Helping Post-Election Violence Victims: Write to Ocampo

[Terminator]

Thanks for sharing. This thread is a fountain of knowledge. You should ask for it to be permanently stickied. I have highlighted the part I found to be in concurrence with my lack of confidence in a local trial. It is not so much the judges as the DPP and the Kenya Police. Handing those cases to Kenya is as good as dismissing them.

theStar

ICC part of Kenyan system, says CJ

Friday, 27 April 2012 16:22

BY RAMADHAN RAJAB

THE Judiciary has dismissed claims that having the cases against four Kenyans at the ICC is a form of neo-colonialism. Addressing students leaders of Nairobi schools yesterday, chief of staff Duncan Okello, representing Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, said the ICC is part of the Kenyan Judicial system because Kenya ratified the Rome Statute domesticating the court.

“ICC is not a foreign court as being portrayed. The Kenyan constitution recognises that international law is a source of the Kenyan law. ICC gave Kenyans options to form a local tribunal but because of the Parliament's wisdom or lack of it, they failed. The cases at the court are right but in a manner that is politically inconveniencing to some,” he said remaining non-committal on whether the cases should be brought back to be handled in the local courts.

Okello said that even though much has changed in the judiciary and Kenyans are assured of free, fair and transparent judgments, it is paramount for the public to press for transformational change in other sectors linked to the justice system.

“Administration of justice is an assembly line and the judiciary only comes at the tail end of the assembly. It is not enough to have a judiciary that works, but the investigations by the police must be proper as well the prosecutions, to enable the judge make a just decision. So it is upon us to call on everyone to do his or her job effectively to be sure of getting justice,” he said.

“Judges make decisions according to the evidence presented to them, they cant reinvent it,” Okello said. He called on Kenyans to remain vigilant and defend the constitution so that its gains are not lost.

Okello welcomed those who have complaints against judicial officers to lodge them directly to the CJ's office or mail them to the judiciary ombudsman office. He called on schools administrators to nurture in their pupils and students a culture of religious and cultural tolerance to promote unity and cohesion.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/national/nati ... em-says-cj

[ICC.supporter]

The Standard

Why Eala petition on ICC cases futile

Published on 28/04/2012

By Lillian Aluanga

A Motion passed by the East African Legislative Assembly urging the International Criminal Court to transfer Kenya’s cases to the East African Court of Justice raises eyebrows.

Describing the ICC as a ‘neo-colonial court’ that should not be entrusted to serve justice to suspects accused of crimes against humanity during post-election violence, the assembly members are calling for the transfer of the cases to the Arusha-based court.

Deputy Premier Uhuru Kenyatta, former Civil Service head Francis Muthaura, Eldoret North MP William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang are to stand trial at the ICC.

Eala’s resolution comes hot on the heels of a verdict by The Hague-based Special Court for Sierra Leone, which found former Liberia’s President Charles Taylor guilty of crimes against humanity including conscripting of child soldiers, murder, terror and rape. It also follows comments made by the Executive in a State of Union address last week implying the Government was seeking ways to have the suspects tried locally.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone should not be confused with the International Criminal Court, under which the Kenyan cases fall. It is, however, part of international mechanisms employed in the pursuit of justice for victims of atrocities often associated with conflict. Taylor’s verdict comes barely a month after that of former DRC rebel leader Thomas Lubanga whom the ICC found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Onslaught on process

The move by Eala is the latest in a series of attempts to pull Kenya’s cases out of ICC, but legal experts say it may have little, if any, impact on the ongoing process.

International Commission of Jurists, Kenya Chapter chair George Kegoro says the East African Court has no jurisdiction to try crimes of any kind, let alone international crimes which the four suspects face.

"Kenya’s power elite has never been interested in pursuing justice for post-election violence victims and is simply playing politics with Eala," says Kegoro. Kenya, Kegoro says, is using Eala the same way Sudan has used the African Union (AU) to shield President Omar al Bashir from the ICC.

"It’s a proposal that is not practical at this point. It is more of a political rather than a practical statement informed by factual understanding of the East African Court of Justice," says International law expert Godfrey Musila.

Dr Musila says as it is currently constituted, EACJ is limited under Article 27, to only arbitrating matters that involve member states.

"For the last six years, there has been a pending draft proposal seeking to increase the court’s mandate to include handling issues of human rights. But even if the proposal were to be effected, there would still be need for a treaty to extend jurisdiction of the court to include international crimes. The court would also need to have permanent judges as opposed to the current situation where judges only sit when there is a case to be determined," says Musila.

During its session, the assembly resolved to have the chair of the Council of Ministers submit its resolutions to the Summit of EAC Heads of State on proposed Amendments to Article 27 of the treaty, which would see similar cases of international crimes brought to EACJ.

Musila, however, says even if EACJ was to be mandated to handle international crimes, it would not deal with crimes that had already happened, but rather those occurring in future.

Then there are the cost implications associated with prosecuting international crimes. It is estimated that the ICC spends at least 100 million euros in a year, which means the East African court would require enormous resources to set up a similar court. "The ongoing proceedings at the ICC cannot be affected by any resolutions at this point in so far as the content of the court process is concerned," says International Centre for Transitional Justice’s Christine Alai.

Referral of cases

According to Alai, the discussion on returning the cases back to Kenya can only be applicable if, say, victims of the post-election violence were to lodge an application asking for the court to sit anywhere else other than The Hague.

Alai describes the latest move by Eala as ‘part of an orchestration of different activities calculated towards the possibility of future non compliance with the International Criminal Court’.

"When has Eala discussed the plight of post-election violence victims? What is motivating its actions and why is it suddenly so concerned about the ICC? Why has it to date made no proposals to support the Kenyan government in setting up a mechanism that would bring justice to the victims of post-election violence?" poses Alai.

In reference to the verdict on Taylor, Alai says it sends a clear message that impunity will not be condoned regardless of an individual’s status.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone is somewhat similar to what had been proposed for Kenya had she chosen to set up a local tribunal to try suspects.

Taylor’s case differs from Kenya’s on several fronts including the fact that the crimes he was accused of were committed in a neighboring country (Sierra Leone).

The court was also established under different circumstances to the ICC, with the latter established by member states under a treaty, while Sierra Leone’s government and the United Nations jointly set up the former. Although the court held its sittings in the capital Freetown, Taylor’s case was moved to The Hague owing to security concerns.

Alai refers to the ‘mode of liability’ that Taylor was found guilty of which made reference to his abetting in the commission of crimes.

Crime scene

"The significance lies in the fact that even though one may not have physically been present at the scene of crime, this type of liability can be used to determine guilt," she says. Musila, however, says the very same basis is an indictment on the prosecution.

He says it is important to distinguish acts that constitute a crime and various forms of individual responsibility. Often the prosecution will pursue an argument that a crime happened but what is even more important is for it to link individuals to the acts.

International law has developed various forms of individual responsibility through which senior people can be linked to crimes committed by others. These are: Command responsibility which shows an individual was part of an organisation or at the top of the hierarchy of such a grouping that committed crimes; joint criminal enterprise, which refers to an individual being part of a joint criminal plan to commit crimes; and aiding and abetting, which is basically a fallback position.

"The first two are the most important and in Taylor’s case, the prosecution failed to link him to them. That is a serious indictment on his part," says Musila.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/politics ... rentPage=1

[ICC.supporter]

The Standard

Effort to transfer ICC cases to EAC court challenged

Updated 1 hr(s) 28 min(s) ago

By Ally Jamah and Judy Ogutu

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights has accused the Government of protecting the four suspects facing charges at the International Criminal Court over the post-election violence of 2008.

At the same time, a researcher has moved to court in yet another attempt to bring to an end the two cases.

Challenging the latest move to have ICC cases transferred to the East African Court of Justice, KNCHR said it was just another tactic by the Government to shield the politically influential suspects from answering to war crimes charges.

"This is not about justice for Kenyans. It is all about politics and protecting a few individuals. They seek to add protocols to the EACJ just for the sake of four people," said Commissioner Lawrence Mute in a news conference in Nairobi on Monday.

He accused the Government of double standards with regard to EACJ, saying it recently argued against the court hearing a case of alleged human rights violations in Mt Elgon by the State security forces.

Double-standards

"That time, the Government insisted the court has no jurisdiction to hear the cases, now it is arguing otherwise. This is just about selfish interests of a few individuals, not the interests of the nation," said Mute, who was accompanied by commissioners Ann Munyiva-Ngugi and Fatuma Ibrahim.

KNCHR asked the Government to drop the plan of challenging ICC’s jurisdiction with regard to cases facing Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Eldoret North MP William Ruto, former Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura and journalist Joshua arap Sang.

Last week, the East African Legislative Assembly endorsed a Motion urging ICC to transfer the trials of the four suspects from its jurisdiction to the East African Court of Justice. The 10th Extraordinary session of the East African Community summit held in Arusha resolved to extend the jurisdiction of the EACJ to cover crimes against humanity.

Another twist

It is also expected AU meeting next month will discuss a protocol to give the African court on Human and Peoples’ Rights jurisdiction over international crimes.

Meanwhile, Moraa Gesicho, a researcher, claims President Kibaki co-operated with the ICC despite the fact that the Commission of Inquiry into the Post-Election Violence had found that crimes committed in Kenya following the 2007 presidential election did not require intervention of the court.

