British MP suggests ICC's Kenya case could benefit Raila

A member of the British Parliament has alleged that the International Criminal Court’s  engagement in Kenya could potentially help Prime Minister Raila Odinga ascend to power.

In an article in The New York Times, Mr Ian Paisley cautions that because of the ICC intervention, Kenya was heading towards a “dangerous impasse”.

“The ICC intervention is increasingly likely to drive this government and the country further apart, allowing a political leader from one ethnic group to try to remove an opponent from another ethnic group from the scene,” he wrote in article published on Friday.

“The court’s determination to bring to trial several defendants accused of fomenting violence has enabled Odinga to call for the arrest of his main political opponent, Uhuru Kenyatta who now faces ICC charges.”

Mr Paisley’s comments mirrored similar allegations in the Kenya Parliament by some MPs who, using a document which has since been rejected by the British High commission as forged, accused the British government of working in cahoots with Mr Odinga to have Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto detained by the court.

The MP raised questions about the role of Britain in the Kenyan matter, saying it had funded the protection of a prosecution witness in the Mungiki case of Mr Kenyatta and Francis Muthaura, who has since stepped aside as head of Public Service.

“Kenyan case rests on a main witness who has changed his statements several times, and is under a witness protection plan partly funded by the British government, which has publicly supported the trial.

“This has fuelled the erroneous belief among some Kenyans that the Western powers that fund the court are seeking to divide and rule the country themselves.”

Mr Paisley is a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, the leading in Northern Ireland and the fourth-largest party in the House of Commons of the UK. He is the son of the Reverend Ian Paisley, the former leader of Northern Ireland.

He says that the British had a history of using courts to fix those opposed to them.

“At the height of the troubles in the 1970s and 1980s, the British government used the courts to prosecute its opponents in Northern Ireland. People with blood on their hands were portrayed as martyrs by their supporters,” he said.

The other suspect in the case is radio journalist Joshua arap Sang. The ICC committed the four to trial for crimes against humanity committed during the 2007/8 violence.

Despite the increasing odds against their candidatures, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have declared that they will contest the presidency.

MPs allied to Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto last week tabled a document in Parliament sensationally claiming that Britain was pushing to have President Kibaki indicted over the 2007/8 violence.

Yatta MP Charles Kilonzo who tabled the document also accused the United Kingdom of propping up Mr Odinga and pushing for the detention of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto.

The document, which has since been dismissed by British High Commission, claimed that the UK wants Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto arrested for allegedly threatening the security of the country through their so-called prayer rallies.

Mr Kilonzo indicated that they had obtained the document from a member of the House of Commons. The Yatta MP also told Parliament that the dossier had “divided” the House of Commons.

The British High Commission has described the allegations as “preposterous,” and part of an unscrupulous agenda. The National Security Intelligence Service has also urged caution in handling the document whose credibility is now  subject of a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Paisley’s main argument is that peace was more important than pursuit for justice; that “peace must not be the victim of international justice”. Instead of the ICC intervention, Mr Paisley strongly encourages political negotiations and national reconciliation.

He says reconciliation is not an easy option, but it allows people to move forward with the hope of unity and the potential for justice in the future, citing the case of Northern Ireland and South Africa.

“There is nothing more important than peace. If this means the ICC does not always intervene or deliver justice, it may be a price that is worth paying.”

Highly critical of the court’s record and ability to promote international stability, Mr Paisley says that the ICC was intended to be an instrument to deliver peace but it has scored poorly on this.

He pointed to the Democratic Republic Of Congo where though justice had been delivered (by the Thursday conviction of militia leader Thomas Lubanga), the country remains unstable.

Criticism  of the ICC intervention has been voiced in many ways. A fortnight ago, Ugandan anti-ICC lobbyist David Matsanga produced a video purporting be a testimony by an ICC witness claiming he had withdrawn his evidence against Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura. A subsequent article by Sunday Nation columnist Makau Mutua, however, suggested that that was not the case.

And last month, Mr Kenyatta’s lawyer, Steven Kay accused foreign powers of fixing the Kenyan case.

“Because they don’t like violence in elections in Africa somebody has got to be made an example,” he told an audience in London.

“They are saying we have a problem in Kenya and we have to do something. Let us put a trial going and keep everybody quiet. That might be a good or bad reason but as I understand it, that is not what justice is all about.”

His remarks reinforce Mr Kenyatta’s repeated comments at the various rallies during which he has asked foreigners to stop imposing leaders on Kenya through the ICC process.

Raw anger greeted recent comments by British Foreign Affairs secretary William Hague that Kenya’s international standing and reputation could be soiled if it elects individuals indicted by the ICC.

“No foreigner can tell me that he can tell Kenyans who to elect. Kenyans must be allowed to pick their leaders including the President. Democracy will not be achieved by pouring money into NGOs to wreck peace,” said Mr Kenyatta.

In response to the UK minister, Mr Ruto asked him to keep off Kenyan politics. “We know whose messenger he is, but we want to tell him that Kenyans themselves have the ability to decide who they want to elect, and they do not need a foreigner to direct them.”

The same fears over the Western hand behind the ICC, partly fuelled the 2010 successful vote by MPs allied to the two suspects pushing for Kenya’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

*Revised version of the article "British MP says West plotting Raila win" that, on reconsideration, we found was not sufficiently nuanced.