come to realize, won't ever fathom is that in the recent history of the western systems, it is very rare (and I say rare because maybe there is one or two examples to the contrary eg wikileaks)that politics, conjecture and rumors been used to escape justice. They pride themselves in their developed systems and there is no way barbaric africans can bring their unrefined, undeveloped standards to their shores. They have fried bigger fish. In all this, I can't help but notice a departure in modes of operation between the duo. Ruto may be working below the radar but when it comes to light, he hastily distances himself from any action that would muddy his case (better advisors or lawyers ?) He did it with the UNSC letter and also in his speech at the summit. Uhuru on the other hand... Is it because ruto knows it is now to each his own ? Is mama ngina acting emotionally and irresponsibly behind the scenes ? Questions surmise. But at least, thanks to the above article, we now know what rutos trips to the dark recesses of africa were for. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on May 30, 2013 2:35:08 GMT 3
Jakaswanga, double O tish, et al. Wouldn't a win at quiet diplomacy as the article states then be if the ICC drops the cases or refers them back to the dark continent? To me all that happened was the AU collectively issued a threat to walk out of the rome statute if... If you have or have had young children, then you will know that there's quiet, and then there's Kenyan/Ethiopian government quiet. The latter involves, for example, going to the top of the world's political heap and demanding that the impossible be done without much further ado, hurling mindless accusations of racism [which cry-wolf is unhelpful and insulting for those who actually have to deal with with real racism], blanketing the Kenyan national* media with all sorts of nonsense, etc. [* Contrary to Gasana's idea that "Africa is angry about this!", it seems to me, from a look at various national media, that most other Africans couldn't give two fwacks about all this.] Nobody will be walking out. That's just the sort of tough talk you get at beer-and-nyama-choma after too many beers. You are a man; you must know how to be tough when you don't actually have to do anything. How many of those tough leaders will let Bashir into their countries?I call it the Mother-In-Law Syndrome: we love you, respect you, admire you, stand with you and for you, would die for you ... but we'd rather you didn't visit.Museveni is a very funny guy. First, he and Uganda were very proud of the fact that the ICC's first ever Annual Review Conference was held in Uganda in 2010. They worked hard to get it there, and at the end the ICC even issued the "Kampala Declaration", which, again, Uganda was terribly proud of. Second, and much more significant, Museveni and Uganda reaped big from that: They got the USA to (a) commit to sending about 100 specialists to help in the hunt for Kony, which the USA did; (b) see its way clear to changing its laws so that a $5 million reward could be offered for Kony. Have you heard Museveni ask for those to be taken back?And there's his Tough Buddy, Kagame. One reading of the Riot Act, some snipping here and there of aid, and Long-Sought Bosco was at a US embassy shouting " don't be vague, take me to the Hague!".The ICC doesn't have to harden its stance. As far as I can tell, the judges are not only personally committed to the fight against general human nastiness but also consider themselves bound by the relevant law. In case people thought it was just Bensouda making noise, the court's president has today again made the same points in relation to the AU's "mambo bado": " The ICC operates strictly within the mandate and legal framework created by the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the Court, and cannot take political factors into account. Decisions are taken independently on the basis of the law and the available evidence and are not based on regional or ethnic considerations. Judges are the guarantors of the fairness of proceedings before the Court, from the authorisation of investigations to the confirmation or non-confirmation of charges and decisions on guilt or innocence.
It must be recalled that cases before the ICC are not only about the suspects or the accused; they also concern the thousands of victims affected by the events under the ICC’s jurisdiction, many of whom are represented in the various proceedings with the help of legal assistance provided by the Court." www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr908.aspxElsewhere it's "bugger the victims!", but the view of the court is simple: out there, you folks can play all the politics you want; over here, we will stick to the law. By the way, you may have noticed the "What the Nigerian judge said ... " thread or would-be thread. Given the OP, I decided to not comment because I wish to avoid the usual unhappy ending that Jukwaaists are only too familiar with. Nor did anyone else care for it. It has now been dragged here; so a few words: [That posting omitted sources, and, hence, dates. Also skipped were other issues that accompanied that blog commentary] The guy wrote that before he was appointed a judge at the ICC. Make of that what you will. What would be an issue is if it would have any effect on any proceedings before the court. That question has been answered with a NO. Early last year, none other than Karim Khan QC tried to get Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji thrown out of one of the Sudanese cases (on the rebel side). As he "delicately" put it: "The credibility of this institution requires the removal of the eminently qualified Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji from this particular case." One of the grounds was that the article quoted above supposedly showed a bias towards the AU, and Mr. Khan's handling of the case at hand required beating up the AU. A very serious situation. The entire court met to consider the matter in a plenary session. The votes: - 11 for Oga Chief-O - 2 against - 3 abstaining As the 11 put it: 18. Further, the majority considers that the blog commentary does not demonstrate any
appearance of favour to the AU.
