Tumealikwa kwenye maandalizi uchaguzi mkuu Kenya 2012.....Je,wanasiasa Tunaweza kujifunza kitu?

[Ben Saanane]

Kimsingi Raila Odonga is more popular kuliko wagombea wengine wote na anatarajiwa kushinda kwenye round ya kwanza ya uchaguzi, lakini kikwazo kikubwa kwake ni hali halisi kuwa hawezi kufikisha 50% ya kura zote katika round hiyo na hivyo marudio ya uchaguzi kwa washindi wawili wa juu ni kitu kinachotarajiwa....

Raila Odinga katika uchaguzi wa 2007, aliungwa mkono sana kwenye maeneo yenye population ya kutosha kumpa uraisi ya Nyanza-Kwao, Nairobi, Rift Valley kwa Rutto na Western-Luhya kwa Mudavadi na kushindwa?? na Kibaki,..lakini kueleka 2012 Raila Odinga hana ushawishi tena kwenye eneo muhimu la Rift Valley na ana changamoto kubwa kwa Waluhya hasa kutokana na kupungua kwa ushawishi wa Mudavadi kwa kuonekana mtu dhaifu asiye na ambitions za kuwa raisi na wakati huohuo kuibuka kwa kijana Eugen Wamalwa anayeonekana kuelekea kumfunika Mudavadi kwenye siasa za Luhya, time will telll...

Kutokana na siasa hizi za kikabila, mkakati wa G7 ni kuunganisha nguvu kwa yeyote miongoni mwao atakayeshika nafasi ya pili na kushirikiana as a team kwenye uchaguzi wa marudio dhidi ya Raila, na hapa ndipo uwezekano wa Raila kushindwa unapokuwa mkubwa kutokana na population kubwa ya wapiga kura iliyo nyuma ya umoja wa G7 inayobebwa zaidi na Central-Uhuru, Rift Valley-Ruto, Kalonzo-Eastern, na toss-up Luhya, time will tell...

Challenge, je G7 itasurvive mpaka kwenye uchaguzi? je Wakikuyu watakuwa tayari sasa kumpigia kura mgombea asiye Mkikuyu incase Uhuru Kenyatta atakuwa na kesi ya kujibu Hague au kama hatashika nafasi ya pili kwenye uchaguzi wa awali? bado hawana historia hiyo...na je kama maGiant wote wa G7 watagombea uraisi, vipi ushawishi wa ma-Vice Presidential candidates kwenye maeneo wanayotoka (ukiondoa Central-No way kwa Raila) hasa kwenye runn-off?

Vyovyote itakavyokuwa, uchaguzi ujao ni kura ya maoni ya kupendwa na kuchukiwa kwa Raila Odinga, kisiasa amefanya kosa kubwa sana kuipoteza Rift Valley, binafsi nampa nafasi kubwa Raila kushinda kwenye round ya kwanza, na kisha kushindwa kwenye round ya pili, na hivyo serikali ijayo ya Kenya kuundwa na G7...

Kwa waluhya bado inaonekana Eugene wamalwa kupitia nafasi yake ya kamati ya mambo ya nje na ulinzi alihusika kumkaanga waziri wa mambo ya nje Moses Wetang'ula.Waluhya bado wana hasira naye .Ni lazima ODM iwakumbushe waluhya at the same time iwaonyeshe kwamba wanataka Kenya moja isiyo na ukabila

Kundi la G7 lityasambaratika kutokana na Ruto na uhuru kutokuwa na vision kwanza wanapata backup kutoka kwa Saitoti ambaye hajawaeleza wakenya kuhusu uhusika wake kwenye Goldensberg scandal

 

[Butola]

Kwa waluhya bado inaonekana Eugene wamalwa kupitia nafasi yake ya kamati ya mambo ya nje na ulinzi alihusika kumkaanga waziri wa mambo ya nje Moses Wetang'ula.Waluhya bado wana hasira naye .Ni lazima ODM iwakumbushe waluhya at the same time iwaonyeshe kwamba wanataka Kenya moja isiyo na ukabila

Ni kweli, Eugen anachangamoto kubwa sana kupambana na nguli wengi wa kabila lake ambao amekwaruzana nao, lakini strength yake kubwa ambao inamuuza ni "uchu" na "uwezekano wa kuwa Rais", hii ni sifa ya msingi sana kwa siasa za kikabila za Kenya.