"Therefore, the President ought to exercise his authority and bring to an end the cases at the ICC to restore the sovereignty of the republic," she argues in the petition filed in court.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePa ... rentPage=1

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Politics

ICC trials can’t be transferred, rights activists tell Kibaki

By BERNARD NAMUNANE bnamunane@ke.nationmedia.com AND MIKE MWANIKI mmwaniki@ke.nationmedia.com

Posted Monday, April 30 2012 at 22:30

Human rights activists on Monday warned that the regional court in Arusha had no capacity to try the Ocampo Four.

Law Society of Kenya (LSK) chairman Erick Mutua said the push to refer the cases from The Hague was in bad faith and questioned the preparedness of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) to hear the cases.

“Whereas the LSK welcomes the move to extend the jurisdiction of the EACJ to include criminal jurisdiction, the fact that this is done to support the proposition to refer the ICC cases to the Arusha Court is in bad faith. The LSK is opposed to the transfer of the said cases from The Hague,” he said in Nairobi.

Mr Mutua said the Rome Statute that established the ICC had no provision for transfer of cases before it to another court outside its jurisdiction.

Justice for victims

“Under international law where there is failure by a state to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes or where the state is incapable of doing so, the appropriate forum is the ICC under the Rome Statute or an ad hoc tribunal to be established by the United Nations. The East African Court of Justice is not any of that,” he said.

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) said the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) or the African Union could not challenge the admissibility of the cases at The Hague since they are not parties to the Rome Statute.

“The government should realise that states cannot ask the ICC to ‘transfer’ a case to a particular judicial body or institution” said KNCHR commissioner Lawrence Mute at a media briefing in Nairobi.

He warned the decision was not in the best interests of the victims of the 2007/8 election violence that killed 1,133 people and displaced 650,000 others.

Lawyers say that President Kibaki’s latest attempt to stop ICC cases is in vain, pointing out that the mandate, the set-up and the funding of the EACJ makes it difficult for the Arusha Court to try the cases.

Expanded mandate

“It (the campaign) cannot succeed. Even if it were to succeed, it will take at least two years because of the many things that are required. It is basically an impracticability,” said one of the experts who could not be named as he work with the government and the ICC.

Another lawyer said member states would have to invest heavily in the Arusha Court to convince the international community that victims of the post election violence would get justice.

“The court has no prosecutor and the witness protection unit has not even been conceptualised. The practical things that are needed to try crimes against humanity are not there. How do you then expect this to be the option to The Hague?” he posed.

Last week, President Kibaki chaired the EAC heads of State summit which passed a resolution to expand the mandate of the Arusha court to include criminal jurisdiction.

Previously, the court was mandated to try crimes related to human rights.

Earlier, the EALA had passed a motion in support of the transfer of the cases from The Hague.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/I ... chdqbaz/-/

[ICC.supporter]

Capital FM News

Kenya rights watchdog opposes Arusha trials

Posted by CATHERINE KARONGO on April 30, 2012

NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 30 – The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) has dismissed the governments latest bid to have four Kenyans facing charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) tried at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) in Arusha.

Commissioner Lawrence Mute said on Monday that Kenya has all along been unwilling to put in place a special tribunal or use its judicial framework to seek justice for victims hence the ICC should be left to do its work.

“After Kenya and Africa have discussed the ICC almost as a theoretical subject for a couple of years, it seems to us that suddenly key politicians in Kenya and Africa are realising that the Court will genuinely offer redress against human rights violations and criminal acts,” Mute said at a press conference.

He said asking that the suspects be tried locally was aimed at protecting them and yet providing solutions for victims of the violence was not on the agenda.

“The wheels of international justice seem to be moving fast,” he added in relation to the recent convictions of Thomas Lubanga of the Democratic Republic of Congo by the ICC and Former Liberia President Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

“This has caused a lot of disquiet amongst African leaders and the current attempts against the ICC are a reinforcement of African leader’s perception of the ICC as a neo-colonial Court which only targets Africans,” he added.

Last week the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) unanimously approved and adopted a motion urging the East African Community (EAC) Presidents to call for the transfer of the Kenyan post election violence cases to the East African Court of Justice.

In the same week, the 10th Extra Ordinary Session of the East African Community summit held in Arusha also resolved to extend the jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice to cover crimes against humanity.

However, Mute said states could not ask the ICC to transfer a case to a particular judicial body or institution.

“An institution such as the EALA cannot file an admissibility challenge and neither can the AU since they are not parties to the Rome Statute,” the Commissioner said.

He noted that the judicial arms of EALA and the AU had no jurisdiction over criminal conduct and the key authority of the EACJ was the interpretation and application of the EAC Treaty.

“ICC will not cede jurisdiction to a body which does not have jurisdiction and which has never handled similar cases before and has no framework for doing so,” Mute said.

He noted that even if the EAC put in place a new protocol, it would be relevant for future cases as opposed to ongoing cases

“For as long as the discussions focus on only the suspects, particularly the four, the feeling will remain that these attempts are not genuine justice seeking efforts but rather efforts to shield certain individuals,” he stated

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/?p=36353

[ICC.supporter]

theStar

ICC plays useful role in Africa

Monday, 30 April 2012 23:59

BY STAR EDITOR

SOME people believe the International Criminal Court is a conspiracy against Africa. The government is still wants the cases against the Ocampo Four transferred to either Kenya or Arusha.

The African Union has also raised the possibility of African countries withdrawing from the Rome Statute. Yet last week ECOWAS invoked the ICC to sober up the coup leaders in Guinea Bissau.

Leaders from the Economic Community of West African States decided to "immediately" send troops to restore constitutional order in Guinea-Bissau. They then gave Guinea-Bissau’s junta a deadline of 72 hours to accept civilian rule or face diplomatic, economic and financial sanctions. They threatened "targeted sanctions" against the junta, including the possibility of them being handed over to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

The ICC has now become a genuine deterrent against wrongdoing. That is why ECOWAS is threatening Guinea Bissau with the spectre of the ICC. And whether or not the ICC has unfairly targeted the Ocampo Four, there will be a sword hanging over the head of anyone who tries to tamper with the Kenyan election next year. All political players know this. The ICC is useful to Africa, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable for those in power.

Quote of the day: "It is much safer to obey than to rule." - Spiritual writer Thomas a Kempis died on May 1, 1471

http://www.the-star.co.ke/opinions/lead ... -in-africa

[ICC.supporter]

theStar

Fresh shuttle diplomacy on ICC cases

Monday, 30 April 2012 23:50

BY WALTER MENYA

The government is considering engaging in yet more shuttle diplomacy to have the Ocampo Four cases referred to the East African Court of Justice in Arusha. On Saturday, President Kibaki, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and Burundi First Vice President Thérence Sinunguruza adopted last week's resolution by the East African Legislative Assembly asking for the transfer of the ICC cases to the EACJ. "The communiqué released after the meeting outlined the way forward. The committee established to advise the EAC heads of state will do so by the end of May this year,” the head of presidential press service Isaiah Kabira said yesterday.

The proposal has been condemned by the Law Society of Kenya and human rights activists as being "in bad faith". LSK chairman Eric Mutua said the society would oppose all attempts to transfer the cases to the East African Court of Justice as the judges are all appointees of the member states. Mutua said the court also lacked the resources to handle the post election violence cases. “Even if it were possible to transfer the ICC cases to be conducted by the EACJ, the trials are likely to be a sham,” Mutua said.

The presidents mandated the council of ministers to expedite amendment of the founding treaty to extend jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice to cover crimes against humanity. Article 27 (1) presently limits the EACJ's jurisdiction to interpretation and application of the treaty. All five partner states will then have to agree on a protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction.

G7 leaders, including Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto who are ICC suspects and about 30 MPs from central Kenya have backed the EALA proposal. “Let the EALA proposals be taken seriously. We want the cases to be held locally and let those saying that Uhuru cannot vie for presidency desist from saying so,” Ruto over the weekend.

Both the UN Security Council and the ICC have rebuffed previous referral and deferral requests by the Kenya government. Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka last year undertook intense shuttle diplomacy to get support for the deferral of the Kenyan cases. “I have heard that that they are going to mobilise the African Union once again to lobby the EU and the UN on Kenya’s behalf. This government should know that the ICC process has reached a point of no return,” NGO Council chairperson Ken Wafula said yesterday.

Executive director of International Center for Policy and Conflict Ndung’u Wainaina said the proposal was a manifestation of the malaise in Africa where leaders spent resources protecting criminals from responsibility. He accused the AU, EALA, IGAD of creating fertile grounds for more slaughtering of Africans.

The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights said the proposal was proof that the regional body was being used to frustrate justice. Commissioner Lawrence Mutethe described the move as an attempt to shield certain individuals from prosecution. He said it was bound to fail as the EAC and the AU were not party to the Rome Statute and could not file an admissibility challenge.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/national/nati ... -icc-cases

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Politics

Ruto loses bid to remove name from chaos report

By PAUL OGEMBA

Posted Friday, May 4 2012 at 17:14

Eldoret North MP William Ruto has lost a bid to have his name removed from a human rights watchdog report into the 2007/08 post-election violence.

Justices Mohammed Warsame, Cecilia Githua and Weldon Korir Friday dismissed Mr Ruto’s claims that he was not accorded a fair hearing by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, ruling that the MP did not show any evidence of malice.

The judges also dismissed his request to declare the KNCHR report null and void, ruling that the damage had already been done and they could not reverse what had already taken place.

