Category: People

{{President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta has explained to trial judges at the International Criminal Court why he wants them to dismiss the case against him, or send it back to the Pre-Trial Chamber II.}}

In submissions filed by his lawyers Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins, Uhuru argues the prosecution has built a new case after discarding testimony used by Pre-Trial Chamber II judges to confirm the charges against him.

Uhuru has asked the Trial Chamber judges to refer the decision to confirm charges against him back to the Pre-Trial Chamber II for reconsideration, arguing his committal to trial is based on false testimony.

ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda dropped witness number four after he recanted his evidence and, subsequently, dropped the charges against Uhuru’s co-accused, former Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura.

Uhuru’s legal team argues that as with Muthaura, the grounds for terminating the trial against Uhuru are based similarly on a lack of evidence to support the confirmation of charges decision.

They cite Article 64(4) of the Statute saying failure by the prosecutor to disclose key evidence has an impact on the conduct of the proceedings now before the Trial Chamber.

“The defence submits that the withdrawal by the prosecutor of the charges against Muthaura requires the Chamber in this case to consider exercising its power to terminate the proceedings against Mr Kenyatta, in performing its functions prior to the commencement of trial,” his lawyers argue.

Uhuru has consistently reiterated that his case at The Hague cannot stand without that of Muthaura since the two cases are linked.

He has argued the prosecution has consistently framed its case as a common plan involving the two of them.

“Any decision regarding the liability of Muthaura would necessarily, on the prosecution’s own analysis, impact on any determination of Uhuru’s liability. In short, the mode of liability as confirmed cannot be maintained against Uhuru without Muthaura,” his lawyers said.

{{False testimony}}

Uhuru’s lawyers argue that confirmation of charges was based on false testimony of Witness Number Four who claimed to have witnessed alleged criminal meetings.

But the prosecutor has insisted there is enough evidence to support the charges against Uhuru.

Uhuru contends about “84 per cent” of the testimonial evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon in the trial was collected after the confirmation of charges.

“The extent of the prosecution’s post-confirmation investigations in this case is manifestly excessive and has resulted in a fundamental factual shift of the prosecution’s case,” he says in submissions after last month’s status conference.

Uhuru’s lawyers say the prosecutor’s late investigations and delayed disclosure of evidence led to the postponement of the commencement of trial.

They note that the prosecutor must apply to the Trial Chamber to have the evidence gathered after confirmation of the charges against Uhuru admitted.

“The prosecution must not be encouraged or permitted to proceed to confirmation on unsatisfactory evidence in the knowledge that they will have a second chance to fill gaps and omissions at a later stage,” says Uhuru’s defence counsel in their filing.

In his latest submission of March 28, just two days before the Supreme Court upheld his presidential victory, Uhuru says it was “irresponsible of the prosecution to elect to proceed to confirmation before it had thoroughly investigated its case.”

Recently, Pre-Trial Chamber II allowed Bensouda to add to the document containing the charges that victims in the case against Uhuru also died of gunshot wounds in Naivasha.

{{Pre-Trial}}

In the decision issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber II presiding judge Ekaterina Trendafilova, who confirmed the charges against Uhuru and three others, she said from four witness statements, it was clear guns such as G3 rifles and AK 47 were used in the killings in Naivasha.

“From an evidentiary perspective, the prosecutor has fulfilled her statutory duty by presenting evidence which supports her allegation that victims were also killed by gunshot in Naivasha,” Trendafilova said in the ruling.

Uhuru argues that in opposing the amendment the prosecutor was basing her arguments on evidence gathered after the confirmation of charges, which is against the Statute.

“To allow automatically the admission of wholly new evidence that was available with the exercise of reasonable diligence at confirmation, but which was not collected or presented by the prosecution, without any judicial oversight, would be to emasculate the confirmation of charges process and denude confirmation decisions of the required legal certainty,” say Kay and Higgins.

Bensouda last week opposed a request by Uhuru, his deputy William Ruto and Radio Journalist arap Sang to follow the trial proceedings via video link.