Waluhya wengi wanaamini kwa uwingi wao, wanastahili sasa nao kuzikamata siasa za taifa kwa upande wa Uraisi na sio kuwa madaraja ya watu wengine na wao kuishia tu kwenye nafasi ya Umakamu wa Rais tu, hii ndiyo turufu aliyonayo Eugen ambayo Mudavadi na wenzake hawana, na kama atagombea Urais na wakati huohuo Mudavadi akabaki kuwa "mfuasi mtiifu wa Raila" , kuna uwezekano mkubwa wa future ya siasa za Luhya kuangukia mikononi mwake...

 

[Bantugbro]

Siasa za Kenya tutaziweza wapi mkuu? nadhani tutaalikwa mara pale watakapoanza kukatana mapanga. BTW, Ruto na Uhuru ni watuhumiwa wa mauaji yaliyosababishwa na vurugu za uchaguzi uliopita na kesi yao ilishaanza kusikilizwa huko ICC, the Hague.

Kwa ufupi kikubwa cha kujifunza ni madhara ya ukabila...

 

[Arafat]

Mkuu Arafati...

Japo kwenye siasa hakuna adui wala rafiki wa kudumu lakini unless utokee muujiza hakuna uwezekano wa Ruto kumuunga mkono Raila na wala hakuna uwezekano wa Kalonzo kuungana na Raila katika uchaguzi ujao, Martha Karua pamoja na kuwa amegoma kujitoa kugombea kumwachia Uhuru ili kuunganisha nguvu za mkoa wa Kati-Wakikuyu, zaidi sana hawezi kujitoa kwa ajili ya Raila japo ata akifanya hivyo hana effect kubwa kwa sababu anatokea kwenye jamii ambayo ni himaya ya Uhuru Kenyatta na hasimu wa Waluo na Raila...

Wote Moi, Kibaki, Ruto, Uhuru na Kalonzo wanaunganisha na kitu kimoja, kumzuia Raila Odinga kuwa the most powerful person in Kenya..., anachopaswa kufanya Raila ni kujaribu kumvuta Eugen Wamalwa kwenye wing yake na wakati huohuo am-maintain Musalia Mudavadi, hii itamhakikishia support ya block muhimu ya Waluhya.

Sijui kama kuna margin ya ushindi tusubiri maana huyo Bwana haeleweki na anambinu za ajabu sana kumbuka aliwai hata kujiunga KANU kwa ajili ya kuibomoa

 

[T.K]

Ben,
kwa statistics ulizoweka hapo za synovate inaonyesha kamabi yenye nguvu sana ni ya Raila, na kama hilo ndivyo basi nynyi mtasupport hiyo "kambi yenye nguvu" japo hujasema nani ametenga almost bilioni 160, hii inaonyesha huyo jamaa anautaka urais kwa udi na uvumba...

swali yangu ni kuwa je, ushiriki wenu wa wazi hauwezi kuwa hoja kwa wapinzani wake watakayoiitumia kumbomoa kuwa huyo jamaa urais wake utakuwa na ubia na "öutsiders"???

 

[T.K]

Nadhani mfumo wa ubepari unawasaidia sana.....leo hii kuna Aspirant mmoja wa Urais ameshaweka budget Estmate ya Kshs 8 Billion.Sasa ( Bilioni 8 X 20 = 160 ) kwa hela za Tanzania 160,000,000,000 ni zaidi ya budget yetu ya mambo ya nje karibia mara moja na nusu.

