Africa News Online

PRESSURE MOUNTS ON UHURU TO QUIT AS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

2012-01-28T11:09:00.000+03:00

Pressure continued to mount on Gatundu South MP Uhuru Kenyatta to step down as Deputy Prime Minister. Two State agencies held a press conference in Nairobi Friday urging Uhuru to vacate the office, which they said was higher than that of the Minister for Finance and therefore attracted a higher threshold of integrity. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on Administrative Justice said the same reasons that prevailed against Kenyatta to step down as Minister for Finance apply equally.By Standard Team

The organisations, however, faulted President Kibaki for replacing Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura with the Internal Security Permanent Secretary Francis Kimemia in an acting capacity. They said Kimemia’s appointment and that of Njeru Githae as acting Minister for Finance were unconstitutional.

In a joint statement issued in Nairobi the agencies noted that since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was higher than that of the Ministry of Finance, it attracts a higher threshold of the requisite leadership, integrity and ethical standards. The statement read by Otiende Amollo, the chairman of the Commission on Administrative Justice, said the resignation of Kenyatta and Muthaura should be a precedent.

Drawn criticism

On the two appointments, Mr Otiende said they have keenly perused the Constitution and found no provisions that grant the President the powers to appoint the two positions in acting capacity. Last Thursday, the President appointed Kimemia to act as Head of the Civil Service Chief, and Githae as acting Minister for Finance. Muthaura and Uhuru quit following ICC ruling that confirmed they be tried for crime against humanity.

The continued stay of Muthaura and Kenyatta in Government had drawn criticism from the Civil Society and members of the Orange Democratic Movement. They demanded that the two vacate their offices, as the ICC case goes to trial.

"Kenya has reached a point of no return in the fight against impunity. If Uhuru respects the rule of law, he knows you cannot be DPM and an accused at the same time under the new Constitution," Odoyo Owidi, an aspirant for the Kasipul parliamentary seat, told The Standard On Saturday. "By keeping one leg in, Uhuru is showing that even if he became president, he would not respect the rule of law," he said.

Efforts by Attorney General Githu Muigai to calm the situation through the appointment of a penal of top lawyers to advice the Government on ICC ruling fanned the fire.

Prof Muigai’s advice that the two stay in office until their appeals are heard and determined caused uproar over how the Government was handling the ruling. Yesterday, Otiende who was accompanied by Dr Samuel Tororei and three commissioners from the KNCR also applauded the President for appointing a tribunal to investigate Deputy Chief Justice Nancy Baraza.

THE PUZZLING MUNGIKI LINK IN POST ELECTION CHAOS

2012-01-28T10:44:00.000+03:00

Can all these well documented detailed accounts be a fabrication?

The dreaded Mungiki sect is grabbing headlines again just when Kenyans thought the gang had been vanquished.By The Standard on Saturday Reporter

Former Mungiki leader Maina Njenga. Njenga is said to have received over Sh20m to facilitate attacks. [PHOTO: FILE/STANDARD]

During the announcement of the verdict on the six suspected masterminds of the 2007/2008 post-election violence, it emerged that International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is relying on evidence from some witnesses who are former Mungiki members to argue his case.

The witnesses, whose accounts have been accepted by Pre-Trial Chamber II judges, made sensational claims that President Kibaki at State House, Nairobi, in the presence of Uhuru Kenyatta and Francis Muthaura, twice hosted them. State House has, however, rebutted the claims.

Uhuru and Muthaura are fighting the crimes against humanity charges alongside Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.

Cruel methods

Mungiki, known to kill using cruel methods, has for years instilled fear among ordinary Kenyans, especially in central Kenya and parts of Eastlands area in Nairobi.

Kenyatta and Muthaura have stepped aside from their offices. And the former is facing growing calls to resign as Deputy Prime Minister.

In a popular TV talk show, lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi argued recently that Kibaki should also be concerned with the ruling, which insinuates he was at the State House meeting said to have also been attended by Mungiki sect members.

The Government, through the police, has in the past attempted to crush the sect, which has led to human rights watchers even accusing the Government of extrajudicial killings.

A number of Mungiki leaders have been killed in mysterious circumstances, while two top Mungiki leaders, Maina Njenga and Ndura Waruinge have converted to Christianity and renounced the group.

When Njenga was released from prison in 2009 and said he had turned to Christ, many Kenyans breathed a sigh of relief, believing that that was the final nail on the coffin of the sect.

But evidence adduced before the ICC, which judges took into consideration when ruling on the cases, indicates that Mungiki was alive and kicking in the period preceding and even 2007 General Election, with top politicians said to have used it to advance their motives.

Ocampo’s Case Two, which has Uhuru and Muthaura as the suspects, is centered on illegal acts committed by Mungiki and how the duo used the gang to campaign for Kibaki’s re-election as well as for retaliatory attacks in Naivasha and Nakuru in 2008.

The ruling paints a picture of Mungiki as a gang for hire, always prepared to perform dirty jobs, but which is highly opportunistic.

The ruling details how the proscribed sect arm-twisted Kibaki in 2007 into giving in to outrageous demands by sect leaders

The ruling contains a detailed account of all the meetings at State House Nairobi and the exchanges between gang leaders and Kibaki and his aides, which were aimed at securing Mungiki’s support for his re-election.

Sensational submissions

The judges upheld Ocampo’s sensational submissions last year that State House hosted the gang.

However, during the confirmation the charges hearings, defence teams of Muthaura and Kenyatta argued that the idea of Mungiki members entering State House was "inconceivable".

The judges, however, found that the first meeting held in a tent at State House took place on November 26, 2007 "between Muthaura, Kenyatta, Mungiki representatives, President Mwai Kibaki, and others".

The judges said they believed witness OTP-4, who was present at the meeting as a Mungiki representative.

State House meeting

The witness stated that, among others, a number of named individuals, both on the side of the Mungiki and on the side of the PNU Coalition (Muthaura, Kenyatta, Kibaki, Hyslop Ipu, Isaiya Kabira and Stanley Murage) attended.

Muthaura is said to have introduced the Mungiki members to the President – referring to them, throughout the entire meeting, as "the youth". He is said to have encouraged them to present their demands to President Kibaki in exchange for their support for his campaign.

One of the Mungiki representatives, the judges ruled, presented on behalf of Maina Njenga, a number of demands.

The demands included cessation of extrajudicial killings of Mungiki members, the release from prison of Njenga, and the recruitment of Kikuyu youth the security and armed forces.

The witness, whose testimony the judges upheld, stated that, after hearing the Mungiki demands, the President addressed Muthaura telling him, "Something to the effect, ‘You have heard what the youth want, so now it is upon you’".

Njenga was released in late October 2009 after the State withdrew murder charges for lack of evidence. Njenga had originally been jailed in 2007 over his alleged possession drugs and a firearm.

He was acquitted of those charges in April 2009 and immediately rearrested and charged in connection with the murders of 29 people in the central Kenyan town of Karatina.

Before proclaiming salvation, Njenga had demanded State protection to give evidence against Government officials allegedly involved in sect activities.

At the State House meeting, the judges said Kenyatta spoke as well, and told Mungiki to fully support "the President", invoking their allegiance to the same community.

Witness OTP-4 said at the end of the meeting, Muthaura gave money to the Mungiki representatives. The statements of Witness OTP-11 and Witness OTP-12 independently corroborated his testimony, the judges ruled.

Witness OTP-11 said "Operation Kibaki Again" was a lobby group created by the Mungiki to campaign for Kibaki re-election, while concealing their identity.

Witness OTP-12, also said as part of ‘Operation Kibaki Again’, a number of named Mungiki members went to State House.

The judges further ruled that Mungiki involvement in 2007 campaigns is corroborated by a NSIS Situation Report for 28 November 2007, which stated: "Some Mungiki national officials [...] have resolved to campaign for the President through a lobby group called ‘Operation Kibaki Again’ (OKA), but on conditions that its members would be recruited into the Military/Police, restitution of the group’s vehicles impounded by police, and being allowed to re-open their offices and operation bases."

The judges further ruled that the evidence placed before the chamber provided substantial grounds to believe that, on December 30, 2007, there was a second meeting at State House with Mungiki members and a number of MPs, where Kenyatta was also present.

December 30, 2007, is the day Kibaki was declared president and sworn-in amid protests by ODM that the elections had been rigged.

"This is established to the requisite threshold by the testimony provided by Witness OTP- 11, corroborated by Witness OTP-12 and Witness OTP-6," they said in the verdict.

Witness OTP-11 refers to the occasion as an "urgent" meeting in which Mr Kenyatta said that he had the capability of organising ‘his people’ and mobilising them for any eventuality.

According to the witness, during this meeting, Kenyatta also gave some MPs and Mungiki co-ordinators Sh3.3 million each.

In particular, the witness states that an individual (whose name was redacted) was among the recipients of money to co-ordinate the Mungiki attack in Naivasha. He said money distributed at this meeting was later spent in part, to buy the guns that were used in the attack in Nakuru.

Evidence corroborated

Witness OTP-12 corroborated the account provided by OTP-11, stating that there was a meeting at State House, where the logistics of the attack in Naivasha were planned. The witness further indicated that the provision of Sh3.3 million by Kenyatta to local politicians to mobilise the people from the ground occurred during the State House meeting.

The third meeting, the judges said, was held at the Nairobi Club on January 3, 2008, where "Muthaura and Kenyatta met with Mungiki members and directed them to commit the crimes charged."

According to a witness, whose accounts have been upheld, at the beginning of the meeting, Muthaura told the Mungiki, addressing them in Kikuyu, that since "our community" was being targeted in the Rift Valley, they needed to "revenge or retaliate".

Thereafter, Kenyatta took the floor and asked one Maina Diambo whether the Mungiki "had plans".