“We think Mr Ruto is asking us to assist him capture a quarry that is already deep in the bush. Even if we are to grant the orders sought, it will not serve him any meaningful purpose,” ruled the judges.

They ruled that the report had been used extensively by third parties, and that it was the same relied upon by the Waki Commission of Inquiry into the post-election violence to reach its findings and make a recommendation.

The judges added that attacking the KNCHR report would be to curtail the investigations into the post-election violence and to abdicate public interest.

According to the judges, the commission did not make any decision that Mr Ruto was responsible for the violence but only mentioned that he participated and recommended further investigations against him.

They agreed with the commission’s submissions that the application was misconceived and defective since the report does not contain any decision that Mr Ruto was involved in the planning of the violence, nor does the report reach any conclusion of his guilt.

They accused Mr Ruto of filing the application too late after the report was released and that he did not offer any explanation as to why he did not file the case immediately the report was released in August 2008.

On the MP's claims that he was not given an opportunity to access evidence or witnesses, the judges ruled that it was risky since the country was still volatile and had not stabilised as a result of the violence.

“It would have been risky to confront Mr Ruto with the names of the witnesses given the investigations were carried out after the National Accord was signed. The commission was not obliged to reveal names since it would have endangered the lives of others,” they ruled.

They defended the commission saying that it acted according to statutory law and in good faith to protect public interest.

They dismissed Mr Ruto’s claims that the commission targeted him, saying that the report did not target any particular individual and that there was no evidence to show it treated him differently from others mentioned in the report.

The MP had filed the application seeking an order to annul the report by KNCHR that he participated in the planning and organising meetings in Kipkelion, Mailing and Turbo where he allegedly incited the public against the Kikuyus and his political opponents.

He argued that the commission breached the rules of natural justice, acted in bad faith and contravened his legitimate expectations, and that their conclusion had no basis in fact, equity and law.

The judges, however, ruled that the commission cannot be blamed since it acted on its own initiative to investigate the violations of human rights that took place during the post-elections violence and that the initiative did not warrant the rules of natural justice.

They ruled that Mr Ruto’s application came too late in the day, and that it was clear from the report he was summoned and actually appeared before the commission to give his evidence.

Mr Ruto is awaiting trial for crimes against humanity charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). He is accused of committing crimes of murder, deportation, forcible transfer of populations and persecution against perceived PNU supporters in the Rift Valley during the post lection violence.

Some 1,133 people were killed and 650,000 uprooted from their homes following the disputed 2007 elections.

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, former public service head Francis Muthaura and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang are also due to stand trial at the ICC for the same or more charges.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/R ... index.html

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Africa

Taylor prosecutor seeks 80-year sentence

By AFP
Posted Friday, May 4 2012 at 10:34

The chief prosecutor in the trial of Charles Taylor has suggested an 80-year sentence after the Liberian former president’s conviction for war crimes, according to a document made public Thursday.

The prosecutor said the term would be fair given Taylor’s role in arming and aiding rebels who killed and mutilated thousands in neighbouring Sierra Leone during the 1991-2001 civil war, one of the most brutal conflicts in modern history.

“Should the trial chamber decide to impose a global sentence, 80 years imprisonment would be appropriate,” said the document, signed by the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s chief prosecutor Brenda Hollis in The Hague.

“The recommended sentence is appropriate to reflect the essential role that Mr Taylor played in crimes of such extreme scope and gravity.”

Taylor, 64, was found guilty by the UN-backed court last week for aiding and abetting war crimes.

In the first judgement against an ex-head of state by a world court since the World War II Nuremberg trials, Taylor was convicted on all 11 counts including acts of terrorism, murder and rape committed by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels, who paid him for arms with diamonds mined by slave labour.

Taylor will be sentenced on May 30 by the court, based in the leafy suburb of Leidschendam outside The Hague. Should he get jail time, it will be spent in a British prison.

The hearings, which saw model Naomi Campbell testify she had received diamonds from Taylor, lasted nearly four years, wrapping up in March 2011.

Prosecutors alleged that the RUF paid Taylor with illegally mined so-called blood diamonds worth millions, stuffed into mayonnaise jars.

The rebels would in return get arms and ammunition provided by Taylor.

Prosecutors said “but for Charles Taylor’s criminal conduct, thousands of people would not have had limbs amputated, would not have been raped, would not have been killed.”

But during his conviction, judge Richard Lussick did however stress that although Taylor had substantial influence influence over the RUF, including its feared leader Foday Sankoh — who died in 2003 before he could be convicted by the SCSL — “it fell short of command and control” of rebel forces.

Taylor, Liberia’s president from 1997 to 2003, had dismissed the charges as “lies” and claimed to be the victim of a plot by “powerful countries.”

During his own 81 hours of testimony, which began in July 2009, he called the trial a “sham” and denied allegations that he had eaten human flesh.

“These convictions were obtained with corrupt and tainted evidence effectively bought by the prosecution,” his lawyer Courtenay Griffiths said after last week’s verdict.

Prosecutors however said they believed their suggested sentence “provide a fair and adequate response to the outrage these crimes caused in victims, their families… the Sierra Leonian people and the world at large.”

Authorities in Nigeria arrested Taylor in March 2006 and he was transferred to The Hague in 2006 after security fears in the west African country.

During Taylor’s trial which began on June 4, 2007, 94 witnesses took the stand for the prosecution and 21 for the defence.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/-/1 ... index.html

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Opinion

Is the East African Court the door to non-cooperation with the ICC?

By MAINA KIAI
Posted Friday, May 4 2012 at 20:00

There is more than meets the eye with the new push to get the ICC cases from The Hague to Arusha under the East African Court of Justice.

This is not about domestic accountability: This is the start of a political process to culminate with the end of formal cooperation with the ICC and go rogue like Sudan.

For whatever anyone thinks of him, President Mwai Kibaki is nobody’s fool. Yes, he has presided over the most extra-judicial executions in independent Kenya; the largest number of IDPs and evictees ever; in my view, the most brazenly stolen election since mlolongo of 1988; the Anglo Leasing scandals, including the phantom fishing boat-cum-naval vessel that has been undergoing “modifications” since 2004; and now the new form of legalized corruption of open stealing and calling it “gratuity.”

He may well be as Uhuru Kenyatta memorably described him, “hands off, eyes off, ears off, everything off” but he is neither naïve nor gullible.

He and his advisors know that the East African Court has no jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. A few months back, the Kenyan government argued against jurisdiction on human rights issues in that same court in a case on violations against the Sabaot in Mt.Elgon.

They also know that it is trite law that criminal law is never retroactive: Thus even if the East African Court gets jurisdiction for crimes against humanity, it will not be over the cases of the Ekaterina 4, but only for future cases.

Kibaki also knows that this new push will not wash with the ICC. It is too obviously a political gimmick, rather than a serious effort to promote complementarity with the ICC.

He knows that the ICC will understand this as part of the many steps his regime has taken to avoid accountability, rather than genuine efforts to combat serious impunity in Kenya.

He knows they know that transferring jurisdiction to the East African Court is much more than simply extending the Court’s mandate to cover crimes against humanity.

He knows that they know that the process of creating new institutions to competently investigate, prosecute, protect witnesses, get and train new competent judges, create prison facilities etc will take more than 3 years, assuming adequate funding.

After all, it took the ICC about that long to get off the ground, despite the significant political will and funding available.

Closer home, our corrupt, incompetent and partisan police force has yet to even start its reforms, almost 5 years since the election related violence, and show even the smallest signs of effective investigations!

This push to move to regional courts, rather than our own courts, is an acknowledgment that Kibaki and his advisors are unable to control or manipulate our new Chief Justice and get him to do their bidding, as and when they want it.

They know they will have more success in a totally political process at the regional level. We should take solace in that fact, but I am afraid that it could be also a signal for terrifying challenges and obstacles for Willy Mutunga, as the symbol of the only reforming and serious institution in our governance structures.

So with all this, it is clear that Kibaki and co have set the stage for non-cooperation with the ICC. It was not accidental that Kibaki mentioned the parliamentary motion to get out of the ICC in his speech to the country a week ago.

For someone who routinely ignores the constitution, consultations, and even the reports that he commissions, this was revealing. And then add the fact that his ministers are describing the ICC to the international community as a “clear and present danger in election time.”

The script from here on is clear: The East African presidents will give the East African Court jurisdiction in the next month. Then the clamor for handing over the ICC cases will vigorously start, and when the ICC refuses, as it inevitably will, Kibaki will announce that Kenya will no longer cooperate with the ICC and is withdrawing from the Rome Statute.

This will be height of folly, just as the decision not to establish a Truth Commission in 2004—so as to entice KANU support to outwit Raila Odinga--was a huge mistake that contributed to the mess of 2007/8.

And just like then, ordinary Kenyans will be the ones to suffer, as impunity is entrenched with arrogance, all for political expediency.

mkiai2000@yahoo.com

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/ ... index.html

[Terminator]

If the cases are still on at the Hague, the net effect would be to make Kibaki's accomplices fugitives from international justice. Joshua Sang has stated that he will cooperate with the court. The government cannot stop him from doing so. The only benefit of quitting ICC would be to lend an aura of legitimacy to defiance by the forces of impunity. The treaty expects Kenya to continue cooperating on the cases already before the court. Any incoming president will still be expected by the treaty to cooperate with the ICC.