Kweli wananchi wana uelewa mkubwa Kenya,na pia siasa zao bado zina influence ya ethnicity ndiyo maana inabidi kutumia gaharama kubwa kweli kweli ili kupata supporters wa kutosha




Sisi Tanzania inabidi tutumie mkakati wa hali ya juu uchaguzi ujao,tuwe na secretariet makini uchaguzi ujao.Alliance inayohitajika ni ku-pull in the civil society groups,watu wenye influence kwa wafanyakazi,wakulima,na most importantly big fraction of voters block vijana.ni lazima tuanze maandalizi mazito.Ni lazima tuingie kwenye nyoyo za matabaka ya chini na ya kati.Hii sensa ya mwakani inabidi tucheze nayo sana kimkatai kabla ya kupata data mpya za daftari la wapiga kura 2014.Hapa kwetu kazi tukiifanya agressively,bila shaka tuna uwezo wa kushinda kwa zaidi ya asilimia 70%

Wenzetu wanajua sana kujenga alliances, naona Willium Kipchirchir Ruto anaiga sasa style ya kujenga alliance ya Raila Amolo Odinga.Kambi yake ya coastal Region iliyokuwa inaongozwa na Najib balala imepata pigo,Amegeukia kambi ya Raila odinga.Kwa vyovyote turufu aliyonayo ni kupata support kutoka kwa akina John Michuki,Sally kosgei,Prof.sam Ongeri kwa sabau wakisii hawana imani8 sana Raila,Nicholous Biwot incase Uhuru Kenyatta akiamua kuunga alliance nyingine,Eugene wamalwa na akina Martini shikuku ili kupata support kubwa ya the populous ethnic group ya Waluhya,Kalonzo Musyoka yeye hakuna mwanasiasa atakayemuamini tena coz hana tofauti na Jk kwa kucheza siasa za Usaliti na hatabiriki

Japo wako wanaokutuhumu kwenye chama chako kuwa unaendesha siasa za makundi, ila kiukweli unaonekana ni mfatiliaji makini na strategist mzuri...ila aisee hakikisha unakuweko igunga ili chama kichukue lile jimbo.

 

[Ben Saanane]

Sijui kama kuna margin ya ushindi tusubiri maana huyo Bwana haeleweki na anambinu za ajabu sana kumbuka aliwai hata kujiunga KANU kwa ajili ya kuibomoa

Arafat,

kulingana na katiba ya sasa mshindi ni lazima apate more than 50% na kama itatokea Ruto na Uhuru waka-split basi bado ni hatari zaidi mkakati wa haraka itabidi utumike ili wasizuie mshindi kupatikana Round ya kwanza kwani watakuwa katika nafasi nzuri ya kuungana katika Run-off na pia external force ya madui wa Odinga ni kubwa.Raila bado ana nguvu kubwa sana na mkakati mzuri ukiwekwa atapata sapoti kubwa sana ya vijana na makundi mengine

Ben,
kwa statistics ulizoweka hapo za synovate inaonyesha kamabi yenye nguvu sana ni ya Raila, na kama hilo ndivyo basi nynyi mtasupport hiyo "kambi yenye nguvu" japo hujasema nani ametenga almost bilioni 160, hii inaonyesha huyo jamaa anautaka urais kwa udi na uvumba...

swali yangu ni kuwa je, ushiriki wenu wa wazi hauwezi kuwa hoja kwa wapinzani wake watakayoiitumia kumbomoa kuwa huyo jamaa urais wake utakuwa na ubia na "öutsiders"???

Si vyema kutaja kambi iliyotaualika kwa sasa.Pia,Aliyetenga bilioni 160 sio Raila...ni mmojawapo wa suspects wa ICC ambaye ni aspirant pia

Japo wako wanaokutuhumu kwenye chama chako kuwa unaendesha siasa za makundi, ila kiukweli unaonekana ni mfatiliaji makini na strategist mzuri...ila aisee hakikisha unakuweko igunga ili chama kichukue lile jimbo.

T.K,

Sijawahi kuwa na makundi ndani ya chama changu......Nikirudi nitaenda Igunga

 

[Arafat]

Ben; mbona nipo hapa na Raila sikuoni? upo wapi nije..., ahaaa haa jokes bana nipo zangu Naelekea Igunga kwa kazi zangu Binafsi za Uchaguzi mdogo.

