Ruto awaits appeal ruling on recanted evidence use

Deputy President William Ruto (seated) chats with Imenti Central MP Gideon Mwiti at St Pius X Seminary during the launch of the South Imenti Mashinani Youth Empowerment Sacco on February 6 2016. Mr Ruto will know on February 12, 2016 if the International Criminal Court will admit recanted evidence in the case against him. PHOTO | PHOEBE OKALL | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has defended the use of hostile witnesses.
  • Defence lawyers have argued that the admission would be prejudicial to their clients.

Deputy President William Ruto will this week know the fate of his appeal against the use of recanted evidence in his trial before the International Criminal Court.

The application will have a significant impact on the case against Mr Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang.

According to sources at the Hague-based court, who spoke in confidence, the eagerly awaited decision on the use of the contentious Rule 68, which admits previously recanted evidence, will either bolster the prosecution case or significantly weaken it.

Mr Ruto’s defence team, led by Karim Khan, has vehemently opposed the use of evidence attributed to witnesses who either recanted it or failed to appear in court.

“This week’s decision will put to rest the controversies that have surrounded the use of Rule 68 since its enactment by the Assembly of States,” the ICC source told the Sunday Nation.

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has defended the use of hostile witnesses. But she claims that even without such evidence, she has a strong case against the two.

A no-case-to-answer application is also pending before the trial chamber. Last year, trial judges allowed a prosecution request to use evidence earlier given by hostile witnesses.

It was the subject of heated discussions at the Assembly of State Parties last November and the recent African Union summit.

A member of Mr Ruto’s defence, who declined to be named, said he had no indication on when the decision would be delivered.  

Defence lawyers have argued that the admission would be prejudicial to their clients.

Ms Bensouda requested “the admission of the prior recorded testimony”.

Defence teams opposed the second request as well.