Trial Chamber V (b) of International Criminal Court (ICC) has convened status conference today involving only the parties to the case namely Prosecution, Defence and the Accused person Uhuru Kenyatta to discuss the “critical juncture’ of the case. Uhuru Kenyatta trial was supposed to begin on October 7, 2014. However, it is postponed for the fifth time.
During status conference, judges are not addressing the veracity of the evidentiary threshold. This can only happen when the trial begins.
The chamber will be seeking clarity on the progress of implementing July 29, 2014 decisions ordering the Kenyan government to provide the prosecution with eight categories of records relating to Kenyatta or companies and third parties associated with him. The Trial Chamber will hear both sides and later issue its decision(s). According to prosecution making available this information will determine whether the prosecution will proceed with the case or not.
The status conference was set to have two sessions i.e. Government of Kenya Vs. Prosecution on cooperation, which was done Tuesday. The second session today will be between the judges, the prosecution and the defense. This made it mandatory for the personal presence of Uhuru Kenyatta.
It is ‘critical juncture’ because the Chamber will decide on two things: indefinite adjournment of the trial (prosecution request) and or terminate (defence demand).
READ MORE
From allies to adversaries: UhuRuto's betrayal politics
Kindiki will be the voice of reason in government
Why forgotten Mau Mau songs are resounding across the mountain
Uhuru Kenyatta: I hold no grudges and ill will against anybody
The prosecution says the evidence available is yet to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold necessary and wants full government of Kenya cooperation in making available certain information as ordered by the Court.
Defence is categorical that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to gather evidence against the accused. Defence has applied three times for the case to be permanently suspended or issue a permanent stay but judges have declined all applications.
Judges said issuing a permanent stay of proceedings was an extreme measure to be taken to protect the rights of an accused person to a fair trial. This is not the situation in the Kenyatta case.
