ICC Judge withdraws from Uhuru, Ruto case

NAIROBI, KENYA: Belgium Judge has withdrawn from cases facingPresident Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto at the International Criminal CourtIn his withdrawal, Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert questioned the prosecution’s conduct“I fully concur with the elucidation in the decision of the prosecution’s rights and obligations under article 54(1) (a) of the statute. However, I would have gone further in that I am of the view that there are serious questions as to whether the prosecution conducted a full and thorough investigation of the case of the accused prior to confirmation,” said Wyngaert.“In fact I believe that the facts show that the prosecution had not complied with the obligation under article 54 (1) (a) at the time when it sought confirmation and that it was still not even remotely ready when the proceedings before this Chamber started.”

Si wafute tu mashtaka! Hapana kesi hapo, ni fitna tu kama wakenya wenyewe walivyoonyesha.

This information must be from a government newspaper! Withdrawing is not a new phenomenon; The duo must face the consequences although they are now big potatoes in Kenya...

gakato said:

This information must be from a government newspaper! Withdrawing is not a new phenomenon; The duo must face the consequences although they are now big potatoes in Kenya...

Click to expand...

Hakuna kitu hapo

Let us wait and c inconsistent of ICC

Prosecutors walikurupuka na hii case, imekula kwao.

NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 27 –
Judge Christine van den
Wyngaert on Saturday
resigned from hearing the
Kenyan cases at the
International Criminal
Court (ICC) after
questioning the conduct of
the prosecution in President
Uhuru Kenyatta’s case.
In her opinion the
prosecution failed to
disclose to the Pre-Trial
Chamber on the credibility
of witness four and
disclosing new evidence
after confirmation stage.
“There are serious questions
as to whether the prosecution
conducted a full and thorough
investigation of the case
against the accused prior to
confirmation. I believe that
the facts show that the
prosecution had not complied
with its obligations at the
time when it sought
confirmation and that it was
still not even remotely ready
when the proceedings before
this Chamber started,” she
stated.
She further agreed with
Kenyatta’s argument that the
prosecution introduced
evidence and witnesses that
had not been disclosed
before.
“I stress the concerns
expressed in the decision
about the overwhelming
number of post confirmation
witnesses and the quantity of
post-confirmation
documentary evidence, as well
as the very late disclosure of
the latter.
Wyngaert observed that even
though the prosecution faced
challenges it has not justified
how so many witnesses were
interviewed after charges
against Kenyatta were
confirmed.
“The Prosecution offers no
cogent and sufficiently
specific justification for why
so many witnesses in this case
were only interviewed for the
first time post-confirmation.
The mere invocation by the
Prosecution of generic
problems with the security
situation in Kenya, without
explaining how this situation
affected each of the
individuals involved, does not
adequately justify the extent
and tardiness of the post-
confirmation investigation,”
she opined.
However in her concurrence
with the other two judges, she
explained that the hitches on
the side of prosecution were
not weighty enough to
warrant a referral to the Pre
Trial Chamber or withdrawal
of charges against Kenyatta.
Wyngaert was replaced by
Judge Robert Fremr who was
previously assigned to the
Trial Division 4.
The Kenyan cases now will be
heard by Fremr, presiding
Judge Kuniko Ozaki and Judge
Chile Eboe-Osuji.
In a majority decision the
Trial Chamber agreed that
charges against Kenyatta will
remain as confirmed for the
trial set for July 9 this year.
The judges said it was not
within the mandate of the
Trial Chamber to determine
the credibility of witnesses
and their evidence.
“The Chamber is mindful that
it should not place itself in
the position of the Pre-Trial
Chamber when it comes to
the consideration of the
credibility of witnesses and
assessment of the evidence
presented at the Confirmation
Hearing,” the judges said.
The majority further ruled
that it was not within the
mandate of the Trial Chamber
to challenge decisions of the
Pre Trial Chamber but for the
Appeal Chamber to make such
a decision.
They also said that it was not
within the Trial Chamber’s
power to terminate the
proceedings as requested by
Kenyatta’s defence.
For that reason, the judges
dismissed Kenyatta’s
application to refer his
charges back to the
confirmation stage and also to
stop the proceedings against
him.
“The Chamber has no
appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the Pre-Trial
Chamber. Accordingly, the
Chamber is not convinced
that this issue provides a
basis to terminate or stay the
proceedings. Nor is it, in the
view of the majority,
necessary for the Chamber’s
“fair and effective
functioning” to refer this
issue back to the Pre-Trial
Chamber for reconsideration.
To do so for this issue would
effectively mean that the
Chamber acts as an appellate
body, which as considered
above, is not permitted by
the Statute,” the majority
explained.
The judges however agreed
that the defence required
more time to prepare for the
trials based on the fact that
there were witnesses and
evidence disclosed post
confirmation.
However the judges said until
it rules otherwise on the start
of trials, the trial date for
Kenyatta’s case would still
remain on 9 July.
“The Chamber considers that
it would be disproportionate
to terminate or stay the
proceedings as a result of the
non-disclosure. Nor is it
necessary to refer this issue
to the Pre- Trial Chamber.
Until the chamber has
decided on the amount of
additional time that the
defence will be given, the
current date for trial of 9 July
2013 will be retained,” the
majority ruled.

