Showdown in US over Kenya's ICC Agenda

[mya88]

• Tweet

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/showdown-looms-us-over-kenyas-icc-agenda


I am no longer surprised at the lengths uhuru is willing to go to avoid ICC. Kenya had already proven incapable of trying the cases, so I fail to see the point Macharia is trying to make. Is that even what he ; Macharia should be occupying all his time with? Looks like everyone in uhuru's government is there for a specific personal reason and it all comes down to ICC.

"Kenya accuses the ICC of politicising the cases, incorrect interpretation of the Rome Statute and continuing to prosecute cases that do not meet evidentiary thresholds.

"

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Macharia is "Doctor" Matsanga on a weight loss regimen.

[MOON Ki]

I don't know about the excitement shown in the Star article.   I am a member of the Coalition for the ICC, which is usually up-to-date on such matters, especially in the lead-up to annual ASP sessions.   Here is what we know:

* On 16 Oct, GoK wrote a sketchy note verbale to the president of the ASP and was asked to provide details.   This one:

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/2014-10-16_Letter_Kenya_to_PASPrequest_inclusion_of_ASP13_agenda_item_17oct1721.pdf

* On 3 Nov, GoK sent a more detailed note verbale.   This one:

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/2014-11-4_Letter_Kenya_to_PASPsupplementary_information_NV_561-14.pdf
 
* On 7 Nov, the principals of the ICC wrote a letter objecting to the Kenyan request.   This one:

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/Letter_from_the_3_principals_at_the_ICC.pdf

* On 10 Nov (Monday),  GoK produced another misguided note verbale.   This one:

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/2014-11-11_Kenya_NV_on_letter_from_the_Court_NV_612-14(1).pdf

What, if any, of Kenya's request will be included in the agenda is unknown at this point; contrary to the impression given by the Star article, no decision has been made on the matter.   But it  is almost certain that if anything is included, it will leave out much of what GoK wants tabled.

Macharia, as usual and like Prof. Amicus Mortician, is going out of his way to help a fellow who recently insisted on going to the ICC in his "individual capacity".   One of their current headaches is what would happen if the court cites (to the ASP) Kenya for "non-cooperation".   If that were to happen, Uhuru's case would not be terminated, even with the current lack of evidence sufficient for a conviction; instead the court would simply wait until Uhuru got out of power, and who knows what could be found before that.

[MOON Ki]

Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice respond to Macharia:

"Ambassador Kamau needs to be reminded that he is not the defence counsel for Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto or Joshua arap Sang, all of whom are charged in their individual capacities. He is the permanent representative of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations and as such he should represent all Kenyans including the victims of post-election violence in their quest for justice and not merely pursue the partisan interests of the powerful individuals who have been indicted by the ICC."

See:

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/KPTJ_Response_to_Kenya_UNGA_Statement_on_ICC.pdf

[RV Pundit]

There in lies the dilemma kenya gov find itself in the fight against ICC. If UhuRuto were being tried for killing somalis..it would be easy for GoK. But GOK find themselves in a fix..victims and accused are all kenyans.

But when they can raise common sense issues..like UhuRuto excusal from attending trial..they have won.

And therefore they've scored victories...

They need to crystallize and simplify their tirade into something ASP can grant.

[mya88]

The Permanent Mission of Kenya to the United Nations would also like to remind that it
should not be lost sight of that, the genesis of this State Party's (Kenya) pursuit of this
special agenda item is to be found in the Prosecutor's own pursuit of a resolution of the
challenges that they face by suggesting that Kenya should be referred to the Assembly
for non-cooperation. I t is therefore not only our right to anticipate that this might indeed
happen but it is also our obligation to ensure that we, and the membership, are prepared
to deal with this matter should it arise.

This is really poor wording. @Moonki, what are they talking about here? Is or was this in anticipation of the fact that Kenya was being referred to the Assembly for non cooperation by the prosecution for refusing to produce the bank records among other things? Where are the tabled gross violations the star was talking about? What are the chances that Kenya or the principals misguided claims will be heard?

[mya88]

Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice respond to Macharia:

"Ambassador Kamau needs to be reminded that he is not the defence counsel for Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto or Joshua arap Sang, all of whom are charged in their individual capacities. He is the permanent representative of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations and as such he should represent all Kenyans including the victims of post-election violence in their quest for justice and not merely pursue the partisan interests of the powerful individuals who have been indicted by the ICC."

See:

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/documents/KPTJ_Response_to_Kenya_UNGA_Statement_on_ICC.pdf

Good rebuttal"The duty to prosecute lies primarily with the states, and in this regard, Kenya should be the last State to complain, given its own abysmal record in prosecuting perpetrators of post-election violence seven years after it occurred."

[mya88]

Its getting interesting.
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/icc-slams-kenya-over-new-request-judges-says-it-amounts-interference-independence-court

[MOON Ki]

This is really poor wording. @Moonki, what are they talking about here? Is or was this in anticipation of the fact that Kenya was being referred to the Assembly for non cooperation by the prosecution for refusing to produce the bank records among other things? Where are the tabled gross violations the star was talking about? What are the chances that Kenya or the principals misguided claims will be heard?

"Poor wording" is very mild!   The whole note is hopeless.    It deliberately misunderstands the role of the ASP; it ignores that as the entire ASP is about the court, the court itself provides the most important input to the ASP; and so on.

Er, it is GoK that is misguided; the ICC principals are quite correct.   Anyway, the answer to red, as far as I can see, is next to zero. 

The first and biggest problem GoK faces---and something that will be a "turn-off" to many---is that the thing looks like it was written by some manamba going by his impressions rather than the actual facts: every single paragraph contains a huge claim that is totally false.  Bizarre claims that are driven largely by emotion can work in AU meetings, but I would not try to sell them to the ASP.

The second problem GoK faces is that many of the issues it raises are matters that should be raised by the defence, and the defence alone,  during court proceedings and especially before the Appeals Chamber (if satisfaction has not been obtained at the lower level).   The ASP simply will not get involved in those.

The only item that can stand---on the basis of the title alone and not the "content"---is "B. Complementarity".   But that will be  raised because it is always an ongoing "item" and the ASP Bureau  already released a document on what will be discussed:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP13/ICC-ASP-13-23-ENG.pdf

But such discussions can only be, and are always, general; they cannot deal with a specific country and especially one (Kenya) that is on the line for failing to cooperate.    Yes, the whole thing seems to be an attempt to deal with the possible citation for non-cooperation; that seems to be point of the badly written paragraph you refer to. 

Funnily enough, GoK did not think through some of its "actions".    Take, for example, the false claim in one note that the court has conflated Uhuru and Ruto's official roles with the individual ones.   The fact is that the court has always insisted on the separation and requires that in official documents and court sessions the two be referred to simply as "Mr."; it is GoK and the AU that have been insisting that the two cannot be separated and that such high-level people not be prosecuted while they are in office.     "Unfortunately" Uhuru himself has recently shown the world that the court can deal with him as an individual; among other things, that has left the AU with plenty of egg on its face, and on that matter it will have to sing a modified tune at the ASP session.   

[MOON Ki]

The second problem GoK faces is that many of the issues it raises are matters that should be raised by the defence, and the defence alone,  during court proceedings and especially before the Appeals Chamber (if satisfaction has not been obtained at the lower level).   The ASP simply will not get involved in those.

` '

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/kenya-fails-convince-asp-against-bensouda

So much for the "showdown" that was being trumpeted by the same paper.   It is astonishing that the country is represented at that level by people who do not seem to understand  the role of the ASP.