(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)



  1. natenate November 6th, 2013 at 10:07 am

    what a waste of resources. this investigations were shoddy

    1. Guest November 6th, 2013 at 10:09 am

      I would call it a case of guesswork – guessing who could have fanned and funded violence and then trying to build evidence against them and coaching so called witnesses

    2. Guest November 6th, 2013 at 10:12 am

      Sang was denied leave to attend daughter’s graduation because “this witness had mentioned Sang adversely in his testimony” hence important for Sang to be present in Court

  2. Guest November 6th, 2013 at 10:07 am

    Is Bensouda or her other colleagues new to English. Statements that have been translated on behalf of OTP by BBC (who are British and hence the English language custodians, so no ambiguity) show Sang was preaching peace and you still provide them to defense as evidence aaginst Sang

    1. natenate November 6th, 2013 at 10:20 am

      something is amiss with OTP. First they presented witnesses who said Ruto did not incite, then another witness who said he couldnt remember, then another witness who said it was not Ruto but spontaneous, then another one that was caught lying then now they have evidence that supports what the defence is saying.

  3. Qwani November 6th, 2013 at 11:31 am

    It is at times like these when we need to be sincere with ourselves. What is the point of being a member of such a useless court system such as the ICC??? What we are receiving are very good reasons to look for the nearest exit and get out.

  4. Natty Dread November 7th, 2013 at 12:48 am

    So, the witness “assumed” somrthing, and the OTP took him to the Hague claiming that it had evidence against Sang? Kangaroo courts are better.


Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published.