ICC Day 5 Case 2: Confirmation or no confirmation of charges – Varied expectations
Posted by African Press International on September 26, 2011
Six Kenyans are under pressure both privately and officially. Facing a Confirmation of charges hearing in an International Criminal Court is not a joke in itself. It tears ones soul, and disorient one mentally in terms of expectations on what may be the end result.
Confirmation or no confirmation of charges bears varied expectations depending on whether one is a suspect, defence team, prosecution team or victims. And yet those to determine the facts that will lead to justice being done in the end, knowing they must provide a justified decision are the Judges and none of the other participants.
Therefore, all parties should be interested in getting justice done. That will only happen if all facts brought before the judges is not manipulated by any party.
The defence have strongly criticised the prosecution and calling the investigation flawed. The prosecution seems to think they have done their job. The judges must decide on who is right and who is wrong.
The problem for the Judges, however, is the fact that they have not been able to ask the prosecution’s witnesses any questions, because the prosecutor has chosen to present written statements from anonymous witnesses instead of bringing them to testify in person.
Is the prosecutor afraid of having his witnesses cross-examined by the defence lawyers and the Judges? There is only one person who has that answer.
There are those who say the prosecutor fears to present his witnesses to the court,because if the Confirmation of charges is not secured, he believes he will have put his witnesses in danger. But there are those who think that his course of action will jeopardise his case if the Judges want to deliver justice to the suspects, because committing them to trial on the basis of anonymous witnesses is not right.
The Judges are well aware that it is expected of them to make no mistake because any mistakes done will ruin the lives of the suspects and their families, including their professional lives.
The prosecution should ensure that the witnesses are not after favours in exchange for lies because any damage done through a lying process by any anonymous witness will be costly if the judges use that as a basis to confirm the charges.
The prosecution should not engage in a case just to save face when it is time to stop the case incase they realise the evidence holds no water. This does not mean that if the suspects bear no blame, the victims have lost.
This case facing the six suspects is very important for the Kenyan people and Kenya as a country. The Kenyan people should not take sides, but leave the truth to determine the course. There will be no winners or losers in this Kenya case, because whichever way, someone will be angered by the end result.
It is the duty of the Pre-trial chamber to act as a sieve and ensure only proper cases that are solid proceed to trial. This was what was laid down as law in the Bemba case. Therefore, the Pre-Trial Chamber should not be used as a mere conveyor belt.
It is the bearing of wisdom that will save Kenya, and enable the Kenyan people a continued and peaceful co-existence, no matter what background one is associated with at this time of finding the truth in us as a people.
The case continued today with Muthaura’s evidence in court with Mr Lucas Mwanzo the former District Commissioner Naivasha who is now serving the government in the same capacity in Kilifi District. Mr Muthaura will present his last witness tomorrow, before Hon Uhuru Kenyatta starts his presentation.
Some of the defence lawyers:
anonymous witness, prosecution team, international criminal court, defence team, and kenyans