Ruling on William Ruto case is illegal, AG says

Deputy President William Ruto and Attorney-General Githu Muigai at a past function in Nairobi. MPs from the Rift Valley have accused Prof Muigai of not paying enough attention to fighting Mr Ruto’s case at The Hague. FILE PHOTO | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • Prof Muigai rejects claims that his office is not fighting Ruto ICC case with same zeal it showed on President Kenyatta’s.

The Attorney-General has said Deputy President William Ruto’s case at the International Criminal Court is not receiving any less attention than that given to the President’s.

Responding to allegations that his office was not giving the case as much attention as it should, Mr Githu Muigai said in an exclusive interview with the Nation: “I am surprised to hear people say we have done nothing about the case. We applied to be enjoined in the case as amicus curiae but the application was turned down. We will continue to engage the court because that is our responsibility as a state party.”

Rift Valley members of Parliament on Tuesday said they were worried that the government was not showing much commitment to fighting the case against the Deputy President.

They said they had now turned to divine intervention and would be meeting at a shrine for prayers over the case.

The MPs were thrown into panic two weeks ago when the Hague-based court ruled that it would allow recanted evidence to be used against Mr Ruto and his co-accused, former radio presenter Joshua arap Sang.

ILLEGALITY OF RULING

Prof Githu described the ruling as illegal, saying the court went back on agreements made in negotiations not to use the evidence.

“We received assurances, on record, during negotiations on Rule 68 that it would not be used retroactively. We will be applying for amicus status to make the position of the Kenyan government clear that the rule has been applied in this case in a manner that is inconsistent with the amendment that was made. We will continue to engage the court as far as the illegality of this ruling is concerned,” Mr Muigai said.

He added the matter of the ruling was not a Kenyan issue alone but concerned many other countries and regions that were part of the negotiations.

The Attorney-General also responded to a decision by the international court to ask the Trial Chamber to determine afresh whether Kenya should be punished for allegedly withholding evidence on President Uhuru Kenyatta’s case.

He said the country has cooperated fully with the court.

“We have done more in providing material information to that court in those cases than has ever been recorded in the history of that court, or indeed in any other international tribunal dealing with such matters. We are happy to return to the Trial Chamber and demonstrate that even after the dismissal of the case against the President, we continue to work with the court,” he said.

If Kenya is found guilty of non-cooperation with the court, it would be reported to the Assembly of States Parties, the group of nations that form the ICC, of which Kenya is a member. In the extreme, the government could be reported to the UN Security Council, which could apply sanctions after a vote.