, NAIROBI, Kenya, Jul 9 – President Uhuru Kenyatta’s lawyer Stephen Kay on Wednesday accused the International Criminal Court (ICC) of indecisiveness and lack of control in the case against Kenyatta.
During Wednesday’s status conference, Kay emotionally complained that even after the Office of The Prosecutor in February admitted to the court that it did not have evidence against Kenyatta, the court has allowed it time to go on a ‘fishing expedition’ in search of evidence that is not relevant to the case.
“We have been going through this process and we have reached a stage of there being no evidence and it seems that the court is unwilling to grab the issue and dismiss the case. The prosecution doesn’t want to withdraw it and they create excuses saying it is the Kenyan Government,” Kay complained.
The prosecution in February this year told the court that it did not have evidence against Kenyatta and accused the Government of Kenya for failing to provide records which would aid it in making a case against him.
The court vacated the earlier date of trial and Kenya was asked to give the prosecution several documents required by the prosecution.
According to Kay, the Government of Kenya has been dragged to a case that it does not understand since it is not a party and is not aware of particulars the prosecution is accusing Kenyatta of.
During the status conference the prosecution and Attorney General Githu Muigai on behalf of Kenya gave to the court an update of the documents submitted and those pending so far.
However, he complained that an assumption had been made that the government was being treated like a party to the case due to the numerous documents requested by the prosecution.
Financial statements, foreign exchange records, phone records and land ownership documents of Kenyatta were required by the prosecution but according to Muigai, the government had provided what it could get within limits of laws of Kenya and consent of Kenyatta.
The prosecution further requested from the government for Kenyatta’s tax returns.It further told the court that it had not received reports from the National Intelligence Service regarding movements of Kenyatta during the 2008 post election violence in Kenya.
According to the prosecution of its request, the government had managed to partially provide information on the cars that Kenyatta owned during the period of PEV but could not identify third parties and other corporate associates of Kenyatta as requested by the prosecution.
Muigai complained that it was impractical to fulfill some of the requests made by the prosecution due to their ambiguity and lack of specifications especially on land ownership and third parties like companies associated with Kenyatta.
He said the requests also have to be done according to the legal framework and that Kenya was not ready to violate its laws to fulfill ICC’s requests.