Skip to main content
December 14, 2018

[STATEMENT] Uhuru attacks New York Times for 'ridiculous' ICC coverage

Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta celebrate the termination of the latter's crimes against humanity case at the International Criminal Court, December 2014. Photo/PSCU
Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta celebrate the termination of the latter's crimes against humanity case at the International Criminal Court, December 2014. Photo/PSCU

The ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, terminated the case against President Uhuru Kenyatta because, by her own admission, she did not have sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

This admission came too late and was accompanied by an intense propaganda effort to prejudice, profile and libel President Kenyatta in the eyes and minds of the global public so as to rob him of his overdue vindication.

This campaign has not relented. We are now seeing desecrable screeds carried by renowned publications, bearing the most incompetent conjecture and ridiculous calumnies.

The New York Times continues its steady descent into the murky, rancid morass of gutter press and has abandoned all pretence of journalistic decency in pursuit of the Prosecutor's agenda.

Relying on the fanciful accounts of unreliable individuals, discarding all attempts at balance and fairness, the Times plies a malicious, vindictive and unprofessional article on the ICC cases.

It is advancing the self-serving and deluded notions of Luis Ocampo, a man whose understanding of the Rome Statute is slippery, and whose appreciation of the legal mandate of the ICC and the Office of the Prosecutor is subordinate to a strong penchant for the extraneous.

Ocampo's delusions are fortified by an appeal to believe the accounts of one of Africa's most vicious, murderous and terrifying organised criminal syndicates against a demonstrably upstanding leader of integrity.

Thus we have New York Times canvassing the exclusive point of view of a menagerie wholly unsuited to the purposes of truth, justice and accountability, and essentially suppressing a credible side vindicated by due process and entirely blameless.

Whom did the paper contact at State House? Why did they not interview Dennis Itumbi, despite making reference to him? Is the truth on PEV going to be dictated by Mungiki, seriously?

The robust canvassing of the Kenyan cases in the media underscores two important points.

First, compared to the decidedly tepid effort in the pre-Trial and Trial Chambers, the OTP has shown extraordinary  capability in the media political domain.

At the ASP and in global media, OTP has invested disproportionate time, effort and resources.

This goes to prove our initial thesis that from the beginning, the Kenyan cases were never intended for adjudication in court. Rather, they were part of some externally orchestrated sequence of illegitimate political interventions.

We leave it to the court of world opinion to observe what the ICC is really about.

 

Unedited

 

Read from New York Times: The President and the Prosecutor

Poll of the day