“The victims will also want a very clear explanation as to why, after all these years, the Prosecutor has not yet collected sufficient documentary evidence which, combined with testimonial evidence, would be sufficient to satisfy the evidential standards required at trial. None of this is intended as questioning in any way the integrity of the Prosecutor or her team,” Gaynor said.
According to Gaynor, Bensouda’s announcement was total disappointment to the victims who also wanted to the prosecutor to explain if her past allegations of non cooperation by the Government of Kenya and allegations of witness and victims intimidation played a role.
International Centre for Policy and Conflict (ICPC), Chief Executive Ndung’u Wainaina who was disappointed by Bensouda’s announcement said the case was however not over and also urged the court to think of the plight of the victims who still need justice.
According to him, Bensouda has still some evidence which she can piece up to hold her case against Kenyatta.
“The case is not off. The prosecutor has still significant material that she can rely on. The question is that if that evidence can help to tie up the case. Not reaching the evidential threshold it means she could be having a number of pillars but don’t have the other pillar. She still can build her case,” Wainaina asserted.
He also said the prosecutor’s office should not be blamed since the Kenyan cases were marred by allegations of witness and victims intimidation including alleged killings of key witnesses.
“People will tend to blame the Office of The Prosecutor but that is a misplaced accusation. We know what has been going on since 2008; both the cases have faced a lot of murkiness. One thing is that there has been consistent intimidation and bribery of prosecution witnesses. There has been disappearance of witnesses,” he claimed.
About The Author
