Ruto’s defence rubbishes witness’ testimony

By FELIX OLICK

Deputy President William Ruto’s lawyer discredited the testimony of the fifth prosecution witness, citing contradictory evidence, which he said highlighted the weaknesses of the case at the ICC.

Ruto’s counsel, David Hooper, zeroed in on the numerous glaring inconsistencies to corner the witness and call International Criminal Court judges’ attention to alleged fabrications in the trial of the deputy president.

Of major concern to the four lawyers representing Ruto was an alleged ODM rally at 64 Stadium, where Ruto is purported to have called the Kikuyu “grabbers who shall be returned to Central Province in a pick-up.” But it turned out that no such rally took place at 64 Stadium despite the witness giving a vivid recollection of how he made his way into the venue.

After Hooper played three videos of the only rallies ODM had in Eldoret ahead of the 2007 polls, the witness changed his story.

“I remember now, it was at Huruma Grounds, not 64 Stadium,” the witness said of the rally that was held one week to the polls.

“You said that the rally you attended was at 64 Stadium. Is that right?” asked Hooper during cross-examination yesterday.

Witness: Yes, I said it was 64 Stadium but it was a long time… My memory is now refreshed.”

Initially, the witness had insisted that the rally took place at 64 Stadium and gave a detailed description of the place where he stood in relation to the podium and how he listened attentively to ODM luminaries.

He had said that the ODM leaders, including former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, sat in a shed at the podium and that when he arrived, he entered the stadium through a gate.

But yesterday, it emerged that Huruma Grounds is an open space with no gate. Neither does it have a shed.

“There is no shed at Huruma Grounds, is that right?” asked Hooper. The witness agreed.

“How did your mind play the trick in seeing these people in a shed that is not there?” Hooper pressed on.

But the witness insisted that speeches made at the political rally reminded him of the event. He challenged the lawyer to play the video of Ruto’s speech a little longer.

However, the witness yesterday admitted that he could not remember ODM leaders, other than Ruto, who spoke at the event or what they said.

On Monday as he took to the stand, the witness – identified by the alias P487 – told judges that Ruto sanctioned the eviction of the Kikuyu at this particular rally.

“He started addressing people and said I want peace and went through the manifesto of ODM,” the witness said during his examination-in-chief.

“But before he could finish, he referred to the Kikuyu as grabbers… He said Kikuyu people would be put in a pick-up and taken back to Central.”

But in the television clip played by the Ruto defence yesterday, the deputy president was not seen or heard to utter those words. Instead, he fired a warning salvo to retired President Mwai Kibaki over his alleged plan to rig the elections.

“Kibaki will go back home because he has been defeated. We will not allow him to rig the polls because we have discovered his scheme,” Ruto said at the event.

As they played the videos of the ODM rallies that were attended by mammoth crowds, Ruto looked in the direction of former ODM Pentagon member Najib Balala, who made a surprise visit to The Hague. Balala is a Cabinet Secretary in President Uhuru Kenyatta’s Jubilee government.

According to Hooper, the witness changed his testimony because he had been cornered lying before judges.

“I suggest, sir, that you have changed your evidence because you know the game is up?” he posed. The witness rejected the claim.

Hooper produced copies of The Standard and Daily Nation newspapers and asked the witness why the media did not capture such “damning remarks” by Ruto.

coded language

But the witness insisted that the media don’t report everything and maintained that Ruto used coded language in his speech.

“It was not reported because it was somehow like a secret,” he said.

Pressed by the lawyer, the witness also accepted that he was only told that the lorries that were allegedly used to ferry Kalenjin youths belonged to businessman Jackson Kibor.

He also admitted that he was not sure about the arsonists who burnt his house, even after previously identifying them as three of his Kalenjin neighbours.

Yesterday, Ruto’s trademark cap, bearing the colours of the Kenyan flag, was also produced by his defence as evidence at the International Criminal Court.

This was after the same witness claimed on Wednesday that the cap also had a lot of significance to the Kalenjin people.

Unlike other days, Ruto yesterday arrived in court wearing the cap.

And before the proceedings, he tweeted: “I am very proud of my country, the Kenyan flag and my Kenyan flag cap. It’s patriotism, period.”

The witness had insisted that unlike other ODM leaders, Ruto wore a different cap.

“This cap had great significance to the Kalenjin, especially the Nandi people. So he would say something that the Kalenjin people could understand in a different way,” the witness claimed.

He, however, did not say what significance the cap had since Ruto wore the same during this year’s election campaign.

Today, the ICC Appeals Chamber judges will rule on Ruto’s continuous attendance of court proceedings in The Hague. Earlier, judges had excused the deputy president from attending all trial sessions but the prosecution successfully had the ruling set aside.

In a different ruling, the ICC judges excused President Uhuru Kenyatta from continuous attendance of his trial, set to start on November 12.

It is unclear if the President will attend the trial after the African Union made a strong resolution asking the United Nations to defer the cases on grounds of peace and security. Coming immediately after the Westgate Mall terrorist attack by Al-Shabaab gunmen, the AU said the Kenyan presidency should not be distracted.

 from governing the country.