ICC ruling on Ruto, Sang case critical to both accused and victims Expert

ICC ruling on Ruto, Sang case critical to both accused and victims  Expert

With hours to the much-awaited International Criminal Court (ICC) ruling on whether Deputy President William Ruto and his co-accused Joshua Arap Sang have a case to answer, experts now argue that the decision by ICC on the no-case-to-answer motion is not a judgement.

Speaking to Citizen TV’s Power Breakfast Show on Tuesday, Njenga Mwangi, an international and criminal law expert, the ICC Trial Chamber decision will however have a huge implication on the image and operations of the Hague-based court.

In the likely scenario that the ICC rules in favour of the prosecution and decides that Ruto and Sang have a case to answer, Mwangi argues that the court will have an uphill task to prove that it investigated the case to conclusion and that the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant continuation of the case.

On the other hand, Mwangi argues that should the ICC Trial Chamber decide that Ruto and Sang have no case to answer, it would be a clear indication that the prosecution “did not do its homework to conclusively investigate the case”.

Mwangi added that although the Kenyan case has been highly politicized, the politics may have no direct influence on the ruling as ICC is an independent institution that is guided by principles and set guidelines.

Ruto and Sang are facing charges at the ICC over their alleged roles in the 2007-08 Post Election Violence (PEV) in which at least 1,300 people died and over 600,000 others were displaced.

The two each face three charges of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population and persecution.

Mwangi noted that the ICC prosecutor could appeal the court’s ruling should the Trial Chamber rule in favour of DP Ruto and Mr Sang.

The Kenyan cases, he argued, have been marred by confusion and contradictions, with cases of witness interference being reported right from the onset, making it difficult for the ICC to speed up the case.

He further argued that interfering with investigations, witnesses and evidence are crimes against administration of justice, adding that the victims continue to suffer.

Mwangi noted that due to interference in the case, the prosecutors have little to connect the two accused to the crimes that were committed.

On witness tampering, the legal expert opined that the ICC should charge the witnesses who recanted their evidence, saying that by doing so they weakened the prosecution’s case.

He, however, criticized the court for failing to conduct due diligence to identify fake witnesses.

“If a prosecutor could present such a witness, then it shows they did not do their homework,” he said.

“Inconsistencies raise the question; should this court exercise ‘judicial economy’ in a case that has no breath?” he posed.

Want to send us a story? Submit on Wananchi Reporting on the Citizen Digital App or Send an email to wananchi@royalmedia.co.ke or Send an SMS to 25170 or WhatsApp on 0743570000

Leave a Comment

Comments

No comments yet.

latest stories