Source: icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1662752.pdf This application appearing on the ICC website got me thinking that President Kenyattas defense actually has a point when it points out that there is need for a Permanent Stay from proceedngs; alternatively, an evidential hearing session on abuse of process. There is also need to understand who these mysterious characters called a Prosecution Intermediary are, since they may have been the cause of this whole mess in the first place. This is how I understand the document: PART A 1. The Defence is asking for a permanenet stay in the proceedings (an end to the case) or alternatively a session (before trial commences) where this Prosecution Intermediary will be present to offer live testimony and to be cross-examined by the defence. 2. It seems this Prosecution Intermediary is some sort of broker who was used by the Prosecution to gather evidence since the court has no police force of its own to do this. 3. It seems this Prosecution Intermediary tried to sell the evidence he had allegedly collected to President Kenyatta and only when he was rejected did he resort to selling his evidence to the Prosecution. 4. It seems OTP-118 and some other party intimidated and interfered with Defence Witnesses and after their criminal acts went on to procure 10 more witnesses for the Prosecution, thereby raising serious concerns over the fairness of the trial. 5. It seesm OTP-11 and OTP-12 have attempted to extort money in return for favourable testimonies with OTP-112 changing his evidence after the payment of money. PART B 6. It seems that witness 11 and 12 have attempted to extort money from President Kenyatta, an attempt that was initiated by them or by someone who was representing them. 7. The Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings is based on the Prosecutions Abuse of Process and is backed by the ruling in Lubangas case concerning the fair treatment of the accused. 8. The Intermediary, just like in Lubangas case attempted to persuade one or more individuals to give false evidence. 9. The Defence points out that the Chamber has the sole responsibility to ensure the accused is accorded his rights PART C 10. Abuse of process has been committed by Prosecution Intermediaries and Witnesses. 11. Recordings identify by name protected Prosecution witnesses as being part of a conspiracy to supply false evidence. 12. Expert reports by a Dr. Olsson, an independent forensic linguistics expert, suggest that witness statements have a common author proving that witness coaching occured. 13. There is evidence to suggest that the entire senior echelons of of the Mungiki was involved in a conspiracy to prevent the defence from having a fair trial. 14. It seems witnesses have come up with a plan to confess to having committed crimes during PEV and thereby receive immunity for their cooperation with the Prosecution. A SYNOPSIS OF MY VIEWS a. There is strong evidence by the defence pointing to Abuse of Process which would imply that the court has to grant the application for Permanent Stay. b. If this is not granted then the only logical step would be to go for an evidentiary hearing session, which on account of the evidence, would also imply granting of a Permanent Stay. c. If the judges do not heed the strong evidence presented by the Defence we must question whether President Kenyatta has any chance of making it when the evidence he faces is tainted and fabricated. d. It is important for these Prosecution Intermediaries to be revealed because for all we know it could be the usual Civil Society suspects; a situation that would necessitate a questioning of their motives and allegiances. e. From the little revelations from this application and the fact that we all know Luis Moreno Ocampo never carried out any investigations, it seems these Prosecution Intermediaries are the major sources of Prosecution evidence. f. How is it that Mungiki members are being granted immunity by the ICC after engaging in impunity and confessing to crimes and the same court is denying President Kenyatta immunity on the grounds that doing so would be impunity?
Posted on: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:11:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015