Apologies for being Offline.
Slow and Inadequate Internet Connection.
To Help Us Upload Daily
Uhuru to know fate of his case in three weeks
HAGUE | Accusations and counter accusations dominate session as Bensouda faces off with President’s lawyer over request to end or adjourn the case
Drama and a bare-knuckle fight unfolded at the International Criminal Court yesterday as the prosecution fought to keep alive its case against President Uhuru Kenyatta. Mr Kenyatta’s lawyers want the case terminated, basing their arguments on the prosecution’s own earlier admission that it lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the case. However, in a bold about-face, the prosecutors led by Ms Fatou Bensouda, said they did have some evidence after all but they needed additional information from the government to corroborate it.
For example, the prosecution claimed, the President’s phone records showed that in the three days leading to the atrocities in Naivasha, a third of the calls that Mr Kenyatta received were from an MP from that area. In a vigorous response, Mr Kenyatta’s defence team accused the prosecution of not trusting the information the defence was providing and said they would not provide any more information.
“Every time the defence provides evidence, the prosecution takes another turn. The prosecution keeps dismissing the evidence we give them. We have had no trust in the court with the prosecution and I have drawn the line in the sand: I will give no more evidence,” said the lead counsel for Mr Kenyatta, Mr Steven Kay. Outside the court, Kenyans who had travelled with the president, notable among them Nairobi Senator Mike Sonko, were creating a spectacle with a noisy demonstration. The president was photographed smiling but otherwise sat quietly through the arguments, having waived his right to address the court. Trial chamber judges Kuniko Ozaki, Robert Fremr and Geoffrey Henderson will decide in about three weeks whether to drop the charges or grant the prosecution its request and declare that Kenya had not cooperated with the court and report it to the case indefinitely. Said lawyer Evans Monari: “We now are awaiting the ruling on the three requests before the judges. That is termination of the case; referring it to the state parties or adjourning it sine die (indefinitely). It could be in less than three weeks.”
The president was mobbed at the entrance of the court when he arrived shortly after 11am by MPs and others who had travelled to give him support. Pushing for ending the case, Mr Kay argued that the prosecution had failed to adduce any more evidence that could change the course of the case and take it to the trial stage. He also argued that the prosecution was not conducting further investigations and, therefore, it was the right thing to drop the case. “My client is entitled to the verdict of not guilty.
There are no further enquiries going on and there is no evidence to continue with this case. If there was, we would have had a trial…everything I have heard from the prosecution confirms my application for Mr Kenyatta’s acquittal,” said Mr Kay. He told the court that all the evidence that the prosecution was seeking from the Government of Kenya had been provided and accused Ms Bensouda of framing her requests for information in a manner that made it difficult for it to be provided. “The nature of the requests (for information) by the prosecution resulted in legal and procedural hurdles.
They should have specified the companies whose records they wanted. There was a search at the Lands registry and no records were found,” he said. On financial transactions, Mr Kay said: “The records of foreign exchange transactions were also made available. The best evidence has been supplied
For example, the prosecution claimed, the President’s phone records showed that in the three days leading to the atrocities in Naivasha, a third of the calls that Mr Kenyatta received were from an MP from that area. In a vigorous response, Mr Kenyatta’s defence team accused the prosecution of not trusting the information the defence was providing and said they would not provide any more information.
“Every time the defence provides evidence, the prosecution takes another turn. The prosecution keeps dismissing the evidence we give them. We have had no trust in the court with the prosecution and I have drawn the line in the sand: I will give no more evidence,” said the lead counsel for Mr Kenyatta, Mr Steven Kay. Outside the court, Kenyans who had travelled with the president, notable among them Nairobi Senator Mike Sonko, were creating a spectacle with a noisy demonstration. The president was photographed smiling but otherwise sat quietly through the arguments, having waived his right to address the court. Trial chamber judges Kuniko Ozaki, Robert Fremr and Geoffrey Henderson will decide in about three weeks whether to drop the charges or grant the prosecution its request and declare that Kenya had not cooperated with the court and report it to the case indefinitely. Said lawyer Evans Monari: “We now are awaiting the ruling on the three requests before the judges. That is termination of the case; referring it to the state parties or adjourning it sine die (indefinitely). It could be in less than three weeks.”
The president was mobbed at the entrance of the court when he arrived shortly after 11am by MPs and others who had travelled to give him support. Pushing for ending the case, Mr Kay argued that the prosecution had failed to adduce any more evidence that could change the course of the case and take it to the trial stage. He also argued that the prosecution was not conducting further investigations and, therefore, it was the right thing to drop the case. “My client is entitled to the verdict of not guilty.
There are no further enquiries going on and there is no evidence to continue with this case. If there was, we would have had a trial…everything I have heard from the prosecution confirms my application for Mr Kenyatta’s acquittal,” said Mr Kay. He told the court that all the evidence that the prosecution was seeking from the Government of Kenya had been provided and accused Ms Bensouda of framing her requests for information in a manner that made it difficult for it to be provided. “The nature of the requests (for information) by the prosecution resulted in legal and procedural hurdles.
They should have specified the companies whose records they wanted. There was a search at the Lands registry and no records were found,” he said. On financial transactions, Mr Kay said: “The records of foreign exchange transactions were also made available. The best evidence has been supplied
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Rss Feed
0 comments: