Admit Uhuru’s ICC case has collapsed – defence

February 5, 2014 4:44 pm
Shares
Kenyatta's lead lawyer Steven Kay noted on Wednesday that the prosecution had already revealed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a trial and it seemed as if it was just buying time to save face/FILE
Kenyatta’s lead lawyer Steven Kay noted on Wednesday that the prosecution had already revealed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a trial and it seemed as if it was just buying time to save face/FILE

, NAIROBI, Kenya, Feb 5 – President Uhuru Kenyatta has accused the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of stalling and clutching onto straws of a crumbling case, even after admitting there was no evidence to sustain it.

Kenyatta’s lead lawyer Steven Kay noted on Wednesday that the prosecution had already revealed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a trial and it seemed as if it was just buying time to save face.

Kay observed that the prosecution’s case had been hinged on the evidence of two main witnesses who ended up being fraudsters, and that once the prosecution realised this, it shifted the blame to the Kenyan government for allegedly withholding evidence.

“We have come to a stage where the case presented reveals that it is not a case; it is a case with allegations based upon falsity and the prosecution knows that,” he said.

“The problem is now though that having taken two sides to go into a trial, a political problem emerges. But the politics of this matter should not be a consideration.”

It also worth noting that the prosecution through trial Attorney Benjamin Gumpert has also admitted that even if Kenya granted it the private financial records it was seeking, it is not certain if this will be able to sustain a trial.

The prosecution had initially sought a three-month adjournment before revealing at the status conference that it would not be possible to get solid evidence for the case within this time frame.

“But the request which is now before the Chamber is that the trial should continue to be adjourned without a date being fixed for the opening of the trial until such time as the government of Kenya complies,” said Gumpert.

Kay further demanded to know the legal basis upon which the case was now being premised given the prosecution’s admissions.

He argued that the case had been confirmed on the testimony of the fake witnesses, who have since been dropped, meaning that the foundation of the case had collapsed.

Gumpert found himself hard pressed to respond to this challenge, instead blaming the Kenyan government for “obstructing justice” for two years now by refusing to provide the financial details of the accused.

The prosecution wants to access Kenyatta’s banking transactions because it is alleged that he withdrew about Sh4 billion which he used to finance perpetrators of the post-election violence.

“Which stones could still be turned get less and less promising, and we have made a decision that absent the financial records of which we have spoken the remaining stones unturned are better characterised as pebbles,” he argued.

Kay however refused to buy into this argument noting that if such an amount of money was withdrawn then it would have raised eyebrows.

Part 1 | Part 2
Shares

Latest Articles

Most Viewed