 

[Ben Saanane]

Ni kweli, Eugen anachangamoto kubwa sana kupambana na nguli wengi wa kabila lake ambao amekwaruzana nao, lakini strength yake kubwa ambao inamuuza ni "uchu" na "uwezekano wa kuwa Rais", hii ni sifa ya msingi sana kwa siasa za kikabila za Kenya.

Waluhya wengi wanaamini kwa uwingi wao, wanastahili sasa nao kuzikamata siasa za taifa kwa upande wa Uraisi na sio kuwa madaraja ya watu wengine na wao kuishia tu kwenye nafasi ya Umakamu wa Rais tu, hii ndiyo turufu aliyonayo Eugen ambayo Mudavadi na wenzake hawana, na kama atagombea Urais na wakati huohuo Mudavadi akabaki kuwa "mfuasi mtiifu wa Raila" , kuna uwezekano mkubwa wa future ya siasa za Luhya kuangukia mikononi mwake...

Mkuu bado Eugene Wamalwa hajawa na mvuto wa kushawishi waluhya na kuwapa matumaini kiasi hicho.....Otherwise watu kama akina Martini Shikuku,Masinde Muliro walikuwa na sifa hizo kuliko Eugene wamalwa au kama Michael kijana wamalwa(Mwanasiasa aliyekuwa bright,Orator) angekuwa hai leo ndiyo kungekuwa changamoto kwa akina Raila kuliko member mwingine yeyote wa G-7 Camp

Mkakati wa akina Ruto ni kumuweka front ili kupata Kura nyingi za waluhya bila kuangalia mgawanyiko wao centarl na Rift valley utakavyowaumiza kisiasa.Sasa hivi inabidi kila kambi ianze kuweka mkakati wa kupenyeza ajenda nyingi kwa makundi ya vijana kuanzia taasisi za chini hadi juu pamoja na kufanya kazi na taasisi nyingi za Research hata zile za kimataifa kupenyeza sumu kila idara.Mgawanyo wa taasisi za elimu na ufundi hapa Kenya ni mzuri na kwa kila kabila ni lazima sasa utumike mkakati kama ule wa zamani wa uingereza wa Indirect rule au mtindo wanotumia China katika kueneza sera zao nyingi kuazi juu hadi chini.Huo ni mkkaati ambao ni more appealing kumjenga strongly mgombea wa Urais kwa

Kuna mgombea underground anaitwa mwai gikenyi nae ni mshirika mzuri kwenye kambi yoyote ya urais kwani hawezi ku-rise kwenye occassion.Anaweza kusaidia katika kugawa kura za maeneo fulani.

Scandal ya sasa ya Najib Balala kwamba anafadhili Al-Shaabab nayo imemuweka mbali sana na kundi la G-7,akiwa kwenye hilo kundi hataweza kujinasua kwenye hiyo kashfa.Uchaguzi ujao Kenya utashuhudia vijana wengi kuingia bungeni,senate,governorship n.k.wengi wa wabunge wa sasa watakwenda nyumbani,homa ya uchaguzi iko juu vijana wanafanya maandalizi ya nguvu

 

[Josh Michael]

Kweli kaka umesoma vizuri sana India na pia upo makini na Foreign Policy za nchi Tofauti katika Dunia ya leo na pia this is really cool man!! naungana na wewe kabisa kwa hili

 

[Ben Saanane]

Tumemaliza,Narudi Dar Es Salaam leo.....................!

Cha kufurahisha na kutia moyo zaidi ni kwamba Afrika inahitaji uhuru wa pili.Vyama vya upinzani na wadau wake wana kazi ya Ziada.nimegundua hata Zimbabwe bado upinzani una changamoto,tumekuwa na mjumbe kutoka Zim anasema wanamhitaji Comrade Tendai Biti kuongoza MDC kabla ya uchaguzi mkuu ujao ambao ZANU-PF wameshaanza kucheza Rafu

South Africa nako hali si shwari ndani ya ANC,wanasema wanahitaji ukombozi wa kiuchumi....Rais wa Jumuiya ya Vijana ya ANC Comrade Julius Malema anapata upinzani wa hali ya juu kutokana na Doctrine yake ya Black economic empowernment

Nakumbuka mwanaharakati mmoja tuliyekuwa naye Nairobi aliniambia 'comrade Ben,African youths need a blue Print of Revolutionary movement'

 

[JF Marketer]

Neno moja tu, Ben uko MAKINI.
Na CHADEMA wajivunie kuwa na Vichwa. Miongoni mwao ni Ben.

