The last time I posted a blog here, I was persuading doubting Thomas’s to put up with a Kenyatta Presidency. That prophecy is now water under the bridge and my pet subject for today is International criminal court and post election violence casesThe international criminal court (ICC) is now faced with a daunting challenge, to deal with Kenya post-election violence cases pending before it following the change of status of two accused persons, H E Uhuru Kenyatta and H E William Ruto, whose are now President elect and Deputy President elect of the Republic of Kenya. This will be the first time for the International court to conduct trial of a sitting President and who has so far complied with the directives of the Court.
The ICC was established under the terms of the Rome statutes, to deal with international crimes of genocidal proportions. Koffi Annan, Former United Nations Secretary General, once stated, “For nearly half a century, the General Assembly had recognized the need to establish such a court, to prosecute and punish persons responsible for crimes such as genocide”. Further the Rome statue aimed to establish this court to play a complementary role, to support the existing national and internal judicial infrastructure to deal with rising gross violation of human rights that always goes unpunished. The court was also intended to end impunity, incessant conflicts and to step in where national institutions have failed.
But that is only good for institutionalism. The major test now is how this court will deal with looming trial of a Head of State and his deputy, a symbol of sovereignty and nationhood for the citizens who have elected them.
Again, there are fundamental questions that beg answers.
First, like Omar Bashir’s case who is indicted for misuse of power and authority to occasion genocide and human rights abuses in Darfur, Uhuru and Ruto have not misused any power or authority to commit the crimes for which they have been labeled. If they did, they would not have won popular support to get elected into office.
Secondly, the national accord needs reassessment to verify correctness. Pretexts such as historical injustices were merely cover up of the violence triggers. The theory of historical injustices was rendered impotent by the partnership of Rift valley and central province in the recently concluded election.
Kenya post poll clashes cannot also fit category of genocide. Well, over thousand people had lost their lives and as painful as it is, the conflict was basically a low intensity internal strife.
The ICC prosecutor has the prerogative to chat the course of the pending trial. In my view, the court will better preserve its mandate if the prosecutor drops the charges or the Judges dismiss the case. After all, the Kenyan people have spoken and their President cannot be a criminal.
By Brian Kadida.
