ICC judges to determine Ruto’s fate

Saturday November 28, 2015

advertisements

The fate of Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto is still in the hands of International Criminal Court judges as far as the use of recanted evidence is concerned.

The Assembly of State Parties, the legislative arm of the court, ended Friday.

‘‘ASP reaffirms its understanding that the amended Rule 68 shall not be applied retroactively,” a statement said.

However, this was not included in the resolutions of the Assembly.

In effect, it means the Appeal Chamber will determine if the Trial Chamber erred or applied the rule in violation of the Rome Statute on retroactivity and other related matters.

Mr Ndung’u Wainaina of the International Centre for Policy and Conflict said the resolution by ASP did not in any way affect the appeal and the court’s powers.

“In essence the undiplomatic drama by Kenya at the ASP was irrelevant and unwarranted,” Mr Wainaina said.

But the government, which sent a big delegation to lobby for the change, claimed victory.

Foreign Affairs CS Amina Mohamed expressed gratitude to the ASP for the reaffirmation of the non-retroactive applicability of the rule.

A RELIEF

However, she said Kenya would only rest easy if the judges implemented the decision.

“We hope the ICC shall respect the powers of the Assembly as an equal governance institution. ASP must address the crisis brewing within the Rome Statute system. The crisis is occasioned by perceptions of inequality among nations and biased prosecutions,” Ms Mohamed said.

Kenya’s delegation included Majority Leader in National Assembly Aden Duale, Senate Majority Leader Kithure Kindiki and several MPs.

“Kenya’s interpretation of Rule 68 has prevailed and therefore any use of recanted evidence cannot and must not be acceptable or applied at the ICC,” they said in a statement.

The lawmakers added that the “victory” came after strenuous efforts by them, the Executive and Kenyans of goodwill.

Mr Wainaina said the ASP had reaffirmed that the rule, which was enacted in 2013, would not apply retroactively.

The rule is important to the prosecution because it allows the use of testimony of witnesses who have been declared hostile or have withdrawn their statements.

It is crucial in the case against Mr Ruto and former radio journalist Joshua arap Sang who are accused of crimes against humanity.

Home
Email

Hiiraan Online