ICC Prosecution vs William Ruto and Joshua Sang – (Long Post alert!);- The Next Step.
By Dennis Itumbi
Whatever it takes, I will be among those who will tell the ICC Prosecutor that you cannot change the rules of the game at half time.
In 2013, The ICC Prosecution moved to court and we’re granted what they called water tight protective measures for witnesses including heavy redaction, voice distortion, location masking and even use of nicknames for those taking the witness stand.
In 2015, you cannot say despite all that we lost the battle of protection on witnesses and we will transfer blame.
Asking for the admission of evidence denied by witnesses on oath is simply put, an upside down form of Justice unknown to any legal entity…even the chief’s office in Kenya. (In the days of the Chief act)
I appear in court – I lift the bible and say I lied…I was forced…statement was written for me and then you say even if I have sworn to say the truth, you will admit the evidence written in the bush.
That is raping Justice.
I will therefore be moving to the High Court to seek the constitutional interpretation of the move by ICC, given the fact that under our constitution the law of treaties used to adopt the ICC places or rather domesticates the court under our High Court and a decision that makes nonsense of the oath in process must be challenged.
After all our Constitution only allows treaties that do not contradict the fundamental basics of our constitution.
Important to note: (From our katiba)
1. 1. (1) All sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya and shall be exercised only in accordance with this Constitution.
2. (4) Any law, including customary law, that is inconsistent with this Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of this Constitution is invalid.
3. (6) Any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under this Constitution. (Note PART OF THE LAW)
Most importantly for me as I move to court
THE HIGH COURT SHALL HAVE;
1. Article 165 (2) (b) – Jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened;
2. Article 165 (3) (d) (1)-
the question whether anything said to be done under the authority of this Constitution or of any law is inconsistentwith, or in contravention of, this Constitution;
3. Article 50 (4) –
Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.
Bottom Line:ICC is a court accepted by Kenyan law through Chapter 2 (6) that obliges the court to operate within the laws established under our constitution. That is why the ICC office in Kenya has diplomatic recognition. Our citizens as long as they are innocent and not proven guilty must enjoy our progressive bill of rights.
The Point above was better explained by the AG in his filing at the ICC dated 8th April 2013, where he argued the ICC was domesticated under our Judicial system and therefore becoming a subordinate court under the High Court and of course inferior to our Supreme Court.
My lawyer gets instructions to move to court this week and not only seek a constitutional interpretation but a verdict upholding his rights as provided in the Bill of rights.
God Bless you and Keep You
NB: As expected some of you will argue am not a lawyer, fair enough. Come and apply to be an Amicus or file a parallel interpretation. I assure you, however flawed you think my layman argument is, I will move to court and contribute to developing our jurisprudence – whatever way the verdict comes a precedent will be set. (I have done it before during the spoilt vote debate and I settled it once and for all against seasoned lawyers, I will do it again whether I lose or win)
On the day of filing I hope many of you will join me to pass the message to ICC Prosecutor.