The ICC Appeals Chamber judges allowed the prosecutor to add two more witnesses for the case against President Uhuru Kenyatta due to begin on November 12.
The addition of witness P-548 and P-66 were granted on condition in the case Prosecutor Vs. Uhuru Kenyatta. Sources claim that one of the new witnesses is a former Mungiki insider while the other is an expert on sexual violence.
Earlier the ICC had warned the defense teams of President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto over making filings while suing the official designations of the two, saying that the ‘President of Kenya and Deputy President of Kenya are not on trial at the ICC’.
” Stop using official titles during filings. Charges facing Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto are personal. They are being tried in their individual capacity. The President and or Deputy President of Kenya is not on trial. Court exercising jurisdiction over Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto not the President or Deputy President”
On Friday, the ICC will make a ruling on whether the Deputy President is expected to be at the ICC throughout the hearings or on selected dates. However, because the same had been, partially, granted to the President, observers opine that it is widely expected that Ruto will get the same treatment, which will make God’s only child Joshua Arap Sang, with no earthly ;important title’, to remain buttressed in the Dutch judicial city like a Mugumo tree.
Trial Chamber V(a) had initially allowed Ruto to skip some of the sittings but Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda appealed the decision.
This is the background of Friday’s appeal ruling:
“On 18 June 2013, Trial Chamber V(a) had conditionally granted, by majority, William Samoei Rutoâ€™s request to be excused from being physically present continuously throughout the trial, with the exception of a number of sessions including the opening and closing statements of all parties and participants; when victims present their views and concerns in person during the trial; the delivery of judgment in the case and, if applicable, sentencing and reparations; and any other attendance that may be ordered by the Chamber.
After authorization by the Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor filed its appeal against this decision on 29 July 2013. On 20 August 2013, the Appeals Chamber granted suspensive effect to the Prosecutorâ€™s appeal against Trial Chamber V(a)â€™s decision, pending a final determination on Mr Rutoâ€™s presence at trial.
Consequently, Mr Ruto was requested to be present during all trial hearings pending the Appeals Chamber judgment, which will be delivered this Friday.”
The trial in the case The Prosecutor Vs. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang opened on 10 September 2013 in the presence of the accused.