Bensouda: No evidence to sustain Uhuru case


Today, I filed an application with the judges requesting an adjournment of the provisional trial date in the case of the Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (ICC-01/09-02/11).

My decision is based solely on the specific facts of this case devoid of extraneous considerations.

As Prosecutor, I have consistently stated my actions and decisions are at all times strictly guided by the evidence in accordance with the Rome Statute legal framework. This recent decision is no different.

It is my professional duty to react, and to take the necessary decisions when the state of the evidence changes, as it has in this case.

In the last two months, one of the Prosecution’s key witnesses in the case against Mr Kenyatta has indicated that he is no longer willing to testify.

More recently, on 4 December 2013, a key second witness in the case confessed to giving false evidence regarding a critical event in the Prosecution’s case.

This witness has now been withdrawn from the Prosecution witness list. Having carefully considered my evidence and the impact of the two withdrawals, I have come to the conclusion that currently the case against Mr Kenyatta does not satisfy the high evidentiary standards required at trial.

I therefore need time to complete efforts to obtain additional evidence, and to consider whether such evidence will enable my office to fully meet the evidentiary threshold required at trial.

Our pursuit of justice for the victims of the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya has faced many challenges.

Notwithstanding, my commitment and that of my staff to the pursuit of justice without fear or favour has remained firm.

It is precisely because of our dedication and sense of responsibility to the victims in this case that I have asked the Judges presiding over the case for more time to undertake all remaining steps possible to strengthen the case to ensure justice for the victims.

To the people of Kenya, my decision to apply for an adjournment today was not taken lightly and I have explained fully to the Judges the reasons for my exceptional decision.

I have and will continue to do all that I can to realise justice for the victims of the 2007-2008 post-election violence.

10 Replies to “Bensouda: No evidence to sustain Uhuru case”

  1. Ms. Bensouda, your predecessor Mr. Ocampo made a right mess and left you to clean it up. This admission on evidence is a step in the right direction but the best thing to do is withdraw the case outright.The integrity of the OTP and ICC have taken a beating and it might be time to cut your losses.

  2. Bensouda, i really pity you. You are not wise. Not at all.Please show maturity and stop using womanhood to prove nothing. There is no case here. Leave our great president alone. Now arent you getting more ashamed as time goes on. Please drop the case and prosecute those who deserve, like Asand! NKT

  3. Oh please. Spare us your blubbering. You never did have a case and know it. You are not excused either from gathering non evidence and coaching withnesses as you worked directly under Ocampo the chief blubber.

  4. Madame Bensouda should be allowed to conduct real and independent investigations devoid of 3rd party evidence or Political influence

  5. Mme Bensouda, does this signal a change of strategy away from trying to find ‘witnesses’ to force Ocampo’s theory to fit, and towards the pursuit of true justice that says that if there is no evidence, you stop the process?

    Heaven knows that the various chambers have accorded Ocampo and yourself great latitude, in some cases stretching the limits of prosecutorial licence in ways that normal legal systems do not know.

  6. ICC was just chasing wind and realised they will run out of resources tryng to catch it just throw in the towel Madam Bensou

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Hit enter to search or ESC to close