Opinion
Waki report breaks new ground, but will it be implemented?
Posted Friday, October 17 2008 at 17:15
In Summary
- The document may gather dust at the national archives
To achieve this, more than 144.3 MPs have to vote in favour of the amendments. This means that if 77.7 MPs are absent or vote against, the amendments will not pass.
The 10 suspects are no ordinary Kenyans and, with due respect, Parliament has shown that it pays homage to the highest bidder. Getting 77.7 MPs to be absent or vote nay is small change.
In the event that the statutory and constitutional amendments are not effected within 60 days from October 17, Waki recommends that the sealed envelope be sent to The Hague.
And that is when the real drama begins.
Once indicted by the ICC, the suspects will be prisoners for as long as their cases last, and any further political or economic interest they have will be frozen, if not eternally destroyed.
Will any of them surrender peacefully?
Once in The Hague, the suspects will be entitled to, among other things, access to the evidence against them.
Thomas Lubanga is the most prominent militia leader from DR Congo to be arraigned in The Hague court, with grim and macabre charges such as rape and killing UN officials.
But his trial has stalled because the court has ordered that he be given the 200 pages of evidence, which the prosecutor is refusing to release. Because of this refusal, Lubanga may be acquitted.
In addition to the legislative and legal hurdles, political goodwill may be absent.
If the suspects are people high up in the ODM and PNU structures, will Prime Minister Raila Odinga and President Kibaki sacrifice their surrogates for the good of this country?
Kenya is a tribalised country, no matter what anybody may say, and the Waki report says categorically that negative ethnicity, including the ethnicisation of the presidency, is real.
So will the PM and the President risk the wrath of the suspects’ tribes by handing them over to the The Hague? The President wishes to leave a legacy and Mr Odinga Raila would like to replace him in 2012.
It is recommended that the court be set up by the two leaders.
In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte, a diminutive Corsican, came to power in France through a coup d’etát and, five years later, declared himself emperor. He went on to create the largest and most successful modern empire stretching from Europe to Africa.
-
Submitted by melkipPosted November 01, 2008 05:18 AM
-
Submitted by Hillaryio
is this report posted anywhere on the internet? I would like to read.
Posted October 19, 2008 10:30 AM -
Submitted by jelnam
Agree with Thiankolu - the law already has provisions for these crimes - murder, arson, etc in any case, the Geneva Conventions Act (Chapter 198 laws of Kenya) incorporates some the Geneva Conventions and defines grave breaches to give leeway to common article 3 of these conventions - deal with the crimes perpetrated during non-international armed conflicts. The legal structure is thus in place!
Posted October 19, 2008 09:54 AM -
Submitted by Thiankolu
We do not need constitutional and legal amendments to bring the culprits to justice. First the Constitution of Kenya does not limit criminal offences to those defined in the Penal Code as Kipkorir says (see section 77 (15) of the Constitution). Second, crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute of the ICC is a "catch-all- phrase" which refers to several distinct/separate offences, each of which is distinctly/separately criminal under the law of Kenya, including the Penal Code. If there are any hurdles to bringing the culpable politicians to justice, those hurdles are not legal in character.
Posted October 18, 2008 07:10 PM -
Submitted by jaukakathevillager
Waki is our Daniel.You remember Mene Mene....Our politicians have been put on the weighing scale and they have been found wanting.The writing is on the wall.Someone is just telling our politicians that they don't determine the path taken by the sun.Whether the report gathers dust or not,some of our wicked politicians should know that their days are numbered.
Posted October 18, 2008 01:48 PM




RSS
How can you say that President Kibaki was to blame for the violence because he didn't go by the MOU? How on earth does that warrant the financing of violence? If Kibaki betrayed his colleagues, why should the people have to suffer?