Ruto is unable to attend the proceedings since President Uhuru Kenyatta will be out of the country at the time/FILE
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 25 – Deputy President William Ruto and former radio host Joshua arap Sang are no longer required to be present in court when the ICC delivers its verdict in their motion of no-case-to-answer on April 5.
Ruto and Sang had been asked to be physically present in court but have been excused.
Ruto is unable to attend the proceedings since President Uhuru Kenyatta will be out of the country at the time.
The Head of State travels to France between April 4 and 6, 2016 before proceeding to Germany for two days after that.
DP Ruto and Sang want the case terminated citing lack of sufficient evidence by the Office of The Prosecutor to prove their culpability.
Ruto’s defence has outlined five reasons why the DP should be acquitted of the charges against him, which include the prosecutor’s failure to produce evidence of an organisation dubbed ‘The Network’ which was key to its case.
His lawyer Karim Khan pointed out that the OTP had failed to demonstrate that Ruto was the head of a multi faceted network composed of political, media, financial, tribal and military components whose sole aim was to implement an organisational policy directed at punishing and expelling those in the Rift Valley in support of PNU gaining power by creating a uniform ODM voting bloc.
According to Ruto’s lawyer the post-election violence of 2007-8 was spontaneous, a natural reaction to perceptions that the elections were rigged rather than an organised event attributed to one and the same group of perpetrators following a unified and predetermined strategy.
Sang’s lawyer Katwa Kigen on the other hand contends that his client did not have any hand in the 2008 Post Election Violence.
The lawyer also disproved the prosecution’s position that there was a network formed ahead of the 2007 elections with a common plan to execute attacks in the Rift Valley.
He said the prosecution had failed to submit evidence to support allegations that such a network existed.
In his view, to prove existence of the network, the prosecution should have at least furnished the court with details of the meetings of the group, its policies and plans.
It was on the basis of the non-existence of the group and the alleged contribution of Sang that Kigen explained that his client did not have any criminal liability in the attacks.
Sang faces three charges of murder, forcible transfer of populations and persecution.
About The Author
