William Ruto defence accuses prosecution of withholding evidence
What you need to know:
- Crucial evidence touched on witness who admitted lying, says DP’s team.
- Court gives DP a two-day break.
The defence team of Deputy President William Ruto on Wednesday accused the prosecution of withholding crucial evidence regarding a witness who had admitted that he had lied in his evidence.
Defence lawyer Shyamala Alagendra also wants the 29th witness stopped from giving further evidence to allow the prosecution to conduct investigations into the fresh evidence which she said was “at the heart of the case”.
However, Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji ruled that the witness, who admitted seven months ago that he and other witnesses lied to ICC investigators, continues with his evidence.
He said the defence would be allowed to raise the issue of having his evidence discredited during their time to question the witness.
“The prosecution has had this information for the past seven months and has not disclosed it the witness (during cross examination) or to the defence until now. There has also been no attempt to conduct fresh investigations into the new evidence which is at the heart of this case,” said Ms Alagendra.
LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONIES
Witness P-0743, whom prosecution lawyer Anton Steynberg described as a “thoroughly unreliable and incredible witness” told the office of the prosecutor on June 14, last year, that he and other witnesses had lied in their testimonies to ICC investigators prior to the confirmation of the case against Mr Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang.
The evidence was taken in 2013 and was relied upon by the pre-trial chamber to confirm the charges against the two, in connection with the 2008 post-election violence, in which 1,133 people died and 650,000 others were displaced from their homes.
Ms Alagendra faulted the prosecution for withholding the new information, and failing to refer to it, during their cross-examination of the witness, before seeking to have him declared a hostile witness.
Judge Eboe-Osuji asked Mr Steynberg why the chamber should continue hearing the evidence of a witness he had referred to as “unreliable and incredible”.
He replied that the witness had made certain allegations at the heart of the case.
