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/2014/12/06/world/africa/uhuru-kenyatta-kenya-international-criminal-court-withdraws-charges-of-crimes-against-humanity.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
International Criminal Court Withdraws Charges Against Kenyan President International Criminal Court Withdraws Charges Against Kenyan President
(about 4 hours later)
PARIS — The International Criminal Court in The Hague announced on Friday that its chief prosecutor has withdrawn charges of crimes against humanity against President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, ending a tortuous case that showed the limits of the court’s power. PARIS — The International Criminal Court in The Hague announced on Friday that its chief prosecutor had withdrawn charges of crimes against humanity against President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, ending a tortuous case that showed the limits of the court’s power.
The announcement came in a court filing in which the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said: “The prosecution withdraws the charges against Mr. Kenyatta. The evidence has not improved to such an extent that Mr. Kenyatta’s responsibility can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” But the prosecutor said that her office had the right to bring new charges if more evidence was found. The collapse of the case, which has been seen as a test of the court’s ability to pursue charges against a sitting leader, came after the prosecution could not show it had sufficient evidence to proceed. Prosecutors had long accused the Kenyan government of trying to outmaneuver the court by creating an atmosphere of fear that including killing potential witnesses and intimidating others who then refused to testify.
Judges ruled this week that the Nairobi government had acted “not in good faith” by withholding vital evidence.
The announcement came in a court filing in which the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said that, because the court had denied her more time, her office was withdrawing the charges. “The evidence has not improved to such an extent that Mr. Kenyatta’s responsibility can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said.
But the prosecutor said her office had the right to bring new charges if more evidence was found.
Mr. Kenyatta, the first sitting president to appear before the court, had been accused of helping to orchestrate and finance a wave of ethnic violence after disputed elections in 2007, in which more than 1,200 people died and 600,000 fled their homes. He has always denied the charges.
The decision to end the troubled case appeared to represent both a triumph for Mr. Kenyatta and a display of the difficulties involved in prosecuting leaders who control the arms of government.The decision to end the troubled case appeared to represent both a triumph for Mr. Kenyatta and a display of the difficulties involved in prosecuting leaders who control the arms of government.
Mr. Kenyatta, the first sitting president to appear before the court, had been accused of helping to orchestrate and finance a wave of ethnic violence after disputed elections in 2007, in which more than 1,200 people died and 600,000 fled their homes. The start of his trial had been postponed five times. The start of his trial had been postponed five times.
The collapse of the case was a setback for the court and demonstrated the limits of its powers. It appears to be acknowledgment that the government of Kenya has outmaneuvered the court by creating an atmosphere of fear and forcing witnesses to withdraw. Judges said the Kenyan government had acted “not in good faith” by withholding vital evidence. On Wednesday, the three-judge panel gave the prosecutor one week in which to decide whether to proceed with the case or drop the charges. But they declined to terminate the case themselves or enter a ruling of not guilty, as requested by the defense.
On Wednesday, the judges told the prosecutor that she would have to proceed within a week or drop the charges. But they declined to terminate the case themselves or enter a ruling of not guilty, as requested by the defense. Maina Kiai, a prominent Kenyan human right activist, said the Kenyan government “has been playing a game of smoke and mirrors, pretending to cooperate with the court, but it stymied the case and played hardball against the court from the beginning.”
Fergal Gaynor, a defense lawyer for the victims, said the decision “will inevitably disappoint the estimated 20,000 victims of the crimes.” Mr. Kiai said the outcome “shows if you have power or enough resources, you can get away with anything.
“The court has showed it can be easily manipulated, it can be easily pushed around, and once you show that, there’s no sense anymore across Africa of a deterrent.”
Fergal Gaynor, a lawyer for the victims, said the decision “will inevitably disappoint the estimated 20,000 victims of the crimes.”
“Their quest for justice has now been frustrated, both in Kenya and at the I.C.C.,” he said.“Their quest for justice has now been frustrated, both in Kenya and at the I.C.C.,” he said.
As soon as the decision was announced, celebrations broke out in different parts of the country, especially in the Kikuyu areas – Mr. Kenyatta is a Kikuyu. Crowds sang and danced in downtown Nairobi, the capital, and in Nyahururu, a predominantly Kikuyu town in the north, hundreds of celebrators blocked the main highway, snarling traffic. As soon as the decision was announced, celebrations broke out in different parts of Kenya, especially in the Kikuyu areas – Mr. Kenyatta is a Kikuyu. Crowds sang and danced in downtown Nairobi, the capital, and in Nyahururu, a predominantly Kikuyu town in the north, hundreds of celebrators blocked the main highway, snarling traffic.
