Uhuru Kenyatta gets Christmas gift in dropped ICC case

Kenya: The turn of events in the case against President Uhuru Kenyatta at the International Criminal Court (ICC) was the most dramatic highlights, not only in the Kenya, but also in the court’s calender this year.

First was Uhuru’s appearance before Trial Chamber V(b) on October 8, and then the withdrawal of his case by the Office of the Persecutor (OTP) on December 5.

President Kenyatta has been the prominent face of Kenya at the ICC. But since he attended the pre-trial proceedings in 2011, he had never travelled to The Hague for any proceedings.

On March 31, this year, the start of his case was adjourned to October 7. On September 19, it was again adjourned indefinitely and a status conference set to discuss the the progress of the case.

The summons by the Chamber for Uhuru to appear in person during the status conference on October 8, sent the world into speculation.

The question was whether he was going to honour the summons and become the first sitting head of state to appear before The Hague-based court.

In Kenya, political allies and critics were split along the middle, with some asking him to ignore the summons while others prevailing on him to attend the court to avoid having warrants for his arrest being issued, thereby making him an international fugitive.

Eventually, Uhuru decided to travel to The Hague but not before causing a political stir when he announced he had handed over presidential authority to his deputy William Ruto and that he would be traveling as an ordinary citizen.

He explained the move was to ensure the Kenya Government was not drawn into his personal matters. The ‘handing over’ entailed signing of a gazette notice, giving up the official car, motorcade, security and the Harambee House office to Ruto.

LEGAL SUBSTANCE

But the move was criticised by the Opposition and other analysts as a mere public relations gimmick with no legal substance since under the Constitution, the DP automatically takes over in acting capacity when the President is absent.

Even as Uhuru sought to keep his trial a personal issue, the status conference turned out to be a moment for a showdown between the prosecution and the Kenya Government represented by Attorney General Githu Muigai.

The State was accused of failing to co-operate in providing Uhuru’s financial statements, mobile telephone records, and other personal documents on any land and firms he owned or was associated with.

But the Government reiterated that the prosecution had not provided specific details of the records they wanted.

Prof Githu also claimed some of the records requested for did not exist or could not be traced in the Government registries.

Others were in the hands of private entitles who could not release them without court orders.

Further the AG claimed the Government had fully co-operated by providing what was easily accessibl,e adding that the State could not assist the prosecutions in the investigations.

Uhuru’s return was as dramatic as his exit to attend the status conference. He returned to a heroes welcome even though the charges had not been dropped.

Un-co-operative witnesses

Thousands thronged both sides of the road and it took the presidential entourage six hours to arrive at the Harambee House office.

The climax was the withdrawal of the case against Uhuru by the prosecution on December 5. This was after the Trial Chamber declined to adjourn it indefinitely and directed the prosecution to either proceed to trial or withdraw the case.

The prosecution withdrew it but made it clear that the charges could be reinstated if more sufficient evidence was acquired.

In the case against Ruto and Sang, the key highlight was a directive by the court to the Kenyan Government to summon eight uncooperative witnesses to testify.

These witnesses had initially withdrawn from the case, saying they had been paid and influenced to fabricate evidence against the two accused.

In total, the prosecution had called 27 witnesses by the close of the year.