Uhuru urges ICC to ignore statements

Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta has asked the Pre-Trial Chamber II to ignore two statements relied upon by the prosecution in his case at the International Criminal Court.

Mr Kenyatta argues that the statements are from non-ICC witnesses whom the prosecution did not seek authority to use their testimony. The deputy prime minister, in his final submission, to the court says that the two witnesses have not consented to their summaries being used in ICC proceedings.

Mr Kenyatta also tells the court that the prosecution failed to prove his link with Mungiki and that he held meetings to fundraise and organise the illegal sect to carry out attacks against pro-ODM supporters.

The DPM also queries the prosecution theory that he was involved in raising money for the violence in Nakuru and Naivasha on dates after the attacks had occurred. He argues that the prosecution argument lacks in logic given that the sad fundraisers happened after the attacks.

“Given the fact that the Nakuru conflict took place between 24 and 27 January 2008, with the Naivasha conflict occurring between 27 and 28 January, it is difficult to understand how an alleged provision of funds on 28 January, could have contributed to the violence in these areas in any event,” Mr Kenyatta says in his submission dated November 17.

He goes on to argue that there are contradictions within the Prosecution’s case to such an extent that they demonstrate “a complete lack of coherence and confused reasoning” resulting in a failure to establish a foundation for a criminal trial.

The Gatundu South MP also argues that it is beyond belief that millions of shillings in cash could have been put into the hands of criminals for distribution without there having been any evidential trace.

“The weight of the actual evidence presented by the Defence left those observing the proceedings at the ICC with a clear concern over the nature and quality of this prosecution,” Mr Kenyatta tells the judges.

The DPM also tells the judges that neither his live testimony or that of his witness Kikuyu MP Lewis Nguyai was discredited by the prosecution during cross-examination. He adds that the prosecutor’s questioning demonstrated both a lack of substance and the speculative nature of the evidence and case theory.

Mr Kenyatta also argues that the prosecution draws unhelpful generic conclusions from Mr Nguyai’s evidence, which fail to show any relationship between Mr Kenyatta and the Mungiki. He adds that the prosecution did not present any evidence to show that he had solicited Mungiki’s support in 2002.

The DPM also argues that the prosecution has not provided any link between him and a former Kanu MP who it argues was mandated by Mr Kenyatta to control the Mungiki in Nakuru.

“No link has been established between any alleged activities by the former Kanu MP and Uhuru Kenyatta at the material time. Neither has the authority of the former Kanu MP over “pro-PNU youth” or the Mungiki been explained or defined," 
Mr Kenyatta argues.

Mr Kenyatta also tells the court that the prosecution relies on testimonies from witnesses who allege of meetings that they did not attend. He says that all the prosecution witnesses who had linked him to meetings at State House and various hotels had conceded that they were not in attendance.

He says that there is no criminal relationship between him and his co-accused, former police boss Hussein Ali as the prosecution adduced no evidence of any relationship, meeting or even phone call between them.

Mr Kenyatta tells the Pre-Trial Chamber II that use of anonymous witness statements shows that the prosecution is relying on hearsay. He also queries why the prosecution is relying on sources of information that have no link with the violence such as internet profiles on him and academic papers.

“These generic, evidentially remote materials without any criminal linkage between Uhuru Kenyatta and the PEV illustrate the failure of the Prosecution’s case that is lacking concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning its specific allegations,” he tells the judges.