 

[Ben Saanane]

Kweli kaka umesoma vizuri sana India na pia upo makini na Foreign Policy za nchi Tofauti katika Dunia ya leo na pia this is really cool man!! naungana na wewe kabisa kwa hili

Asante Ndugu,

Tuendelee kushirikiana ..................tutafika tu

 

[Ben Saanane]

Kupitia uamuzi wa ICC sasa tunaweza kupata taswira ya uchaguzi mkuu kenya.Ruto na Kenyatta wata-face trial............

Presentation for 23 January 2012 in Case 1 and Case 2


Court Officer, please, call the two cases in the Kenya situation. Thank you, Court Officer.


Good morning, to everyone who is joining us from in and around the Court and also to those joining us from the Republic of Kenya via the internet or otherwise.


Pre‐Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court composed of Judges Hans‐Peter Kaul to my right, Cuno Tarfusser to my left and I – Ekaterina Trendafilova – the Presiding Judge of this Chamber, has decided to appear in Court this morning in order to present an oral summary of its decisions concerning the charges of the Prosecutor against:

• William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang in Case 1 and

• Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali in Case 2.


Before presenting a summary of the Chamber’s findings, I would like to clarify that this is not a hearing or a Court session. The Prosecutor and the Defence teams are not present, the Legal Representatives of victims are also not in attendance, the Registrar and her colleagues are not here, and the Chamber’s legal officers are also absent from the courtroom.


Rather, the Chamber is alive to its role in ensuring that both the public at large and interested Kenyans, are duly informed of the Chamber’s decisions regarding charges emanating from the violence, which engulfed the Republic of Kenya, after the announcement, on 30 December 2007, of the results of the presidential elections.


In Case 1, the Prosecutor presented 6 counts charging the 3 Suspects with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population and persecution.


In Case 2, the Prosecutor presented 10 counts charging the other 3 Suspects with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution.


The Chamber is mindful of concerns regarding the precarious security situation in parts of the country. It is also attentive of its responsibility to maintain stability in Kenya, and to fulfill its duty vis-a-vis the protection of victims and witnesses.

Thus, the Chamber considered it necessary to issue the two decisions on the charges of the Prosecutor on the same day and did so today before this appearance. The parties and participants were notified accordingly of the decisions.

Now I will turn to the decisions of the Chamber issued today.

After having thoroughly examined and analyzed individually and collectively all the evidence presented, the Chamber, by majority, decided to confirm the charges against four of the six suspects, as will be explained later in more detail.

Judge Kaul appended a dissenting opinion in both cases. He maintains that the ICC is not competent because the crimes committed on the territory of the Republic of Kenya during the post‐election violence of 2007‐2008 in his view were serious common crimes under Kenyan criminal law, but not crimes against humanity as codified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute.


Before turning to the task at hand, namely the summary of the Chamber’s decisions, I would like to briefly recall some of the important procedural developments of the two cases. This will give a better idea of the work of the Court, of the parties and participants in the cases.


Since 8 March 2011, when the Chamber issued its decisions on the summonses to appear, in the two cases, the Chamber has been continuously seized with a multitude of issues. Throughout the proceedings, the Chamber placed at the centre of its activities its duty to ensure the fair, expeditious and independent conduct of the entire process. The Chamber also gave substantial consideration to the protection of victims and witnesses and the various rights of the defence.


On 7 and 8 April 2011, in Case 1 and Case 2, respectively, the initial appearance hearings took place, during which the Chamber set the dates of the confirmation of charges hearing.


This stage was followed by a series of judicial activities. In particular, the Chamber facilitated the participation of victims by issuing a number of decisions in this regard.

In the first case, the Chamber received 394 victims applications for participation, amounting to 4,246 pages and admitted 327 victims as participants in the proceedings.