Maina Diambo replied confirming that "the ‘youth’ were ready" and that everything depended on "Government officials" and asked whether the police would interfere with the Mungiki operation in the Rift Valley.

At this point, according to the witness, Muthaura called Mr Hussein Ali (whose charges have been dropped), telling him in Kiswahili, "Our youth will be going to the Rift Valley and we don’t want them to be disturbed."

Concessions

The Chamber concluded that the evidence demonstrates that Njenga was approached with, and eventually agreed to the common plan with Muthaura and Kenyatta in exchange for a number of concessions.

In particular, the judges said, the evidence showed Njenga received a significant amount of money on at least two occasions to make available the services of the Mungiki to the PNU Coalition for the commission of the crimes.

Witness OTP-11 stated that around mid-December 2007, Njenga was given Sh8 million from "State House". The witness further clarified that, out of this money, Sh2 million was supposed to be shared by the Mungiki leaders who were directly in contact with the PNU Coalition.

According to Witness OTP-12, in late January 2008, before the commission of the crimes in Naivasha, Maina Njenga was given another Sh20 million, brought to him in prison again by Maina Diambo.

IDA ODINGA CALLS FOR LOCAL TRIAL OF ICC SUSPECTS

2012-01-27T19:13:00.000+03:00

The wife of Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Mrs Ida Odinga. PHOTO / FILE

By NATION REPORTER
Posted Friday, January 27 2012 at 17:22

Ida Odinga has called for the establishment of a local judicial mechanism to try four Kenyan suspects charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.

ICC Pre-trial judges on Monday confirmed charges against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura, Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang.

Mrs Odinga was quick to clarify that she had yet to consult her husband , Prime Minister Raila Odinga, on the matter and was only expressing her opinion as a mother and a wife to a former political prisoner.

“ These are people we have lived with and are like my brothers. These are people known to me personally…. Its better this case be handled in Kenya,” said Ida.

Mrs Odinga said she shares the anguish that the families and the children of the four accused are currently going through.

"Having been a wife of a former prisoner I understand how Rachel (Ruto’s wife), Mama Ngina (Uhuru’s mother) and radio presenter Sang’s wife and children and Mrs Muthaura’s are feeling.

“ My own mother in-law succumbed to depression when his son who is now my husband Raila Odinga was in prison. I understand how the families are feeling. I can tell you its not a good feeling,” said Ida.

She said there was need for a quick closure for all prosecutions related to the 2007 - 2008 post-election violence.

She also called for a speedy resettlement of all IDPs.Mrs Odinga noted that the problems facing the country at this moment can be surmounted by Kenyans themselves.

AFRICAN DICTATORS, KLEPTOCRATS AND THEIR LOVE FOR FOOTBALL

2012-01-27T13:43:00.000+03:00

Photo/FILE As Africa enjoys the soccer fest in Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, critics are questioning the rationale of impoverished countries spending billions of shillings on fleeting fiestas.

By KAMAU MUTUNGA kamau@creative-asylum.net
Posted Friday, January 27 2012 at 00:00

The Africa Cup of Nations kicked off last week in Equatorial Guinea, one of the smallest countries in a continent that’s never short of surprises. Teodorin Obiang, the playboy son of the country’s president, promised the national team Sh87 million for a win against Libya — in the opening match alone — in a soccer fanfare that belies deeper problems that ought to be red-carded.

Equatorial Guinea is co-hosting the tournament’s 28th edition with Gabon, which has forked $500, 000 million towards the biennial soccer fiesta.

Located in the western coast of Africa, Equatorial Guinea borders Cameroon and Gabon. It is the least ranked country in the Nations Cup at position 151 worldwide, and sits calmly behind war-torn Yemen and Samoa in the January 2012 Fifa rankings.

Obiang, the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, is famous for all the wrong reasons. He acquired a mansion in Malibu, a Gulfstream jet and Michael Jackson’s white, crystal-covered glove last year.

That didn’t have him turning his pockets inside out. Instead, he promised a further $20,000 (Sh1.7 million) for every goal scored by the Nzalang Nacional (National Lightening), as the national team is christened.

And Spanish-born Equato-Guinean midfielder Javier-Angel Balboa did not disappoint home fans when he slotted an 87th minute shot into the top corner of the goalpost, past Libyan goalie Samir Abboud, inside the 35,000-seater Bata Stadium in Bata, the former capital city.

The National Lightening won its debut match against Libya with the solo goal and pocketed the $1,020,000.

“They use money, I use mentality,” Libya’s Brazilian coach Marcos Paqueta sneered before the game. A memorable quote this one. One, for its refreshing grammar. Two, for its echo of Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saadi, who in a way was the face of Italian football when money was not a problem.

Anti-poverty activists have protested Obiang’s Sh87 million offer in a country which, for eons, was a malaria-infested backwater teeming with gorillas (the mascot of the tournament), giant frogs, green mamba snakes and a population that lived on less than a dollar a day.

That was before massive oil reserves were discovered off its Atlantic shores in 1995, whereupon the former Spanish colony ceased being the “armpit of Africa”.

Petrodollars from the production of 181,400 barrels a day, natural gas and other hydrocarbons account for more than 81 per cent of the government’s $6.74 billion budget, according to the CIA World Fact Book.

That windfall has pushed the average annual economic growth rate to 41 per cent, which, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is one of the fastest anywhere in the world.

Adjusted for purchasing power, Equatorial Guinea has Africa’s — and one of the world’s — highest per capita incomes, which rose from $590 (Sh50,000) in 1998 to $50,240 (Sh4 million) by 2005.

But, unfortunately, notes the IMF country report, “this wealth has not even led to a measurable improvement in living conditions”. Human Rights Watch says “the dictatorship of President Teondoro Obiang Nguema has used an oil boom to entrench and enrich itself further at the expense of the country’s people”, and that the country is “locked in a harsh reality of repression and grinding poverty”.

Equatorial Guinea, Africa’s third largest producer of oil after Nigerian and Angola, is ranked at the tail end of the United Nation’s Human Development Index (HDI), which, in its assessment, notes that less than half of the population has access to clean drinking water, and that 20 per cent of children die before the age of five.

Unicef lists life expectancy here at 51 years.

While unemployment in the country of 676,000 people, according to 2009 estimates, stands at 22 per cent, the oil industry only employs slightly over 10,000 people, mostly expatriates, and only a mere 1.23 per cent of the GDP is spent on health services, notes Brendan McSherry in The Political Economy of Oil in Equatorial Guinea.

The “resource curse” is such that oil money is spent on misguided projects. Like the construction of a new capital city, Malabo 2, instead of roads connecting villages, new schools or new hospitals.

Corruption watchdog Transparency International slots the country, where oil revenues are a “state secret”, in the top 10 list of most corrupt states in its 2010 Index starring Somalia, Burma and Afghanistan as the medal champs.

Carmelo Modu, the marketing director for the 2012 Cup of Nations, told Associated Press that Equatorial Guinea is “a whole country under construction”, and that the Cup of Nations will “show the word what we are trying to do”.

Teodorin Obiang’s father, the gaunt 68-year-old President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, was in the stadium during the opening ceremony. The Chairman of the African Union is one of Africa’s longest serving heads of state, having ascended to the presidency in a bloody ‘Coup of Freedom’ in 1979 against President Francisco Macias Nguema, his uncle.

‘Papa Macias’, a bhang smoker, had led the country since it gained independence in 1968. But his autocratic rule was punctuated by megalomaniacal sideshows: He had the governor of the central bank killed before he carted what was left in the public coffers to his pad in his rural village, and almost a third of the country was exiled and 65,000 people murdered, according to the Time magazine issue of August, 1979.

But brutality was never going to thwart the dictator’s appointment with destiny. A coup led by Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who was a lieutenant colonel and director of the Black Beach Prison, was imminent.

President Macias, Leader of Steel, The Sole Miracle of Equatorial Guinea, The Grand Master of Education, Science and Culture and President for Life was abandoned by the army, captured in a forest, imprisoned, tried in a military tribunal and executed.

But President Obiang Nguema, the “liberator”, did not bring democracy and freedom to Equato-Guineans. Today, he has one of the world’s worst human rights records, according to Human Rights Watch.

Petrodollars have helped him consolidate his criminal regime, he condones toxic waste dumping, drug trafficking, pirate fishing, arms and aircraft smuggling and forced child labour, writes Robert Klitgaard in Tropical Gangsters.

Klitgaard worked for the World Bank in Equatorial Guinea, where opposition politicians are exiled and dissenters jailed at the torture hellhole that is the notorious Black Beach Prison in Malabo, the current capital city of 150,000 people, according to 2009 estimates.

President Nguema’s government teems with blood relations: the head honcho of the oil business is Gabrial, Nguema’s brother; the inspector general of the Armed forces is his cousin; while his Esangui clan chokes various posts in the civil service.

In 2004, Sir Mark Thatcher, son of former British Premier Margaret Thatcher, wired $285,000 — according to South African police — to mercenaries to help topple and replace President Nguema with opposition leader Severo Moto, who is exiled in Spain.

The coup was thwarted by soldiers loyal to President Nguema. South African Mercenary leader Nick du Toit, who had been promised millions of oil money and concessions if the coup succeeded, is serving 34 years in Black Beach Prison.

Thatcher pleaded guilty and was handed a five-year suspended sentence and fined $560,000 by a South African court in exchange for his confession that saw him escape extradition to Equatorial Guinea.

So why are such countries allowed to spend millions of public money to host the Nations Cup?

Well, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) has, in its pitch-hardened wisdom, a policy of encouraging “new” countries to host the Africa Cup of Nations as a way of forcing their governments to build sports infrastructure whose budgets “could otherwise not have been found”.

CAF uses the tournament as an investment tool, hoping new roads, hotels, airports and media exposure will drive tourism and business, long after the final whistle.

And with each new edition, the Cup of Nations has become an important economic glove in the hand of infrastructure development in host nations.

But EG Justice, an independent voice of reform in Equatorial Guinea, has warned that “the government hopes the recently completed luxury hotels, golf resorts and shiny monuments will disguise the grinding poverty that dominates the lives of most people in the oil-rich nation. They must not be allowed to get away with this deception”.

And as Equatorial Guinea shows off its oil wealth amidst festering poverty, Gabon, the co-host, fares slightly better.

Oil was discovered there in the early 1970s, relegating dependency on timber and manganese. Oil accounts for 50 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product that sees Gabon enjoy a per capita income that is four times that of most sub-Saharan countries, according to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

But 70 per cent of the citizens remain dirt-poor due to high-income inequalities and financial mismanagement that has seen the richest 20 per cent receive over 90 per cent of the income, says UNDP.

That stain aside, and since gaining independence from France in 1960, Gabon has had two presidents, a pointer to its political stability, besides boasting some of the best medical facilities in West Africa: About 90 per cent of the 1.5 million people — the lowest population density in Sub-Saharan Africa — had access to healthcare (an estimated 29 doctors per 100,000) by 2004, says UNDP.

Gabon, slotted 77th in the Fifa ranking, is parading The Panthers, the national team that thrashed Niger 2-0 in their opener at the new 40,000-seater d’Angondje Stadium, which was built with the help of the Chinese government and will host the finals.

AFRICA'S CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS WRITE TO THE AU HEADS OF STATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES IN AFRICA

2012-01-27T13:08:00.000+03:00

January 26, 2012

African States Parties to the ICC

Dear African Heads of State and Foreign Ministers,

On the occasion of the 18th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU)–
which will take place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on January 29-30, 2012–we, the undersigned
African civil society organizations and international organizations with a presence in Africa,
write to share some important developments affecting international criminal justice in Africa
and to encourage African states parties to reaffirm their strong support for the International
Criminal Court (ICC) and its goal of ending impunity for grave international crimes.

Our organizations note that the ICC is not on the formal agenda of the AU Assembly at the
upcoming summit. The summit is however an opportunity for gathered African states parties
to informally exchange observations about recent developments and discuss concrete steps
that they and the AU can take to advance justice for the victims of crimes under international
law, in accordance with Article 4 of the African Union Constitutive Act.

Significant moment in the evolution of the ICC and need for renewed support from Africa

2011 was marked by a number of important developments for justice for crimes under
international law, such as a higher number of ratifications of the ICC Statute than in previous
years, strong popular calls for justice in North Africa, and important elections to top positions
at the ICC that will result in a change of leadership at the institution in 2012.

Six new states ratified the ICC Statute in 2011, thus affirming their support to the values of
justice and accountability it embodies. Among these six states, two are African (Tunisia and
Cape Verde), thus bringing the total number of African states that are parties to the court’s
treaty to 33–still the largest geographical group in the membership of the court. The court
now enjoys support from 120 nations around the world, with ongoing consideration of
possible additional ratifications, including African countries such as Côte d’Ivoire and Egypt.
Mali has also become the first African state party to enter into an enforcement of sentences
agreement with the ICC.

The popular uprisings in North Africa have brought to light the strong desire for justice of
populations that had been subjected to repressive rule for several decades. Because of these
clear aspirations, ratification of the ICC Statute as well as national prosecutions of grave
human rights violations are on the agenda of some of the new governments in that region.
Government changes in North Africa have the potential to bring a positive shift in the way
these countries approach the ICC and accountability for grave crimes. This, in turn, could
lead to a more positive atmosphere on these issues at the AU in the future.

In December 2011, members of the ICC Assembly of States Parties (ASP) elected two
Africans, Fatou Bensouda and Chile Eboe Osuji, for the positions of the chief prosecutor and
judge of the ICC respectively. The two candidates supported by the AU were elected to these
2 positions based on their merit, strong qualifications and experience in international law.
Currently, 5 of the 18 ICC judges are from Africa.

The appointment of African officials to senior offices at the ICC reflects the important role
that individual Africans are playing in contributing to the success of the court and is of great
significance to promoting mutual understanding and strengthening cooperation between the
ICC and the AU. Our organizations hope that African states and the AU will lend their
support to the newly elected ICC prosecutor, while fully respecting her independence.

The new prosecutor and the ICC face important challenges at this juncture. With the addition
of three new situations (Kenya, Libya and Côte d’Ivoire), the ICC has almost doubled its
work-load in not even two years. However, despite this increase in activities, in December
2011, the ASP imposed budgetary cuts on the ICC for 2012 beyond those suggested by the
ASP’s expert financial body. It is clear that the coming year will be challenging for the ICC
to implement its mandate within the resources approved by its member countries.

Another major challenge to the court’s authority and ability to deliver justice is of course the
fact that several suspects against whom the court has issued arrest warrants have still not been
arrested and surrendered for trial, in relation to situations in Uganda, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, the Darfur region of Sudan, and Libya. A further challenge is that
numerous victims in the 8 countries under preliminary examinations in 4 different continents
are still waiting the ICC to advance justice.

In the face of these challenges, and because all situations currently under investigation at the
ICC are in Africa, renewed support from African states and the AU are of particular
importance. The ICC and the AU indeed share a commitment to end impunity for the
perpetrators of the worst crimes around the world.

In this regard, we would like to highlight three areas of action for your consideration:

1. Renew and strengthen dialogue between the AU and the ICC: Despite past
differences of opinion between the ICC and AU, the two institutions have made
efforts to strengthen their ties and collaborate with each other as illustrated by the
joint seminar between the ICC and the AU which took place at the AU headquarters,
in Addis Ababa, on July 18-19, 2011. This type of exercise should be renewed, and
complemented by other regular meetings and exchange of views between the ICC,
African states, and AU officials.

2. Reconsider the creation of an ICC liaison office in Addis Ababa: our organizations
continue to believe that such an office would greatly contribute to consolidating the
understanding and relationship between the ICC and the AU. African states parties
should propose that its establishment be reconsidered and make efforts to reach out to
African states non-parties to the ICC to explain its proposed purpose and functions.

3. Uphold cooperation obligations under the ICC Statute: Full cooperation with the
ICC and respect for the court’s decisions are of paramount importance to preserve the
court’s effectiveness and ability to deliver justice. In this light, we renew our
appreciation to African states parties which have publicly affirmed that they will
abide by their obligations under the ICC Statute, notably with regards to the execution
of pending arrest warrants. These include Botswana and South Africa (in relation to the situation in Darfur), the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda (in relation to the situation in Uganda), and Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger (in relation to the situation in Libya).

The undersigned organizations also congratulate African states parties for adopting, along
with other ICC member countries, important ASP procedures to deal with occurrences of
non-cooperation with the court. This non-cooperation protocol foresees two steps: 1) an early
warning mechanism through which the President of the ASP will use his good offices, with
the assistance of regional focal points, to approach the state party which may find itself in
breach of its ICC obligations with a view to promoting full cooperation; 2) once the court has
referred an issue of non-cooperation, the bureau of the ASP will take some steps to have a
dialogue with the concerned state party and report to the full ASP. These procedures are
crucial to encourage full cooperation with the court.

To be effective, the procedures will require the full support of African states.

Promoting justice before national courts

In light of the ICC’s limited resources, the court cannot be the sole actor in pursuing the fight
against impunity. Under the ICC Statute, states retain the primary responsibility to bring to
justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Recalling
the centrality of the principle of “complementary” jurisdiction in the Rome Statute system,
the undersigned organizations encourage African states parties to the ICC to remain fully
committed to complementarity and national prosecutions of grave international crimes. To
that effect, our organizations call on African states parties to enact effective implementing
legislation of the ICC Statute where such legislation is lacking and to support work towards
strengthening of domestic systems to handle international crimes.

Concerns over the expansion of the African Court’s jurisdiction

In advance of the AU summit of June 18, 2011, many of the undersigned organizations wrote
to African states parties regarding the intention of the AU to expand the jurisdiction of the
African Court of Justice and Human Rights (African Court) to include prosecution of
individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Increased avenues for accountability are positive in principle. However, we are concerned
about the proposed expansion of the court for a number of reasons. Notably, the African
Court already faces serious challenges implementing its current mandate and giving it
jurisdiction over a distinct type of offenses (crimes under international law committed by
individuals, as opposed to human rights violations by states) would require significant time to
establish new expertise and a vast overhaul in the way the court is currently set-up.

Consequently, our organizations encourage African states parties to insist on a number of
conditions to ensure that the expansion of the African court’s jurisdiction will advance the
cause of justice for crimes under international law, including the following:

Wider consultation with civil society and officials of the existing African Court and
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights regarding expansion of the
African Court’s jurisdiction;

Adherence by the African Court to international standards and best practices
regarding any prosecutions of serious crimes in violation of international law;

Recognition that AU member states have the primary obligation to investigate and, if
there is sufficient evidence, prosecute persons suspected of crimes under international
law before their national courts;

Matching political commitment to expand the African Court’s jurisdiction and
personnel, financial and material resources to enable operations in accordance with
international standards and best practices; including effective protection and support
for victims and witnesses, outreach to victims and affected communities, pre-trial
detention, investigations and prosecutions, trials and imprisonment;

Clarity regarding the relationship between an expanded African Court and the ICC.
We hope this information is useful and wish you fruitful consultations at the upcoming
summit.