She stated the Rome Statute required the accused to be present in the courtroom for their trial. The judges are yet to rule on the matter.

Standard

{{He has been described as the enigma of Kenyan politics, a cunning, scheming, restless and indomitable mobiliser and campaigner.

But no single adjective can capture the character and temperament of Raila Amolo Odinga.}}

The outgoing prime minister has been Kenya’s most influential politician and has had tremendous influence on the country’s political discourse for more than a decade — but outside State House.

A scion of founding Vice-President Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, Coalition for Reform and Democracy leader Raila Odinga has been the fulcrum around which Kenyan politics revolved after the exit of former President Daniel arap Moi in 2002.

No single Kenyan politician has attracted more media headlines for the past 10 or so years than Mr Odinga.

Barrels of ink have been used to write about the activities of a man who attracts admiration and resentment in equal measure.

With Saturday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the election of Mr Uhuru Kenyatta as president, the major question is: What next for Mr Odinga?

He has a number of options. First, Mr Odinga, 68, could retire from politics and take up the roles of mentor and elder statesman or international assignments mediator.

He may also opt to stay on and strengthen his Orange Democratic Movement party by providing guidance from outside Parliament or the Senate.

{{No hint}}

He in his concession speech gave no hint as to his next move but said he would “soldier on to reform our institutions and politics”.

According to lawyer Charles Kanjama, Mr Odinga’s place in Kenyan politics cannot be ignored because he “remains the second-most popular politician in Kenya after President-elect Kenyatta” after winning 5.3 million votes.

Analyst Herbert Kerre of Kabianga University College says Mr Odinga will be useful in Africa and the world.

“He is an elder statesman who enjoys considerable admiration in Kenya and in the world for his strong ideals and consistency in the push for good governance in Africa,” he said.

“Raila is a strong Pan-Africanist whose politics resonate with Africans and Kenyans who wanted him to be president, but he should free himself for deployment at the continental level.”

Having unsuccessfully vied for the presidency three times, there is doubt whether he can summon sufficient energy and enthusiasm to make another stab at the job.

There have been suggestions that an ODM nominee to the National Assembly could be prevailed upon to step down for him.

While a section of Kenyans see him as a champion of reforms and a force of good, others perceive him as a dictatorial, corrupt, opportunistic, anarchist, tribalist and nepotist and a Western lackey keen to acquire power at any cost — a man with a great sense of self-entitlement.

{{Argued bravery}}

Opponents keen to project him as a destructive force point to his participation in a failed 1982 coup plot against the Moi regime.

He has always argued it was an act of bravery to remove a despotic regime which had closed all avenues for democratic political competition and transfer of power.

Mr Odinga has achieved much in his political career, but the presidency has eluded him.

In past interviews and conversations, Mr Odinga has come out as a man who felt demonised despite what he considers his many sacrifices to expand liberties in Kenya.

He characterises his political journey as a duel with forces pushing for the status quo and says his major victory was the enactment of the 2010 Constitution.

The son of Jaramogi has a sure grasp of history, a rare attribute amongt most Kenyan politicos.

He reckons tribalism is a cancer that continues to destroy the fabric of nationhood, and he believes he has been a victim of tribalist, shadowy and vicious anti-reform figures who fought against the 2010 Constitution.

In a past conversation with this writer, Mr Odinga sounded pained by what he saw as an attempt by part of the political elite to deny his reform record.

During the presidential campaign he declared that the contest was between forces of impunity and those of change.

{{Anti-change elite}}

Reacting to a book critical of him by former adviser Miguna Miguna, Mr Odinga, who considers himself the “bearer of the reform dream,” said it was the work of the elite opposed to radical change.

“I have been associated with reforms and know that if you target me, then you will kill the reform dream.”

Mr Odinga summed up the strategy thus: “Hit at my character, pull me down and kill the reform dream.”

He said the forces behind Mr Miguna’s sensational book were “the same people saying let us not look in the rearview mirror”.

