Looks like Tony Gachoka has an axe to grind ...
Posted Saturday, August 18 2012 at 19:04
- He’s embittered against Raila. He only wants to talk after the sack. That’s not a formula for credibility
They call him a “political activist”. But the term is a meaningless tautology. It’s like calling someone a “widow woman”. That’s because a “widow” is a “woman”, I would rather they called him a “political consultant” or even a “gun for hire”.
I am talking about former government functionary Tony Gachoka.
Mr Gachoka, the estranged aide to Prime Minister Raila Odinga, has suddenly “found his conscience”.
He now claims — nearly four years after the fact — to possess evidence of Mr Odinga’s culpability in the 2008 post-election violence.
Like Miguna Miguna — another estranged Odinga aide — Mr Gachoka wants to “unburden” himself at the International Criminal Court.
Why now? Deductive reasoning shows that Mr Gachoka isn’t acting alone. I’ll tell you why.
But let’s first dispose with some preliminary matters. It seems that the Dutch Government is sceptical about Mr Gachoka.
That’s why the Dutch Embassy in Nairobi has denied him a visa to The Hague.
Apparently, the ICC hasn’t accepted Mr Gachoka’s request for a meeting. You can read between the lines. The International Criminal Court most likely thinks Mr Gachoka is a “pest”.
That means he’s vexatious and an “instrument of confusion”. In other words, he’s being used as a pawn to delegitimise the court and its cases against the Ocampo Four.
Mr Gachoka should know that Dutch Embassy officials in Nairobi are keenly aware of plots to sabotage the court process. He should have been less transparent in his machinations.
I don’t know what sort of contact Mr Gachoka has made with the International Criminal Court, or the nature of the evidence he claims to possess. Nor do I know whether the court has responded to him. But I know this — the court is a savvy institution that knows a duck when it sees one.
The culpability of the Ocampo Four will not be established by implicating others. That’s not a sound legal strategy. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show — beyond a reasonable doubt — that the Ocampo Four are guilty as charged.
The defence is best advised to concentrate on tearing apart the prosecution’s case.
It will not help to introduce witnesses who can be easily impeached.
Why isn’t Mr Gachoka believable? First, he talks too much. He’s made too many public statements with which he can be impeached. He’s embittered against Mr Odinga. Like Mr Miguna, he was fired. Like Mr Miguna, he only wants to talk after the sack. That’s not a formula for credibility. He has an axe to grind.
Second, he really can’t explain why he’s held on to crucial evidence for a mind-boggling four years.
Possessing — and concealing — evidence could be a criminal offence. It also shows a lack of conscience. What does he tell the victims who cry for justice?
Can he ever look them in the eye and tell them why he’s sat on “crucial evidence” for four years?