Has ICC Turned Into A Comedy Theatre?
Observing the measly
performance of the prosecution at the confirmation of charges hearings in the
case of William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, I was left wondering
whether we should not have globally legislated standards of idiocy. With the
likes of Moreno O’Campo in the prowl, we need to have the benchmarks of idiocy
so that the world is saved the valuable time we need to solve the problems of
hunger, poverty, disasters, hurricane Irene, global warming etc. I concur fully
with defence counsel Kioko Kilukumi at the hearings that the only good thing
with Ocampo is creativity.
Which brings me
to the most ridiculous allegation that Ocampo makes in the case against Francis
Muthaura, Hussein Ali and Uhuru Kenyatta, namely that the symbol of our
nationhood, the official residence of our Commander-in-Chief was the
mobilization point for Mungikis where they were issued with military uniforms
and military vehicles. For the
undiscerning, State House has a staff contingent of over 1,000 staff from all
the communities of Kenya. How such a massive undertaking can take place without
being noticed by any staffer can only be attributed to Ocampo’s award winning
creativity.
Among the dates the Mungikis were supposed to have held a guard of
honour at State House is 30th December, 2007. It is imperative to
note that this is the day that President Kibaki was sworn in. I was one of the
guests at that swearing in. I was driven to State House in the official vehicle
of Hon Martha Karua. At State House I recall meeting so many people including
Mwai Kibaki, Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura, Peter Kenneth, Martha Karua etc. With reflection, I am
pretty certain that when Ocampo refers to Mungikis in State House he may be
referring to me and Peter Kenneth while the military vehicles must be confusion
with Martha Karua’s Green Prado that drove me to State House!
In any case, by
invoking State House in his theory, the good novelist that is Ocampo has
inadvertently changed this case into one involving a state party. I do believe
that the competent defence lawyers will raise this issue with the court so that
the architecture and conduct of the proceedings can be modified to be in line
with cases involving state parties.
I reiterate what I have said in this column for the last one
year. Ocampo’s brief is to achieve a certain outcome in Kenya. His sole mission
is to remove some actors from the 2012 General Election so that Raila Odinga
can have a very easy win against Raila Odinga. That is why he ignores such
statements by Raila like . “Generals do not go to battlefront” when he was
asked in 2008 why he was not on the ground with the protestors. On 3rd
January, 2008 , Raila said on KTN “ What is happening is genocide being
perpetrated by a Mungiki gang operating from State House led by Uhuru Kenyatta” . For Ocampo to repeat
such claims in his case leaves one with no doubt as to where he gets his brief
from.
There is also the
issue of double standards at the ICC. By the established definition under the
Rome Statute, it would mean that
those involved in the London riots are also perpetrators of crimes against
humanity. There may be some distinctions between the post-electoral violence in
Kenya and the London riots, but they are nuances, matters of degree. One cannot
draw a bright line between them.It will be argued that in any event the British justice system is dealing very
aggressively with the London violence, and that as a result the crimes would
not be subject to prosecution on the basis of complementarity. The British
justice system is 'willing and able' to bring those responsible to justice.
But here we encounter another problem with the way the Rome Statute is being
applied. The judges at the International Criminal Court have tended to an
analysis whereby it is not adequate that perpetrators be tried for any crime in
order for complementarity to be addressed. The theory is that they must be
tried for the precise crimes under the Rome Statute. Are any of the teenage
hoodlums in London being prosecuted for crimes against humanity? Is Britain
failing in its duty to adequately describe the nature of the crimes - and
thereby deprive victims of the justice they are entitled to - by labeling the
acts using ordinary criminal classifications, such as assault, mischief, theft,
arson, vandalism and so on?
Of course we all know that riots in Nairobi and riots in London are not the
same thing. Should anyone be surprised that so many of us Africans think the
Court is focusing its attention unfairly on our beautiful continent ? Finally, I have
read that a group of Ocampo’s supporters have threatened to take Pope Benedict
to the ICC for the victims of mistreatment by Catholic Priests. Where it comes
to my Catholicism, there is no compromise. If that comes to pass, we will tell
Ocampo, in the famous words of Robert Mugabe to keep his Falkland Islands, we
keep our Church.
The
author is the spokesman of the Party of National Unity. The views expressed
herein are his own.