Yours Sincerely,

1. Action of Christian Activists for Human Rights in Shabunda (ACADHOSHA), DRC
2. African Assembly for the Defense of Human Rights (RADDHO), Senegal
3. African Association for Human Rights (ASADHO), DRC
4. Amnesty International, Ghana
5. Amnesty International, Senegal
6. Amnesty International, Togo
7. Association of Human and Prisoner Rights (ADHUC), Brazzaville, R of Congo
8. Benin Coalition for the ICC, Benin
9. Burundi Coalition for the ICC, Burundi
10. Cameroon Coalition for the ICC, Cameroon
11. Central African Republic Coalition for the ICC, CAR
12. Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law, Sierra Leone
13. Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), Malawi
14. Children Education Society(CHESO), Tanzania
15. Civil Resource Development and Documentation Centre (CIRDDOC), Nigeria
16. Club of Friends of Congolese Law, Democratic Republic of Congo
17. Coalition of Eastern NGOs (CENGOS), Nigeria
18. Coalition for the International Criminal Court, with offices in Benin and the DRC
19. Congolese Coalition for Transitional Justice (CCJT), DRC
20. Congolese Initiative for Justice and Peace (ICJP), DRC
21. Human Rights Network-Uganda (HURINET), Uganda
22. Human Rights Watch, with offices in the DRC, Kenya,Rwanda and SA
23. International Commission of Jurists, Kenya
24. International Crime in Africa Programme (ICAP), Institute for Security Studies (ISS), SA
25. Ivorian Coalition for the ICC, Côte d’Ivoire
26. League for Peace, Human Rights and Justice (LIPADHOJ), DRC
27. National Coalition on Affirmative Action (NCAA), Nigeria
28. Network of Human Rights Associations from Sud Kivu (RADHOSKI), DRC
29. Nigeria Coalition on the ICC (NCICC), Nigeria
30. Speak Human Rights & Environmental Initiative, Mauritius
31. Southern Africa Litigation Centre, South Africa
32. Synergy of Congolese NGOs for Victims (SYCOVI), DRC
33. Uganda Coalition on the International Criminal Court, Uganda
34. West African Bar Association (WABA), Nigeria

AU HEADS FOR FIRST POST GADDAFI SUMMIT AS IT ELECTS NEW LEADER

2012-01-26T20:42:00.000+03:00

JENNY VAUGHAN | AFP Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Jean Ping listens during a meeting of African economic blocs on January 25, 2012, at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa.

By AFP
Posted Thursday, January 26 2012 at 19:00

ADDIS ABABA, Thursday

The African Union is preparing for its first summit since the death of one of its founders Muammar Gaddafi amid a drive by southern nations to wrest influence from the late Libyan’s West African allies.

Many AU summits have been dominated by talks on the continent’s conflict hot spots and contests for the bloc’s rotating chairmanship, held for a year by a president from one of its five regions.

However, the election for the post of chairman of the AU commission — the 54-member body’s main executive arm — is likely to take centre stage after South Africa’s Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma mounted a challenge to the incumbent from Gabon, Jean Ping.

Sources close to Mr Ping say he is confident of re-election, counting on support from French-speaking West and Central Africa countries.

But Ms Dlamini-Zuma, the ex-wife of South African President Jacob Zuma, has launched a tough campaign and has the backing of the 15-member Southern African Development Community.

South Africa has been lobbying hard across the continent to drum up support to win the two thirds of the vote needed, cast in a secret ballot.

For the AU, “one of the most anticipated moments” at this year’s meeting will be those elections for the top AU positions, officials said.

The January 29-30 summit’s official theme is “Boosting Intra-African Trade,” with hopes to promote economic links between African countries, who traditionally have had their strongest trade ties with former colonial powers.AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni said: “The focus is on the election,” which will be held on January 30.

Leaders will also focus on the long-running conflict in Somalia, where the AU has a 10,000-strong force protecting the country’s fragile Western-backed government from the Al-Qaeda-linked Shebab militia.

Mr Mezni said that the summit will also discuss insecurity in the Sahel region, where Al-Qaeda linked fighters also operate in several countries.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will attend the summit alongside Jia Qinglin, chairman of China’s political advisory body — the People’s Political Consultative Conference.

In a demonstration of strengthening ties between Africa and China, Jia will attend the inauguration of the new Chinese-built AU headquarters, a high-tech building that cost $200 million.

With Gaddafi gone, Libya — which used to provide around 15 per cent of the AU’s budget — will be represented by Prime Minister Abdel Rahim al-Kib.

Credited with the founding the AU in Libyan town of Sirte in 1999, the late Libyan leader was famous for hours-long speeches, flamboyant garbs and political clout as a key AU financier.

Meanwhile, Ms Dlamini-Zuma, who is vying to unseat Mr Ping, is one of South Africa’s most powerful women, known for her competent management and stern personality.

A veteran of the fight against apartheid, Ms Dlamini-Zuma, 62, has served in the cabinet of every South African president since Nelson Mandela, who named her health minister after taking office as the country’s first black leader in 1994.

A doctor by training, she served as foreign minister for a decade under Mandela’s successors Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe, earning praise for her shuttle diplomacy to end the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo but raising eyebrows with her unsmiling demeanour and indifference to the media.

Ex-husband

Her ex-husband, current President Jacob Zuma, found her indispensable enough to name her home affairs minister — the post she now holds.

Some saw the appointment as a demotion, but she has won plaudits for turning around a ministry that was mired in mismanagement to achieve a clean audit for the first time in 16 years in 2011.

“She takes her work very seriously. She has the rare quality of putting up very good administrators. She insists on professional and talented administrators, which is why she earned a very good reputation,” said Prince Mashele, a political analyst at the Centre for Politics and Research, who worked with Dlamini-Zuma’s ministry when she was foreign minister.

“I thought she could do better if she was a little more affable, but that’s not her personality. She prefers to project a serious face almost all the time,” he told AFP.

No woman has held the post of chair of the Commission of the African Union. The AU’s 54 heads of state and government will hold a secret ballot at a summit in Addis Ababa on January 28-29 to decide whether Ping, who has held the post since 2008, gets a new term.

Born January 27, 1949, in what is now the eastern province of KwaZulu-Natal, Ms Dlamini-Zuma took up student politics in high school and went on to join the anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC).

In the 1970s, as her activism drew increasing attention from the white regime’s security forces, she went into exile, continuing her studies at the universities of Bristol and Liverpool in Britain while helping organise the anti-apartheid movement overseas.

Working as a paediatrician and moving up the ranks of the ANC, she bounced between the party’s branches in Britain and southern Africa.

She met Zuma while working at a public hospital in Swaziland in the early 1980s and became the polygamist exile’s third wife in 1982.

When the ANC’s ban was lifted in 1990, Dlamini-Zuma returned to South Africa. She won a spot on the party’s national executive committee and after the first democratic elections was tapped by Mandela to transform the country’s segregated health system.

She is remembered for introducing legislation that overhauled the highly unequal system and gave poor people access to free basic care.

But Dlamini-Zuma has also been criticised for championing a controversial anti-AIDS drug that was later proved ineffective, and for commissioning an AIDS education play called “Sarafina II” that became the butt of jokes for its huge budget and small audiences.

She and Zuma divorced in 1998.

When her ex-husband fell out with Mbeki and moved to oust him as ANC leader in 2007, she ran against the Zuma ticket in party elections, standing as Mbeki’s candidate for deputy ANC president.

Zuma won the vote and went on to become president, but kept his ex-wife in his cabinet — one of the only Mbeki allies to avoid the boot.

“She is an astute politician, a veteran, the experience she acquired as foreign minister puts her in good stead to take over this role” at the AU, said Keith Gottschalk from the University of the Western Cape.

“Her hands on approach makes her a politician of high calibre,” he added.

“We are pleased to receive the prime minister of Libya,” said Maxwell Mkwezalamba, the AU Commissioner for Economic Affairs.

A new Libyan permanent representative will also be appointed, replacing the previous envoy under Gaddafi.“He will be given the opportunity to address the assembly and to testify their commitment to (being) a member state.”

The organisation only recognised Libya’s new leaders last September, after having failed to assert itself as a mediator in the conflict.

Leaders will also choose a new chairman for the pan-African body, an annual secret ballot held every January.

The next chairman will come from the west African region to replace the current one, Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema, whose election was condemned by rights group over his poor rights record at home.

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh or Benin’s leader Boni Yayi are Obiang’s likely successors, according to diplomatic sources.

(AFP)

UHURU, MUTHAURA BOW TO PRESSURE, STEP ASIDE

2012-01-26T16:34:00.000+03:00

Posted Thursday, January 26 2012 at 15:54

Kenya's Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Head of Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet Francis Muthaura step aside from office after ICC pre-trial Judges confirmed charges levelled against them.

Mr Kenyatta will however retain his post as Deputy Prime Minister.

President Kibaki accepted the decision of the two to step aside and appointed Nairobi Metropolitan Minister Njeru Githae to act as Finance Minister. Internal Security Permanent Secretary Francis Kimemia also takes over Mr Muthaura's duties on an acting capacity.

Mutea Iringo will be Acting Permanent Secretary for Provincial Administration and Internal Security.

A statement from the President Press Service stated: "His Excellency the President has accepted the decision by Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta, EGH, M.P. to step aside as the Minister for Finance. However, Hon. Kenyatta will retain the position of Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with the Constitution."

His Excellency the President has appointed Hon. Robinson Githae, EGH, M.P. Minister for Nairobi Metropolitan Development, to be the Acting Minister for Finance."

His Excellency the President has also accepted the decision by Amb. Dr. Francis K. Muthaura, EGH to step aside as Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Public Service."

In this regard, Mr. Francis T. Kimemia, CBS Permanent Secretary, Provincial Administration and Internal Security will be Acting Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of Public Service."

GROUPS SEEK COURT ORDER TO BAR UHURU AND RUTO FROM PRESIDENTIAL RACE

2012-01-26T16:01:00.000+03:00

Updated 15 hr(s) 49 min(s) ago

The quest for presidency by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP, William Ruto is now facing opposition.By Judy Ogutu

Three voters - Mr Patrick Njuguna, Mr Augustino Netto, Mr Charles Omanga, Kenya Youth Parliament and Kenya Youth League have moved to court seeking orders to bar the candidates from contesting for presidency.

