Ruto: Kenya chaos caused by 'stolen election'

Eldoret North MP William Ruto's defence against charges of crimes against humanity holds that Kenya's 2007/2008 was not planned.

Mr Ruto’s lawyer David Hooper said that the violence was spontaneous.

He said that the events after the election results were announced were ignited by the perceived view that the election was stolen. The events were as result of what was happening in Nairobi and beamed through the media, he added.

“We maintain that attacks were spontaneous and were not premised on an organisation,” Mr Hooper said.

He added that the assertion in the Document Containing Charges (DCC) does not link Mr Ruto at all to the violence. He also told the court that a large number of youths did what they did due to a vacuum of order in Kenya.

Mr Ruto's defence lawyer took the floor soon after the prosecution finished outlining its evidence against three suspects it claims to bear the greatest culpability on Kenya's post-election violence that left 1,300 dead and 600,000 homeless following a disputed presidential election at the end of 2007.

Cried foul

Others accused are Tinderet MP and Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) party chairman Henry Kosgey and radio presenter Joshua Sang. ODM leader Raila Odinga ran against President Kibaki and cried foul when the latter was declared the winner. They ended up sharing power in a peace deal brokered by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is holding hearings to determine whether to commit the three to a trial for the alleged offences.

Confirmation hearings against a second set of suspects linked to President Kibaki's Party of National Unity (PNU) will begin on September 21. They include civil service chief Francis Muthaura, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former police boss Hussein Ali.

Mr Hooper said that the prosecution case rests on organisational policy on the chaos and fails to support it with evidence and yet the Waki Commission found that the violence was spontaneous.

He added that a member of the district committee intelligence in Uasin Gishu told the Commission that if the violence was planned they would have known.

The lawyer said that the prosecution material does not show crimes against civilians pursuant to a state or organisational policy. He said that the defence was wondering why Kenyan leaders who had claimed that the state sponsored terrorism to kill innocent people were not part of the prosecution’s materials.

“In a sophisticated country (Kenya), it is extraordinary to conceive that Ruto would hold public meeting to incite chaos with the knowledge of authorities,” said Mr Hooper.

He said that the term “The Network” which allegedly was led by Mr Ruto was coined by ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's office. He added that there was no organisation as the prosecution can produce no name of such an entity.

“If you package things in a certain way, it begins to get credibility. The word “Network” never existed until it was drafted by the prosecution. So what was the name of the alleged organisation? There is no organisation,” said Mr Hooper.

Voting bloc

He added that it was unrealistic for “Mr Ruto, a man with such political ambitions, to alienate a key voting bloc in Kenya’s electoral system.” He said that the claim to create a uniform voting bloc by expelling the Kikuyu, Kamba and Kisii from the Rift Valley demonstrate “inherent lack of logic”.

On funding, Mr Hooper said that it was interesting that the prosecution had no records or trail of the money allegedly given by Emo Foundation or any other sources.

“Who are the businessmen who gave money and ODM MPs? Who are they? Why is it that there are no receipts, no records, no money transfers?” posed Mr Hooper.

He also questioned that the DCC infers that Mr Ruto and “other ODM affiliated MPs facilitated attacks” while the prosecution says the ODM is not part of the Network.

On the claim that Mr Ruto provided logistical support including phones to subordinates, Mr Hooper queried who this people were. He also said that the specificity on tribal aspects by the prosecution is missing.

“The Prosecution claims that the network capitalised on Kalenjin tradition of demanding strict obedience from youths. And then it seems that Mr Ruto calls for calm did not to have great effect,” Mr Hooper said.

He also questioned the witness depiction of the Network’s structure. He added that other witnesses have mentioned ODM leader Raila Odinga as the head of the structure and that he financed the campaign. He asked why the prosecution has not seen it fit to summon Mr Odinga.

Mr Hooper the prosecution has not provided any transcript or recordings that shows who called in at Kass FM programme or protests to broadcasting authorities on the content. He added that the transcripts with the defence show that the programme hosted ODM MP Isaac Ruto who called on the Kalenjin to maintain peace lest they be accused of genocide.