Peter Kariuki, chairman of a local displaced-persons camp in Nyahururu, said: “It’s true that we were evicted from our homes in Rift Valley, and all along we knew Uhuru was innocent. His deputy president is innocent too as he’s not among those who killed our mothers and children. The prosecution should have visited us so that we can show them the perpetrators. We are thankful to God as our president is now free.”Peter Kariuki, chairman of a local displaced-persons camp in Nyahururu, said: “It’s true that we were evicted from our homes in Rift Valley, and all along we knew Uhuru was innocent. His deputy president is innocent too as he’s not among those who killed our mothers and children. The prosecution should have visited us so that we can show them the perpetrators. We are thankful to God as our president is now free.”
The events at the core of the case were horrific.The events at the core of the case were horrific.
Mr. Gaynor said the victims he represented in court “were among the tens of thousands of people in Naivasha and Nakuru who were targeted for no reason other than that they belonged to the wrong tribe.” The victims he represents in court, Mr. Gaynor said, “were among the tens of thousands of people in Naivasha and Nakuru who were targeted for no reason other than that they belonged to the wrong tribe.”
“Men were beheaded in the streets,” he said. “Human heads were paraded on sticks. Women were serially raped, and then doused in paraffin and set alight. Children were burned alive. Houses and tiny business premises were pillaged and destroyed in their thousands. The surviving victims of those crimes have received no justice from the Kenyan criminal justice system. Most received no compensation. Thousands now live in abject poverty.”“Men were beheaded in the streets,” he said. “Human heads were paraded on sticks. Women were serially raped, and then doused in paraffin and set alight. Children were burned alive. Houses and tiny business premises were pillaged and destroyed in their thousands. The surviving victims of those crimes have received no justice from the Kenyan criminal justice system. Most received no compensation. Thousands now live in abject poverty.”
Maina Kiai, a prominent Kenyan human right activist, said that the Kenyan government “has been playing a game of smoke and mirrors, pretending to cooperate with the court, but that it stymied the case and played hardball against the court from the beginning. Mr. Kenyatta, one of the richest men in Africa, had always tried to distance himself from the bloodletting in Kenya during the chaotic election period of 2007 and 2008. Many of the killings were committed by bands of youths, wielding crude weapons. Prosecutors said among them were gangs armed, paid and bused to the Rift Valley by associates of Mr. Kenyatta.
“The government has created the template for defeating the I.C.C.,” he said. The son of Kenya’s founding father, Jomo Kenyatta, Uhuru Kenyatta was elected president last year after teaming up with another defendant in the case in the International Criminal Court, now Kenya’s deputy president, William Ruto.
“It shows if you have power or enough resources, you can get away with anything,” Mr. Kiai said. “The court has showed it can be easily manipulated, it can be easily pushed around, and once you show that, there’s no sense anymore across Africa of a deterrent.” Mr. Ruto has also been charged with crimes against humanity, and some analysts believe that the court will redouble its efforts to convict him. But that prosecution has also been hampered by the same impediments that dogged Mr. Kenyatta’s case: constant allegations of witness tampering, bribery and obstruction.
Mr. Kenyatta, one of the richest men in Africa, had always tried to distance himself from the bloodletting in Kenya during the chaotic election period of 2007 and 2008. Many of the killings were committed by bands of youths wielding crude weapons. The case against Mr. Kenyatta had proved a serious diplomatic headache to Kenya’s Western allies, including the United States. While Western governments had tried to minimize contact with Mr. Kenyatta, they also needed his help for counterterrorism cooperation in troubled East Africa. Kenya remains the region’s hub for Western intelligence cells, and the country has also suffered many terrorist attacks, including some against Westerners.
The son of Kenya’s founding father, Jomo Kenyatta, Uhuru Kenyatta was elected president last year after teaming up with another suspect of the International Criminal Court, now Kenya’s deputy president, William Ruto. The Kenyan government has also sent its diplomats and politicians to rally support in the African Union and has called the court “a plaything” of former colonial powers.
Mr. Ruto has also been charged with crimes against humanity, and some analysts believe that the court will redouble its efforts to convict him. But that prosecution has also been hampered by the same list of issues that dogged Mr. Kenyatta’s case from the beginning: constant allegations of witness tampering, bribery and obstruction. Now, with the case dropped, the diplomatic distance between Mr. Kenyatta and the West may narrow. But the case may still shadow Mr. Kenyatta, because both the prosecution and the judges have accused his government of effectively thwarting a trial.