In a suit filed at the High Court in Nairobi, the petitioners say allowing Uhuru and Ruto to run for public office would be a recipe for chaos.

The three have sued Attorney General Prof Githu Muigai.

They have named Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the Commissionon of Implementation of the Constitution as interested parties to the suit.

Through their advocate, Mr Anthony Oluoch, they argue that allowing the two to run for presidency would also amount to perpetuating a culture of impunity.

They are also seeking orders to bar IEBC from accepting nomination or election of any candidate accused of committing serious offences under the International law or Kenyan law until they are cleared.

Public interest

The petitioners also argue that the candidature of Uhuru and Ruto is a threat to the Constitution.

They want the court to determine whether the decision by the two to vie for presidency, despite confirmation of charges against them in The Hague-based court, would be a threat to the Constitution.

Further, they want the court to determine whether presumption of innocence in favour of the two persons overrides the overwhelming public interest to ensure protection and upholding the principles of the Constitution.

The petitioners want the court to declare that presumption of innocence of the two does not override public interest. The petition comes after ICC confirmed charges against Uhuru, Ruto and Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura and radio journalist Joshua Arap Sang.

The ICC’s majority ruling was made by Judges Ekaterina Trendafilova and Cuno Tarfusser on Monday.

Judge Hans-Peter Kaul dissented, saying the crimes did not meet the threshold of the international court.

He was of the opinion that Kenya can handle the cases.

During the 2007/2008 post-election violence more than 1,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced from their homes.

The petitioners argue that the Constitution has placed specific requirements or standards for public office holders, among them high level integrity.

They contend that that each individual seeking public office or aspiring to be President in Kenya must pass the integrity test as per the Constitution.

Although the Rome Statute does not prevent the two from vying for any elective post, they petitioners say if allowed it would go against the Constitution.

According to Article 73 (2) (b) of the Constitution, the guiding principles of leadership and integrity include election/selection to office on the basis of personal integrity, competence and suitability.

Others are objectivity, impartiality in decision making and in ensuring that decisions are not influenced by nepotism favoritism other improper motives and corrupt practices.

The petitioners want the case to be certified urgent and the matter referred to Chief Justice Willy Mutunga to constitute a bench to hear the matter.

The case comes up today (Thursday).

CIVIL SOCIETY SAYS GITHU MUIGAI IS A FAILURE

2012-01-26T15:53:00.000+03:00

Updated 15 hr(s) 44 min(s) ago

Civil society organisations have criticised the Government over the formation of an ad-hoc committee to advice on the ICC case terming Attorney General Githu Muigai a failure.By Felix Olick

National Civil Society Congress (CSCS) and The Constitution and Reform Education Consortium (Creco) claimed that the agenda of the ten-member team was to scuttle the ICC process. They claimed the team was not committed to justice for post-election violence victims.

The civil society organisations further accused the AG of serving narrow and selfish interests.

Led by CSCS President Morris Odhiambo and Creco Chairman Tom Kagwe, the civil society organisations insisted that Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura must resign.

"The agenda of the AG and his pay masters is to scuttle the ICC process. Two lawyers in that committee had previously worked for the Government to defer the cases. But those designs will be defeated because they are not designs for justice," said Mr Odhiambo.

Speaking at Lenana Conference Centre in Nairobi yesterday, they called on the President to ask Muthaura and Uhuru to vacate office in respect to Chapter Six of the Constitution.

"If somebody can be asked to resign for harassing a guard, why should people who are accused of serious crimes against humanity remain in office," said Creco Executive Secretary Kanive Wambua.

Parliamentary Accounts Committee chairman Bonny Khalwale has said the appointment of a 10-man panel by the Attorney General to analyse the ICC ruling is a waste of public resources. Dr Khalwale said President Kibaki’s directive to Prof Muigai to form the panel comprising two foreign lawyers and eight Kenyans was an admission that there are no competent local institutions and lawyers to advise him on the ICC.

Coast Women in Development has accused President Kibaki of impunity terming his move to create a legal team an insult to Kenyans.

But Law Society of Kenya chairman Kenneth Akide said the value of the team the AG has appointed is well known to him and the President.

—Additional reports by Linah Benyawa and Athman Amran

DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE FILES CASE TO BAR KIBAKI'S TRIBUNAL

2012-01-26T15:43:00.000+03:00

By NATION TEAM
Posted Thursday, January 26 2012 at 12:53

Suspended Deputy Chief Justice Nancy Baraza on Thursday filed a case seeking to stop the tribunal appointed by President Kibaki from investigating her conduct.

President Kibaki suspended Ms Baraza on Wednesday and appointed a tribunal chaired by former Tanzanian Chief Justice Augustino Stephen Lawrence Ramdhan to investigate onto her alleged misconduct.

Ms Baraza is accused of assaulting and threatening to shoot Ms Rebecca Kerubo, a guard at the Village Market shopping mall, on New Year's eve.

The suspension got a further dramatic twist after a prisoner at the Malindi GK Prison also filed a case against the decision of the JSC to petition President Kibaki to form the tribunal.

Emmanuel Boki Kibagendi filed the case at the High Court in Malindi challenging the decision by JSC to petition the President to suspend the embattled Deputy Chief Justice and appoint a tribunal to investigate her.

Mr Kibagendi filed the case under a certificate of urgency but there was no judge to hear. Malindi Resident Judge Christine Meoli was said to be on vacation.

The case could be heard in Mombasa next week.

Mr Kibagendi cites five grounds in his case in which he says the findings of the sub-committee appointed by the JSC were arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional and that the execution of the same would amount to unlawful and unconstitutional punishment in breach of five specific articles of the constitution.

The prisoner faults the JSC for adopting a report by its sub-committee, saying it relied on hearsay and that it failed to consider various articles and sections of the constitution.

Mr Kibagendi, who is not represented, said he was filing the petition under article 22 (10)(a)(b) of the constitution and said the matter should be heard urgently and on priority basis since the JSC ruling and the intended petition to the President “will and shall be arbitrary, illegal and unlawful”.

He asked the court to take note that the findings of the subcommittee appointed to interrogate the allegations against Ms Baraza were driven and based on personal relations and pose a conflict of interest in the management of justice and not facts.

THE HAGUE RULING SENDS KENYA GOVERNMENT ON A SPIN

2012-01-26T12:39:00.001+03:00

By Jerry Okungu

Nairobi, Kenya

January 24, 2012

Finally the ICC Pretrial Chamber delivered its verdict. It found four of the six Kenyans responsible for the atrocities that devastated Kenya four years ago. Incidentally two of them came from the PNU as one came from the ODM with a fourth accused being a confessed party-less radio broadcaster.

Since this ruling was given on Monday evening, several strange reactions have been recorded from all quarters of the Kenyan political class as well as the rank and file of its population. At the center of this controversy is William Ruto, a former minster for Higher Education and an ego-centric politician who believes that he will be Kenya’s next president in a few months time come rain or shine. Along with him is Uhuru Kenyatta, Jomo’s son who too believes that the presidency should continue in the house of Mumbi soon after Mwai Kibaki retires.

The irony of it all is that these two ambitious Kenyans and their supporters are so hell bent on having their way, the provisions of the present constitution and its high integrity standards notwithstanding. All they want to see is that the presidency of Kenya goes to these men with a case to answer at The Hague. That at least is how TV commentator Mutahi Ngunyi sees it.

The reason they are facing trial at The Hague is because William Ruto masterminded the killing of Kikuyus in the Rift Valley, more specifically the burning of innocent Kenyans in that Kiambaa church on that fateful day at the height of the post election violence. Furthermore, he is accused of masterminding the displacement of thousands of non Kalenjins in the Rift Valley most of them from Kikuyu community.

Uhuru Kenyatta on the other hand is accused of masterminding and financing militias that carried out reprisal killings against Luos, Luhyas and Kalenjins in Naivasha and Nakuru. Like in Eldoret, there were massacres, burning of families in their homes and massive dislocation of innocent Kenyans that had nothing to do with election results.

Yet, now, some of the most vocal commentators who see nothing wrong in crimes these men are suspected of have quickly rushed to TV networks with some of the most bizarre utterances urging Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto to vie for the highest office on the land as running mates. The question to ask is this: will the ordinary Kikuyu and Kalenjin who suffered the atrocities of the 2008 post election violence, who lost relatives or whose relatives were displaced and still languishing in IDP camps vote for these two gentlemen who have yet to prove their innocence at The Hague?

Assuming that Mutahi Ngunyi’s logic of rallying the Kalenjins and Kikuyus behind Uhuru and Ruto works for them how will the two politicians navigate the legal and constitutional encumbrances of the new election rules? Will they ignore criminal charges and move on with their politics as usual? Will the rest of Kenyans still vote them in office knowing that they are voting in office individuals facing charges of crimes against humanity in an international court? How will they conduct their campaigns as they attend court hearings thousands of miles away? Of course they can buy special jets to shuttle them between Nairobi and Amsterdam should the need arise! How about running the country should they win the elections? Or will we have another Omar El Bashir situation in Kenya?

The Hague verdict has thrown another spanner in the coalition government. Two of the accused are serving high ranking officials in the coalition government- specifically serving the PNU side of the coalition. Francis Muthaura is Kibaki’s Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service. The other is Uhuru Kenyatta who serves as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

When in early last year, the six suspects were named by the ICC Prosecutor as the culprits responsible for the 2008 mayhem, Kenyans expected those serving in public offices to vacate office on account of failing integrity test after having been adversely mentioned in The Hague Court. However, the three officials refused to resign and were literally shielded by the President. At that time President Kibaki claimed that they were merely suspects and that their resignations were not necessary until the ICC confirmed their charges.

Now that charges have been confirmed for Francis Muthaura and Uhuru Kenyatta, the President has changed tune or should I say moved the goal posts?

Now he says through his Attorney General that the two will not vacate office unless they are convicted!

As much as this statement has baffled many Kenyans, a few of them are asking one fundamental question: are there two sets of laws governing two sets of Kenyans?

This question could not have come at a worse time for the President and the Attorney General bearing in mind that just a week earlier, the Deputy Chief Justice was accused of pinching a security guard’s nose and was hastily condemned by the Judicial Service Commission and speedily recommended to the same President for suspension and trial by a tribunal. The President has since suspended Baraza and set up a tribunal to probe her. Now what Kenyans are demanding to know from Githu Muigai and the President is this: between pinching a guard’s nose and masterminding the murder of 1500 Kenyans and displacing 600,000 more, which one of these crimes is more heinous?

Mutula Kilonzo is the Minister for Justice in Kenya, a Senior State Counsel and Secretary General of the ODM Kenya, a party that belongs to the Vice President. For crying loud, Mutula is pleading with Muthaura and Uhuru to do the only honorable thing, stand aside from their public offices and withdraw from the race for presidency but nobody from the government he serves is listening. Instead we see the AG usurping the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and now wants to set up a special court to try 5000 suspects of the 2008 post election violence. He also wants to bring back the four ICC suspects to be tried in Nairobi four years later! Where were these people when Martha Karua, Gitobu Imanyara, Paul Muite, Raila Odinga, and Kofi Annan were pleading for a local tribunal?

Finally, why is President Kibaki not asking Francis Muthaura to step aside when in the past he let Alfred Gitonga, Kiraitu Murungi, David Mwiraria, Amos Kimunya, Moses Wetangula, Henry Kosgey, William Ruto and a host of Permanent Secretaries step aside when the law required? Is there something the President knows in this case that we do not know?

jerryokungu@gmail.com

WHY WE MUST CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR GENDER PARITY IN EDUCATION SECTOR

2012-01-26T12:26:00.000+03:00

By Mercy Gathoni Njugu

Nairobi, Kenya

Achieving gender parity at every level of education is a key requirement of the Millennium Development Goals. A few years ago there was such a big disparity in enrollment, performance and eventually graduation between girls and boys.

Over the years as a result of cultural changes, government intervention and other measures the disparity has greatly reduced.

While announcing the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education results, The Minister of Education Sam Ongeri announced the gender ratio during the 2011 KCPE Examination stood at 51.6% boys:48.4% girls which was an indication that we had almost achieved gender parity at a

Despite the dramatic expansion in primary enrolment, there are still some issues that need to be addressed such as high drop-out rates of female students, and gender disparity which remains high in some counties .Mandera district for example had 70% boys and 30% girls who sat for the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education according to the 2011 results.

There are over 1.7 million estimated school-aged children who remain outside the education system. Many of these children are nomadic pastoralists in the dry and sparsely populated northeast.

To reach these students, the government, together with UNICEF and other donors, is experimenting with a range of innovative but costly projects. These include mobile classrooms, greater numbers of boarding schools and feeding schemes, and outreach to parents and community leaders about the importance of providing their children particularly their daughters with a formal education.

The girl child remains vulnerable to many social challenges that affect education opportunities.

In an exhaustive study of strategies for attracting African girls to school and keeping them there, World Bank researcher Eileen Kane reported in 2004 that girls’ enrolment and dropout rates are much more likely than those of boys to be affected by circumstances such as the distance to school, class size, adequate sanitary facilities, school security and lunch programs. The absence of female teachers has also been a disincentive for girls and their parents.

Poverty, early marriage and the need for household labor on the farm or at home, contribute to higher drop-out rates among older girls .According to statistics from the Ministry of Education, it is shown that while a greater percentage of boys drop out of school in standards 1–5, girls are more likely to leave in standards 6–8. This is mainly caused by early marriages, child labor or even pregnancies. Reaching and maintaining gender parity is therefore a challenge in Kenya.

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in education is still possible in Africa and in other developing regions, This can however be achieved if the government continues relentlessly to come up ways of overcoming challenges that bring about gender disparities. The involvement of the international community cannot be ignored and they should also continue assisting in this endeavour. Community and religious leaders have a role to play to ensure that parents engaging in cultural practices that interfere with the girl child’s education are well informed and persuaded to enroll and maintain the girls in school.

“Study after study has taught us that there is no tool for development more effective than the education of girls.

No other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, improve nutrition and promote health, including the prevention of HIV/AIDS.”

– Kofi Annan, Former UN Secretary-General

DETAILED NSIS REPORTS HELPED OCAMPO'S CASE

2012-01-26T12:13:00.000+03:00

By EMEKA-MAYAKA GEKARA gmayaka@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Wednesday, January 25 2012 at 22:30

IN SUMMARY

Information revealed graphic details of planned attacks but the state did not act

Reports filed by the national spy agency played a key role in convincing International Criminal Court judges that four suspects who now face trial in The Hague have a case to answer.

The situation analyses by the National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) were used to corroborate witness testimonies, especially relating to the violence in Naivasha, Nakuru and the North Rift.

In their decision, the judges indicated that NSIS reports submitted to the Waki Commission which investigated the post election violence and were later passed on to the ICC prosecutor were used to reinforce arguments by witnesses who incriminated the suspects.

NSIS Director-General Michael Gichangi testified before the Waki commission on July 21, 2008 and part of his evidence was adduced in camera.

He said that NSIS had names of politicians who bank rolled militias to cause violence and requested to reveal their identities in private.

“We established they were politicians who were seeking elective posts such as civic leaders and Members of Parliament as well as others from the private sector,” he said.

ICC Pre-trial judges have committed Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Eldoret North MP William Ruto, Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura, and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang to trial in connection with 2008 killings in Naivasha, Nakuru and Rift Valley.

Although the defence teams had hoped to demonstrate that the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were unreliable, the Pre-Trial Chamber found that many of their assertions were backed up by official government records produced by the spy agency.

The judges also relied on reports by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and the Waki commission.

The detailed analysis of the situation on the ground prior to the major attacks which took place during the weeks of mayhem also show that the government was aware of plans for violence but did little to prevent it.

The agency indicated that by November 2007, Kalenjin youth were already harbouring plans to attack the Kikuyu and Kisii in parts of Rift Valley to disenfranchise the two communities for supporting certain politicians.

The judges cited NSIS situation reports of January 23, 2008 which explicitly mention a suspect allegedly organising Mungiki members to attack non-Kikuyus.

Similarly, on January 15, 2008, the NSIS reported that “Kikuyu youth in Naivasha were planning to revenge violence meted to their kinsmen in Narok by attacking the Maasai, the Luhya and the Luo in Naivasha.”

In a January 2008 report, NSIS said that “some senior Kalenjin personalities were funding ODM activists to organise youth for violence.”

Planned attacksIn his testimony before the Waki commission, Major-Gen Gichangi pointed out that some youths took oaths to commit atrocities during the post-election period.

They did this with blessings from politicians.

As early as January 3, 2008, the spy agency had information that Mungiki members were meeting to carrying revenge attacks on Luos and Kalenjins travelling along Nairobi-Naivasha highway.”

On January 28, 2008, it reported allegations that armed Mungiki sect members wearing police uniforms had been moving from house to house in Nakuru posing as police officers in search of members of certain communities whom they would then attack.

Add a comment (1 comments so far)

Submitted by jpchibole
During the confirmation hearing, the lawyers of the accused mentioned the name of Raila more than Kibaki's. However the final verdict from the judges mention Kibaki more than Raila. By the way is there anywhere Raila is mentioned in the judges' report?
Posted January 26, 2012 12:25 AM

US URGES KENYA TO COOPERATE WITH ICC

2012-01-26T11:58:00.000+03:00

WASHINGTON — The United States on Monday urged Kenya and its people to continue cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC) which ruled that four key Kenyans should be tried over post-election unrest.

“We believe accountability for the 2007-2008 post-election violence is critical to ensuring Kenya?s democracy, peace, and long-term stability,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement.

The Hague-based ICC said Monday that charges of crimes against humanity had been confirmed against presidential candidates William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta over deadly unrest that erupted following a disputed 2007 presidential vote.

Ruto and Kenyatta are allies of Kenya’s President Mwai Kibaki.

Two other Kenyans, radio host Joshua arap Sang, 36, and Francis Muthaura, 65, the head of Kenya’s civil service, will also face trial. Ruto and Sang were opposition supporters in 2007.

More than 1,100 people died in the post-election violence, shattering Kenya’s image as a beacon of regional stability. While Washington makes no judgment as to the innocence or guilt of the four suspects, it calls on Kenya to live up to the spirit of its new constitution “which embraces transparency, accountability and integrity,” Nuland said.

“We urge the Kenyan government, the people of Kenya, and the individuals involved to continue to cooperate fully with the ICC proceedings and to remain focused on Kenya?s future, especially through implementation of the reform agenda,” Nuland said.

“The United States is committed to continuing to support Kenya’s ambitious reform process as Kenya looks ahead to its first national elections under the new constitution,” Nuland said.

Associated Press

========================================================================The

BEWARE OF EVIL BRAINS

US state Dept spokes Person is behind the news. Kibaki and Co. have already hit the road with well laid out plans to circumvent, derail, scuttle, trash, and sabotage the ICC process. It was not a spontaneous swift reaction by the look of it; it was in the making for some time.

Kibaki is thawing the much globally discredited and laughed at ‘shuttle diplomacy’ spearheaded by his VP, a.k.a. VIPER, to rubbish the ICC confirmation hearings, in the micro-wave oven, to cook again . Not a single head of state/govt, even the tin-pot dictators, save for the then withering Gaddafi supported his nefarious plans.

The AG, a Kibaki man to boot, had been entrusted with cobbling up a “legal panel”, whatever it means, to advise the govt on the course of action responding to the ICC verdict. The team was ready in hours! The plan had been perfected months before, for sure.

The AG, the DPP and the out-going Police Commissioner who hopes to manipulate the selection panel to make his come back, all Kibaki die-hards have constituted themselves into an ‘agency’ as a newspaper put it, to study and dispense expeditiously with the 5000+ cases pending in courts against the middle and lower level perpetrators of the PEV of 2007/8. One can imagine howfast their efforts will bear fruits and to whose advantage!

The AG has categorically stated that the govt has no intention of requiring Uhuru Kenyatta and Ambassador Muthaura, the two of the master perpetrators of the PEV related genocide, forced translocation, rape and other crimes against humanity to resign, or at least to step down voluntarily.

His warped logic is that they are charged by the ICC in their personal capacities, and not as state officers! Then how come this poor country that can’t feed millions of her hungry citizens or afford to provide minimum health care or repair dilapidated infrastructure like roads, spent 35 million shillings on a much laughed at, discredited, and maligned bail out plan, derisively known as ‘Kibaki’s Shuttle Diplomacy’, spearheaded by hos VP a.k.a. VIPER? How come that the govt is planning to foot the accommodation, subsistence and legal bills of the accused?

There is every indication that Kibaki is taking us to a narrow gully from which we as a nation may not be extricated easily. Kenya govt is on the way to have the dubious distinction of aiding and abetting a defendant in the ICC docks present himself as a presidential candidate, and another one advising the president on state and other matters. Nothing short of an East-African version of the Arab Spring can save us from this conglomeration of devilish forces.

Kibaki’s dictionaries do not have the entry – ‘legacy’. He does not give a damn even if the word does exist. He is so egotistic, selfish, self-centered, tribalistic and devoid of any benevolent human feelings such as empathy, sympathy, gratitude, and most certainly shame when it comes to guilty conscience about a mistake committed, and one that animals are not endowed with. An animal can’t blush, they say!

Kibaki will gleefully amble from the state house to his new Sh.500 million palace hopefully with a permanently sedated Lucy in tow to enjoy his sunset years, under protection of an international criminal, while molten brimstone rain on other pumpavu-chicken-shit-bure-kabisa- Kenyans!.

KIBAKI ATTENDED MUNGIKI MEETING AT STATE HOUSE, SAYS ICC

2012-01-26T00:44:00.000+03:00

Mungiki leader Maina Njenga leaves Nyeri High Court in 2009. The Attorney General, through state counsel Charles Orinda, terminated the case through the nolle prosequi against Mr. Njenga and 21 other suspects who faced 29 counts of murder. Photo/ JOSEPH KANYI

By OLIVER MATHENGE omathenge@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Tuesday, January 24 2012 at 22:30

International Criminal Court judges say they are convinced Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura and President Kibaki met Mungiki members at State House in Nairobi.

However, State House has denied the claims and President Kibaki even sent a personal statement to the International Criminal Court (ICC) during the confirmation of charges hearings against Mr Muthaura, delinking himself from the Mungiki. (READ: Kibaki’s personal statement read in Muthaura defenc e)

But the judges, in their ruling on Monday, poured cold water on President Kibaki’s denial, saying that they approached his statement and that of former State House Comptroller Hyslop Ipu “with reservation” and considered that they could not be regarded as decisive in the determination of whether a Mungiki meeting never took place at State House.

“The evidence placed before the Chamber provides substantial grounds to believe that, following these preliminary contacts, Mr Muthaura and Mr Kenyatta directly participated in a number of meetings with Mungiki leaders.

In particular, the Chamber is satisfied that there are substantial grounds to believe that on 26 November 2007 a meeting was held at Nairobi State House between Mr Muthaura, Mr Kenyatta, Mungiki representatives, President Mwai Kibaki, and others,” they said in the ruling. (READ: State House and city club linked to chaos)

The judges say that the evidence presented by anonymous prosecution witnesses proved that the first of such meetings aimed at securing Mungiki support for the President was held on November 26, 2007.

The judges say that Mungiki was represented by Mr Maina Diambo and two other individuals they have blacked out on the ruling.

The PNU side was represented by President Kibaki, Mr Muthaura, Mr Kenyatta, Mr Hyslop Ipu, Mr Isaiya Kabira and Mr Stanley Murage.

“The occurrence, purpose and subject of this meeting are established, to the requisite threshold and in considerable detail, by the statement of Witness OTP 4, who was present at this meeting as a Mungiki representative,” the judges said in the ruling.Also present but whose name has been blacked out by the judges is a former central Kenya MP.

The Mungiki demands included the cessation of extrajudicial killings of its members, the release from prison of Mr Maina Njenga and the recruitment of Kikuyu youth into the security and armed forces.

The judges said that Witness OTP 4 stated that, after hearing the Mungiki demands, the President addressed Mr Muthaura, telling him “something to the effect of: ‘You have heard what the youth want, so now it is upon you’”.

During the hearings, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Muthaura argued that the evidence from the witness should be disregarded due to inconsistencies in his testimony to the Waki Commission and that given to the ICC.

However, the judges said in their ruling that some of the inconsistencies cited by the defence were errors of omission that did not alter the substance of the evidence.

The judges said that the inconsistency raised in relation to Mr Kenyatta’s involvement in the meeting was to be “more appropriately qualified as an omission” since the witness did not state to the Waki Commission that the Deputy Prime Minister was not present at the meeting at State House.

“In regards to the difference in the time of the alleged commencement of the meeting (11am versus 11.45am), the Chamber considers this difference as minimal and as such immaterial.

“Similarly, the Chamber considers as immaterial the alleged inconsistencies in relation to the amount of money received by the witness,” the ruling reads.

The judges also say that the witness testimonies brought to the court by Mr Muthaura’s defence from youth who met President Kibaki on the same day do not contradict the prosecution witness.

« Previous Page 1 | 2

Add a comment (42 comments so far)

Submitted by livypal
If the ICC has the evidence that the President chaired the Mungiki meeting whose agenda was to kill and destroy lives of Kenyans, then why did the ICC fail to include him among other suspects?????
Posted January 25, 2012 10:26 PM
Submitted by RKW
@arorin, people should know one thing you seem to put foward. Kenyans will rise together or fall together. Thats the bottom line. Hata Raila akishinda and i wish him well in that effort, things wont change so long as kenyans dont stand together. When people disgaree, let it be on facts, policies and principles and thats great and not because of of the tribe of the persons. They had no say choosing their tribe.
Posted January 25, 2012 09:59 PM
Submitted by muruanyaurui
This a cery tough political bind. I think a different PR exercise is needed by the SH. Denials and posturing won't wash, not at this time. Not when the same arguments have been shot down by the ICC.
Posted January 25, 2012 09:09 PM
Submitted by Ukweliwamambo
As CEO of the country, the President meets many people. As a presidential candidate he meets even more people.The important thing here is not the meeting but a foolproof link between the meeting and the violence. Unless someone did a "Githongo", this will not be possible.
Posted January 25, 2012 06:19 PM
Submitted by sillbog
now i think it is clear why kalonzo was sent out there then hon. watengula to sudan coz kibaki knew the outcome .may be with al bashill at the icc thus why he had to apologize to him. then the state address for calm. them AG they will be in office. honestly using the same taxes money from those that they have been accuse of of killing??
Posted January 25, 2012 06:13 PM
Submitted by arorin
There is no way Kibaki can commit UK and Muthaura to the ICC trial. He will be exposing himself to high risk. Remember that Muthaura works under his instructions and can easily incriminate his boss by spilling the beans. I think we would rather bring this thing back home and sortt it out kienyenji otherwise we may be forced to go for an early election. Notice that RAO is unusaully so so quiet. Lets pray for us and stop condemning each other. We all failed our nation in one way or another.
Posted January 25, 2012 06:03 PM
Submitted by koirotweet
does that explain the panic mode on the side of the president to the effect that he ordered the AG to come up with a team to ostensibly elaborate on ways to ease the troeble that the suspects are facing.the times to be afraid are here.
Posted January 25, 2012 05:29 PM
Submitted by livypal
This is getting uglier and the President may need to consider and prepare the nation for elections at the earliest time possible.
Posted January 25, 2012 05:18 PM
Submitted by MaryTorit
NA BADO MAPMBANO. Ocampo does not even need to lose sleepless nights following this up, the Ocampo 4 will do all for him - the can of warms is now open
Posted January 25, 2012 05:10 PM
Submitted by mboka
I would love to see Kibaki and Raila as jailmates after the coalition is over.
Posted January 25, 2012 05:04 PM
Submitted by Kabukusana
I am shocked, just shocked by these revelations (note the heavy use of irony). And I bet you are, too.
Posted January 25, 2012 04:13 PM
Submitted by kaliyeesa1
If it is true that President Mwai, Muthaura and Uhuru attended a meeting at the state house with "Mungiki" members, President Mwai should resign and vice president Kalonzo to take over the leadership of Kenya immediately. In addition, Muthaura and Uhuru should also leave their offices immediately. Kenyans, this is the time to cremate this Kenyan monster known as the "impunity" once and for all. As Brother Tutu has reminded us over and over again, "...if you are silent in situations of injustices, you have taken the side of the oppressor."
Posted January 25, 2012 04:06 PM
Submitted by Akilinimali
The PNU defense strategy rests on trying to bamboozle the ICC judges with the false and puny majesty and dignity of an African president, suspected of having fiddled with the elections, who comforts and keeps the company of the Bashirs and Gbagbos of this world, and whose close associates now face very serious charges...it won't work of course, but more importantly t-h-e-r-e i-s n-o t-i-m-e
Posted January 25, 2012 02:58 PM
Submitted by muruja
who started the violence and why? who was to it, was it not predetermined? whats the work of commander in chief? is it not to protect lives of citizens whichever means? if a thief breaks your your house and he's armed what can you do? the violence was planned from the referendum. who in kenya doesnt know. only God who can save us not courts.
Posted January 25, 2012 02:48 PM
Submitted by kenyamember
Poor Kibaki, yaani from state house ataenda kukula ugali Hague? Who would ever have thought? It reads like a script from a movie for true.
Posted January 25, 2012 02:47 PM
Submitted by Mutashfull
This is a very scandalous statement, i think its about time these witnesses be produced. you just can't conclude issues like this from anonymous witnesses. i hope the icc too has prove of what they are saying otherwise am afraid they are rocking a dangerous boat.
Posted January 25, 2012 02:46 PM
Submitted by radonn
We all know (at least the rational-minded Kenyans) who the real elephant in the room is, and he is not being prosecuted by the ICC...what an absolute and total farce. EPIC FAIL!
Posted January 25, 2012 02:31 PM
Submitted by Dwatti
I av a feeling we havent heard anything yet...if this cases go to full trial,Kenyas will be shocked with the details, i fear for the lives of Muthaura and Ali
Posted January 25, 2012 01:45 PM
Submitted by vctrkyalo
cant believe it! The Ag speaks with so much energy and determination to protect the suspects. who speaks on behalf of the victims???.
Posted January 25, 2012 01:29 PM
Submitted by otuoma31
If indeed these allegations are true as they see, then the President is in real trouble. These are enough reasons for a president to resign........... but not in Africa.
Posted January 25, 2012 12:23 PM
Submitted by mwana_wa_ndigwa
Good God, open blind Kenyans's eyes so they see the hopelessness of ethnic chauvinism, the damages visited upon them by divisive leaders into chaos and darkness and the catastrophies awaiting us as we cruise the tribal routes to self-destruction as a nation. Guide us to nation-hood, tolerance and wisdom, as we see where IDPs sprouted from, and why we buried so many innocents. God, protect us from ourselves, now we know our ignorance and arrogance are our worst enemies, and our political hyenas feast from it with impunity. Amen!
Posted January 25, 2012 12:12 PM
Submitted by Fikiria
The slowly but surely the jigsaw puzzle is unraveling. It will not be long before we know who ordered returning officers to go into hiding as Kivuitu waited for days on end at the KICC, why U.K and Muthaura will still remain in office and why U.K and W.S.R will still be on the ballot no matter what!!
Posted January 25, 2012 12:12 PM
Submitted by macas
This Kenya of ours has its own pile of surprises and wonders. A whole PRESIDENT?Expect more of such revelations during the full trials.
Posted January 25, 2012 12:10 PM
Submitted by tpeteh
What was the agenda of the meeting? does it mean the violence was planned by Nov?If that is the case, why was violence deemed necessary in the frist place? I can only think of one thing, the outcome of the election was predetermined before the November meeting.
Posted January 25, 2012 12:00 PM
Submitted by Isaya Baraza
I remember the PM once said that when the dog barks then the Master is around. Am yet to be convinced that two Principals are innocent. Uhuru Kenyatta was PNU and Ruto was ODM. You can fill the gaps.
Posted January 25, 2012 11:48 AM
Submitted by seccessionist
@Mulaika_Mwega, Courts are there in Kenya but tell us any big fish who has been tried for crimes of political assassinations, ethnic classes of 1990s and the violence 2005 (especially in Mt. Elgon area and the PEV 2007. If state institutions fail to act the international community has the responsibility to intervene whether one sees it as selective or not. It happened after the WW II, in former Yugoslavia and many other places. After the juridical statehood or what you call independence is a political recognition by other sovereign states that a particular polity is independent.
Posted January 25, 2012 11:36 AM
Submitted by muthinja1
Now we know where the buck stops; impunity at it's top best. It is the reason they still hold on to powerful public offices. And gullible Kenyans still believe in and support these persons to be president? Kuna shida!
Posted January 25, 2012 11:30 AM
Submitted by mboonixp
And the truth will set us free. Oh Kenya my beloved country
Posted January 25, 2012 11:24 AM
Submitted by mongo92
Everyone please note that the said meeting took place BEFORE the elections. This makes the power-grab a premeditated affair, and RAO's supporters were just reacting to oppression.
Posted January 25, 2012 11:23 AM
Submitted by UknowIknow
The decenting judge does not know the reality of big shots in African states. They are never proven guilty at all cost. Let the case go to full trial so that we can judge for our selves after all the arguments and counter-arguments have come to light. The truth is out there and it is coming out in bits. We will wait for the tail in the long end.
Posted January 25, 2012 11:13 AM
Submitted by mbwiria
So was the ICC looking into the 2007 elections campaigns or the masterminds of the PEV ?
Posted January 25, 2012 10:57 AM
Submitted by jaumuri
Kenya is a country with strange leaders. If the Arthur brothers were deputy police commissioners here, then anything can happen.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:54 AM
Submitted by politicalpundit
If this is true, it confirms the real reason Kibaki won't sack muthaura and kenyatta.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:54 AM
Submitted by ochiengjaoko
And someone is still saying that its Raila who caused the violence,did Raila chair the state house meeting?..God forbid if these r the guys who still want 2 b the presidents of this nation.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:52 AM
Submitted by Mulaika_Mwega
Kaul has consistently acknowledged that crimes were committed in Kenya and that the perpetrators should be punished. However, he reasoned that the right place to try the suspects was in Kenya under the local criminal laws. He further said there is need to make a clear demarcation between the international court and the national courts and that the latter should not be downgraded.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:50 AM
Submitted by suzzlyl
ouh! my God. Then this guy still insists he is in the presidential race - that He is still fit to head this country. And some of us actually believe him!
Posted January 25, 2012 10:47 AM
Submitted by Namogo
Imagine if the case could be done local. - There is no way fisi can be a judge against a fellow fisi - Mbuzi ataumia tu.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:43 AM
Submitted by mungich
So the apparent 'revenge' attacks were actually planned before the election? Therefore someone knew he was going to lose in the election and made arrangements to cling on to power using criminals. I can't help feeling this fact vindicates those who fought back and who should be regarded now as liberators.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:42 AM
Submitted by arorin
This is one our lowest moments when our national pride and dignity has been wounded. This govt shoold step aside too.I am kinda feeling we need to move on as Kenyans and bury the past.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:34 AM
Submitted by dontialala
What is done in the darkness will come to light. Kenyans died and we must know the truth that is what martters.
Posted January 25, 2012 10:18 AM
Submitted by si_cheki_ovyo_ovyo
‘You have heard what the youth want, so now it is upon you’”. Lesson Number 1: always insist on a signed memo from the boss.
Posted January 25, 2012 08:42 AM
Submitted by MKM
Now Kenyan know the truth. thanks to ICC.
Posted January 25, 2012 08:20 AM

KIBAKI SUSPENDS BARAZA, SETS UP A TRIBUNAL

2012-01-26T00:37:00.000+03:00

Photo/FILE Deputy Chief Justice Nancy Baraza

By PATRICK MAYOYO pmayoyo@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Wednesday, January 25 2012 at 22:30

President Kibaki on Wednesday suspended Deputy Chief Justice Nancy Baraza and appointed a seven-member tribunal to investigate her conduct.

The team will be chaired by former Tanzanian Chief Justice Augustino Stephen Lawrence Ramdhan.

The members are Prof Judith Mbula Behemuka, Justice (Rtd) Philip Ransley, Surinder Kapila, Beauttah Alukhava Siganga, Grace Barbara Ngele Madoka and Prof Mugambi Jesse Ndwiga Kanyua.

The President also appointed Ms Valeria Onyango as lead counsel and Gideon Solonka Kilakoi assisting counsel to assist the tribunal.

The Head of State said the mandate of the tribunal shall be to investigate the conduct of the DCJ on the basis of Articles 168 (I)(e), 73(I)(a) and (b), and 75(I) and (2) of the Constitution and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Code of Conduct and Ethics, Legal Notice No 50 and other relevant laws and matters.

Accused of assaulting guard

The President said he suspended the DCJ from exercising the functions of her office with immediate effect according to Article 168(5) of the Constitution.

Ms Baraza was accused of assaulting and threatening to shoot Ms Rebecca Kerubo, a guard at the Village Market shopping mall, on the New Year eve.

The JSC recommended the suspension of Ms Baraza on January 13, and asked President Kibaki to appoint a tribunal to investigate her conduct. (READ: JSC wants Baraza out)

She took it in her stride, saying she respected the decision of the JSC. (READ: Baraza: No retreat, no surrender)

She has retained lawyers George Oraro, Chacha Odera and Cyprian Wekesa to act for her on the matter.

“My case is in the able hands of lawyers and people should leave me alone,” she said.

Chief Justice Willy Mutunga petitioned the President to suspend her on recommendation of a sub-committee of the JSC that investigated the claims that Ms Baraza pinched the guard on the nose and threatened to shoot her.

Dr Mutunga said the team did not look at the criminal culpability of his deputy but the code of conduct for judicial officers.

Article 168 of the Constitution says a judge of a superior court may be removed from office for gross misconduct or misbehaviour.

Police had recommended that she be charged with assault and gun-related offences but Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko returned the file for more investigations.

Last week, police returned the file to Mr Tobiko, who is yet to make public his decision.

As deputy president of the Supreme Court, Ms Baraza was the most senior woman in the Judiciary.

She previously served ad deputy chair of the Kenya Law Reform Commission and was a commissioner with the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission.

The tribunal will prepare and submit a report and its recommendations to the President, exercise all the powers conferred upon it by law for the proper execution of its mandate.

« Previous P