...
20. Further, the majority considered that the blog commentary was not contrary to any position
taken by the Court, considering that it in no way questioned the decision of the Court to
issue a warrant of arrest against President Al Bashir, but merely questioned the procedures
concerning the article 16 deferral request, a matter which fell to the Security Council and
was completely outside the jurisdiction of the Court itself. In the relevant passage of the
blog commentary in which the respondent made reference to a "middle course", the
respondent did not advocate that course, but merely made the point that, contrary to the
manner in which the debate on that topic was normally framed, the middle course existed.The two against pretty much went the other way, i.e that he was pro-AU etc. More here: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1423447.pdfwww.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1390087.pdfThe AU should not expect this fellow to bend over anytime soon. But parents are never entirely happy when the progeny turn out to have minds of their own .... |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on May 30, 2013 22:31:06 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on May 30, 2013 23:16:31 GMT 3
Jakaswanga, double O tish, et al. Wouldn't a win at quiet diplomacy as the article states then be if the ICC drops the cases or refers them back to the dark continent? To me all that happened was the AU collectively issued a threat to walk out of the rome statute if... They didn't even give a timeframe as would be the norm in normal negotiations and threats. Omundu Pure  , ---Just to differentiate you from the other who I refer to as Strong Omundu! NB: We went to Chavakali one time on a matter of marriage, and when time came we were offered local brew, but with a choice: asili ama kienyeji?. Now where we came from, our Swahili nuance was limited and we thought those two mean the same. Well, not in Maragoli breweries! yes you guessed it! one was pure the other strong! But on the subject, I have Always wondered, ever since the threat over Bashir's arrest warrant, why the AU never did resolve that her members initiate the procedure to withdraw from the Rome Treaty. After all neither the USA nor Russia, nor China is signed up! At the same time I am made to understand, that withdrawal procedures now, do not lead to termination of cases ongoing. Given the above, I expected if serious, the AU to resolve that they had ordered Kenya to immidiately stop cooperating with the ICC, even on the current cases before that court! and the consequences would be borne by the whole of the AU! Now, that would be something! Well, Omundu, honestly my friend Kagwanja was not at his best in this article. Assertions like the march elections prove Kenya has irreversibly changed, do not look sensible, when the MPigs are raping the constitution in broad-daylight, de-gazetting a constutional body [SRC] which they have no mandate to tamper with! --------------------------------------------- And let me take this opportunity to warn my brother Otishotish:That my brother Kagwanja, who, like I, does not profess law, in his venture above has penned a less than semi-professorial tutorial on the legal politics of the Kenya vs ICC debacle, does not warrant Otishotish serving him with a horrid put-down, still deeper rubbed in by that goddam link! In defence of my buddy Kagwanja --whom I remember Miguna, another trouble-maker lawyer, witheringly rained on during a TV show on the same, I hereby declare that should I meet this otishotish somewhere in the dark, his wife's busy tongue will easily pass through his clenched teeth, for my fisty greeting shall leave a wide gap in his dental array. A gap as wide as the one the Luos say fuok the size of the euro-tunnel entry at Callais, France. I am also considering of initiating prosecutive procedures to operationalise the guillotine protocol of Jukwaa, since otishotish in brazen superiority has publicly humiliated a leading kenyan scholar who at least has entered the ring with that Nigerian terrorist at the Hague! to save the national honour. There are situations in life where courage ranks above intellect! Otishotish must learn to appreciate this! Godd-ddamn! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on May 30, 2013 23:28:37 GMT 3
I hereby declare that should I meet this otishotish somewhere in the dark, his wife's busy tongue will easily pass through his clenched teeth, for my fisty greeting shall leave a wide gap in his dental array. A gap I am a long-time happily married man; so some activities are no longer on my menu.  |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on May 30, 2013 23:31:32 GMT 3
