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.
International Criminal Court Withdraws Charges Against Kenyan President
Uhuru Kenyatta Faced Allegations of Crimes Against Humanity
(about 5 hours later)
PARIS — The International Criminal Court in The Hague announced on Friday that its chief prosecutor had withdrawn charges of crimes against humanity against President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, ending a tortuous case that showed the limits of the court’s power.
PARIS — The International Criminal Court in The Hague announced on Friday that its chief prosecutor had withdrawn charges of crimes against humanity against President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, ending a tortuous case that showed the limits of the court’s power.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 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.
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 included harassing potential witnesses and threatening 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 three international judges hearing the case 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.
The announcement came in a court filing in which the court’s chief 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,” Ms. Bensouda said.
But the prosecutor said her office had the right to bring new charges if more evidence was found.
But Ms. Bensouda said she 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.
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 case appeared to represent both a triumph for Mr. Kenyatta and a display of the difficulty in prosecuting leaders who control the arms of government. Mr. Kenyatta, who was elected in 2013, was named as a suspect in 2010.
The start of his trial had been postponed five times.
The start of his trial had been postponed five times.
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 three judges gave the prosecutor a week to decide whether to proceed or drop the case. But they declined to terminate the case themselves or enter a ruling of not guilty, as sought 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.”
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.”
Mr. Kiai said the outcome “shows if you have power or enough resources, you can get away with anything.
Fergal Gaynor, a lawyer for the victims, said the decision would “disappoint the estimated 20,000 victims of the crimes.”
“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 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.
After the decision was announced, celebrations erupted in Kenya, especially areas populated by the Kikuyu, Mr. Kenyatta’s people. Crowds sang and danced in downtown Nairobi, the capital, and in Nyahururu, a Kikuyu town in the north, hundreds of celebrants blocked the main highway.
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 displaced-persons camp in Nyahururu, said: “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.
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.”
The victims he represents, 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.”
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.
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, and prosecutors said among them were gangs armed, paid and bused by associates of Mr. Kenyatta.
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.
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, William Ruto, now Kenya’s deputy president.
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. Ruto has also been charged with crimes against humanity, but prosecution has been hampered by the same impediments that dogged Mr. Kenyatta’s case: constant allegations of witness tampering, bribery and obstruction.
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.
In reacting to the announcement that his case had been dropped, Mr. Kenyatta said that he was “excited” but that he also wanted charges dropped against Mr. Ruto, Reuters reported.
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.
In October, Mr. Kenyatta made a reluctant appearance before the court in The Hague, and prosecutors at the time 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.
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.
On Friday, Steven Kay, Mr. Kenyatta’s lawyer, said the court now owed his client an apology for impugning his integrity.
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.
With no enforcement power, the court cannot collect evidence, compel witnesses to testify or visit crime scenes without permission of the national authorities. As a member of the court, Kenya is bound to cooperate with it.
In October, Mr. Kenyatta made a reluctant appearance before the three international judges who decided the future of the case.
But the government blocked investigators’ access to 10 police officers who were either witnesses or participants in the violence. It also ignored prosecution requests for phone and bank records that might have provided evidence of payments to gangs hired to organize violence.
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 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.
“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.
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 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.
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.
