Big win for President Uhuru Kenyatta as International Criminal Court formally closes case

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has formally terminated the criminal case against President Uhuru Kenyatta.

The Trial Chamber v(b) granted the application by the Prosecution to have the charges against Kenyatta withdrawn. The application was made following an ultimatum by the court for the prosecution to terminate or proceed to trial.

The Chamber also ended all summons requiring the Head of State to attend the trial. The decision by the three judges Kuniko Ozaki, Robert Fremr and Geoffrey Henderson saw the closure of the case that hang on Uhuru since 2011 when he was first summoned to The Hague based court.

But the court retained authority to deal with any cases that may arise from any interference with witnesses or with the collection of evidence, which led to the collapse of the case.

At the same time, the court ruled all the measures undertaken to protect witnesses in the case would continue until they are reviewed by the same chamber. This means witnesses who have been relocated from Kenya would continue living in their new localities on the court’s budget.

Kenyatta was facing charges of crimes against humanity, arising from the 2008 post-election violence. He was first summoned before the Pre-Trial Chamber on March 8th, 2011, when the Camber also set conditions for his appearance in court. Those conditions were in force until yesterday when they were discharged. The charges were confirmed on January 23, 2012 and the following month referred to the Trial Chamber.

But on December 5, last year the Trial Chamber gave the Prosecution a week to decide whether to terminate the case or proceed to trial after it became apparent there was no evidence. The Chamber then declined, to refer to the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) a complaint against the Kenyan government for non-cooperation in the trial of the President.

It however ruled that should the charges be withdrawn, the prosecution would file the same case based on the same or similar factual circumstances, should it obtain sufficient evidence to support such a course of action.

Friday the Chamber ruled it would retain powers to hear the case again on the question of cooperation by the government, in the event the prosecution succeeded at the Appeals Chamber.

The lawyer representing victims in the case will also continue to have the mandate to inform them on the impact of withdrawing the charges and how they can participate in the application at the Appeals Chamber.