Abstract

On 10 September 2013 the International Criminal Court (ICC) began hearing a case against William Ruto, Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, and Joshua Sang. The related case against the President of Kenya, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, was scheduled to begin in November 2013 but has since been postponed until October 2014. Both cases are noteworthy since they are the first against sitting politicians. Unsurprisingly, they have not been without controversy.  These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently passed a resolution withdrawing from the ICC and repealing its domestic legislation criminalizing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neo-colonialism. Although this withdrawal does not affect the current cases before the Court, it certainly makes cooperation with Kenya for the purpose of further investigations more difficult.  Karim A.A. Khan, QC, formerly the defense counsel of Muthaura and currently the lead defense counsel of Ruto, raised these issues in an interview taking place one week before his opening statements in the Kenya I case. These same issues and concerns were also raised with Adesola Adeboyejo a lead prosecutor in the Kenya II case in December 2013.

Highlights

  • The two cases stem from post-election violence that erupted in Kenya from December 2007 to February 2008

  • The violence began after allegations of election fraud after the main opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), and its presidential candidate Raila Odina, were defeated in the final hours of voting by the incumbent President Mwai Kibaki of the Party of National Unity (PNU)

  • Securing witness testimony at trial has been a major challenge in both Kenya cases. These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently passed a resolution withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and repealing its domestic legislation criminalizing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neo-colonialism

Read more

Summary

UTRECHT JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW

Brianne Mcgonigle Leyh, ‘A Practitioner’s Perspective on the Kenya I and Kenya II Cases Before the ICC’ (2014) 30(79) Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 51, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ ujiel.co. These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently passed a resolution withdrawing from the ICC and repealing its domestic legislation criminalizing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neocolonialism. This withdrawal does not affect the current cases before the Court, it certainly makes cooperation with Kenya for the purpose of further investigations more difficult. These same issues and concerns were raised with Adesola Adeboyejo a lead prosecutor in the Kenya II case in December 2013

Introduction
Adesola Adeboyejo
Author information
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call