“Because the rearview mirror shows the dark era of political assassination, repression, ethnic discrimination, Goldenberg, Nyayo House torture chambers, suppression of the media and assassination of [politician] JM Kariuki and Pio Gama Pinto.”

A battle-hardened soldier — and he has scars to show for it — Mr Odinga is credited with uprooting the Moi regime in 2002 when he dramatically walked out on President Moi and teamed up with Mr Mwai Kibaki, then of National Rainbow Alliance to emphatically defeat Kanu’s Uhuru Kenyatta.

An energetic mobiliser, Mr Odinga would in 2005 rally the country to reject a proposed constitution that saw him and others kicked out of government.

This set the stage for the 2007 presidential election, whose results he disputed, when President Kibaki was declared the winner.

The result was post-election violence that only ended after former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan brokered a peace deal that saw him share power with President Kibaki in a forced marriage.

{{Biggest battles}}

The 2010 Constitution is no doubt the biggest achievement of the Kibaki-Raila coalition.

It was during this period that he fought probably some of the most challenging battles of his political career which not only saw him lose key allies but culminated in the alliance that fought him at the polls.

During his time as prime minister, Mr Odinga’s office was accused of involvement in a major maize scandal as well as loss of cash for the youth jobs Kazi kwa Vijana project.

Differences with his then deputy in ODM, Mr William Ruto, now deputy president-elect, over the handling of youth protesters in the 2007 violence and conservation of the Mau Forest antagonised the Kalenjin Rift Valley.

The post-election violence also saw Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto charged with crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court, sowing the seed for the formation of a formidable alliance between the two and their communities which two years later transformed into the Jubilee coalition.

The two turned the election into a referendum on the ICC which their supporters packaged as working in favour of Mr Odinga.

Mr Odinga’s support for the ICC was painted as a scheme to lock out Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto from the presidential race.

The 2013 presidential contest rekindled memories and a repeat of the rivalry between the families of founding President Jomo Kenyatta and first Vice-President Jaramogi Oginga Odinga.

Their fathers were entangled in vicious ideological fights that saw Mr Odinga sacked as vice-president, a move that divided the Kikuyu and Luo power elite that persists to date.

NMG

{{A 23-year-old Ugandan woman facing deportation committed suicide at a Sterling Heights park in unusual incident that caused a pre-dawn hazardous materials emergency Monday, police said.}}

The woman’s body was found inside a car spotted by a Sterling Heights patrol officer at approximately 4:45 a.m. Monday in the parking lot of Delia Park, on 18 Mile Road, according to Oakland Press website.

As the officer approached the 2006 Ford Focus, he noticed that several signs stating “Contact 911 HAZMAT” were on the vehicle, including the license plate and windows. The patrolman smelled a strong odor emanating from the car.

Sterling Heights police Lt. Luke Riley said the woman was unresponsive in the driver’s seat, with a bucket of unknown liquid and containers of muriatic acid near her.

The Sterling Heights Fire Department’s HAZMAT team responded, opened the vehicle and determined the woman was dead. Officials also summoned the Macomb County HAZMAT team to contain the toxic liquids and clean the vehicle before it was hauled away.

“There was no residences in the immediate area that were in any type of danger at all,” Riley said.

The patrolman who spotted the vehicle and the woman’s body inside was taken to a local clinic for examination because of his exposure to the “extremely toxic” fumes, Riley said. The officer did not complain of any ill effects and appeared to be doing OK.

No suicide note was found in the car but investigators recovered one in her home. Detectives spoke with her family members who reported she may have been despondent over her pending deportation, which was under appeal.

Riley said police have not delved into the deportation case but added that the woman, who was single with no children, resided with her mother and siblings in Sterling Heights. The family home is not far from Delia Park, located east of Dequindre Road.

Riley said he did not know how long the 23-year-old woman had been in the United States, but that she had earned a college degree in the U.S.

Police did not divulge the woman’s name. An autopsy was expected to be performed by the Macomb County Medical Examiner’s Office.

{agencies}