NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 6 – The fifth day of the confirmation of charges hearings at International Criminal Court saw Joshua arap Sang’s lawyers Katwa Kigen and Logan Hambrick tear into the prosecution’s evidence as they sought to discredit the prosecution witnesses.,
Mr Kigen described witness number 8 as a ‘self confessed criminal’ and said the prosecution over-relied on his information yet his credibility was questionable.
“Witness no 8 acknowledges that he is a thief and a drunkard since 1992,” charged Mr Kigen.
He said out of the 4,000 pages of the prosecution evidence 3,000 pages were made up of evidence from witness number 8.
He also said the prosecution witnesses gave contradicting information about the meetings allegedly held and attended by Mr Sang to plan and execute attacks in the Rift Valley.
The lawyer further dismissed allegations that Mr Sang used coded language to instigate the attacks. “The prosecution and the witnesses have not procured what the coded language was. There is no formulation of that coded language.”
Mr Kigen also complained that the prosecution witnesses further contradicted themselves as they gave conflicting descriptions of the kinds of oaths taken during the attack planning meetings.
“Witnesses contradicted in the kind of oaths taken… one said blood, but didn’t specify what type of blood, another witness said oath by holding hands and raising them up…”
Lawyer Logan Hambrick asked the court to reject witnesses number 2, 6 and 8 saying their evidence was untrue.
She also alleged that the Prosecution had failed to conduct its own investigations but instead had relied on the Waki Commission and the reports from the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.
She further said the prosecution failed to give supporting material allegedly available in Kenyan media. “The prosecution did not disclose the clips of the suspects telling people to kill Kikuyus,” she said.
Ms Hambrick was however restrained by judge Hans Peter Kaul who asked her to observe proper court language in which he said was filled with arrogance and abuse of the prosecution office.
“I found this language inappropriate. The office of the Prosecutor is an organ of this court, the language which you are using is close to vulgar and misconduct or an abuse of prosecutorial powers,” he asserted.
The defence team of Mr Sang requested for a closed session after which his defence called Mr Sang’s two witnesses.