FILE | NATION
NSIS director general Michael Gichangi takes the oath to testify before the Waki Commission at KICC in 2008
By Emeka-mayaka Gekara gmayaka@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Saturday, September 24 2011 at 22:00
Posted Saturday, September 24 2011 at 22:00
In Summary
- Evidence by the intelligence would be valuable --Muite
Evidence gathered by the national intelligence agency is
turning out to be a strong element in Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s effort to
push the Kenyan case to trial.
So far, the prosecutor has relied heavily on information
gathered by the National Security Intelligence Agency (NSIS) to
corroborate testimonies by his witnesses.
He has also
significantly benefited from the work of the Waki Commission, Human
Rights Watch and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.
In
its two-day submission, the prosecution relied on NSIS situation
reports to strengthen arguments that Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru
Kenyatta and Head of Public Service Francis Muthaura held meetings and
deployed the outlawed Mungiki gangs for retaliatory attacks in Naivasha
and Nakuru after the 2007 General Election with the aim of protecting
the Kibaki presidency.
The two allegedly executed the plan with the support of then police commissioner Hussein Ali.
But
on Saturday, Mr Muthaura’s lawyers led by Mr Karim Khan and Gambian Mr
Essa Faal accused the prosecution of ignoring evidence by NSIS
director-general Michael Gichangi that reports of the alleged planning
meetings were “rumours”.
“The NSIS is a critical institution, but the prosecutor turned away from the truth when it was convenient,” said Mr Faal.
Quoting several witnesses and reports, including those
of the NSIS, the prosecution has claimed before the Pre-Trial Chamber
that millions of shillings were raised by Mr Kenyatta and other PNU MPs
to finance the killer mission that was jointly executed by Mungiki
militia and pro-PNU youth.
Prosecutors have argued that
NSIS reports show that as of January 3, 2008, the former MPs were
mobilising the Mungiki to retaliate.
Much of the
evidence by the NSIS at the prosecutor’s disposal was relayed to him by
the Waki Commission which interviewed top intelligence officials,
including Mr Gichangi.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite says evidence by the intelligence agency would be valuable in corroborating witness statements.
“The
NSIS statements would be seen as impartial because the agency didn’t
know that the evidence would be relayed to the International Criminal
Court,” he told the Sunday Nation.
Intelligence
reports, some of which were made available to the Waki Commission and
apparently transmitted to the ICC, named possible suspects for the
violence in Nakuru, Naivasha and Nairobi.
In his
testimony — part of which was given in camera — Mr Gichangi was keen to
demonstrate that the agency did its work and pointed fingers at the
police for failing to take appropriate action.
The
Waki Commission said the NSIS collected information on the planning of
violence in Naivasha by Mungiki members and politicians at local and
national levels.
“All NSIS evidence discussed here was produced as Exhibits 19
and 19A. Testimony produced in camera,” say footnotes in the Waki
report.
The agency demonstrated that as early as January 3, 2008, it had
information that Mungiki members were meeting “in an undisclosed
location in Nairobi with a view to carrying out revenge attacks on Luos
and Kalenjins travelling on the Nairobi-Naivasha highway on an
undisclosed date.”
The agency produced reports and security briefs at provincial and district levels leading up to the elections.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment