A third prosecution witness was Thursday declared hostile by ICC judges in the trial of Deputy President William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang. International Criminal Court judges Chile Eboe-Osuji, Olga Herrera and Robert Fremr unanimously agreed that witness P516 systematically diverted from the statement he earlier gave prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. The witness has been testifying since Monday through a video link from a secret location in Nairobi. He has insisted that he was asked by two people he met in Eldoret in 2012 to give false statements against Mr Ruto and Mr Sang. While delivering the ruling yesterday, presiding judge Eboe-Osuji said the witness had diverted from his earlier statement and, therefore, qualified to be declared hostile. According to the judge, the witness had met the criteria required by the Rome Statute to be declared hostile by the court. “In the previous two occasions, the chamber granted the prosecution the application because the witnesses had systematically diverted from their statements. Similarly, the chamber grants the application for this witness for the same reason,” said the judge. ADVERTISEMENT NOT BEEN COOPERATIVE In the application, prosecution lawyer Anton Steynberg said the witness was uncooperative and had deliberately rebuffed his earlier account of events in Eldoret North constituency, where Mr Ruto was MP. “The witness has systematically and deliberately departed from his initial statement. The witness has not been cooperative. He refused to testify voluntarily and was forced to do so by this court. He has been extremely evasive, far more evasive than the previous two. “His demeanour has been hostile and he has been uncooperative to the prosecution. We ask that he be declared hostile,” said Mr Steynberg, who cross- examined the witness. The defence teams for Mr Ruto and Mr Sang, however, challenged the prosecution’s request, saying the witness had conducted himself well and had been forthcoming. “The question is whether this witness truly qualifies to be declared hostile. It is not clear-cut that this witness has been adverse to the prosecution case,” said Mr Ruto’s lawyer, Mr David Hooper. The lawyers defended the witness, saying he responded to the court’s summons immediately and had not been evasive in answering the prosecution’s question
Posted on: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 02:46:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015