The script from here on is clear: The East African presidents will give the East African Court jurisdiction in the next month. Then the clamor for handing over the ICC cases will vigorously start, and when the ICC refuses, as it inevitably will, Kibaki will announce that Kenya will no longer cooperate with the ICC and is withdrawing from the Rome Statute.

[ICC.supporter]

Withdrawing from the ICC will make Kenya a pariah state. It will be a terrible public relations move, considering we have a Kenyan American in the White House.

[ICC.supporter]

theStar

PM Raila Odinga Really Is An Enigma

Monday, 07 May 2012 13:27

BY NGUNJIRI WAMBUGU

wo months ago I was on Kameme FM discussing issues around the ICC Kenyan situation when an interesting thing happened. Uhuru Kenyatta called into the show and asked me 11 questions, especially as regards positions that I have held that have been contrary to his. However one of the more memorable comments he made was that I must be careful about my new friend, Raila Odinga. He advised me that this man cannot be trusted and that I should be careful in putting too much faith in the man.

The Deputy Prime Minister was voicing something that has been voiced by even trusted friends around me who are concerned that I am leaning more towards Raila Odinga politically. Issues that keep coming up include whether a Raila-led government would socio-economically disenfranchise certain regions from benefiting from his government; whether he was behind the ’41 vs 1’ philosophy that ODM is believed to have rolled out as its campaign strategy in 2007; whether he was involved in planning for the kikuyu-targeted post election violence, etc. Uhuru Kenyatta touched on some of these fears in all the 11 questions he asked me.

I did not vote for Raila Odinga in 2007; in fact I spent a lot of effort circulating my thoughts about why I believed that Raila Odinga should not be President of Kenya. My primary fear of a Raila presidency was that the man was too powerful a force, and would be bad for Kenya’s democracy. I also saw a man willing to do anything to win, and ready to sacrifice Kenya’s existence, rather than lose. My justification was that his entire campaign seemed to be driven by negative energy, revenge and hatred. I also argued that if he could cause so much trouble to an incumbent and his entire government machinery when only a mere MP (then); what could he do with the powers of a President, especially considering the constitution we had then.

My opinion of Raila Odinga has changed gradually since 2008, especially once I started getting involved in inter-ethnic discussion forums through KikuyusforChange. Unlike most of my fellow Kenyans from Central province I have had occasion to politically engage opinion leaders from the regions where the other 4 Million Kenyans who voted for Raila in 2007 come from. In these interactions I have learnt many things, including how the leaders from amongst the 4 Million of us who voted for Kibaki actually build Raila Odinga’s political career whenever they deal with him contemptuously.

In the close to 4 years since 2008 I have watched Raila work very hard to put the mistakes he might have made in 2007 behind him, especially that of being associated with a team that seemed to isolate one community from the others, and to incite those others against it for political gain. I have understood how humbling it has been for him to accept what is essentially a powerless office, in a hostile government, and to understudy a president who was a bitter rival. I have seen a man who has realized that Kenyans are looking for a positive narrative; that any presidential candidate who hopes to win must speak to Kenyans as Kenyans; not in units of their religions, demographics, genders or tribes. I have seen a man who has accepted that Kenyans want someone who will sincerely seek to unite rather than divide Kenya, and who is striving to be this candidate. What I have seen has impressed me and with the new constitution that makes it easy to manage any President, my vote has gone to Raila. But I am worried I could be wrong.

The reports that Raila Odinga could be seeking ways to reconcile with William Ruto concern me because I belong to the group that agrees with Moreno Ocampo, that William Ruto bears substantial responsibility for what happened in Rift Valley in 2007. I also find Ruto extremely unapologetic about all these chaos, and his comments on this terrible time border on the absurb; from it looking like a movie, to gas cylinder bursts. This is what made me wonder how Uhuru Kenyatta ever agreed to work with him in any political alliance.

However of greater concern to me is the suggestion that Raila has offered to use his international networks to save William Ruto from the ICC process; the same way as he helped Henry Kosgey! The idea that someone can remove someone else from the ICC process suggests that it is possible for such a person to put someone else into such a process. This is a dangerous implication when viewed in the context of suggestions from Uhuru Kenyatta’s allies that their leader is in the ICC because Raila put him there! If this were true I would feel very silly after all the work I have done in support of the ICC to-date. It would also mean that what I have seen happening to Raila Odinga in the last 4 years was not genuine.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/opinions/ngun ... an-enigma-

[ICC.supporter]

theStar

WHAT RAILA PROMISED RUTO

Friday, 04 May 2012 23:48

BY STAR REPORTER

PM pledges to save Eldoret North MP from case at the ICC

PRIME Minister Raila Odinga promised Eldoret North MP William Ruto to use his international contacts to try and save him from the International Criminal Court if he backs him in the 2013 election.

According to highly placed ODM sources, the seven hour meeting was held at the house in Karen of a former Kanu operative on Monday, April 23. The meeting was also attended by Westlands MP Fred Gumo and Raila's wife Ida who had been to Ruto's house twice to set it up.

During the meeting Raila promised to speak to his international contacts in the USA as he was about to travel there to receive an honorary degree from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. Raila left the country on April 24 and returned on Thursday morning.

According to an ODM MP, Raila promised that he would help Ruto the way '"he helped ODM chairman Henry Kosgey." In exchange, Raila wanted Ruto to return to ODM, or at a minimum not to campaign against him in the Rift Valley before the election. In January the ICC did not confirm charges of crimes against community against Kosgey and former Police commissioner General Hussein Ali. Charges were confirmed against Ruto, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, former Public Service boss Francis Muthaura, and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang.

The two agreed to meet again after Raila returned from the USA. They agreed to come to the follow up meeting, scheduled for next week, with concrete answers to their respective questions. Raila is expected to revert with a response from his international contacts while Ruto will be expected to state whether he will back the PM in the elections.

According to ODM sources, the meeting was mooted after the homecoming party in Kitale on April 22 for Justice minister Eugene Wamalwa last month. Gumo told those present at the rally, including Ruto and Uhuru, that the ICC cases should be brought back to Kenya because leaders were playing politics with them.

After the meeting, Gumo reportedly called Ruto to sound him out and was surprised to find that he was not hostile. "He took his cue on the grounds that Ruto seemed to have softened his position. Gumo then told the PM that they should initiate the talks," said the source. They met on the following day, April 23, and Ruto reportedly told Raila that it was too late and the Kalenjin have moved on while Raila reportedly offered Ruto the post of Deputy Prime Minister.

Ruto told the Star that he was not interested in any agreement. “I am beyond being approached by anybody for any deals. I want a deal with the people of Kenya directly,” he said. Approaching Ruto is part of the ODM strategy to water down the effects of Musalia's defection to the United Democratic Forum party.

In December, Ida suddenly issued a surprise statement supporting calls for the ICC cases to brought back to Kenya. At a press conference on Thursday morning, Raila dismissed Mudavadi's exit as inconsequential but challenging him to resign and face a by-election. Raila also stated that he would not oppose President Kibaki's initiative for a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy to have the ICC cases tried at the East Africa Court of Justice.

Reports that Raila may be courting Ruto have caused jitters in the G7 alliance. “ODM is regrouping with Raila and Ruto touching base and in serious talks. We have confidential information that the two met last week before the PM's trip to US,” an MP close to Uhuru said.

However Rift MPs have vowed to abandon Ruto if he returns to ODM. "He will go there alone. The ground is not looking good and we have URP as the party of choice. People are starting to feel that they have become a guitar. The Mau forest evictions brought a lot of resentment," stated an MP close to Ruto. Yesterday when the Star broke the story, Public Works minister Dalmas Otieno remained tight-lipped when asked if Mudavadi's replacement might be Ruto. "We are not short of options. You watch this space,” was all he said.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/national/nati ... mised-ruto

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Africa

Taylor trial provides some lessons for Kenya

By ASHFORD MURIUKI MUGWUKU

Posted Saturday, May 5 2012 at 18:53

On March 14, 2012, the ICC convicted Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of three counts of crimes against humanity.

On April 26, the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) convicted the former Liberian President Charles Taylor of crimes under international law.

Taylor was convicted of 11 counts including acts of terrorism, murder, rape and conscription of child soldiers. Taylor is the first head of state in Africa to be convicted by an International Criminal Court of crimes against humanity.

Reflections on Taylor’s verdict raise legal and political issues and lessons pertinent to Kenya’s situation today.

There is apparent failure of leadership and control in the management of the post-election violence and, the resulting indictments of Kenyans at the ICC.

The historical background, establishment and operations of the SCSL is a portrait for Kenya. The legal and political developments in Kenya following the post-election violence inform this argument.

The same day SCSL delivered the Taylor verdict, the East African Legislative Assembly passed a motion seeking to transfer the trials from the ICC to the East African Court of Justice.

The motion was discussed before the Summit of heads of state. On April 28, the Summit directed the Council of Ministers to consider the matter and report on a resolution to extend jurisdiction to cover crimes against humanity.

Local mechanism

The resolution came barely two days after President Kibaki announced in Parliament that Kenya government is exploring mechanisms to have the ICC cases tried locally.

EALA has no legal mandate to legislate on matters purely Kenyan without statutory resolution of Kenya Parliament. The East African Court of justice has no jurisdiction over the crimes.

Resolutions by the East African Court granting it jurisdiction to try the Kenyan ICC suspects would be in conflict with domestic and international laws applicable.

The move is prejudicial to the cases against the ICC suspects and it could be interpreted as amounting to offences of obstructing the course of justice and offences against the administration of justice.

