THE ASP VERDICT ON THE ICC RULE 68 APPLICATION
By Justus Atuti
In the past month, Kenyans and the whole world have been treated to the ICC theatrics by the desperate, yet arrogant MPs under Duale, the majority leader in parliament and Amb Amina Mohammed. The final audit of the conclusions of the 14th session of the ASP has not only left conflicting conclusions, but has also given the ICC more powers to decide the fate of William Ruto and Joshua arap Sang, while leaving the Kenyan delegates with a rotten egg on their faces.
Apart from the many prayer rallies organised in both Rift Valley and Central Kenya to seek for “divine intervention” with the blessings of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, Kenya sent a large delegation to the ASP with one message and one agenda; to threaten, to intimidate and to arm twist the ASP to achieve an outcome that will fit the Jubilee pockets in matters Rule 68 of the Rome Statute that was passed during the 12th ASP meeting so Ruto and Sang can walk out free from the ICC hence bring to an end the long fight for justice for the 2007/2008 PEV victims.
It should be recalled that the resolutions of the Rule 68 dated Nov 27th 2013 did not expressly have a date of commencement and would therefore be used at any time with no legal barrier. The delegates had 2 words in mind..RETROACTIVE and DETRIMENTAL.
Did all the delegates understand the real meaning and application of the 2 words, both in the basic and legal terms? Did the delegates really read to understand the content, wording and express meanings of the amendments to Rule 68 as reflected in the 12th ASP meeting? What were they really upto at the ASP? Did they achieve it? If indeed they achieved, why are they each giving a conflicting account?
From the 12th ASP amendments to rule 68 and the Kenyan demands, what really is the difference? What has been added and what has been removed? How will this save William Ruto from the long craws of the ICC, the craws that have refused to let go of the duo? If really the delegates acieved what they went for at the ASP, why is someone not quoting the reading on the Rule 68 paragraph that reaffirms their success without hiding behind a forest of a million words, and avoiding the arrogance to those opposed to them?
Indeed Amb Amina Mohammed is quoted to have threatened to remove Kenya from the Rome Statute, if their demands were not met. Indeed the delegates, to the disbelief of the international community, became a nuisance at the ASP. Their displayed arrogance, their uncontrollable and unwarranted childish drama and their unbecoming conduct, left William Ruto and Joshua arap Sang more vulnerable to the ICC judges.
Now the whole world knows of the recanted evidence, of the eliminated witnesses, of the intimidated witnesses, and the arrogance of the Kenyan leadership, who opted for sideshows. The ICC will no doubt stamp her unquestionable authority ” prospectively” to the detrimental of William Ruto and Joshua Sang while benefiting the victims of the PEV who are the poor masses.
“The contentious Rule 68 expanded avenues for using recorded testimony”. Quoted the East African Standard, while believing no express achievement was brought home, even after 10 days of burning oil and hundreds of millions of taxpayers money going to waste.
“After protracted 10 day legal, political and diplomatic struggle by Kenya, the 14th ASP of the ICC has adopted our agenda. We have won the battle….we have to bring the two remaining Kenyans home…”. Tweeted Kithure Kindiki.
I will not quote the endless lamentations tweeted by Kithure Kindiki, lamentations which indicated a haunted man, a man whose failure to achieve the end results prompts an explanation of the wasted millions for a war with no course and a war with devastating results.
Perhaps Amb Amina Mohammed puts across a better perspective of the frustration the delegates went through in fighting a war with no fruits. She hoped the court will recognize the temporal scope of the application of Rule 68 as affirmed by the ASP, affirming without doubt that the 2015 ASP only restated the 2013 content of Rule 68 as is in matters of retroactivity.
The faces of the delegates who spent hundreds of millions of Kenyans in fighting a war they couldn’t win, a war they had no clue how to fight, and with no target, remain wanting and sagging in shame and in denial. Perhaps the silence and the defensive approach of one Dennis Itumbi tells it all on the new fears engulfing statehouse after the ICC Court explained their position as far as the Kenyan demands at the ASP is concerned. The sudden celebrations and ulilitions have gone silent while the Jubilee diehards are seen in small groups with heads put together pondering the next action.
Prof. Makau Mutua put ot out clearly for every Kenyan to understand, avoiding the thick forests of words from the delegates.
“Fact: Kenya wanted Rule 68 suspended/declared inaplicable to Ruto. Fact: ASP declined Kenya’s request. Only judges can interpret Rule 68”, Tweeted Makau Mutua.
Perhaps of impotence is the view of the ICC judges who have noted that “retroactive” application in Rule 68 remains silent and inconclusive thence giving them power to interpret to fit a situation at hand.
Jubilee claiming victory against ASP is therefore baseless and a hoodwink meant to coverup the hundreds of millions of taxpayers money wasted in pursuit for the ICC cases. The world can see the frustrations from the wordings and faces of one Dennis Itumbi, Kithure Kindiki, Kipchumba Murkomen, Ngunjiri Wambugu and their sympathizers.
Perhaps they need to live to their threats of removing Kenya out of the Rome Statute, or better lay plans of facing the ASP again, this time round perhaps to demand for an overall repeal of the Rome Statute, as all the laws making the Rome Statute doesn’t seem to favor them at all. And by the way, why was prof Githu Muigai missing at the ASP?
Meanwhile, Ambassador Amina Mohammed can continue blocking and threatening kenyans of sober mind demanding for an account of the 100M taxpayers money.