Kabaridi
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 15, 2011
- 2,023
- 534
Mzalendo452,
mkuu when addressing this issue Im interested to know if you are looking at the ICC from the
context of Kenya or in totality? Hili swala la 'they have not arrested any bigfish' sikuelewi. We know
the 'guests' who have an abode over there. Some of them have even died there like kina Milosovich.
So enlighten me where you are coming from with that notion so that I dont get you wrong.
In regards to this notion.... there seems to be external pressure from ICC... where is the data to
support this claim? When you use such words like "it seems" in a sentence, then those become your
opinions and they are normally taken with a grain of salt. Remember we are separating the chaff from
wheat.
In the last paragraph you bring up the issue of bashir which is crucial when looking at this issue in its
totality. Kenya is a signatory of the Rome Statute that established the ICC so the onus fell on the
KE govt to arrest Bashir and hand him over to the ICC...but guess what?Kibaki thumbed his nose at the
international community and Kenyans at large by inviting an international fugitive as a guest of the
State. So why you wanna frag the fellows at the Hague into this yet its the member states who are
signatories of the Statute, who should arrest these fugitives. ICC has no standing army nor police to
be running around the world arresting people. They rely on governments and things like the interpol.
So what Kibaki is showing us ni kwamba he will use his impunity to achieve his selfish ends even if it
means a daliance with 'wanted fugitives'....na mta do?
A couple days ago there was a discussion on BBC titled: ICC: Is Africa on Trial....staged in Kenya with
most contributors being from KE. Very interesting discussion from the folks in attendance!.. Ukipata
nafasi you can listen in the following links:
BBC - Media Centre - BBC Africa Debate
BBCSwahili.com (Swahili)
This is an interesting set of facts I want you to digest:
Ivory Coast was not a signatory of the ICC but in 2003 Gbagbo (as President)accepted the jurisdiction
of the courts over Ivory Coast. Then in 2010 while still Preso he confirmed his country's
commitmment to working with the court. Then what happened next? Outtara comes into power
and ships him straight to the Hague...talk about impaling yourself with your own sword!
Ab-Titchaz.
@Ab-Titchaz,
First, Before we delve into a long and contentious debate we have to find out what especially on the Gbagbos case, the type of event that happened in Ivory coast. The scenario there was that the magnitude of violence was escalated by leftist opposition with the help of the military N.B. and while it is was wrong for Gbagbo to continue to cling into power, the ICC did not address the massive loss of lives and incitements caused via opposition leftists and Ivorian military dissidents aided by the UN forces(majorly of french origin) of equal magnitude. Ivory coast and their politics is deeply intertwined in french politics. Also, all principles in the ICC are European forms or models of politics and very few legal considerations are actually enforced during making key decisions. That is why the ICC's integrity in apprehension and trial is questionable.
Secondly, It was wrong for the UN to allow that disputed presidential transition to degenerate into a full-scale mutiny whilst offering the opposition logistical support. That is why precisely I have reason to believe that Gaddafi Libyan case with NATO is the same scenario and are of simmilar forces. European political empires would normally bypass the legal constitution of a African nations and the rule of law. So when we are talking about Sovereignty of a country apart from the usual cases of corruption and other ills what do we mean?
PS explain if Quattaras ascension to power has any integrity based on this events?