The wholesome picture is one of indecision, confusion and conspicuous lack of legal and political direction. This is embarrassing the country before the community of nations.

Sometimes in between, Parliament endorsed a motion calling for withdrawal of Kenya from the ICC. The effort for withdrawal of Kenya from ICC does not seem to have metamorphosed into reality.

Later a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Nicholas Ombija, issued a warrant of arrest for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan in compliance with the ICC.

Nobody knows where and when the ICC drama in Kenya will end. It is clear that there is urgent need for professional guidance to the President, as well as the ICC suspects themselves on these issues.

Politicising the ICC could jeopardise the trial of Kenyans before the court. The government accepted the Waki Report but failed to implement its the recommendations.

Consequently the cases relating to the post-election violence were referred to the ICC. Subsequently, Parliament debated and passed the International Crimes Act, 2008, which received Presidential Assent on December 24, 2008.

During the intervening period, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Suffice it to say that Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura, William Ruto and Joshua arap Sang have had their indictments confirmed for hearing by the ICC.

There has been haphazard and knee jerk reactions and actions on the part of the government in dealing with the ICC.

Attempts have unsuccessfully been made albeit without any clear political, legal or guidance or professionalism including the so-called shuttle diplomacy, appointment of foreign lawyers to advice the government appointment of panel of lawyers to advice the government on the way forward following the confirmation of charges, and lately the motion by EALA to refer the Kenyan cases to the local judicial mechanisms.

A glance at the Sierra Leone situation in light of the Charles Taylor verdict provides some lessons and insights that may explain the apparent failure of Kenya in the management and control of the post-election violence cases.

The war in Sierra Leone was brought to an end by a peace agreement signed in Lome, on July 7, 1999, between President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF).

On May 17, 2000, Foday Sankoh and other rebels were arrested. Sierra Leone government proceeded to ratify the Rome Statute on September 15, 2000 and President Kabbah together declared his request to the UN Security Council to set up SCSL.

Following concerted efforts and negotiations in January 2002, an agreement between the UN and the government of Sierra Leone on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone was signed.

The implementing legislation for the Special Court was passed into law in March, 2002. The trials at the SLSC take place within Sierra Leone and the proceedings are effectively an extension of Sierra Leone judiciary.

Sierra Leone has managed to circumvent some of the difficulties that have been experienced with the trials at the ICC.

The court is an example of how Kenya would have enhanced its domestic legal and judicial processes through the international interventions.

The effectiveness of the SCSL is demonstrated by the fact that it has succeeded in investigating, prosecuting and convicting the former head of state.

Sierra Leone’s experience offers valuable lessons and insights for Kenya and those charged with the governance and leadership issues.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and former Defence Counsel UN – ICTR, Arusha, Tanzania ashford@ashfords.co.ke

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/Tay ... 11j2vl5/-/

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Politics

ICC rejects Uhuru, Muthaura bid for oral submissions

By OLIVER MATHENGE omathenge@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Tuesday, May 8 2012 at 13:00

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former head of Public Service Francis Muthaura have lost a bid to be heard in person by the International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber.

The judges have ruled that they have enough material to make a ruling and therefore do not need to hear the two orally.

“As acknowledged by Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura, the submissions on the jurisdictional challenges before the Pre-Trial Chamber, as well as the submissions in this regard on appeal, are voluminous and detailed.

“Therefore, in the Appeals Chamber’s view, further oral submissions are not required,” the judges said.

The judges said they are not convinced that an oral hearing is the most effective method of “scrutinising the substantive merits of the parties’ submissions.”

They added that to convene an oral hearing at this date, would not only be unnecessary but would unduly affect the expeditious resolution of the appeal.

“Regarding Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura’s submission that an oral hearing will serve to guarantee the public nature of the proceedings, the Appeals Chamber notes that the submissions in this appeal are public and that the publicity of the proceedings is therefore guaranteed,” the judges said.

Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura are facing crimes against humanity over the 2007/2008 post-election violence, have been challenging the jurisdiction of the ICC on their case.

They made an appeal on January 30 following the pre-trial chamber ruling on January 23 that the ICC has jusrisdiction over the case.

On April 25, the two requested that they be heard orally. This is the request the the judges have rejected.

In their submissions, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura argued that an oral hearing will serve to guarantee the public nature of the proceedings, “particularly given the intense public interest in this case in Kenya, Africa and the wider intonational community”.

Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura also submitted that granting an oral hearing would not cause delay but rather “complement the ongoing deliberations of the Appeals Chamber, and assist in respect of any issue which may require further clarification.”

They also argued that since the trial in their case has not commenced “no delay will be caused by oral argument taking place as part of the appeal.”

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/I ... index.html

[ICC.supporter]

The Standard

ICC: Chamber denies Uhuru, Muthaura requests for oral appeals

Published Wednesday, May 9 2012 at 00:00

By Wahome Thuku

Lawyers for Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura will not be allowed to address judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Appeals Chamber.

The two are among four Kenyans facing trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity over the 2008 post-election violence.The others are Eldoret North MP William Ruto and Kass FM executive Joshua arap Sang

Uhuru and Muthaura had wanted their lawyers to make oral submissions on an appeal they filed, which is pending
before the Chamber. This would have meant opening the session for the media to beam the proceedings live from The Hague.

In rejecting the request on Friday, the presiding judge of the Appeal Division Akua Kuenyehia said the Chamber declined to convene an oral hearing session because written submissions by Uhuru’s and Muthaura’s lawyers will be sufficient to determine the appeal.

Further, the Chamber rejected their argument that it was obliged to hear their appeal in public, the same way they would have been heard if they were being tried in Kenya.

The decision now means the five judges will only consider the paperwork filed before them to decide whether the ICC has jurisdiction to try Uhuru and Muthaura. It also means the Chamber could make its decision even before summonses are issued for the suspects to appear before the Trial Chamber constituted in March.

The Appeals Chamber comprises five judges: Akua, Sang-Hyun Song, Sanji Mmasenono Monageng, Erkki Kourula and Anita Usacka. All of them must sit to determine any appeal brought before them.

challenged jurisdiction

However, only one judge of the Chamber is needed to determine an application such as the one made by Uhuru and Muthaura for oral submissions.

Uhuru and Muthaura are challenging the jurisdiction of the ICC to try them for crimes that arose from the 2008 post-election violence. Since ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo instituted the case, their argument has been that the crimes committed after the controversial Presidential election do not meet the threshold of crimes against humanity.

The Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed the charges against the two by majority on January 23, sending them to full trial. It also confirmed charges against Ruto and Sang, ruling that the cases meet the threshold for hearing by the ICC, but declined to confirm similar charges against Tinderet MP Henry Kosgey and Postmaster General Mohammed Hussein Ali.

German judge Hans Peter Kaul, however, maintained his earlier position that the cases did not meet the threshold to be tried by the ICC. The four suspects have filed appeals challenging the findings of the Pre-Trial Chamber that the jurisdictional requirements had been met.

Uhuru and Muthaura filed theirs on January 30, and on April 25, they filed their request for oral submissions in the appeal.
They argued that an oral hearing would be in line with the intense public interest in the case in Kenya, Africa, and for the international community.

public hearing

They cited the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that safeguards the right to a public hearing, saying the ICC was obliged to follow those provisions.

“The Appeals Chamber is obliged under the Rome Statute to apply the national laws of States, which would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes,” their lawyers submitted.“Proper weight should be accorded to the relevant provisions of the Kenyan Constitution and the CPC,”

Queen’s counsel Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins represented Uhuru. Karim Khan and Essa Faal represented Muthaura.The lawyers further argued that oral hearings would not delay the case, but complement the Chamber’s ongoing deliberations and assist it in any issues that need further clarification. In any event, they submitted, the actual trial had not started.

They also contended that an oral hearing would be the most effective way of scrutinising the merits of their written submissions already filed before the Pre-trial and the Appeals Chambers.

But judge Kuenyehia said the Chamber was not convinced that an oral hearing was necessary.

Rule 156(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence under the Rome Statute provides that the appeal proceedings shall be in writing, unless the Appeals Chamber decides to convene a hearing.

The judge also rejected argument that the Chamber was obliged to apply the Kenyan law. She said the court was obliged to first apply the Rome Statute and rules of evidence, then treaties, principles and rules of international law, and only if those failed would it resort to the general principles of law of respective member States.
voluminous submissions

“The Appeals Chamber is not obliged to apply Kenyan law and finds no reason in the present case to deviate from the norm,” he held.

He observed that the written submissions made by Uhuru and Muthaura were already in the public domain, hence the publicity of the proceedings was guaranteed.

Convening an oral hearing at this juncture, said the judge, would unduly affect the expeditious resolution of the appeal.

“The submissions on the jurisdiction are already voluminous and detailed,” he added.

“Therefore, in the Appeal Chamber’s view, further oral submissions are not required.”

This means that the next time the ICC proceedings on the ‘Ocampo Four’ will be aired live will be during the trial itself.

The court has already decided that both the trial and appeal proceed concurrently.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/standard ... 5&pageNo=1

[ICC.supporter]

The Standard

Africa’s new plot against HagueAfrica’s new plot against Hague

Published Wednesday, May 9 2012 at 00:00
By Peter Opiyo

Africa’s latest assault on International Criminal Court is under way at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa and the aim is to have the two Kenya cases deferred.

