ICC allows Ruto to appeal witness decision

THE HAGUE: The legal duel between Deputy President William Ruto and Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda compelling some eight witnesses to testify is now headed to the Appeals Chamber.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) judges by majority, with Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji dissenting, have allowed Ruto and his co-accused Joshua Sang to contest the decision.

Attorney General Githu Muigai was also allowed to submit amicus curiae observations in the proceedings.

“The Chamber affirms the right of the accused to be tried without undue delay and consequently this would be assisted by a prompt resolution of the appeal,” the judges said in their 24 paged ruling yesterday.

According to the ruling, the five Judge bench of the Appeals Chamber will make a determination on two issues only. Whether the ICC has the power to compel the testimony of witnesses as well as whether a State party to the Rome Statute is under an obligation to cooperate with the Court to serve summonses and assist in compelling the appearance of witnesses subject to a subpoena

On April 17, the Judges by majority allowed an application by the Prosecution to have the Kenyan authorities forced to avail the witnesses using all means available under the laws of Kenya.

The eight witnesses whom ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has described as ‘insiders’ variously gave statements to the Courts investigators but later withdrew from the process.

Ms Bensouda insists that the witnesses are crucial in proving her charges saying for example that Witness P0015 has evidence that Ruto organised and bankrolled the violence that engulfed the Rift Valley

“According to the witness, Mr. Ruto was present and participated in meetings to prepare for the attacks, during which the participants discussed the procurement of firearms, the selection of field commanders and the arrangement of finances and logistics. P-0015 also described the Network that Mr. Ruto utilised to commit the crimes,” she told the judges.

However Ruto and Sang have insisted that decision to compel the witnesses to testify  would infringe on their right to fair trial.

“Compelled witnesses, who appear before the Chamber in order to avoid fines and/or imprisonment, will feel coerced into adopting their original statements, even though prior to being compelled these witnesses went to great lengths to dissociate themselves from the content thereof,” argued Ruto’s Lead Counsel Kharim Khan.

“The creation of a coercive environment and the rejection of the principle of voluntary appearance, thus, significantly engage issues of fairness,” he added.