ICC witness tells judges he lied against William Ruto

A witness who had refused to testify against Deputy President William Ruto on Thursday admitted lying to International Criminal Court (ICC) investigators.

The witness, identified as 604, made a stinging indictment of prosecution investigators through a sworn affidavit, saying they collected evidence from him knowing it was false.

The admission prompted prosecutor Anton Steynberg to apply for him to be declared a hostile witness to enable the prosecution to cross-examine him.
This was vehemently opposed by Mr Ruto’s defence team, led by Mr Karim Khan.

Earlier attempts by the witness to be freed and not testify failed when the trial chamber ruled that he must give evidence.

Presiding judge Chile Eboe-Osuji will on Friday rule whether the witness would be declared hostile after hearing submissions from co-accused Joshua Sang’s lawyers, who could not present yesterday after the session was adjourned.

JUDGE QUESTIONS MOVE

Judge Eboe-Osuji also questioned the prosecution's move to declare the witness hostile, asking if the reasons given, including giving unfavourable testimony for the prosecution, contradicting his previous statement and refusal to cooperate with prosecution lawyers were adequate.

The prosecution also accused the witness of using abusive language following his claims that the ICC investigators had admitted his evidence knowing part of it was false.

Mr Steynberg said his application may be based on a number of reasons and pleaded with the judges to grant his request.

“The ascribed actions to prosecution investigators, if true, amount to a serious crime. The prosecution should be permitted to cross-examine the witness in the first and second version of his evidence to establish the truth,” he said.

However, Mr Khan said the prosecution’s argument was poorly founded in law and premature as it had not exonerated Mr Ruto. He said the witness had tried to give a truthful account and because he had voluntarily presented himself in court, the grounds that he was hostile had not been established.

(READ: ICC rejects new bid to postpone witness hearing)

(READ: Witnesses bribed, says Bensouda)

(READ: Bensouda in a spot as Uhuru case stalls one month to trial)

CODE OF CONDUCT BROKEN

Mr Khan said the investigators, who gathered the evidence from the witness in July last year, had broken their own professional code of conduct, which states they should not present evidence knowing it to be false.

He said the prosecution called the witness to the stand despite being warned in August this year that he had recanted his earlier evidence, saying the purpose of his cross-examination, it now appeared, was to discredit and knock around their own witness.

The witness, who gave his evidence via video link accompanied by lawyer Gregory Mutai at an undisclosed location in Nairobi, said he was approached by a woman witness who asked him whether he wanted to become a witness for the ICC. He said he was told if he did, he would benefit from cash payments and a good life either at home or abroad.

“She told me the evidence I gave did not have to be the truth and that all I was required to do was to give it and I would get a lot of money, my children would go to good schools abroad and I would be able to pursue further studies, all paid for by the ICC,” he admitted.

HATED RUTO

He also said part of the reason he agreed to testify was because of his “hatred” for Mr Ruto, and saw an opportunity to “fix” him.

“My earnings were very low and I found the proposal fantastic ... the idea of my children going to good schools abroad, and a good life outside Kenya and all I needed to make was a statement,” he told the deathly silent court in one of the most explosive testimonies it has had to admit.

Earlier the witness had been compelled to give evidence after his lawyer’s request to seek a fresh postponement was turned down by the three-judge bench.

The witness appeared to tear apart his earlier recanted evidence, denying knowledge of obvious things such as being aware of the violence that took place in 2008, saying he only heard about of it from neighbours.

FORGETTING NAMES

This is despite the fact that he had told the court he lived in Turbo in the Rift Valley, one of the places heavily affected by the chaos that claimed more than 1,000 lives.

Mr Steynberg: Did you witness any incidents of violence between Kikuyus and Kalenjins after the election?

Witness: I didn’t.

Mr Steyberg: Are you saying you did not witness any violence?

Witness: Yes.

The witness also told the court he had forgotten the names of armed Kalenjin youth behind the killings of Kikuyus in the Rift Valley.

In the evidence he gave to ICC investigators last year, he said he knew them and gave their names.