Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) terminated the case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta following Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s decision to withdraw the charges against him in December last year. ICC Judges may have officially terminated the President’s charges of crimes against humanity but they declined to acquit him.
In simply interpretation, the president has secured his freedom but Prosecutor Bensouda can still press new charges if additional evidence is gathered.
“The Chamber notes that summons to appear should now be formally discharged and the conditions therein will cease to have effect. The Chamber considers that the termination of these proceedings is not without prejudice to the continuation of the mandate of Legal Representative of Victims for such a limited period as may be necessary,” the judges said.
However, the judges emphasized that the Court still retains jurisdiction over witness tampering as well as interference with the collection of evidence. Also, they hinted that it may be necessary to revisit the case depending on the outcome of an appeal that could be lodged concerning “Kenya’s lack of cooperation with the court.”
Lawyer Steven Kay, who successfully defended President Uhuru Kenyatta at the International Criminal Court (ICC), said he was motivated by the belief that the president was innocent; this was revealed in an interview with The Hague Trials.
According to Kay, he recorded all of President Kenyatta’s movements between December 30, 2007 and the end of February 2008 and was convinced he did not incite violence but was instead calling for peace after the disputed presidential election of 2007.
“I tracked his movements every day, and I looked at what he said and did. Anyone investigating a case should do that. And if you do that with Uhuru Kenyatta, you would have seen a very positive case about a man who tried to stop the violence. I discovered that in my first month with my team of looking at the evidence. So it seemed to me that the allegations being made didn’t fit the evidence that I could see from those sources.”
At the beginning of the case, Kay said he was certain that the prosecution lacked basis of subjecting President Kenyatta to the ICC process because, in his opinion, the prosecution’s evidence lacked credibility and the allegations were false.
“The strength of this case was built on sand. And it was sand without any cement, bricks, anything to hold it up. This was a case built on rumour and hearsay that was open to individuals coming forward to claim they were eyewitnesses to events involving Uhuru Kenyatta that the prosecution never went to check.”
In the interview, Kay revealed that the inspiration to defend Kenya’s current President also stemmed from his admiration for his late father Mzee Jomo Kenyatta who was detained by the British, but was later released, over false evidence.
President Kenyatta was indicted in connection with a post-election ethnic violence in 2007-2008, in which 1,200 people died. At the time, Kenyatta was the Deputy Prime Minister.
By Emmanuel Iruobe