NAIROBI, KENYA: Belgium Judge has withdrawn from cases facing President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto at the International Criminal Court

In her withdrawal, Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert questioned the prosecution’s conduct

“I fully concur with the elucidation in the decision of the prosecution’s rights and obligations under article 54(1) (a) of the statute. However, I would have gone further in that I am of the view that there are serious questions as to whether the prosecution conducted a full and thorough investigation of the case of the accused prior to confirmation,” said Wyngaert.

“In fact I believe that the facts show that the prosecution had not complied with the obligation under article 54 (1) (a) at the time when it sought confirmation and that it was still not even remotely ready when the proceedings before this Chamber started.”

A western chameleon is on the process of changing itself to African colour.

They can't even find a proper reasons to withdraw themselves from doomed allegations

Kenyan doesn't need western big brothers to poke their noses in their affairs.

The western big brothers are falling apart one by one.

Ushindi kwa familia ya Kiafrika..

I think it will be prudent at this juncture if ICC will drop their case against Mr. PRESIDENT AND HIS VP

Kwa maana hiyo kama Prosecutor hakufanya upelelezi kwa kina, Judge anajiondoa? Hawa ndio ndio majaji wa ICC?

Nyuma ya pazia kunani?

FJM said:

Kwa maana hiyo kama Prosecutor hakufanya upelelezi kwa kina, Judge anajiondoa? Hawa ndio ndio majaji wa ICC?

Click to expand...

Hapo ndo pakufahamu kwamba hakuna mahakama duniani iliyo huru. Zote zinafanya kutokana na interest za watawala.

Wamagharibi ni wajanja sana, hizi ni mbinu za kuzikonga nyoyo za wakenya na akina ruto na Uhuru na waafrika kwamba ICC ni mahakama ya haki ili warudi kuwa bega kwa bega na uongozi kuwaibia wananchi wa kiafrika.

okaoni said:

Huyo judge ni mnafiki tuu. kama amegundua kuwa kuna injustice kwenye hilo shauri , asingejitoa angeendelea mpaka mwisho na kutoa hukumu kutokana na ushahidi uliotolewa ili hukumu yake ionyeshe mapungufu hayo

Mimi ninavyofahamu, judge hujitoa pale ambapo ataona hatatoa haki kwa kuwa bias na si kwa upelelezi au ushahidi mbovu.Majudge hula kiapo cha kutenda haki bila woga au kupendelea. Sasa jibu ninalolipata kwa huyu judge ni kwamba ameogopa mashinikizo ya nchi za kimagaribi.Hii ina maana kwamba bado hajaweza kutimiza wajibu wake wa haki kwani atakayekuja badala yake anaweza kuwa ni mtu wao na kutoa hukumu mbaya kwa hao viongozi wetu

Click to expand...

kile kinachowatatiza ICC ni kukosa ushaidi inayotosha kuwakamata washukiwa, maana unapotizama kesi nyingi za ICC huendeshwa kwa muda mrefu sawa na ile ya charles taylor.

Edzeame said:

kile kinachowatatiza ICC ni kukosa ushaidi inayotosha kuwakamata washukiwa, maana unapotizama kesi nyingi za ICC huendeshwa kwa muda mrefu sawa na ile ya charles taylor.

