Thursday, September 29, 2011

Uhuru tears into Ocampo evidence



By Evelyn Kwamboka
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta’s defence team tore into evidence provided by two key prosecution witnesses, who they said had abandoned their client’s camp. The two witnesses — alleged to be Mungiki sect members — changed their minds from defending Uhuru and joined the International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s camp after failing to extort close to Sh2.4 million (18,000 Euros) from the politician, the defence claimed.
"Both are professional criminal extortionists. They have also tried it on Nguyai (Local Government Assistant Minister Lewis Nguyai, who is the only witness Uhuru is to produce in court)," Uhuru’s lawyer, Ms Gillan Higgins, said.
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta with Public Health Minister Beth Mugo outside the ICC before the start of the confirmation of charges hearing against Uhuru on Wednesday. Photo: Evans Habil/Standard
Pre-Trial Chamber II was told that the prosecution witnesses gave contradicting statements from those they had initially written in favour of the suspect.
"They come as a pair but must be dealt with individually," she said.
Exposing what Higgins termed as unreliable nature of the prosecution’s evidence, she zeroed in her submissions on the two prosecution witnesses and pages contained in the Document Containing Charges against her client.
"The defence will dissect and lay bare presentations by the prosecution," she told Pre-Trial Chamber II judges Ekaterina Trendafilova, Hans-Peter Kaul and Cuno Tarfusser.
The prosecution’s key witnesses, referred to as numbers 11 and 12, shifted camp after their bid allegedly failed.
Food receipts
When Uhuru’s defence team received the Document Containing Charges against him, the lawyers with vast experience in international and criminal law, scrutinised the prosecution’s allegations step-by-step and managed to identify the two, who had only been referred to by numbers.
A foreign independent forensic expert lawyer, Mr Garry Summers, was hired to carry out investigations on whether the two were the same people who had initially visited the defence team offices to testify in favour of Uhuru.
"The defence was concerned and surprised at the evidence given to the prosecution by the two," she told the court.
The independent lawyer prepared a 210 page-report that was filed at the ICC’s registry on September 2.
In the damning report, the lawyer confirmed that indeed the two were the same who had visited the defence team’s office.
During their visit, the defence only paid for their travel and food expenses. Copies of travel and food receipts were tabled in court as confidential evidence.
"They were in an extortion attempt. Both had attempted to prevent the course of justice," Higgins told the court as the suspects’ relatives, friends and government officers followed the proceedings from the public gallery.
Copies of e-mails allegedly written to some defence team lawyers by the prosecution witnesses were tabled in court as confidential exhibits, as Higgins urged the court not to rely on them in its verdict on the confirmation of charges against her client.
The lawyer read a copy of an email addressed to Uhuru’s assisting counsel on March 30, in which the sender issued a threat that "what Uhuru Kenyatta will lose, we will hold you responsible".
Higgins argued that the two e-mails amounted to intimidating witnesses.
It is only the two witnesses who claim Uhuru had a role in the alleged Mungiki attacks in Naivasha where 40 people died and 10,000 displaced.
Prosecution witness Number 11 had stated in his statement to Uhuru’s defence team that he had never met the suspect face-to-face. He also said Uhuru had not made any attempt to approach him.
On prosecution witness Number 4, the lawyer told the court that the witness had recorded more than three statements and did not mention Uhuru anywhere but changed it later on.
Changed dates
The witness, who the defence claims was never interviewed by the prosecution, changed dates of when an alleged meeting took place at State House in Nairobi and at the Nairobi Club.
Higgins said the revelations dealt the witness’s evidence a devastating blow because he had never been to State House or the Nairobi Club.
"This is a witness whose memory improves with age," she told the court.
This is the witness that the defence team claims to be one of the key witness’ shadow.
The defence claimed the prosecution never interviewed witness Number 4.
Higgins took issue with the prosecution’s six anonymous witnesses, and called on the judges not to rely on their evidence.
Anonymous witnesses
"The identity of witnesses who claimed Uhuru Kenyatta purchased pangas is unknown. The prosecution is using them to build his case yet the building blocks are no more than sand," she said.
The court was told some of the evidence by the anonymous witnesses stated that Uhuru allegedly promised Sh10,000 for every Luo or Kalenjin head.
"This sort of evidence raises questions than it can answer. Laymen cannot understand how such evidence can be used by a court," she added.
During her presentation, Higgins said most of the evidence given by the anonymous witnesses did not provide the place, date or how it was linked to Uhuru.
She said one of the witnesses hid behind the shadow of another person who was frequently mentioned in the evidence produced by the prosecution against Mr Francis Muthaura.
"There is no date, no information on where the meeting was to take place. The evidence given by witness Number 4 is simply untenable," said Higgins.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)