Yes, they were Always personal lobby trips whatever the spin. But it is also fun to investigate what was in it for the other party, and to have an idea how the experienced it. To date, I have not yet heard of Ruto's report on his gallivanting around Afrika, solliciting for AU's support to validate their impending non-cooperation with the ICC. So I went hunting elsewhere. Luckily, Congo Brazza is a franco-phone with oil deposits, so when another future oil-producer sends a high-ranking delegation thereto, it generates talk --which may not be covered necessarily in the anglo-phone press. King Cobra, or Dictator Dennis Sassou Nguesso is of course a man who has been around. So he had to amuse himself a abit with the younger man from Kenya. He asked Ruto if this resolve to trash the ICC which had brought him to his distant shores, was both a cabinet and parliamentary resolution, sanctified accordingly by popular representative will akin to the Uhuruto legitimacy based on electoral victory. If you recall, the Uhuruto cabinet was not yet complete nor vetted, and had barely met in any meaningul content, and furthermore, parliament was still a confused crowd of lowly animals faring and snorting around town, so Ruto's answer to this question in the affirmative was very informative. In light of the knowledge that it was the previous GCG cabinet, later ratified by parliament, that underwrote a famous refrain DO NOT BE VAGUE, LETS GO TO THE HAGUE, the Kenyan just braved it, like a child caught lying who can only amuse. But even more important was this: The new regime in the Central African Republic feels compelled, after the discovery of a large diamond deposits, to nudge close to South Africa, the homeland of the famous De-Beers who would have the wherewithal and power-push backed by the units of the South African Army already present in CAR. Not to mention ongoing oil wells. in their march on the capital, after the withdrawal of the French forces to fight in Mali, the rebel force [Seleka] killed more than a dozen SADF troops. There is need for some major reproachment there. But who are the real powers in Banqui? who may feel Zuma $Co are elbowing them out? www.vice.com/read/what-were-the-south-african-military-up-to-in-central-african-republicOne version is: Jacob Zuma and the greedy gang around him were using the army to further their private business mining deals in CAR. ---But they had forgotten that CAR is the backyard of two tough guys: Dennis of Libreville, and Idris Debby of N'djamena. And if you take a very long look at Dennis-S., you will see the shadow of Africa's roughest: Eduardo dos Santos and his cut-throat army. These were the forces arraigned agaist Big Zuma in CAR, if he did not play ball. Now Zuma was quick to have invited Uhuru Kenyatta to South Africa. When the issue of peace in CAR rises up in the AU or elsewhere, would Uhuru, on behalf of Kenya, return the good will shown him by Zuma? Since Zuma with the biggest economy in Africa and a BRICS member acknowledging him publicly after a rebuff by Cameron of the UK effectively rehabilitated Uhuru fully? How indebted was Uhuruto to Zuma? incase of a dangerous fall out within the politics of the CAR? Not that Nguesso the old soldier would be that crude! It was a tight-rope walk that one, and given Uhuruto had not consulted on the finer details of this PAN-AFRICANISM of theirs, minds still have to be made up in Nairobi. But WELL, it was also a great lesson for Ruto, when he was asked if Kenya has any troops to spare from the Somali engagement, would Kenya consider a CAR peace donation, alongside the South Africans? And, Somali language barrier: how have the Kenyans solved that? they could teach the south africans how to operate in hostile linguistic set-ups! Now, lets us await Ruto's version if any, as he reports to the parliament. Or should I say as he reports to a kraal of snorts! aka Mpigs! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on May 30, 2013 23:35:08 GMT 3
I hereby declare that should I meet this otishotish somewhere in the dark, his wife's busy tongue will easily pass through his clenched teeth, for my fisty greeting shall leave a wide gap in his dental array. A gap I am a long-time happily married man; so some activities are no longer on my menu. How about the maid, friend? in our best of the best new constitution, they are 'empowered' to levels that would shock a striking wife back to the negotiation bed? or table? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on May 30, 2013 23:47:23 GMT 3
Jakaswanga: Think of Saturday night at Mama Mboga's as the tots of chang'aa go down. There is plenty of tough talk---men discipline their wives, take no nonsense from the boss at work, etc. Then they go home and cower in front of the wife and on Monday there is no end to sucking up to the boss. Nobody will be withdrawing from the ICC. The tough-talk summit is over, and everyone has gone home; life to continue as usual, with the AU seeking "donor funding" to plug a volcano-sized hole in its budget. Here we go: www.nation.co.ke/business/news/Kenya-stares-at-Sh180bn-cash-shortfall/-/1006/1863646/-/hmqw8wz/-/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on May 31, 2013 3:18:57 GMT 3