The Africa Union meeting in the Ethiopian capital seeks to expand jurisdiction of African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights so that it can deal with international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, which are currently exclusively left to The Hague-based court.

In the agenda also are discussions on “the African common position” regarding ICC following the decision adopted by the 18th Ordinary Session of the Africa Union Summit in January.

At the summit, the AUssembly recognised the efforts of African members at the UN Security Council to lobby the deferral of Kenya and Sudan’s cases at ICC.

This appears to be reintroduction of the failed ‘shuttle diplomacy’ President Kibaki assigned to Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka last year.

It also builds on the bid by Kenya to have the cases against its high-profile nationals deferred by the UN Security Council under grounds of peace and security.

Top African government legal experts on Monday began their meeting, which ends on May 11, at which the process to strengthen the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights would be completed. It will be followed by the session of Justice ministers and Attorney Generals from May 14 to 15.

As the Court puts mainly Africans in the dock at The Hague on the crosshairs, AU dispatched its top-notch legal team to put more pressure on the UN Security Council to defer Kenya’s post-election violence cases.

The meeting of Legal experts from the 54 AU member states is also set to discuss the deferral of the pending case against Sudan’s President Omar Al-Bashir, as was adopted by the AU Assembly in January.

It comes hot on the heels of President Kibaki’s announcement that the Government is still exploring a local mechanism to try the four post-election violence suspects.

Four Kenyans are accused of bearing the greatest responsibility over the 2008 post-poll upheavals that led to the killing of 1,133 people and displacement of over 500,000.

They have already been committed to full trial and are left with one appeal, which if they lose would see them hauled before the ICC trial judges.

Two of Kibaki’s allies – Deputy Prime Minister, Uhuru Kenyatta, and former Head of Public Service, Francis Muthaura – and Eldoret North MP, William Ruto, and Kass FM radio presenter Joshua Sang are before the ICC.

Barring co-operation

During his State of the Nation address in Parliament on April 24, Kibaki told MPs the Government was keen on having the cases tried locally.

Even more significant was the fact that on April 27, the East African Legislative Assembly (Eala), sitting in Nairobi, resolved to have the Kenya cases transferred to the East African Court of Justice.

Though this court does not have the jurisdiction to try international crimes, Eala resolved to amend Article 27 of East Africa Community Treaty to expand the Court’s jurisdiction to cover such crimes.

The AU Assembly in January recognised the efforts of African members at the UN Security Council to place and lobby the deferral of the Kenya and Sudan cases at ICC.

It also called upon African no-permanent members of Security Council to pursue the matter.

It is these resolutions the team of legal experts is working on, as a multi-pronged approach is employed to have the Kenya cases either referred or deferred. “The meeting will discuss the African common position regarding the ICC following the decision adopted by the 18th Ordinary Session of the AU Summit in January 2012,” reads press brief on the meeting.

The meeting is also discussing the draft model national law on universal jurisdiction for international crimes the AU Commission proposes.

This law is aimed at having the national governments put up mechanism of trying international crimes cases at the local level.
“Eventually, this law will enable the AU member States to adjust national legislation to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes at national level,” the statement explains.

The Assembly also expressed displeasure at a clause that does not grant immunity to Heads of States, and presidents against criminal proceedings for international crimes.

It is this clause that has been exploited by ICC to issue an arrest warrant against Bashir.

But AU passed a resolution barring any of its members from co-operating with ICC on the matter.

This has seen Bashir against whom an arrest warrant has been issued visit Kenya, Malawi, Chad, and Djibouti without risking arrest.

It has further requested the AU Commission to consider seeking an advisory opinion from ICC regarding the immunities of State Officials under international law.

At the January meeting, the Assembly recognised the efforts made to lobby UN Security Council to put pressure on ICC to defer the case. It resolved that the deferral of proceedings against Bashir and the four Kenyans be acted upon by UN Security Council.

In March, last year, the UN Security Council rejected Kenya’s bid to have the ICC suspend the cases.

An informal meeting between Kenyan envoys and members of the Council did not break grounds. UN Security Council members, including permanent members US, Britain, and France vowed to reject the request.

But the AU Assembly, in January, requested the group of African States in New York and in The Hague as well as the African members of UN Security Council to ‘scrupulously’ follow up on the implementation of the Assembly’s decisions on ICC and ensure Africa’s proposals are heard at the UN Security Council.

Article 16 of the Rome Statute, which set up the ICC, allows the Security Council to suspend the court’s proceedings if prosecutions at The Hague would constitute a threat to international peace and security.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/standard ... 2000057864

[ICC.supporter]

arabnews.com

Wednesday, 09 May 2012

By ALEMAYEHU G MARIAM

ICC must not succumb to selective justice

After 420 days of trial (over nearly four years), 115 witnesses, over 50,000 pages of testimony, and 1,520 exhibits, Charles Taylor, warlord-turned-president of Liberia, was found guilty on 11 counts by the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Taylor was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Sierra Leone from Nov. 30, 1996, to Jan. 18, 2002. Over 50,000 people died in that conflict. Taylor “aided and abetted” the notorious warlords Foday Sankoh, Sam “the Mosquito” Bockarie and Issa Sesay of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone. Taylor participated in the planning, instigation and commission of these crimes and provided weapons and military support in exchange for “blood diamonds” mined by slave laborers in Sierra Leone. Taylor will be sentenced next month.

There were some problems in the prosecution’s evidence. There were few documents to show the depth and scope of Taylor’s involvement with the rebels. There was no evidence that Taylor was at the scene of the rebel crimes. There was little evidence showing the Liberian troops Taylor sent to Sierra Leone were directly involved in the war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, prosecutors were able to use radio and telephone intercepts and the testimonies of Taylor’s close associates and security detail and show that Taylor had shipped weapons to the rebels in exchange for (blood) diamonds.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for other current and former African heads of state, including Cote d’Ivoire’s former President Laurent Gbagbo and Sudan’s President Omar Bashir (and the late Muammar Qaddafi). In November 2011, Gbagbo was quietly whisked away to the Hague from house arrest in Cote d’Ivoire to face justice before the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity (murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhuman acts) that were allegedly committed during the post-election period. Gbagbo will soon be warming Taylor’s chair.

Bashir sneered at the ICC indictment in 2009: “Tell them all, the ICC prosecutor, the members of the court and everyone who supports this court that they are under my shoe.” (In time, he may come under the ICC’s shoes.) The UN estimated well over 300,000 people have perished under Bashir’s regime. Along with Bashir, the ICC has also issued warrants against other Sudanese nationals including Ahmed Haroun, a lawyer and minister of humanitarian affairs, Ali Kushayb, a former senior Janjaweed (local militiamen allied with the Sudanese regime against Darfur rebels), Bahr Idriss Abu Garda, a rebel leader and two others.

The ICC has also indicted criminals against humanity in Kenya. Uhuru Kenyatta, finance minister and son of Kenya’s famed independence leader Jomo Kenyatta, resigned following an ICC ruling that he will face trial for crimes against humanity in connection with the communal post-election violence between supporters of presidential candidates Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki in 2008. The UN estimates some 1,200 people died in weeks of unrest between December 2007 and February 2008, and 600,000 people were forcibly displaced. Cabinet secretary Francis Muthaura, a close ally of president Mwai Kibaki, former Education Minister William Ruto and radio announcer Joshua arap Sang face similar charges.

In Uganda, the ICC has indicted senior leaders of the “Lord’s Resistance Army” including the notorious Joseph Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti and three other top commanders. In the D.R .Congo various rebel and militia leaders and Congolese military officers and politicians including Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Bosco Ntaganda, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui and two others have been indicted. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Muammar Qaddafi’s son Saif Al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah Al-Senussi who was arrested in Mauritania in March of this year. Libya is contesting ICC jurisdiction so that it may be able to try the two suspects in Libyan courts.

While seeking out war criminals and criminals against humanity in the Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, the DR of Congo, Libya and other places, the ICC and UN Security Council have avoided “Crimes Against Humanity Central-Ethiopia”. The evidence of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Ethiopia is fully documented, substantial and overwhelming.

An official Inquiry Commission appointed by Meles Zenawi in its 2006 report documented the extrajudicial killing of at least 193 unarmed protesters, wounding of 763 others and arbitrary imprisonment of nearly 30,000 persons in the post-2005 election period in Ethiopia. The commission was limited to investigating the “violence that occurred on June 8, 2005 in Addis Ababa and violence that occurred from Nov. 1 to 10, 2005 and from Nov. 14 to 16, 2005” in other parts of the country.

The commission’s evidence further showed that nearly all of the 193 unarmed protesters died from gunshot wounds to their heads or upper torso. The Commission found substantial evidence that professional sharpshooters were used in the indiscriminate and wanton attack on the unarmed protesters. These and many other shocking facts were meticulously documented by the Inquiry Commission which examined 16,990 documents, received testimony from 1,300 witnesses and undertook months of investigation in the field. There is also documentary evidence to show that there are at least 237 named police and security officials directly implicated in these crimes and subsequently dismissed from their positions. No person has even been criminally investigated, arrested, charged, prosecuted or in any way held accountable for any of these crimes.

It is historic and commendable that the ICC UN Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone has convicted Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The verdict is undoubtedly a giant step forward in ending the culture of official impunity and criminality in Africa. African dictators and tyrants may no longer assume automatic impunity for their criminal actions. David Crane, the former prosecutor who indicted Taylor in 2003 correctly pointed out, “This is a bell that has been rung and clearly rings throughout the world. If you are a head of state and you are killing your own people, you could be next.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described the Taylor verdict as “a significant milestone for international criminal justice” that “sends a strong signal to all leaders that they are and will be held accountable for their actions.”

