This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/africa/deputy-president-of-kenya-goes-on-trial-at-the-hague.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Deputy President of Kenya Goes on Trial at The Hague Deputy President of Kenya Goes on Trial at The Hague
(about 3 hours later)
NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s deputy president pleaded not guilty to charges of crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court at The Hague on Tuesday for his role in the violence that rocked the country after the disputed 2007 election. NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s deputy president, William Ruto, rose before the International Criminal Court for the start of his trial on Tuesday and three times — once for each charge of crimes against humanity facing him — repeated the words, “Not guilty.”
The deputy president, William Ruto, went on trial before the court with his co-defendant, Joshua arap Sang, an influential radio executive. The election set off ethnic clashes across the nation that claimed the lives of more than 1,100 people and displaced 600,000. With Mr. Ruto’s appearance before the court in The Hague for his role in the violence that rocked the country after the disputed 2007 election, a process began that could influence not only the future of Kenya but of the much-criticized tribunal as well.
“The evidence, which the prosecution will present, will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes for which Mr. Ruto and Mr. Sang are charged were not just random and spontaneous acts of brutality,” the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, told the court in her opening statement. “On the contrary, this was a carefully planned, coordinated and executed campaign of violence.” The scrutiny will continue to intensify, particularly once the Kenyan president, Uhuru Kenyatta, joins Mr. Ruto in facing charges before the court in November. It will be the first time a sitting president has appeared before the court to stand trial.
The case is a prelude to President Uhuru Kenyatta’s expected appearance before the court in November, which will be the first time a sitting president has appeared before the court to stand trial. The case represents a pivotal moment for the court, and one that is not without risks. The tribunal finds itself the object of significant ire in Kenya and elsewhere on the continent because all eight of the cases on its docket are from Africa. Earlier this year the African Union accused the court of targeting Africans.
The case has divided Kenya. Supporters and victims’ advocates say that the prosecution strikes a blow against impunity. Opponents describe the case as a humiliation and infringement on Kenyan sovereignty. Kenya’s Parliament voted last week to withdraw from the court, but the government has yet to act on the resolution and Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto have continued to cooperate. Some questioned whether they would do so after the vote, but Mr. Ruto, accompanied by dozens of members of Kenya’s Parliament, flew to The Hague on Monday and appeared voluntarily in court Tuesday morning.
Opinion surveys show that support for the trial here has fallen off significantly. The court announced that Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto will not have to be at The Hague at the same time, a practical concern for the governance of Kenya. “This is not a trial of Kenya or of the Kenyan people,” the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, told the court in her opening statement. “It is not about meddling in African affairs. This trial, Mr. President, your honors, is about obtaining justice for the many thousands of victims of the postelection violence.”
Once opponents, Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto allied themselves in the most recent election and their Jubilee Alliance won the vote in March. Many fear that the cases could upset the fragile balance here and lead to renewed instability or violence. The election in 2007 set off ethnic clashes across the nation that claimed the lives of more than 1,100 people and displaced some 600,000. Prosecutors say that the violence was orchestrated by political and community leaders, including Mr. Ruto and his co-defendant, Joshua arap Sang, an influential radio executive.
No one knows what the effect will be once the evidence of what the prosecution describes as carefully orchestrated violence begins to come out in court. In the aftermath of the vote, homes were set on fire and attackers hacked victims to death with machetes. In one case, people were burned alive in a court where they sought refuge. The postelection clashes “were not just random and spontaneous acts of brutality,” Ms. Bensouda told the court. “On the contrary, this was a carefully planned, coordinated and executed campaign of violence.”
Mr. Ruto wore a charcoal suit and a striped tie. He did not react as the charges against him were read. Mr. Sang swiveled back and forth in his chair and at one point shook his head. Mr. Sang was described by Ms. Bensouda as “the main mouthpiece used by Mr. Ruto to spread his message.” Karim Khan, Mr. Ruto’s principal defense counsel, responded that the charges against his client “would be shown to be patently false.”
The court took up the prosecution after the Kenyan justice system failed to do so, as agreed to in a power-sharing deal brokered by the former United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, to stop the violence. But the case has proved challenging. “One cannot escape the reality that this investigation has been exceptionally deficient,” he said.
Witnesses have been killed or were afraid to testify, Ms. Bensouda has said, and a witness recanted after accepting money to withdraw his testimony. In March, the chief prosecutor withdrew charges against Mr. Kenyatta’s co-defendant, Francis Kirimi Muthaura, who was accused of helping organize death squads. The case has divided Kenya. Supporters and victims’ advocates say that the prosecution strikes a blow against impunity. Opponents describe the case as a humiliation and infringement on Kenyan sovereignty. Opinion surveys show that support for the trial here has fallen off significantly.
The tribunal finds itself the target of significant criticism in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa. The African Union accused the court of targeting Africans. Kenya’s Parliament voted last week to withdraw from the court, but the government has yet to act on the resolution and Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto continue to cooperate. The court announced that Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto will not have to be at The Hague at the same time, heading off a practical concern for the governance of Kenya.
Some questioned whether they would do so after the vote but Mr. Ruto, accompanied by dozens of members of Kenya’s Parliament, flew to the Netherlands on Monday and appeared voluntarily in court Tuesday morning. Once political opponents, Mr. Kenyatta, a prominent member of the Kikuyu ethnic group, and Mr. Ruto, a leader of the Kalenjin group, teamed up in the most recent election and their Jubilee Alliance won the vote in March. That election proceeded relatively peacefully. Many fear that the prosecutions at The Hague could upset the fragile balance here and incite renewed instability or violence.
Even on the opening day of Mr. Ruto’s trial, it was apparent that the proceedings would lay bare the ethnic divisions that have plagued Kenya’s electoral politics and helped lead to the violence that swept the country in 2007 and 2008.
“The prosecution will demonstrate that Mr. Ruto and his syndicate of powerful allies, including his co-accused, Mr. Sang, sought to exploit the historical tensions between Kalenjin and Kikuyu for their own political and personal ends,” Ms. Bensouda said.
In the aftermath of the disputed vote, homes were set on fire and attackers hacked victims to death with machetes. In one case, people were burned alive in a church where they sought refuge.
“Victims I represent look up to you to counter their neglect in the criminal justice system and to usher in a truly victim-centered international criminal justice system,” said Wilfred Nderitu, who represents the victims before the court. “They have traveled a long road and witnessed many attempts at scuttling the criminal-justice process.”
Mr. Ruto did not react as the charges against him were read. Mr. Sang swiveled back and forth in his chair and at one point shook his head. Mr. Sang was described by Ms. Bensouda as “the main mouthpiece used by Mr. Ruto to spread his message.”
The court took up the prosecution after the Kenyan justice system failed to do so. But the case has proved challenging.
Witnesses have been killed or were afraid to testify, and a witness recanted after accepting money to withdraw his testimony, Ms. Bensouda has said. In March, the prosecution withdrew charges against Mr. Kenyatta’s co-defendant, Francis Kirimi Muthaura, who was accused of helping organize death squads.
Mr. Ruto has long disputed the charges against him, saying that they are politically motivated.
“There is a rotten underbelly of this case that the prosecutor has swallowed hook, line and sinker,” his lawyer, Mr. Khan, said, “indifferent to the truth.”