Next year could either spell doom or blessings for Deputy President William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang, both who are facing criminal charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.

It is likely to be the year when their trial at The Hague-based court will be concluded. Already, the prosecution has virtually exhausted all their witnesses. The 27th witness concluded his evidence on December 11, before Trial Chamber v(a).

The court held a status conference on December 12, but it was not clear whether the prosecution indicated they would be calling another witness next year. The last six witnesses were summoned to testify by the Kenya Government following directives from the Chamber.

On December 11, Presiding Judge Eboe Osuji made it clear that the Chamber intended to have the case concluded within the sessions scheduled for 2015.

The earliest deciding point will be when the Chamber determines whether Ruto and Sang should be asked to call their own defence or whether they should be acquitted at the earliest stage due to insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The two are facing charges of crimes against humanity arising from the 2007-8 post election violence.

Major impact

The Trial Chamber has already decided that the two will be free to make submissions on why they should be acquitted without the necessity to call their own defence, after the prosecution has closed its case.

Such an application if granted, would see the two acquitted even at the earliest months of next year. The outcome of the ICC case is likely to have a major impact on the relationship between TNA and URP supporters, the two main parties in the ruling Jubilee coalition.

Another likely event in 2015 could be an appeal by ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda against a refusal by the Trial Chamber v(b) to refer the Kenya Government to the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) that are signatory to the Rome Statute, over its conduct in the Uhuru Kenyatta case.

The Chamber declined to refer the Government to the ASP even after observing that it had refused to cooperate with the prosecution in providing some material requested for by the prosecution. Bensouda has already indicated that she intends to take up the matter to the Appeals Chamber and to ask that the decision of the trial judges be reversed and that Kenya be cited at the ASP next year.

She accused the Government of precipitating the collapse of the Kenyatta case by failing to produce vital documents that included his bank statements, records of his companies, cars and land, as well as his mobile phone statements and financial transaction records.

The prosecution claimed that these documents could have been a prime source of evidence that Uhuru financed the post-election violence in Naivasha and Nakuru.

The complaint against Kenya can only be referred to the ASP by the court. And in particular, it can only be referred to the ASP because the situation was referred to the court by the prosecutor and not by the United Nation Security Council. Should Bensouda succeed, 2015 could be a diplomatically sensitive year for Kenya as it will be facing possible questioning by the ASP, with the possibility of sanctions being discussed for non-cooperation with the ICC.