Former radio journalist Joshua Arap Sang in The Hague. PHOTO | FILE NATION MEDIA GROUP
In Summary
Witness 268 also told the court that Mr Sang rallied people to attend rallies to protest against the vote and “no one should remain behind”.
You would hear the tone of Mr Sang change that is not agreeing with the opinion. And sometimes he would be cut out.
By DAVE OPIYO
More by this Author
Journalist Joshua arap Sang was Wednesday accused of inciting his listeners to protest against the outcome of the 2007 General Election.
The Electoral Commission of Kenya had declared Mr Mwai Kibaki of Party of National Unity the winner of the hotly contested poll to the chagrin of Mr Sang who, according to the witness, told Orange Democratic Movement supporters “to go out and demonstrate against the stolen vote”.
Witness 268 also told the court that Mr Sang rallied people to attend rallies to protest against the vote and “no one should remain behind”.
“Immediately after election, what I heard was that people had started showing resentment in some places over the stolen vote and he was asking people ‘what are you still doing? We must go out and demonstrate against stolen vote,’” said the witness.
“But later I heard Mr Sang giving a schedule of rallies to take place. He was rallying people to go to those rallies and something akin to let no men remain at home and that women prepare food to those going to the meetings.”
Prosecution: You stated that the programme was partisan. Could you explain?
Witness: It was run in such a manner that a theme is proposed by Mr Sang then callers would call and give their perspectives. I would listen to this programme. I don’t remember listening to someone who called in with contrary position. These callers were the same people all the time. They used pseudonyms. It was mainly a political show. Issues to do with land, political power and issues to do with building a Kalenjin identity.
(Trial goes into private session then resumes)
Prosecution: Can you tell what party Mr Sang was supporting in his programme?
Witness: It appeared to me ODM.
Prosecution: Was he supporting any particular politicians?
Witness: Yes. Raila and Ruto.
Prosecution: What agenda was Mr Sang broadcasting relating to the two?
Witness: Mr Sang would make a conclusion in tandem with what people have said. It happened that the callers always spoke the same language; they were the same people…
Prosecution: You stated that Le ne emet was a political show and that he would speak on land issues. What were these issues?
Witness: I cannot remember but at the end of the day when it came to land issues, he would urge people to protect their land, saying God has given us wonderful land. That is what I can remember.
Prosecution: Mr Sang would broadcast in Kalenjin language. Is that right?
Witness: Yes.
(Trial goes into private session then resumes)
Prosecution: You said they were blaming Kikuyus for taking the jobs. Who were these?
Witness: Those calling and later Mr Sang would conclude so.
Prosecution: What would he say?
Witness: He would always make a conclusion in tandem with what the callers had said.
Prosecution: What would he have said in general?
Witness: No I cannot remember.
Prosecution: When saying in tandem, would he be supporting what callers have stated?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecution: What other things were callers saying?
Witness: Apart from issues of protecting land, issues of vote for ODM, let’s vote against the constitution and forging a common identity.
Prosecution: What would happen if a caller made a view that was not in support of ODM?
Witness: You would hear the tone of Mr Sang change that is not agreeing with the opinion. And sometimes he would be cut out.
Prosecution: Would there be other consequences?
Witness: I once heard someone saying…
Katwa: I want to object. This is hearsay. I hope that your injunction on hearsay upheld.
Witness: I once heard someone say a caller called Kass FM and gave out a contrary opinion to the one that many held. It was said that Sang…
Prosecution: Did you hear this on the radio or you heard someone else say?
Witness: The person was giving a story that there is a caller who went contrary to what Mr Sang wanted and he ordered that the person be looked for and punished…
Prosecution: Was there any other incident of people disagreeing with Mr Sang?
Witness: Person number 20 told me he has had altercation with Mr Sang. He was not happy with the sway Mr Sang was running his show.
Prosecution: When did you speak?
Witness: Later on.
Prosecution: Can you explain what the altercation was about?
Witness: That he gave a contrary opinion and Mr Sang did not like it.
(Katwa Kigen raises objections)
Prosecution: What was this contrary opinion?
Witness: I don’t remember.
Prosecution: Do you remember giving this information to the prosecution in the past?
Witness: I gave it out that is why number 20 name is...
Prosecution: Would you have remembered when you gave the statement to the prosecution?
Witness: I remember number 20 giving the statement and that Mr Sang was not happy.
Prosecution: What was the subject about?
Witness: Politics.
Prosecution: What was it about?
Witness: I don’t remember.
Prosecution: Would you be able to remember when you have a chance to read what you stated to the prosecution?
(William Ruto’s lawyer David Hooper and Mr Katwa Kigen raise objections…judge overrules objections)
(Trial goes to private session briefly then resumes)
Prosecution: You said callers would use pseudonyms. What were they?
Witness: I cannot recall all. Somebody Kamile….another would give his first name and add that I am from Marura…
Prosecution: You mentioned Kiptindinyo…
Witness: Yes.
Prosecution: Do you recall what the callers would say in the show?
Witness: The same topics. They were regular callers. It is difficult to remember.
Prosecution: Would they speak about land?
Witness: They were ardent participants. I questioned why it was easy for their calls to go through…
Prosecution: Would it be difficult for others to get through?
Witness: It was amazing that it is them always. I don’t know what criteria.
Prosecution: Can you just explain this?
Witness: They were popular participants of the programme. Their calls went through always. I don’t know the criteria arap Sang would use to have them call.
Prosecution: Was the show a call-in programme?
Witness: Yes.
Prosecution: You cannot remember the precise thing the callers were saying. However what did they say about land issues?
Witness: As I stated early the main theme was we protect our land. It was common for them to suggest that let no one sell our land to other communities.
Prosecution: Would you be able to tell us what he said in the months preceding the elections regarding land, politics?
Witness: Arap Sang was pro-ODM. He used his show to rally people behind ODM candidates.
Prosecution: Your memory of what he might have said, was it clear when you gave your statement to OPT?
Witness: For a while immediately after the results were announced, I heard someone say Kass FM is no longer there. But later on, I heard Mr Sang giving a schedule of rallies to take place. He was rallying people to go to those rallies and something akin to let no men remain at home and that women prepare food to those going to the meetings. This is what I can recollect.
(Trial goes into private session the resumes)
Prosecution: You’ve taken the opportunity to read through the paragraph?
Witness: Yes your honour.
(Trial goes into private session).
No comments :
Post a Comment