She said false media reports and postings on social media frustrated her work in Kenya/FILE
She said false media reports and postings on social media frustrated her work in Kenya.
She singled out witness intimidation and a social media campaign to expose the identity of protected witnesses as impediments to her work in Kenya.
She also renewed her blame on the Government of Kenya which she accused of failing to cooperate with her office in investigating the Kenyans cases.
“Contrary to the Government of Kenya’s public pronouncements that it has fully complied with its legal obligations in this case, the ruling has confirmed that in fact it has breached its treaty obligations under the Rome Statute by failing to cooperate with my investigation,” she argued in a statement.
She explained that the government was unresponsive to her requests for President Kenyatta’s documents which she wanted to use as evidence in her case.
She argued that some of the evidence required was only in the custody of the Government of Kenya and without its cooperation, it was impossible for her to get it elsewhere.
“I have persistently sought to secure the cooperation that my office required from the Government of Kenya in this case in order to execute my mandate. Crucial documentary evidence regarding the 2007-2008 post-election violence, including concerning the conduct of the accused, can only be found in Kenya and is only accessible to the Prosecution through the assistance of the Government of Kenya,” she asserted.
She said lack of Kenya’s cooperation affected her investigations into the 2008 Post Election Violence in Kenya.
Bensouda who inherited the Kenyan cases from former Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo illustrated her frustrations in investigating the violence and uncovering the truth behind the post-poll chaos.
Though the judges on Wednesday noted that Kenya had not cooperated in the spirit of the Rome Statute, they told Bensouda that she brought the complaints of failed cooperation at the wrong stage.
READ: Bensouda gets 7-day ultimatum in Uhuru case.
According to the judges, Bensouda should have raised the concerns at an earlier stage.
Furthermore, the judges felt that even if Kenya would submit required evidence to Bensouda, it was not plausible that it was adequate to make its evidence against Kenyatta strong.
About The Author
