After all the hoopla, ICC ignores new rules for Uhuru

[Dr. Job]

ICC IGNORES NEW RULES FOR UHURU

THE ICC trial chamber judges in President Uhuru Kenyatta's case appear to have ignored the latest amendments to Rules of Procedure at last week's Assembly of State parties in The Hague.

The judges yesterday issued guidelines for Uhuru's trial starting on February 5 and said it would be held in “alternating four week blocks” to Deputy President William Ruto's case.

Last week the Assembly of State Parties amended the ICC rules to allow trial via video link, representation through a counsel, and excusal from trial due to “extraordinary public duties.”

However judges Kuniko Ozaki, Chile Eboe-Osuji and Robert Fremr yesterday did not refer to any change of circumstances as a result of the ASP.

Instead, they observed that both Uhuru and ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda ignored their request on July 3 for any observations on the commencement of trial by October 1. “The chamber takes note that no such notice was filed,” the judges noted.

The original Rule 134 says any side may raise an issue on the conduct of proceedings but such issues must not be raised again during trial except with the permission of the court. Consequently, the judges yesterday issued directions on the conduct of the trial without considering the ASP amendments.

The judges said prior recorded evidence under Rule 68 had to be notified at least 21 days before the witness is due to appear. The rule has since been amended to cover evidence of dead or disappeared witnesses.
The prosecution, defence and victims have each been given four hours to make their opening statements on February 5 when the case starts.The use of any audiovisual aids has to be disclosed before January 31.
Charges will be read out to Uhuru “for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of Article 64(8) of the statute.” Uhuru is expected to file that he has read and understood the charges by January 31.

The judges said the prosecution will be granted four hours to interview each of its 32 witnesses against Uhuru. In total, the prosecution has got 320 hours to present its evidence. By December 16, the prosecution must provide the court with the list of its 10 first witnesses.

A week before the trial starts, the prosecutor must file an updated list of witnesses indicating the relevance of their testimonies.

The judges said they will endeavour to conduct most of the trial in public. “Protective measures shall be considered to be exception to the principle,” they said.

Yesterday Bensouda applied to the court to compel the government to help her summon seven 'recalcitrant', or stubborn, witnesses whom she considers to be crucial in the case.

Meanwhile, journalist Walter Barasa's lawyer has demanded that Bensouda and ICC Registrar Herman von Hebel publicly apologize for contempt of court. Kibe Muigai has written a four page letter criticising them for saying at the ICC that the Kenyan government should have arrested and handed over Barasa.

“These public comments are sub judice which is a form of contempt of court and thus constitute the offences against administration of justice under the Penal Code Cap 63,” he said. He warned that Barasa's extradition case will not be “as quick as the preparation of instant coffee.”

Kibe said the Kenyan courts “are under no divine duty or absolute legal obligation” to surrender Barasa to the ICC.He said Barasa would not be handed over as easily as the Ocampo Six. “We guarantee you that there shall be no repeat of such cheap justice in Barasa's case,” he said.

“Not every Kenyan is a comprador or for that matter awed by the phoney powers of the ICC against second class citizens of the world that African people have been projected by the practice and actions of the ICC,” Kibe said.

If Bensouda and Hebel do not apologize, Muigai says Barasa will seek an order to suspend cooperation between Kenya and ICC.

The lawyer asked Chief Justice Willy Mutunga to safeguard the rights of Barasa by protesting to the ICC about the comments of the two officials.

ICC IGNORES NEW RULES FOR UHURU | The Star

 

[Dr. Job]

As the euphoria and celebration come to an end regarding the Kenyan victory over the ICC as stipulated in the amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) granting UhuRuto blanket excusal from attending their cases, its time to take a critical look , at what really happened.

We have read a lot of input from different actors and it all boils down to, will Uhuru attend his trial when it starts in February or will the ICC be pressured to grant him excusal from the proceedings? As for Ruto, that's a done deal, he will continue to attend to the very bitter end,regardless as to whether these resolutions affect him or not. Me thinks the push is mainly to save Jomo's son and not the kid from Nandi.

