Failing to cooperate with the ICC would be a blunder by Uhuru, Ruto

 

By MACHARIA GAITHO
 

 

In Summary

• Given a chance to address the Status Conference at The Hague, Mr Ruto presented a contrary picture. He assured the court that he was fully aware of his own personal duty and the government’s obligation to the Rome Statute.

• The trouble is that such mixed signals are exactly what might persuade the judges that Uhuru and Ruto need to be confined behind bars for the duration of their trials.

Events coming out of the African Union 50th Anniversary Summit in Addis Ababa must sound like sweet music to the ears of past, present and future tyrants, dictators, genocidaires, warlords, and the general thugs who frequently bribe, kill, or shoot their way into leadership.

The Heads of State are moving aggressively to shield themselves from the international justice system.

Kenya claimed a great diplomatic victory in having canvassed so strongly for a motion with direct impact on President Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto who are set to face trial of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.

The African Union resolution for local justice mechanisms instead of trans-continental courts essentially calls for Africans to be left alone to butcher each other without external interference.

Actually, there is a lot to be said against the ICC and how it has concentrated its attentions on Africa while ignoring war criminals such as former US President George Bush who lied to justify an invasion of Iraq.

There is also plenty that is distasteful about the US and other imperial powers demanding that Kenya and other African countries submit to the ICC, while themselves rejecting its jurisdiction over their own citizens.

When all is said and done, however, the AU leaders in Addis Ababa are rebelling against the international court out of self-interest, not higher principles.

The message that African leaders are telling the world is that concepts of justice democracy and human rights are alien to leaders who demand immunity to commit crimes against the own people.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who is leading the crusade against the ICC, has actually given the game away with his claim that the court is planning to detain President Kenyatta once he presents himself. Therefore, the AU will advise against attending trial.

That stance is not mere posturing. It might be the signal that safely ensconced in State House, President Kenyatta now has no intention of co-operating with the ICC despite what he has said in the past.

Signals of the hard-line stance were seen ahead of the AU Summit with the controversial letter to the UN Security Council by Kenyan ambassador to the UN Macharia Kamau.

The letter demanded a complete halt to the ICC proceedings on the grounds that President Kenyatta and Mr Ruto had secured the endorsement of voters.

Soon Mr Ruto flew off to The Hague to attend some routine hearing. With his lawyer present, Mr Ruto’s personal appearance at the Status Conference was not necessary. However, he considered it important he turn up to impress the judges with his commitment to co-operation.

Indeed, just before the flight to The Hague, Mr Ruto’s lawyer Karim Khan had taken the trouble to release a statement disassociating his client from Mr Kamau’s letter that indicated a rejection of ICC jurisdiction.

Given a chance to address the Status Conference at The Hague, Mr Ruto presented a contrary picture. He assured the court that he was fully aware of his own personal duty and the government’s obligation to the Rome Statute.

The trouble is that such mixed signals are exactly what might persuade the judges that Uhuru and Ruto need to be confined behind bars for the duration of their trials.

If an accused rejects the jurisdiction of a court, then he is unlikely to turn up for trial. He is even less likely to turn up in the jailhouse if convicted in absentia.

With the hard-line stance, the accused might be spurning the golden opportunity to prove their innocence.

 

I have argued in the past that Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto would one day genuflect at the feet of the then ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

My argument was that Mr Ocampo put together a hopeless case based on rumour, gossip and unverified claims.

The case was bound to collapse, but in the meantime Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto were handed a potent political weapon that they exploited all the way into State House.

Then even better things would be if the same court cleared them of any wrongdoing, instead of questions remaining if they used muscle and bluster to avoid trial.