But the ICC and the UN Security Council must not succumb to the shameful practice of selective justice. It is hypocritical to indict criminals against humanity in the Sudan, Kenya, Uganda and the D.R. Congo and pretend to “hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil” on the war criminals and criminals against humanity in Ethiopia. There cannot be a double, triple or quadruple standard of justice tailored for different grade of war criminals and criminals against humanity. There is no such thing as a good war criminal or criminal against humanity. There can be no beauty contest among warthogs.

What is good enough for the Sudan, Kenya, Uganda and the DR Congo must be good enough for Ethiopia because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Based on the compelling and substantial readily available evidence, the ICC has a legal duty and a moral obligation to at least open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ethiopia since 2002 when the court was created.

http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article629636.ece

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Politics

ICC chamber ready for trial of Kenyans

By OLIVER MATHENGE AND ARGAW ASHINE newsdesk@ke.nationmedia.com

Posted Wednesday, May 9 2012 at 22:30

The International Criminal Court (ICC) last evening told a local radio station that trials of four Kenyans accused of crimes against humanity would go on in The Hague since a trial chamber is ready to start its work.

ICC spokesman Fadi el Abdallah told Capital FM that the cases could only be transferred from The Hague if an admissibility challenge is successful.

“We cannot speak technically about a transfer of cases by the ICC. The Kenyan cases are at the trial stage. However, before the opening of a trial and even after, but only under exceptional circumstances and with the authorisation of the Trial Chamber, there is the possibility to challenge the admissibility of the cases.

“If the conditions for it, as specified under the Rome Statute are fulfilled, cases can be declared inadmissible before the ICC and can proceed before other tribunals,” Mr Abdallah clarified.

He spoke as it emerged that the African Union is working to expand the mandate of its court of justice to enable it take over ICC cases facing top African leaders.

Attorneys general from the union are currently working on amendments that will expand the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human and People’s Rights to deal with international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Legal experts from AU member states are currently gathered in Addis Ababa to finalise Africa’s common position on the ICC.

Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Eldoret North MP William Ruto, former public service head Francis Muthaura and radio presenter Joshua Sang are awaiting trial at the ICC over crimes against humanity.

For the past two years, President Kibaki’s wing of the coalition has put up a spirited fight to have the cases against the four suspects brought for trial at home.

President Kibaki has successfully lobbied his peers in East Africa and secured a resolution that the jurisdiction of the regional court be expanded to cover crimes against humanity.

Then the Kenyan cases will be referred to The Hague-based court.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/I ... index.html

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Politics

NSIS warns of political chaos

By CAROLINE WAFULA cwafula@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Wednesday, May 9 2012 at 22:30

In Summary

•Premier tells MPs intelligence service has cautioned that the use of tribe to mobilise voters is creating ethnic tensions and animosity, could lead to an outbreak of violence ahead of the election; briefed House on what government is doing to prepare for a peaceful and credible poll.

The national intelligence service agency has warned the government of the possibility of violence as the country heads to elections.

According to Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the National Security and Intelligence Service (NSIS) has informed the government that there are strong indicators of violence due to an increase in tribal politics which it has warned, is fuelling ethnic hostilities. (READ: Tribal groupings work against national unity, says Moi)

“The service has warned and I quote; The recent trend where a section of the political elite have resorted to using ethnic groups for political mobilisation in order to advance personal and community interests to the exclusion of other sections is posing a threat to national cohesion and security,” the PM said on Wednesday.

Part of NSIS’s mandate is to identify threats against the security of Kenya, collect and analyse intelligence on these threats and advise the government through appropriate intelligence reports.

The service was accused of not providing sufficient intelligence on time during the 2007/2008 post-election violence.

The unit, in its caution to the government noted that use of tribal groupings to rally ethnic communities to denounce the ICC process may lead to deterioration of inter-ethnic tensions pitting those perceived to be for and against the process.

The increasing trend where most political parties attract bedrock support from specific ethnic groups is also fuelling ethnic hostilities.

The PM said this as he issued a statement in Parliament outlining measures the Government has put in place to prepare for the coming elections.

He said the current political environment requires “urgent cooling” to stop it from overheating along ethnic lines.

Among other measures, the PM said 7,000 police officers have been recruited to provide security during elections and more will be hired before the next General Elections.

MPs, however, took the PM to task over his position on the election date saying it was a source of anxiety.

They argued that his opposition to the March 2013 date, which is the official Government position, was a recipe for tension that can easily contribute to a volatile political environment.

The PM had stated that he supports an appeal against the March date, which is based on a High Court ruling that subsequently informed the Cabinet position on the same.

“I have stated clearly what the cabinet position was. It was not a unanimous position but it was a position all the same,” he stated.

Gichugu MP and Narc Kenya chairperson Ms Martha Karua supported the PM’s position arguing that the country should be guided by the Constitution on the election date.

“A court ruling does not stop us from thinking and as a thinking Kenyan, I disagree with that,” she stated, urging the government to go for the 2012 date as set in the Constitution. (READ: Tribal groups a recipe for chaos, lawyers warn)

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/R ... /klox9z/-/

[ICC.supporter]

theStar

UHURU TRIES TO CENSOR THUO PHOTO

Wednesday, 09 May 2012 23:47

BY STAR REPORTER

THE man photographed with Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta at the Hague was tried and acquitted for robbery with violence in 2005. Uhuru has gone to the constitutional court to urgently block any further publication of stories or photographs about Joseph Njoroge Thuo, ex-Mungiki leader Maina Njenga and himself. The case will be heard at 9am on Monday morning.

Uhuru's lawyer argues that any publication by the Star would constitute hate speech and violate Uhuru's right to a good reputation. "This is a blatant attempt at censorship. The facts are not disputed. Thuo was in the Hague beside Uhuru and Thuo was involved in a fracas with Maina Njenga. If the Deputy Prime Minister has a problem with the story, let him sue the Star for libel instead of wasting the time of the constitutional court," said Catherine Gicheru, Editor of the Star last night.

The offending Star story on April 24 was headlined 'Uhuru denies link to Njenga gunman'. Maina Njenga had claimed on Sunday April 22 at his church that Thuo had been sent to assassinate him. Alongside the story, the Star ran a photo of Uhuru in the Hague in September with Thuo apparently standing behind him, and a photo of Thuo at the church. The photos were headlined 'Is this the same man?'

Director of Communications Munyori Buku denied any link between Thuo and Uhuru. “There is no way the DPM could have known all the people who were at The Hague. Many people travelled on their own and they were paying for themselves,” said Buku at the time.

“During a press conference, anyone can stand behind the person making the address. You don’t expect the person addressing the press to know all the people standing behind him,” said Buku in reference to the photo of Uhuru at The Hague with Thuo.

On October 1, 2011 the Nation also published a photo of Uhuru laughing with Thuo at the Hague. The Nation photo caption specifically identified Thuo. The Nation and Star photos were sent to media houses from the Hague by Lawrence Maingi, Uhuru's official press photographer. Internal Security minister George Saitoti is expected in Parliament today to answer a question by Gwassi MP John Mbadi over the identity of Thuo.

On April 22, Thuo was beaten up at the Hope International Ministry church after Njenga's supporters found a gun in his car while he was meeting the ex-Mungiki leader. Four CID officers who came to investigate were also roughed up by Njenga's youth. Mbadi has demanded to know if Thuo is a licensed gun holder, when he was issued with a firearm and under what circumstances. Saitoti is also expected to provide details of the men who accompanied Thuo to Njenga's church and clarify whether they are licensed gun holders.

The businessman behind the Thuo Investment Company was questioned last year by police over the murder of former Kiambu County chairman Boniface Njenga Mweru who was shot dead by armed men on June 1, 2011 in Githiga. Mweru had been a business partner in the Thuo Investment Company until eight months earlier.

Central Province AP boss Joseph Keitany said thugs in a Silver Prado Land Cruiser belonging to Thuo Investments killed Mweru after he was stopped by a girl. When Njenga stopped, he was shot three times in the head at point blank range by a Ceska pistol. Police in Kiambu are yet to prosecute anyone in connection with the murder.

According to police file CR 216/148/2011, Thuo was questioned on June 3 by CID Kiambu over the murder of Mweru. Thuo told police that he was in his office in Thika when Mweru was killed.

Another robbery with violence case against Thuo was terminated on October 24, 2007 by then Nairobi Principal Magistrate Lilian Mutende who ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove their case. The magistrate said police had violated Thuo's constitutional rights by holding him for six months at Kamiti prison before pressing charges. Thuo was charged with violently robbing Raman Patel of Sh100,000 and impersonating a police officer on October 1, 2005.

On April 24, the Star received a threatening email from josephthuonjoroge@gmail.com, the same day it published the photos of Thuo in the Hague and at Hope International Church.

The email threatened the Star's Thika correspondent James Wainaina who wrote a story last June about Mweru's murder. "If you don't know me by now, I kill customers, employees and rats like James Wainaina," the email stated.Thuo denied at the time that he had sent the email. "I do not know anything about the email. Whoever has done that could have stolen my identity or wants you people to believe it is me. That is someone who is not a right thinking member of society. That is someone who is an extortionist," Thuo told the Star. On May 5 the Star filed a complaint with Kilimani Police station after Thuo threatened an editor.