I am a long-time happily married man; so some activities are no longer on my menu. How about the maid, friend? in our best of the best new constitution, they are 'empowered' to levels that would shock a striking wife back to the negotiation bed? or table? Hahahahahaha. Well its funny this came up because besides the symbiotic 'scratch mine I scratch yours' arrangements that Zuma the 'mshini wami' and our very own uhuru may have made, double O tish may also learn a lesson or two on how to successfully partake in multiple carnal 'indescretions' of the legal kind and get away with it without spouse or populance fliching in disgust. He may have also given clues to our dearest orezo on how to handle this mzungu, considering the central african "using the national army for personal business" and "the guptas using the army airbase as a personal parking" scandals that have vanished into thin air like the smoke from a busaa brewing fire. That despite the mzungu DA raising a furore to high heaven, still not understanding this African man's mind on right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 24, 2013 21:38:29 GMT 3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 18:55:42 GMT 3
UN General Assembly back ICC Saturday, August 24, 2013 - 00:00 -- BY NZAU MUSAU KENYA suffered a blow yesterday when the UN General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution in support of the ICC. In the last few months, Kenya has been pulling all the stops to disparage the ICC in the eyes of UN Security Council. Through Permanent Representative to the UN Macharia Kamau, Kenya has criticised the philosophical basis of the ICC almost suggesting it be scrapped. But on Thursday, the UNGA in its 95th meeting endorsed the ICC and called on members to “ensure cooperation and assistance in the arrest and surrender of suspects, provision of evidence, protection and relocation of victims and witnesses and in the enforcement of sentences.” The resolution was sponsored by 59 member states but was adopted by consensus. There was no record of Kenyan delegation speaking. The Sudan delegation however ensured their anti-ICC stance was reflected in the resolution. “Sudan’s representative pointed out that, since his country was not a State party, it did not recognize the Court’s jurisdiction, and would, therefore, not recognize its decisions. That applied to other non-States parties to the Statute, he said, adding that he was not interested in today’s resolution,” a statement from the assembly read. The assembly hailed ICC’s first judgment against Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga as “an important step in ensuring accountability of those responsible for international crimes.” Both president Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto are facing crimes against humanity charges at the ICC. In May, Macharia asked the UNSC to terminate the Kenyan cases and to reconsider the value of ICC. www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-133392/un-general-assembly-back-icc |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 23:49:08 GMT 3
International Center for Policy and Conflict cautions against spending public funds on ICC trials By Standard Digital Reporter Nairobi, Kenya: International Center for Policy and Conflict (ICPC) has warned the office of the Attorney General against using tax payers money to fund the International Criminal Court (ICC) trials as the cases are on personal criminal responsibility and not state responsibility. ICPC Executive Director Ndung’u Wainaina, in a statement, urged President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto not to drag the country into the cases, as both the Constitution of Kenya and Rome Statute are categorical on prosecution of nature of crimes they are facing. “Mr Uhuru and Mr Ruto while addressing the country during presidential debates and campaign rallies stated very clearly that ICC cases were personal challenge. They must not therefore make it national or bring official capacity as a mitigating factor now,” said Wainaina. Wainaina underscored the need for full disclosure on any expenditure related to the cases that are set to begin in September 10 (Ruto and Sang case) and November 11 for the president’s case. “The cases do not fall under the legitimate public purpose. The office should make full disclosure to the Public Accounts Committee of Senate and National Assembly of any public resources being spent on the ICC cases,” said Wainaina. Wainaina further urged the “office of Director of Public Prosecutions to act on its responsibilities and ensure victims are provided with the long overdue justice they deserve.” www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000091818&story_title=lobby-group-cautions-against-spending-public-funds-on-icc-trials |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 0:38:05 GMT 3
