William Ruto must live by the dictum "no news is bad news." How else do you explain his two mouthpieces going on national TV and lambasting the good judges of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II for their ruling on his appeal against the ICC Prosecutor's move to serve him with a summons to appear in the PEV cases? Katwa Kigen and Dr. Kithure Kindiki went to the ICC and asked the Pre-Trial Chamber II to hear out William Ruto, stop the ICC prosecutor from issuing summonses against him and also, rather belatedly, stop him from applying to the Court for summonses to issue in respect of their client. The Court refused to entertain Mr. Ruto's application, arguing that the rule under which the suspended Higher Education Minister had applied to the Court could not be relied on as it would, in effect, consider him a friend of the court, when he quite clearly is not.
Mr. Ruto has all along claimed that the ICC Prosecutor's case is based on tainted testimony and unreliable reports by both the KNHCR and the Waki Commission. Last year when it emerged that two witnesses had recanted their testimony in front of the KNHCR, Mr. Ruto claimed that this development proved that the allegations made against him were baseless and that he should not be target of the ICC prosecutor. However, for him, the train has well and surely left the station and his salvation lies in the trial being conducted speedily and he is acquitted well in time for him to seek the presidency in 2012. It is staggering that all that the Eldoret North MP and his acolytes see is the effect of the ICC Case on his 2012 presidential prospects and not on the substance of the case itself. How can it be that he has been accused of murder, or ordering the murder of thousands, and all he is concerned about is whether he shall be in a position to challenge Raila Odinga in 2012?
One of the most significant promises we have made for ourselves by ratifying the new Constitution is that we all shall live by the rule of law. In Moi's and Kenyatta's eras, impunity was personified by men and women n positions of political power. The idea that anyone could be held accountable for his acts of omission or commission was anathema to the major players in these two regimes. President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga do not seem to understand the changes that have been wrought by the Constitution either; they tolerate acts of impunity with their eye on political advantages at the expense of basic justice for all.These are not people who are used to playing by the rules. The ICC process is reminding them that in the small pond that is Kenya they may be big fish, but in the murky waters of the ocean that is the ICC, they are most definitely minnows. This must explain the incredulity with which the PLO Lumumba-led KACC activities has been greeted by the leading lights of the ODM. They are not used to seeing the high and mighty being arraigned in court on charges of abuse of office or any other charge for that matter. How can it be that a sitting minister can be held in court cells together with the purse-snatchers and pick-pockets from the streets? This is unprecedented in Kenya.
Mr. Ruto's lawyers have attempted to put a brave face on the ICC ruling, attempting to explain it away using dense legalese that flies over our heads. What they will not be able to erase is the image of their client being denied what would have been routine in Kenya - that the court recognise that he is a big fish and that he can bend it to his will. Someone needs to inform them that the ICC is not Evan Gicheru's Judiciary, where the high and might are deferred to by the court, but that the ICC will not be swayed by their perceived importance in Kenya, but by the facts of the case and the law itself.
When the Members of the Tenth Parliament proclaim the sovereignty of Kenya, they tend to forget that this sovereignty derives from the peoples of Kenya and not from the National Assembly and that a majority of Kenyans want to see the perpetrators of the PEV tried at The Hague and not in our courts of law, in which we do not have faith. We have decided that in this matter, we will cede our sovereignty to a foreign court thousands of miles away, because we know that back home, justice can be bought; after all, it has been bought in the past. Until the Judiciary is reformed and new blood is introduced into the hallowed halls of justice, we have no reason to put our faith in the robed men and women of the Kenyan Judiciary. Until then, we will be content to cede sovereignty to foreign courts. That is how it is, that is how it shall be. The 'people' have spoken. Deal with it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The false dream of a national dress
Every once in a while, someone with little to no business about it tells me how to do my job. They ("they" are people with a bit o...
-
There are over three hundred parastatals in Kenya. Almost one-quarter were established after 2013. The economic rationale for their establis...
-
The United States, from which we have borrowed a great deal of our recent statutory political infrastructure, and the United Kingdom, fro...
-
When the British arrested the men they accused of being the leadership of Mau Mau in 1952, imposed a state of emergency over Kenya Colony, a...
No comments:
Post a Comment