Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Defence: Ocampo had no evidence against Uhuru

Discussion in 'International Forum' started by Rutashubanyuma, Oct 7, 2011.

  1. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Oct 7, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,342
    Likes Received: 476
    Trophy Points: 180
    [h=1]Defence: Ocampo had no evidence against Uhuru
    [/h]
    Published on 05/10/2011
    [h=2]Related Stories[/h] [h=3][​IMG] Kosgey's ambition to be senator lies with ICC[/h] [h=3][​IMG] Prosecution wants charges against three confirmed[/h] [h=3][​IMG] Victims unhappy with Kibaki's support for Muthaura[/h] [h=3][​IMG] Defence teams ask ICC judges to drop charges[/h] [h=3][​IMG] Ocampo urges judges to confirm charges against Uhuru, Muthaura and Ali[/h] [h=3][​IMG] Teams make final submissions at the ICC[/h]
    By evelyn kwamboka
    International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo failed to interrogate Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta when he presented himself as a witness on salient issues raised in his evidence, defence counsel Steven Kay has said.
    Ocampo, who only appeared in court to give the prosecution’s opening remarks, returned to cross-examine Uhuru but was unable to fully utilise the time allocated by Pre-Trial Chamber II for the questioning.
    "The prosecution’s case proved to be an utter failure when Uhuru was available for cross-examination. They could not even fill the hour provided. It was an empty hour," Kay told the court.
    The court heard that a cautious prosecutor would have looked into details of where a suspect was and details of what he did, based on evidence given by a witness.
    "A cautious prosecutor would take measures in a case that has a political conflict or finger-pointing by people expressing preferences to their own side other than the other," he said.
    Pre-Trial Chamber II judges Ekaterina Trendafilova, Hans-Peter Kaul and Cuno Tarfusser where told ICC has a great responsibility to the international community.
    Kay said the prosecution should have investigated three witnesses (Nos 4, 11 and 12) before applying for summons against his client.
    Witness Four had allegedly given contradicting evidence of where Uhuru and Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura had a meeting with outlawed Mungiki sect members.
    "His details have never been investigated. It must be a system failure in the process of which we are dealing with here today," Kay said, adding that it was not enough for the prosecution to give the court inconsistencies after failing to examine details.
    The defence expected Ocampo’s witnesses to provide details on the nature of places, correct dates and events that allegedly took place between Uhuru and Mungiki members.
    Alarm bells
    Kay said he was astonished that the prosecution interviewed Witness Four for nine days.
    "It sent alarm bells ringing in my head of what was going on in those nine days."
    The defence team had 15 days to prepare after it received the document containing charges from Ocampo on August 19.
    Due to the workload and limited time, the team hired the services of a forensic expert, Mr Garry Summers, to investigate who witnesses 11 and 12 were.
    "I was worried and concerned as to who the protected witnesses were. I did not want my people to do it and that is why I had him do the investigation. We did not know whether we were right or wrong," he told the court in his closing remarks.
    According to Kay, Summer’s work was important because it assessed things such as telephone calls and provided truth that the two suspects had approached them to give evidence in favour of their client but switched camps when they failed to allegedly extort money from Uhuru.
    "These were the sort of tricks they play with matatus and other people," said Kay.
     
Loading...