Kenya warns Hague over William Ruto plea

Attorney-General Githu Muigai said it was wrong for the International Criminal Court (ICC) judges plenary to accept a letter from rights group Kenya People for Truth and Justice (KPTJ). Photo/FILE

What you need to know:

  • Prof Muigai demands review of decision to block Ruto’s trial being held in East Africa
  • AG unhappy with move to accept letter from lobby group without right of reply

Kenya has threatened to take action against the Hague court unless it allows a review of its decision to block Deputy President William Ruto from being tried locally or in Tanzania.

Attorney-General Githu Muigai said it was wrong for the International Criminal Court (ICC) judges plenary to accept a letter from rights group Kenya People for Truth and Justice (KPTJ) and a late filing by prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in the session where the decision was made.

COSTS AND INSECURITY

In a letter dated August 29, 2013 to ICC president Sang-Hyun Song, Prof Muigai described as irregular the acceptance of an open letter “by a stranger to the proceedings and its placing before the judges without the leave of the court being sought.”

The AG wants the ICC to allow the Government to respond to the issues raised in the KPTJ letter signed by Ms Gladwell Otieno and Ms Bensouda’s filing, which claims the situation in Kenya is not conducive for a peaceful trial.

“The questions are being raised while reserving the right of the Republic of Kenya to make any other filing or to take further action as a State party,” the AG said.

In a vote of nine to four, ICC judges rejected a request by Mr Ruto to have part of his case held in Nairobi or Arusha, citing costs and insecurity.

KPTJ had written a letter two days before the judges’ plenary in July warning of the dangers of holding the trial in Kenya.

Following the letter, Ms Bensouda, who had agreed with the defence that part of the proceedings could be held locally, changed her position and filed an application opposing change of venue.

The AG said Kenya was unhappy that it was not given a chance to respond to the allegations in the letter and to other documents that the prosecutor filed “considering that Kenya had earlier been requested to and duly submitted views on the trial in situ.”

“We would have thought, on the basis of the court’s own previous ruling, that the Republic would be invited to make further submissions in light of the fresh material before the court,” the AG said.