Thuo visited the Star offices on Waiyaki Way on May 2 and threatened the Regional News Editor Joseph Olweny. He angrily said he had lost a Sh96 million business deal because the Star had published photos of him in the Hague and at Njenga's church. He told the editor that he could have the offices bombed or wrecked by 200 goons, and that he could make him disappear by putting him in a pot of acid.

On May 7 he phoned the Star and struck a more conciliatory tome. Thuo said that he had travelled to the Hague as a friend of Uhuru to provide moral support. He confirmed he was the man in the Star photo with Uhuru, blogger Dennis Itumbi and Jeff Koinange of K24. He claimed he could delink Uhuru from Mungiki because he understood the workings of the group and that he used to provide legal advice to Maina Njenga.

On April 25, a PNU minister close to Uhuru called Star Political Editor Paul Ilado and requested that the pictures of Thuo and Uhuru in the Hague should not be published again.

"The Star agreed to honour the request. But Uhuru has declared war by trying to censor us through the constitutional court. So now let the photos speak for themselves," said Star Editor Catherine Gicheru last night.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/national/nati ... h-violence

[ICC.supporter]

Daily Nation

Politics

UK has no role in Kenya ICC cases, say MPs

By ALPHONCE SHIUNDU ashiundu@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Thursday, May 10 2012 at 18:38

British MPs have met their Kenyan counterparts who sit in the Defence and Foreign Relations Committee and refuted reports that the UK has a hand in the ongoing prosecutions of Kenyans at the International Criminal Court.

At a meeting in Nairobi’s Parliament buildings Thursday, the MPs, together with the Interim British High Commissioner, Dr Peter Tibber, said the UK did not favour any side in Kenyan politics and had no preferred candidate in the next General Election.

The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons Richard Ottaway said the ICC was not a “political tool”.

“We don’t play games with people’s rights in Britain. We respect the rule of law, we respect the operations of the courts, we don’t see it as a political tool,” said Mr Ottaway.

“That is not a political tool; it is a demand that the rule of law be followed.”

Mr Ottaway said they were not familiar with the details of the controversial document that alleges that the UK government has been investigating President Kibaki, and that it is intent on having him tried at The Hague as soon as he leaves office.

“We haven’t seen them. We arrived this morning and picked up on this issue,” said Mr Ottaway as he promised that they would discuss the controversy with their Kenyan MPs at a private meeting later in Thursday evening.

Before that, Dr Tibber had said: “Those documents are not genuine. They are forgeries. The views expressed in them are light-years removed from the policy of the British Government. They do not in any way represent the views of the British Government.”

The Defence Committee led by chairman Adan Keynan and members Jeremiah Kioni (Ndaragwa), Wilson Litole (Sigor), Benedict Gunda (Bahari) and Kiema Kilonzo (Mutito) had asked the British MPs to shed light on the role of the Commonwealth, when it came to such issues as the ICC.

‘Does the Commonwealth club have a voice when it comes to matters of International Criminal Court? The African Union has a voice, but the Commonwealth seems to be wishing other members down that path quickly,” said Mr Kioni.

Mr Keynan and Mr Litole lobbied the MPs to push their government to use their Intelligence service to find out the source of the so called controversial UK dossier.

“We know how strong you are in terms of intelligence. Use that intelligence to tell us where the truth is. With your intelligence you can tell us it was authored in Kenya, Uganda or Scotland, or something like that,” said Mr Litole.

Sir John Stanley, another British MP, lauded the Kenyan MPs for sending the suspected masterminds of the post-poll violence to The Hague. He termed the vote that sent the suspects to the ICC as “ground-breaking move” and a “very brave and important step in terms of international human rights significance”.

“It is inter-alia a matter for you and there’s no question of interference from the British Government,” said Sir John.

He said it could be a lesson for other African countries.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/U ... snsg7wz/-/

[ICC.supporter]

Standard Digital

Kibaki meets spy chief over chaos fearsSHARE THIS STORY

Published Friday, May 11 2012 at 00:00

By Cyrus Ombati

President Kibaki met Director General of National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) Michael Gichangi to discuss, among other issues, reports of possible chaos before and after the General Election.

Sources said the meeting, which took place at Harambee House, also discussed other security matters.

No further details on the meeting were available. Government Spokesman Alfred Mutua was seen at Harambee House, but it is not clear if he attended the meeting.

The meeting comes a day after Prime Minister Raila Odinga said he had received a report from Gichangi warning of violence after the next elections.

community interests

It appears President Kibaki may either not have been in the know or wanted further briefing from Gichangi, hence the urgency of Thursday’s meeting.

Raila said NSIS has informed the Government that there are strong indicators of violence due to increase in tribal politics.

“The service has warned and I quote; The recent trend where a section of political elite have resorted to using ethnic groups for political mobilisation to advance personal and community interests to the exclusion of other sections is posing a threat to national cohesion and security,” the PM said on Wednesday.

He added 7,000 police officers have been recruited to provide security during elections and more will be hired before the next polls.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000057987

[ICC.supporter]

Standard Digital

Kenya’s poll among world’s most costly

Published Friday, May 11 2012 at 00:00

By Standard Digital Reporter

Kenya will have one of the world’s most expensive elections next year if electoral officials get their way.

Standard Digital can report that taxpayers risk paying several times more per voter than people in other countries fork out. This raises serious questions on whether the proposed costs of the next General Election have been inflated.

Officials with the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission today rejected Sh17 billion set aside by Treasury for the planned March 4, 2013 poll. Instead, they are demanding Sh35 billion to conduct the first election under the new constitution as well as an anticipated run-off shortly thereafter.

IEBC chairman Mr Isaack Hassan said if they plan the March 4, 2013 elections using the Sh17.5 billion Treasury has allocated the commission in the 2012/2013 budget, they will be forced to extend the election date by two or three days. He said the commission’s budget has a deficit of Sh23 billion and it will cost them at least Sh17.5billion to carry out a re-run in case of a tie in the presidential election.

Hassan and his Chief Executive Officer Mr James Oswago who appeared before the parliamentary Justice and legal Affairs Committee said yesterday they require a minimum of Sh35billion to carry out efficient and credible election next year.

“Election expenses are dictated by the type of an election the country wants to hold. The report of the Johann Kriegler Commission criticized the defunct ECK for allowing dead voters to participate in the 2007 General Election. So a huge chunk of the money were asking the treasury to give us will go to capital investment like purchase of biometric equipment for voters’ registration, acquisition of electronic poll books among other things,” said Hassan.

He said will be the first time the country was voting in six elections in a day, which will take voters longer than the previous polls.

“On average it takes a voter 4 to minutes to complete the six ballot papers. And will take an assisted voter a minimum of 15 minutes to complete the exercise,” said the IEBC chairman.

Oswago, who took the committee through the commission’s vote in the proposed budget, said the Treasury decision to reduce their funding by more than a half has affected the preparation for the upcoming elections.

“Going by the experience we had in 2010 during the referendum, and by-elections we have so far conducted, our estimates are based on the materials consumption and other additions that we need to make. The commission needs additional allocation and here to ask for the same,” said Oswago.

The next general election will involve some 18 million voters, 45,000 polling stations, 350,000 election officials, 100,000 security officers, 338 tallying centers at Constituency, County and National levels and 47 voting points for Diaspora.

Voter are expected to elect a President, 47 Governors, 47 Senators, 47 Women Representatives, 290 MPs and 1, 450 County Assemblers.

The Hassan commission revealed to the committee that other issues that have seen the cost the election shot over the roof was the use of lawyers as commissioners of oath to the polling officials at the cost of Sh500 per person.
“If we hire around 270, 000 officials during the polling day and they are administered with oath at the cost of Sh500 per person, we are talking of about Sh135million, “observed Oswago.

The per-capita cost of the election proposed by IEBC officials would make Kenya’s next election one of the most expensive ever conducted anywhere in the world.

Only countries coming out of a war, where peacekeeping troops were needed to ensure voter safety, have similar or higher costs.

Kenyans already pay more for elections per capita than do most other citizens of the world. If a budget of Sh35 billion were approved, it would work out to some $10 per person and a whopping $23 per voter. According to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, a group of organisations that track election costs, this is more than was spent on some of the world’s costliest elections. When Nicaragua went to the polls in 1990 in the wake of the brutal Sandinista regime, it spent $11.8 per voter. Angola spent $22 a voter in 1992 in the first elections after a 17-year civil war. In both cases, much of the cost went to peacekeeping operations. Other former war-zones like Liberia ($6.1) and El Salvador ($4.1) managed lower costs in their first post-conflict elections.

The amount approved by Cabinet and allocated by Treasury for Kenya’s 2013 poll, Sh17 billion, would work out to about $10 per elector.

“Low costs of about $1 to $3 per voter are common in the United States and most of Western Europe,” write ACE researchers. “A number of nations around the world also report low costs, including Benin ($1.6), Botswana ($2.7), Ghana ($0.7) and Senegal ($1.2) in Africa.”

Uganda, which has less multi-party electoral experience, averages about $3.7 per voter for their polls. Africa faces about 20 elections this year. Five involve a recent conflict, peace-making efforts or a presidential succession. These are expected to be the most costly. ACE is a collaborative effort between nine organisations, including IDEA, EISA, IFES, UNDESA, UNDP and UNEAD.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000057945