Read: http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/ASP12/ICC-ASP-12-Res7-ENG.pdf


The amended RPE provides for four possibilities

a) The accused to attend all sessions
b) The accused attend via video link to be decided on a case by case
c) The excusal of accused from attending under exceptional circumstances also to be decided on a case by case
d) The excusal of accused from attending due to extraordinary public duties

Now this what we are not being told,...the resolutions cannot take place immediately. They have not yet even been deposited with the UN SG, Mr. Ban-ki-Moon. Once the resolutions are so deposited, each member state will be asked to ratify them in writing. People in the know have already predicted the process might take up to one year. I am sure the Uhuru lawyers know this, but still may apply for exemption for him from time to time citing important duties at home. That facility was already there and the judges have the prerogative to grant such requests on a case by case scrutiny.

To be precise, despite the push and pull, the sound and fury, Amina and co. achieved little. There's no blanket excusal, trial by video conferencing, no lmmunity from prosecution, etc.

This is what we can discern as lay men. As time goes, we will know more about the implications of the ASP resolutions. One thing seems to be certain though, Uhuru is not going to get any more preferential treatment at the Hague than his deputy got.

In the meantime, Amina and Githu may plan their next move and another round of globe trotting for which as usual we Kenyans shall foot the bill.

Dr. Job

 

[Jammu Africa]

As the euphoria and celebration come to an end regarding the Kenyan victory over the ICC as stipulated in the amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) granting UhuRuto blanket excusal from attending their cases, its time to take a critical look , at what really happened.

We have read a lot of input from different actors and it all boils down to, will Uhuru attend his trial when it starts in February or will the ICC be pressured to grant him excusal from the proceedings? As for Ruto, that's a done deal, he will continue to attend to the very bitter end,regardless as to whether these resolutions affect him or not. Me thinks the push is mainly to save Jomo's son and not the kid from Nandi.

Read: http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/ASP12/ICC-ASP-12-Res7-ENG.pdf


The amended RPE provides for four possibilities

a) The accused to attend all sessions
b) The accused attend via video link to be decided on a case by case
c) The excusal of accused from attending under exceptional circumstances also to be decided on a case by case
d) The excusal of accused from attending due to extraordinary public duties

Now this what we are not being told,...the resolutions cannot take place immediately. They have not yet even been deposited with the UN SG, Mr. Ban-ki-Moon. Once the resolutions are so deposited, each member state will be asked to ratify them in writing. People in the know have already predicted the process might take up to one year. I am sure the Uhuru lawyers know this, but still may apply for exemption for him from time to time citing important duties at home. That facility was already there and the judges have the prerogative to grant such requests on a case by case scrutiny.

To be precise, despite the push and pull, the sound and fury, Amina and co. achieved little. There's no blanket excusal, trial by video conferencing, no lmmunity from prosecution, etc.

This is what we can discern as lay men. As time goes, we will know more about the implications of the ASP resolutions. One thing seems to be certain though, Uhuru is not going to get any more preferential treatment at the Hague than his deputy got.

In the meantime, Amina and Githu may plan their next move and another round of globe trotting for which as usual we Kenyans shall foot the bill.

Dr. Job

The ICC judges are,,only employees of the British the french and the other big boys.

So Uhuru Kenyatta will go by what was decided,,together with the ICC sponsors
and not those employees in the name of,,,,eti,,judges.

Uhuru Kenyatta will bend to the lowest and only attend those courts proceeding
thorough the video links,,,short of that,,,follow the AFRICAN UNION's advice to
him,,,that he should ignore anything ICC.

As easy,,as that.

Furthermore,,it is not ICC which brought him to where he is,, as the president of
this country,,,it is the people of Kenya,,and so,,,ICC judges do not wield any
visible powers of him,,only,,imaginary ones.:tonguez:

If their bosses,,,the British and the rest,,had powers over Kenyatta and Kenya,,,he(Kenyatta)
wouldn't be the,,,, present president of the republic of Kenya,,,they could have easily installed their
own choice.

So,,,,,,,,,,, they better,,know what they are doing.