In the second case, we received 249 applications for participation with the total of 2,864 pages and admitted 233 victims to participate.


Moreover, for the purposes of ensuring the security of the victims and witnesses, the Chamber also took decisions on the Prosecutor’s proposals for redactions, which amounted to around 12,000 pages.


Apart from that, the Chamber also issued two decisions on the Government of Kenya’s challenges to the admissibility of the cases, in which it ultimately found the cases to be admissible. The Chamber’s decisions were upheld on appeal.


Furthermore, in readiness of the confirmation of charges hearings, the Chamber issued a number of decisions organizing and facilitating the disclosure of evidence between the Prosecutor and Defence. Together, the six Defence teams and the Prosecutor in both cases disclosed approximately 30,000 pages of evidence, for the purpose of the Chambers’ determination on the charges presented.


On 1 September 2011, the confirmation of charges hearing in Case 1 commenced, as decided during the initial appearance, and lasted for 7 days.


Similarly, as determined during the initial appearance of the Suspects in the second case, the confirmation of charges hearing in Case 2 started on 21 September 2011, , lasting for 12 days.


Thus, since the start of the cases, the Chamber has received 4,905 filings, including their annexes, from the Prosecutor, the Defence teams, Victims representatives, amici curiae and the Registry.

Including today’s decisions, the Chamber has issued 252 decisions, in both cases.


This concludes the procedural background of the two cases to date.


At this point and on behalf of the Chamber, I must explain that we are not passing judgment on the guilt or innocence of the individuals. The Chamber is tasked by law only to evaluate the strength of the Prosecutor’s case at this pre‐trial stage ‐ that is to determine whether the Prosecutor presented enough evidence before the Chamber to confirm the charges. The standard required by the law, is that there are “substantial grounds to believe” that the crimes charged were committed, and that the Suspects were responsible for them.

Summary of Decision in Case 1


I will now turn to the merits of Case 1, the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang. It concerns crimes committed in Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area, Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills from on or about 30 December 2007 until the end of January 2008. I would like to underline the following:


As mentioned at the start, the Prosecutor charged Mr. Ruto, Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Sang, for crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer and persecution.
Mr. Ruto and Mr. Kosgey were charged as indirect co‐perpetrators, while Mr. Sang was charged as having contributed to the said crimes against humanity.


I will first summarise the findings of the Chamber on the crimes, and then the findings as to the criminal responsibility.


With respect to the crimes charged and based on the evidence placed before it, the Chamber found that the Prosecutor has established substantial grounds to believe that the crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer and persecution were committed. These crimes resulted in the death of hundreds, and the displacement of thousands of civilians from Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area, Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills.
The Chamber also found that these crimes were committed as part of an attack directed against particular groups, namely, Kikuyu, Kamba and Kisii, due to their perceived political affiliation to the Party of National Unity.


As to the criminal responsibility of Mr. Ruto and Mr. Sang, the Chamber found, on the basis of the evidence presented, that they are responsible for the charges levied against them.


In particular, Pre‐Trial Chamber II confirmed the charges against Mr. Ruto as an indirect co‐ perpetrator with others, pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, while it found that Mr. Sang contributed to the commission of said crimes against humanity, pursuant to article 25(3)(d)(i), to the extent specified in the written decision.


However, in relation to Mr. Kosgey, the Chamber found that the Prosecutor’s evidence failed to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required. The Chamber was not persuaded by the evidence presented by the Prosecutor of Mr. Kosgey’s alleged role within the organization.

In particular, the Prosecutor relied on one anonymous and insufficiently corroborated witness. Moreover, the Chamber determined that Mr. Kosgey suffered prejudice due to the redaction of certain dates related to a number of meetings that he allegedly attended, which proved to be essential for his defence and for the finding on his criminal responsibility.


In light of these facts and the entire body of evidence relating to Mr. Kosgey’s criminal responsibility, the Chamber declined to confirm the charges against Mr. Kosgey.


Summary of Decision in Case 2


Turning now to Case 2, the Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali.


