, NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 4 – The International Criminal Court (ICC) is on Tuesday evening expected to issue a landmark ruling that will determine the fate of the case against Deputy President William Ruto and former radio host Joshua arap Sang.
The three-judge bench will either reject or accept motions of no case-to-answer filed by defence teams of Ruto and Sang seeking to terminate their case at the prosecutor’s level.
The court has indicated that the ruling will be written and not in an open court as earlier communicated to the defence teams.
If judges rule in favour of Ruto and Sang, it will mark the end of the Kenyan case at the ICC.
But if they reject it, it will mean they have a case to answer which will require them to defend themselves which will include calling witnesses.
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda while seeking for admission of evidence of five recanting witnesses said without their evidence her case would be weak.
The Appeals Chamber overruled the Trial Chamber’s decision depriving the prosecution the evidence it had termed as crucial in the case against Ruto and Sang.
ICC cases against Kenya began in 2010 after former Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo was allowed by judges of the Pre Trial Chamber to investigate the 2007/8 Post Election Violence that left over 1,000 people dead and over 650,000 others displaced.
However, out of the six people considered by the ICC judges to bear the highest responsibility of the atrocities committed, only two are on trial after charges against the other four were withdrawn due to lack of evidence.
Tuesday’s ruling is considered crucial though even without the judges terminating the case at the prosecutor’s level, legal experts deem the evidence is too weak to sustain a conviction in consideration that the prosecutor also admitted that she had been deprived of ‘significant evidence’ when evidence of recanting witnesses was dismissed.
Bensouda on the other hand has maintained that her witnesses were interfered with and so far three Kenyans are wanted by The Hague based court for alleged interference with prosecution witnesses.