Moses Kuria, Member of Parliament for Gatundu South, has expressed concerns over the proceedings at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Deputy President William Ruto.
Kuria notes that during the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) hearings in Arusha between 1995 and 2003, Eboue Osuji, as a senior trial attorney, and Fatou Bensouda, as his deputy, developed a working relationship that led to a lowering of the threshold of evidence admissibility.
According to Kuria, the duo initially worked with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard but later shifted to a 'balance of probabilities' and even admitted hearsay as evidence. Kuria alleges that this approach has continued at The Hague, where Osuji is the presiding judge and Bensouda is the chief prosecutor in the case against Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang.
Evidence Threshold and Rule 68 ¶
Kuria claims that the Osuji-Bensouda duo is using the controversial Rule 68, passed at the Assembly of State Parties at The Hague in 2013, to admit unauthenticated statements that cannot be subjected to cross-examination scrutiny. He describes this as 'judicial gangstarism.'
Kuria attended the 2013 Assembly of States Parties as an observer and recalls that the main campaign for Rule 68 was led by Kenyan civil society groups. Despite Kenya's protests, the rule was passed, but with an undertaking that it would not be applied retroactively to Kenyan cases.
Consequences and Response ¶
Kuria believes that the ICC's actions are part of a larger effort by European powers to exert leverage in Kenya and Africa. He suggests that the immediate target is to influence Kenya's 2017 and 2022 elections, particularly with Ruto being a frontrunner for the presidency.
Kuria advocates for Kenya to withdraw from the ICC, preferably with other African countries, to counter what he sees as '21st Century colonialism.' He argues that walking out with a coalition of willing African nations would be sufficient.
