Gumpert responded that the prosecution was convinced that Kenya has the evidence it requires but was unwilling to submit it, “We know that there is evidence in existence. Not sure what that evidence will show. It may exonerate.”
Although the prosecution admitted before the judges that Kenyatta had not played a direct role in shielding evidence, they insisted that he was in charge of the Kenyan government and can issue orders for their production in court.
This argument was further echoed by Victims Legal Representative Lawyer Fergal Gaynor who also opposed any attempt to have the case withdrawn, and favoured an adjournment.
He further focused the cause of the delayed proceedings to Kenyatta explaining that he was responsible since he was in a position to ensure the Government of Kenya cooperates to submit required evidence.
“Securing compliance with the international obligations of Kenya is the responsibility of the President of Kenya. We are dealing with a unique case here where accused controls the government. To allow the case to be withdrawn completely, I frankly think that will be the end of justice for the victims,” he argued.
However Kay dismissed the allegations saying the President Kenyatta was an accused person.
He explained to the judges that it was unfair that the prosecution kept on asking for adjournments at the detriment of the rights of the accused person.
He dismissed remarks made by Victims Legal representative saying Kenyatta is the President of Kenya but has rights like any other accused person before the ICC.
“My client is Head of State, but also an accused with rights. His position as Head of State is only relevant if there are any allegations of wrongdoing. This is not the case. As private accused he obviously does not interfere in these matters,” he argued.
The prosecution warned of consequences as it would report Kenya for failed cooperation to the Assembly of State Parties and the UN Security Council.
About The Author
