Ruto required at ICC as crucial witness testifies

Deputy President William Ruto will be required to be physically present in The Hague when his trial resumes after the Easter recess.

He will have to sit through the testimony of the 14th prosecution, “Witness 28” who has been described as being key to the prosecution’s case.

The pre-trial chamber judges are said to have heavily relied on the testimony of the “Witness 28” when they confirmed the charges against Mr Ruto and former radio presenter Joshua Sang.
“We are now turning to direct the attendance of Mr Ruto throughout the testimony of Witness 28,” Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji said when issuing the order early March.

A lawyer with knowledge of the charges facing Mr Ruto and Mr Sang said the pre-trial judges consisting of presiding judge Ekaterina Trendafilova, Hans-Peter Kaul and Cuno Tarfusser had, by majority “taken Witness 28’s testimony as gospel truth even though he was not cross-examined” when they committed the two to trial for crimes against humanity for their alleged role as key perpetrators of the 2007/08 post-election violence.

In the ruling excusing Mr Ruto from continuous presence in the ICC, the ICC judges had indicated that the deputy president’s physical presence in the court could be needed on any of these occasions, namely, when a victim is testifying, when the judges so direct and also when certain evidence is being adduced by any witness.

“During our excusal decision that we granted pursuant to rule 134 condition number nine (of the Rules of Procedure), we gave conditional excusal and the ninth condition is any other attendance directed by the chamber either proprio motu or at the request of a party or a participant as decided by the chamber, now proprio motu the chamber has preliminarily directed for presence of Mr Ruto,” Judge Osuji had said.

Witness 28 is said to have indicated in his statement that he was present at one or more of the planning meetings that were attended by Mr Ruto and Mr Sang at the former’s home in Sugoi ahead of the chaos.

The defence denies his testimony saying that on the day the witness claims to have been present at the planning meetings, Mr Ruto was away in the Coast while Mr Sang was in Nairobi. The witness is likely to testify for seven days.

Fatou Bensouda
Meanwhile, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda wants summons issued against eight witnesses who were supposed to testify against Mr Ruto and Mr Sang but have either recanted their testimonies or completely refused to cooperate further with the prosecution.

Some of these witnesses are said to be in the country while others are still in safe houses abroad.
Attorney General Prof Githu Muigai had in February this year told the ICC that the government has no power to compel witnesses who have expressed unwillingness to continue cooperating with the prosecution.

“The Government of the Republic of Kenya submits that while it is feasible under the laws of Kenya for witnesses to voluntarily appear before the Court sitting at an appropriate location of its choice in Kenya (in situ or by means of video-link technology) for purposes of testifying before the Court, the Government of the Republic of Kenya submits that under its national law, in particular

The International Crimes Act, No. 16 of 2008, a witness cannot be compelled to appear and testify before the Court regardless of where the Court is sitting,” the AG said in a written response to the prosecution’s request that witnesses who gave their statements and later withdrew be compelled to appear before the ICC.

Since the trial of Mr Ruto and Mr Sang started in The Hague, 13 witnesses have testified. The prosecution had indicated at the start of the trials that it had more than 40 witnesses who include victims, expert witnesses and individuals who took part in the planning meetings for the post-election violence.