The gist of the arguments made below is that the absence of UhuRuto @ ICC trials will not be an impediment to the running of the country. Well then, my question is, why do we need them? I mean the country could save so much if these two roles are rendered defunct. We could redeploy the resources saved to so many other desparately underfunded projects such as education, health care, infustructure, the list is endless. The Hague trials cannot affect State business Updated Saturday, August 24th 2013 By Fredrick Muteti Early this week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) made a ruling that was of proximate interest to Kenya. As part of its so-called status conference ahead of the actual hearing of the cases which are supposed to start on September 10 for Deputy President William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang and November 12 for President Uhuru Kenyatta, the court decided that Mr Ruto would have to attend court continuously until his petition asking for intermittent hearings is determined. The DP had presented a petition asking the court to space his appearances at The Hague, to allow him to attend to matters of State. His favoured modus would be to make his appearances in two-week intervals. There was also an attempt to ensure that the two cases do not run concurrently, so as to avoid a situation where both the President and his deputy are in the Netherlands at the same time, an occurrence that could create a “perception of a vacuum” at the very pinnacle of the country’s political leadership. I have used the word “perception” quite deliberately. It is my considered opinion that even in the absence of both Jubilee leaders, there would be no vacuum; at least not to an extent that would adversely affect the running of the state. As would be expected from a bankrupt and increasingly rudderless opposition, the ruling was greeted with glee in those quarters, with purveyors questioning the ability of the Jubilee duo to exercise the duties demanded of their offices in the face of the looming ICC appearances. Anyone adopting such a posture has to be either uninformed about how government works or is living in a land of fantasy. While our bungling opposition was fixated on putting roadblocks in the path of the government, to the extent of trying to hijack initiatives they can barely implement like the Governors’ and Senators’ push for a referendum and generally moaning at every opportunity, including burials, about a ‘stolen’ election, something very fundamental has shifted. If there is something Uhuruto have done with such charm and panache during the few months they have been in charge of state-craft, it is demystifying the presidency, a project whose initiator, former President Kibaki, is sometimes not given the credit he deserves. The presidency is no longer the omniscient, in-your-face, all-knowing, all-powerful and omni-present institution it used to be during the Nyayo era. We have a president who is as much at home donning the national Rugby 7s team colours and practicing a scrum as he is attending an album launch by an upcoming singer. But he can also go on national TV to offer direction and leadership on a critical issue. He slips into these roles with such ease. He is never intrusive. During his recent tour of China, Mr Ruto has been very much the able assistant that he is. The long and short of it is that even if the UhuRuto pair found themselves at The Hague at the same time, on account of the hearings, it would be naivety on stilts to actually think that the running of the state would grind to a halt. The uncertainties around the last elections are firmly behind us. Apart from a small intransigent minority that will soon find itself as desolate as Lot’s wife, the rest of the country has long accepted the verdict of the majority and moved on. All levels of government are in place. The Cabinet Secretaries and Principal Secretaries, most of them technocrats who do not need supervision to do their jobs, have hit the ground running. The Judiciary, the Legislature and even the County governments are fully constituted and discharging their mandates as per the Constitution. Secondly, the “dynamic duo” as President Kibaki referred to the UhuRuto pair during the inauguration has shown that, besides being the youngest combination to ever rule this country, they also have very fresh ideas on how a modern government should be run. So, forget the imaginary vacuum and get down to work. Life will still go on. The author is a businessman and political activist www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000091786&story_title=the-hague-trials-cannot-affect-state-business
|
|
, ---Just to differentiate you from the other who I refer to as Strong Omundu!
