Kenyan Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Uhuru Kenyatta (2ndL), and Cabinet secretary Francis Muthaura (2ndR) attend a hearing, at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, on April 8, 2011.
By OLIVER MATHENGE, omathenge@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Monday, April 18 2011 at 15:24
Posted Monday, April 18 2011 at 15:24
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo will be calling 20 witnesses to testify against the six post-election violence suspects during the confirmation of charges hearing in September.
The Prosecutor also plans to use evidence contained in 7,800 pages of witness statements and which he is to release to the defence teams once the Pre-Trial Chamber II comes up with a disclosure calendar.
But in presentations made by officials from his office before Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova, the Prosecutor expressed his intention to redact (partially conceal) an estimated 19,000 pages of evidence that he also plans to use.
The documents will however only be redacted in case the chamber allows the prosecution to do so. The defence raised concern over the matter and asked that redactions be made to the minimum possible.
Vigorously contest
Some of the lawyers representing the six suspects told the judge that though they plan to “vigorously” contest the charges against their clients, it was too early for them to say how many witnesses or the volumes of evidence they would rely on. Others revealed that they could call between 10 and 15 witnesses.
The prosecution and defence were making submissions during a status conference at The Hague before Judge Treandafilova who is set to make a calendar of the disclosure of evidence process.
The session involving lawyers of William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua Sang started at 10.10am (Kenyan time) but the judges warned the lawyers against getting to the chamber late.
The session involving lawyers of William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua Sang started at 10.10am (Kenyan time) but the judges warned the lawyers against getting to the chamber late.
The session involving lawyers of Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura and Hussein Ali started at 12.30pm (Kenyan time).
The Prosecution officials said that the disclosure of redacted documents was one of the measures to protect the witnesses in the Kenyan post-election violence cases. They said that the Prosecutor was concerned that the witnesses were still in danger due to the fact that three suspects were still holding public office.
“We wish to bring to madam President’s attention there is limited capacity to protect individuals under the circumstance that we are operating. What the prosecution means by that statement is we are operating in a situation where the suspects remain in position of power, where an environment the witnesses frequently disappear or become uncooperative,” Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s representative said.
The Prosecution added that there was need to ensure that the protection of witnesses is assured before the disclosure of evidence can take place. The prosecution however assured that it wishes to provide all the information that is not sensitive.
In the case against Mr Ruto, Mr Kosgey and Mr Sang, the prosecution said that it has identified 606 documents made up of 11,000 pages that may have to be edited before they can be given to the defence.
In the case against Mr Kenyatta, Mr Muthaura and Mr Ali, the prosecution said that it has identified 542 documents made up of 9,397 pages that it needs to redact before allowing access to the defence.
Minimum redactions
Responding to the Prosecution, Mr David Hooper for Mr Ruto asked the Pre-Trial Chamber to ensure that the “redactions are kept to the minimum”.
Responding to the Prosecution, Mr David Hooper for Mr Ruto asked the Pre-Trial Chamber to ensure that the “redactions are kept to the minimum”.
He added that while the defence was not opposed to the editing, “there is nothing at the moment that prevents maximum disclosure and in due course if the protective measures are in place then the redactions can be lifted.”
“Our reaction would heavily depend on what the prosecutor gives us and the court. We are not in a position to indicate at this time the number of witnesses. We would think a minimum of 15 oral witnesses,” said Mr Hooper.
On his part, Mr Kosgey’s lawyer George Oraro said they were not conversant with the evidence the prosecutor used to seek for summonses as it was heavily redacted. Mr Oraro however told the court that they would call witnesses to rebut any evidence that may touch on his client.
“We shall investigate and consider how many witness we can summon. The only proposition we can make for the moment is that - as the prosecution has indicated to call witnesses - we shall definitely call witnesses in rebuttal as it regards our client,” Mr Oraro said.
Mr Sang through his lawyer Katwa Kigen said they might call at least 15 witnesses but said that would depend on the number of documents that they wish to rely on.
In the second hearing, lawyers took the prosecution to task over insistence that the continued stay in office of Mr Kenyatta, Mr Muthaura and Mr Ali was worrisome as they can interfere with the witness.
Media manipulation
They also cautioned the court and the prosecutor from relying on Kenyan media while making decisions or submission before the court.
They also cautioned the court and the prosecutor from relying on Kenyan media while making decisions or submission before the court.
“Stories are made in the Kenyan media that are not based on facts and we had to deal with one such story last week. The court should be mindful of media manipulation,” Mr Steven Kay appearing for Mr Kenyatta said.
Lawyer Karim Khan for Mr Muthaura said that the prosecutor is “maligning and putting a cloud of innuendo on the proceedings” by making statements on the suspects holding public service positions.
Lawyer Evans Monari representing Mr Ali raised concern that the Prosecutor appeared to be changing positions by saying that his witnesses would be interfered with yet he had in the past said that his witnesses were out of the country.
“He (the prosecutor) has said previously that he is receiving cooperation from the Kenyan government and he should not turn around at this time,” said Mr Monari.
Lawyer Evans Monari representing Mr Ali raised concern that the Prosecutor appeared to be changing positions by saying that his witnesses would be interfered with yet he had in the past said that his witnesses were out of the country.
“He (the prosecutor) has said previously that he is receiving cooperation from the Kenyan government and he should not turn around at this time,” said Mr Monari.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment