Deferral bid aims to protect certain figures

 

By KWENDO OPANGA
Posted Saturday, March 12 2011 at 16:29

Strategy I of one wing of this shambolic coalition regarding the Ocampo Six is clear: stall, stonewall and dissemble as it endeavours to pressure the UN Security Council to defer the cases facing the sextet before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Strategy II is what has come to be called shuttle diplomacy carried out by what has come to be called the Shuttle Six.

Now in its second phase, it seeks to pressure the UN Security Council to defer the cases against the Ocampo Six, with the ultimate aim of having them tried in Kenya and not at The Hague.

Strategy III involves bombarding the UN Security Council and the ICC with letters warning that trials of the sextet at The Hague will re-visit on Kenya the madness and mayhem, murder and plunder that gripped the country after the infamous General Election of 2007.

The pitch around which these three revolve is twofold. One, that Kenya is capable, ready and determined to try its own and that trials at The Hague will serve to undermine the sovereignty of Kenya.

Impossible to succeed

Two, to avoid destabilising Kenya, the sextet should be tried locally. Good people, this strategy is that simple to prosecute and that impossible to succeed.

One, we are capable, ready and willing to try the Ocampo Six when we have in place local tribunals set up specifically for this and confirmed by the ICC as such.

Kenya has not put these mechanisms and processes in place. What Nairobi is, therefore, telling the ICC and the UN is that The Hague trials should be deferred because it has the intention of putting these processes in place to investigate and prosecute the Ocampo Six.

It is highly unlikely what will happen in future is guarantee enough for the cases to be deferred.

Two, the dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying of the government and Parliament over establishment of the tribunals undermines Nairobi’s case before the ICC and the UN Security Council.

When and why did the protagonists change from don’t-be-vague-let-them-go-to-The-Hague mantra of 2008 through 2010 to the we-are-ready-and-capable-of- investigating and prosecuting-the-sextet of 2011?

Three, and which is a follow-up to the foregoing, it appears that Nairobi’s drive for deferrals is aimed at shielding the Ocampo Six from international justice and, therefore, protecting certain influential people among the sextet.

In other words, deferrals are sought by a part of the political class to protect their own and deny the Internally Displaced People and Kenyans as a whole justice.

Four, it is this view which largely informs the actions and decisions of Washington, London and Paris who have already made it plain that they will not support the deferral petition if and when it comes up before the Security Council.

The three do not all have to vote against the petition for it to fail. One No vote from any of the five permanent members of the Council will scuttle Nairobi’s shuttle.

Fifth, it appears pretty obvious that the letters sent to the UN Security Council and the ICC amount to thinly-veiled threats.

While threats may be part of negotiations, they may already have served to hamper the efforts of the Shuttle Six.

Nairobi can only negotiate with ICC or UN when it has local processes in place to prove its ability to investigate and prosecute.

Sixth, it is the prime objective of any government worth its salt anywhere in the world to protect its citizens.
The security of Kenya is the responsibility of government no matter how shambolic it may be. It will be shameful for Nairobi to be asked why it cannot guarantee peace in Kenya when its nationals are tried at The Hague.

Ethnic animosity

They know at The Hague and in the UN Security Council that Kenyans were warned in 1990 that multi-party politics would usher in ethnic animosity and violence. Those warnings turned prophetic.

Are Kenyans being told via the UN Security Council and ICC that history is about to repeat itself this time because of the Ocampo Six?

Last, which could well be first, is the very shambolic nature of this coalition of the coerced. The President backs deferrals; the Prime Minister does not.

The President’s supporters back deferrals; the PM’s do not. The Shuttle Six belong to the President’s side, not the PM’s. ICC and UN may well see The Hague as the arbiter.

The Shuttle Six will not win deferrals for the Ocampo Six and government will remain in sixes and sevens over the ICC process.

The writer is a media consultant diplospeak@yahoo.com