Click to expand...

Mimi ni mara yangu ya kwanza kushuhudia uendeshaji ya mahakama ya ICC kupitia hii kesi lkn nilifikifi mahakama ilipoconfirm charge against them kwenye pre trial chamber na jinsi ushahidi na vielelezo vilivtokuwa vinatolewa sikufikiria kuwa watacollect evidence nyingine zaidi ya akina uhuru kujitetea.na akili yangu ilinituma kuwa tayari prosecutor alikwisha prove prima facie case?

okaoni said:

Mimi ni mara yangu ya kwanza kushuhudia uendeshaji ya mahakama ya ICC kupitia hii kesi lkn nilifikifi mahakama ilipoconfirm charge against them kwenye pre trial chamber na jinsi ushahidi na vielelezo vilivtokuwa vinatolewa sikufikiria kuwa watacollect evidence nyingine zaidi ya akina uhuru kujitetea.na akili yangu ilinituma kuwa tayari prosecutor alikwisha prove prima facie case?

Click to expand...

kinachoamua kesi ni ushaidi na hasa mashaidi, ukiona jaji anajiondoa kutoka kwa kesi jua kesi hiyo imekwisha. sasa ndio utaona ICC wakipeleka siku za kusikizwa kwa kesi mbele kidogo. kesi ya muthaura ilifutiliwa mbali katika pre-trial chamber na sio full trial, ina maana hata mkondo wa kesi yenyewe na maamuzi yanaweza badilishwa katika stage ya pre-trial chamber wakati wowote.

I said it,,,many times,,that ICC will die and ,,very soon,,,get an international burial.

This is one of the judges,,,saying it aloud for every one to hear.

I thought,that some one will say,,that he was bribed,,the way Willy Mutunga
is supposed to have been bribed.

We,,the Kenyans,,knows it,,better than them,,those with,,eyes.

It happened here,,we know how it started,,who started it but,,,he was never
put in that list of so called,,suspects.

UhuRuto were just like pawns,,as in the chase game.

This Mzungus could not go for the most powerful ones,,then,,
but,,because,,they had to be seen working,,,they went for
the foot soldiers.

That is why we never listened at what they were saying,,when
advising us on who to elect,,in Kenya,,for we knew better than them.

Shame on them all,,including those Kenyan pretenders,,hypocrites and
lairs.

Everything is falling like Babylon.

Na,,,,,bado,,,not yet,,over.

gakato said:

This information must be from a government newspaper! Withdrawing is not a new phenomenon; The duo must face the consequences although they are now big potatoes in Kenya...

Click to expand...

It seems like you are the only one who new the gist of this piece of news that the Kenya media decided to spin and make it look like the Judge withdrew because of poor investigations by the OTP. However the truth of the matter is in the following statement:

Decision replacing a judge in Trial Chamber V, due to Judge's expected workload

Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert has been excused from Trial Chamber V due to the Judge's expected workload, as we she was in Pre-Trial Chamber I, Trial Chamber II and Trial Chamber V, which are handling the situations in Libya, Côte d'Ivoire and Kenya, as well as the case The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga in the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She has been replaced in Trial Chamber V by Judge Robert Fremr.

Factual background

By memorandum dated 8 April 2013, the Judge requested the Presidency to excuse her from her functions as a judge of Trial Chamber V, pursuant to article 41(1) of the Rome Statute (hereinafter "Statute") and rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter "Rules"), and to be replaced as a judge of Trial Chamber V pursuant to rule 38 of the Rules (hereinafter "request") before the start of the trials in the cases of The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang and TheProsecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (hereinafter "Kenya cases"), scheduled to commence imminently.

The request for excusal is based upon the current and anticipated workload of the Judge, who as a member of Pre-Trial Chamber I, Trial Chamber II and Trial Chamber V, is currently seized of the situations in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire, the case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and the two Kenya cases.

The Judge indicated that the commencement of the trials in the Kenya cases will lead to an intensification of the work of Trial Chamber V, thereby significantly adding to the Judge's already "unprecedented" heavy workload. The Judge submits that her assignment to that Chamber was temporary, only for the purpose of the preparation of the two Kenya cases for trial. "


The last sentence is confirmed here, when Trial Chamber V was set up:

www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1380732.pdf