As mentioned earlier, the Prosecutor charged Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ali with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution.

Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta were charged as indirect co-perpetrators, while Mr. Ali was charged as having contributed to the said alleged crimes against humanity.


As to the crimes, the Chamber found, on the basis of a thorough review of the evidence individually and collectively, substantial grounds to believe that between 24 and 28 January 2008 there was an attack against the civilian residents of Nakuru and Naivasha perceived as supporters of the Orange Democratic Movement, in particular those belonging to the Luo, Luhya and Kalenjin ethnic groups.


The Chamber also found that the attack resulted in a large number of killings, displacement of thousands of people, rape, severe physical injuries and mental suffering.

Thus, the evidence established substantial grounds to believe that the crimes of murder, deportation or forcible transfer, rape, other inhumane acts and persecution were committed.


With respect to the criminal responsibility of Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta, the Chamber was satisfied that the evidence also established substantial grounds to believe that they are criminally responsible for the alleged crimes, as indirect co-perpetrators, pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, having gained control over the Mungiki and directed them to commit the crimes.

However, in relation to Mr. Ali, the Chamber found that the evidence presented does not provide substantial grounds to believe that the Kenya Police participated in the attack in or around Nakuru and Naivasha. Since Mr. Ali was charged with contributing to the crimes through the Kenya Police, the Chamber declined to confirm the charges against him.

The Chamber will now outline the impact of its decisions on: (1) those against whom the charges have been confirmed; (2) on those against whom the charges have not been confirmed (namely, Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Ali); (3) as well as on the victims.


As a result of the decisions issued today, Mr. Ruto, Mr. Sang, Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta are committed to trial. They will be tried before a different Chamber for the charges confirmed. To this end, one or more Trial Chambers will be established by the Presidency of the ICC.


In this regard, the Chamber wishes to highlight that victims, who are already represented before this Chamber, may participate in the trial. Other victims will have the right and opportunity to apply to participate during the trial stage. Victims will have also the right to request reparations, should the accused persons be found guilty.


The Chamber wishes to be unequivocal and state that Mr. Ruto, Mr. Sang, Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta are merely accused before this Court. The Chamber would like to emphasise, for the purposes of clarity, that the presumption of innocence remains fully intact.
At trial, the Prosecutor will have the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to article 66 of the Statute. Furthermore, the decisions issued today by this Chamber do not affect the liberty of the accused, which remains undisturbed.

This, however, absolutely depends on the accused’s adherence to the conditions contained in the summonses to appear, which continue to remain in full force. At this point, the Chamber recalls its previous warning to the Suspects that their continued liberty is subject to their non‐engagement in incitement of violence or hate speech.


As to Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Ali, the Chamber wishes to clarify that they are no longer Suspects before the Court. However, the Chamber recalls article 61(8) of the Rome Statute, according to which the Prosecutor may present additional evidence requesting confirmation of charges against Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Ali.


We have now concluded the summary of the Chamber’s decisions in Case 1 and Case 2. At this juncture, the Chamber would like to express a few sentiments.

Today and indeed throughout the proceedings in these cases, we have appeared in our official capacities as Judges of the International Criminal Court. Offices which task us with the sole purpose of achieving justice ‐ justice for all – for victims but equally, justice for those who appeared before the Court. This is not rhetoric but a tangible goal we all genuinely strive for.


In reaching our decisions we have reviewed all the evidence individually and collectively, regardless of its source, firmly guided by the provisions of the Court’s statutory documents. In the fulfillment of our judicial mandate, we have looked through impartial and independent lenses, in order to ascertain whether the requisite threshold in article 61 of the Statute, for confirmation of the charges has been reached.


It is our utmost desire that the decisions issued by this Chamber today, bring peace to the people of the Republic of Kenya and prevent any sort of hostility. The decisions are the result of intensive and committed judicial work of the Chamber, conducted impartially, independently and conscientiously in the interests and in the service of justice.


That concludes Pre-Trial Chamber II’s appearance this morning.

Before we leave the courtroom, on behalf of the Chamber, I would like to thank everyone who has been following this public appearance and especially the people of the Republic of Kenya

​