The case against Mr. Kenyatta had proved a serious diplomatic headache to Kenya’s Western allies, including the United States. While Western governments had tried to minimize contact with Mr. Kenyatta, they also needed his help for counterterrorism cooperation in troubled East Africa. Kenya remains the region’s hub for Western intelligence cells, and the country has suffered many terrorist attacks, including some against Westerners. In a first reaction to the announcement, Mr. Kenyatta said that he was “excited” but that he also wanted charges against Mr. Ruto dropped, Reuters reported.
Now, with the case dropped, the diplomatic distance between Mr. Kenyatta and the West may narrow. But there will always be a bit of shadow over Mr. Kenyatta because prosecutors accused his government of effectively preventing the case from ever finishing trial.
In a first reaction to the announcement, Mr. Kenyatta said that he was “excited” but that he also wanted charges against Mr. Ruto to be dropped, Reuters reported.
In October, Mr. Kenyatta made a reluctant appearance before the three international judges who decided the future of the case.In October, Mr. Kenyatta made a reluctant appearance before the three international judges who decided the future of the case.
At the time, prosecutors said the case could not continue until the Kenyan government ended its obstruction and provided evidence that had been requested more than two years ago. The defense insisted that the case had failed. At the time, prosecutors said the case could not continue until the Kenyan government ended its obstruction and provided evidence that had been requested more than two years earlier. The defense insisted that the case had failed.
With no enforcement agency, the international court cannot collect evidence, compel witnesses to give testimony or visit crimes scenes without permission of the national authorities. With no enforcement power, the court cannot collect evidence, compel witnesses to testify or visit crime scenes without permission of the national authorities.
In Kenya, the government blocked investigators’ access to 10 police officers who were either witnesses or participants in the violence. It also ignored prosecution requests for documents that might have provided evidence of payments to gangs hired to organize violence.In Kenya, the government blocked investigators’ access to 10 police officers who were either witnesses or participants in the violence. It also ignored prosecution requests for documents that might have provided evidence of payments to gangs hired to organize violence.
“Witnesses, potential witnesses and their families were hounded, intimidated and even killed, it’s no wonder so many dropped out,” said Susanne Mueller, a political scientist at Boston University and author of a study of the case.
The roots of the case go back to December 2007, when Mwai Kibaki, then Kenya’s president, ran for re-election. His opponent, Raila Odinga, was a rich, populist opposition leader from a rival ethnic group.The roots of the case go back to December 2007, when Mwai Kibaki, then Kenya’s president, ran for re-election. His opponent, Raila Odinga, was a rich, populist opposition leader from a rival ethnic group.
Most analysts at the time said that Mr. Odinga had won more votes but that Mr. Kibaki’s government allies changed vote tallies to win the election. Violence exploded.Most analysts at the time said that Mr. Odinga had won more votes but that Mr. Kibaki’s government allies changed vote tallies to win the election. Violence exploded.
Mr. Odinga’s supporters swept across the rolling green hills of the Rift Valley, massacring members of Mr. Kibaki’s ethnic group, the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu struck back, massacring members of other ethnic groups. The escalating waves of bloodshed ruined Kenya’s economy for the year and was considered the worst crisis in its history. Mr. Odinga’s supporters swept across the rolling green hills of the Rift Valley, massacring members of Mr. Kibaki’s ethnic group, the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu then struck back, massacring members of other ethnic groups. The escalating waves of bloodshed ruined Kenya’s economy for the year and was considered the worst crisis in its history.
After a political compromise, in which Mr. Odinga was appointed prime minister, was reached in February 2008, Kenyan politicians turned to the issue of the election killings. Few politicians wanted to form a local court to prosecute them.After a political compromise, in which Mr. Odinga was appointed prime minister, was reached in February 2008, Kenyan politicians turned to the issue of the election killings. Few politicians wanted to form a local court to prosecute them.
So the case was referred to the International Criminal Court, which originally charged three men from each side, the government and the opposition. Over time, all the cases collapsed, because of a lack of evidence, except for the ones against Mr. Kenyatta, Mr. Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, a radio presenter charged with inciting violence. So the case was referred to the International Criminal Court, which originally charged three men from each side, the government and the opposition. Over time, three of the six cases collapsed, because of a lack of evidence, except for the ones against Mr. Kenyatta, Mr. Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, a radio presenter charged with inciting violence.