Pullout will not stop Kenya trials, warns The Hague

The International Criminal Court has dismissed as inconsequential a move by MPs allied to the Jubilee Coalition to withdraw from the global court ahead of the hearings facing President Kenyata and Deputy President William Ruto.

An ICC spokesman was categorical that the case against Kenya’s two top leaders and journalist Joshua Sang would go on even if Kenya withdrew from the Rome Statute that established the international court.

Said ICC spokesman Fadi el Abdallah: “As indicated in the Rome Statute of the ICC, a withdrawal does not have any impact on the open cases nor on the State’s obligations regarding cases that are already open before the ICC.”

This came as Mr Ruto prepared to submit today the list of his entourage, including MPs, to the Netherlands embassy for clearance to travel eight days to the beginning of his trial at The Hague.

It is understood the Dutch embassy in Nairobi has demanded the list after it became clear that MPs allied to the Deputy President plan to travel in large groups to give him “moral” support at The Hague as he seeks to extricate himself from the charges of crimes against humanity.

FREE THE TWO PRINCIPALS

The countdown to the trial of Mr Ruto and President Kenyatta as from November 10, has triggered fresh efforts by Jubilee Coalition MPs to push through a Bill for Kenya to withdraw from the Rome Statue in the hope that it will free the two principals.

However, the ICC on Monday said the move by Leader of Majority in the National Assembly Aden Duale will have no effect, stating that the case against President Kenyatta, Mr Ruto and Mr Sang will proceed even if Kenya withdraws its membership from The Hague.

He also pointed out that an application for withdrawal would take at least one year to be effected.

“A withdrawal can be effective only one year after the deposit of the withdrawal notification to the United Nations Secretary General,” he said via email from The Hague.

Separately, ICC outreach officer for Kenya and Uganda Maria Kamara told the Nation that withdrawal can only have an effect on future cases.

“The withdrawal will not affect the (current) cases. It can only affect future cases which the court may wish to pursue,” she said on phone.

An official from Mr Ruto’s office, who sought anonymity, said arrangements for the hearing of the case, which begins next Tuesday, were at an advanced stage with a full list of the entourage having been prepared for submission to the Dutch embassy.

“The list of those travelling with the Deputy President will be submitted tomorrow to the embassy for clearance. There are MPs who want to be with him at The Hague, so they have been included. After clearance, bookings in the Netherlands will follow,” the official said on Monday.

But in Nairobi, a team of MPs accused ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of conspiring with certain non-governmental organisations and the opposition to try President Kenyatta and his deputy.

The MPs, who announced their plan for a second push to pull Kenya out of the ICC Statute, also accused some Western nations in the alleged conspiracy.

They singled out Ms Gladwell Otieno of African Centre for Open Governance (AfriCog).

“We are aware of the thinly-veiled conspiracy between the local civil society organisations, namely AfriCog, and the political detractors of the Jubilee government and their sulking neo-colonial western cahoots,” said Tiaty MP Asman Kamama on behalf of his colleagues.

They spoke as Mr Ruto’s lawyer Karim Khan requested the ICC presidency to set aside the judges’ decision in July to block his client’s prayer for part of the trial to either be staged in Kenya or Tanzania.

He argued that the decision of the plenary of ICC’s 14 judges was swayed by a last-minute application by Ms Bensouda based on information provided by Ms Otieno.

“The defence submits that the plenary decision must be vacated due to gross procedural unfairness arising from the submission of the ‘Prosecution’s Observations on the possibility of holding parts of the trial in Kenya or alternatively in Arusha, Tanzania’,” he said.

“Instead of rejecting the late submission by the Prosecution, or alternatively adjourning the Plenary session in order to allow the defence and other interested parties (in particular Kenya and Tanzania) to respond to and/or make observations on the Additional Submissions, the Plenary of Judges accepted the Prosecutor’s filing. It is clear that these additional submissions of the Prosecution were either decisive or weighed heavily on the deliberations and decision of the Plenary of Judges,” he added.

Last week, Trial Chamber presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji questioned the last-minute change of mind by Ms Bensouda over the venue of the trials and harshly criticised an open letter written to ICC President Judge Sang-Hyun Song by Ms Otieno two days to the plenary sitting.

“In their change of position that was, for the first time, communicated a day after the ‘Open Letter’, the Prosecution also argued that no part of the trial should be conducted in Kenya, because of the risk of demonstrations. It is notable, that the Prosecution did not press any point that the demonstrations would be violent,” Judge Eboe-Osuji said.

Addressing a morning news conference at Nairobi’s Serena Hotel, the more than 40 MPs announced that besides attempts to withdraw the country from the Rome Statute, they would deal with ICC politically.

The MPs said they would support a Bill to repeal the Rome Statute. The Bill is to be sponsored by Mr Duale.

Consequently, they want Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament to recall the National Assembly and the Senate to start the anti-ICC efforts.