By OLIVER MATHENGE omathenge@ke.nationmedia.com and BERNAND NAMUNANE bnamunane@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Monday, October 3 2011 at 22:00
Posted Monday, October 3 2011 at 22:00
IN SUMMARY
- Man and his family were saved from a murderous mob at the height of poll violence in Naivasha
Former Police Commissioner Hussein Ali’s first witness had a hard time explaining inconsistencies in the statements he had recorded over the post election violence.
Mr Peter Otieno, an official of the Kenya Plantation and Agriculture Workers Union in Naivasha, was reprimanded twice by the Pre-Trial Chamber II Presiding Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova for turning to defence lawyers rather than facing the judges during cross-examination by Prosecutor Desiree Lurf.
“The Chamber was very embarrassed by you constantly facing this side (the defence) when you are being asked questions. I asked you to stop and yet you proceeded. You were constantly looking to your left in spite of me asking you to face the judges and the prosecutor,” the judge said.
Earlier, Mr Otieno had recounted how he was saved by police from a mob, which had held his family hostage at their Naivasha home.
“I called a friend for assistance whose relative was a police officer. My wife, my two children and I were picked up by police from our house and taken to police station for safety. We also picked up two other people who were staying in a plot a few metres from our house. Since I began living in Naivasha, I never imagined such a thing will happen,” Mr Otieno said.
Tension started rising in Naivasha in early January, he said, when families displaced from their homes in other parts of the country arrived in the town with tales of mayhem against them.
But Ms Lurf challenged his testimony, saying it was inconsistent with what he told the Waki commission.
She said the witness had misled the court by claiming he had only recorded two statements over the chaos, when he had also spoken to Mr Muthaura’s lawyers.
Ms Desiree: Have you ever been interviewed by any one regarding post election violence?
Mr Otieno: Yes, the Waki Commission
Ms Desiree: Ever been interviewed by any defence?
Mr Otieno: Yes, the defence of Mr Hussein Ali.
Ms Desiree: I have two statements, one to Hussein Ali and one for Muthaura
Mr Otieno: Yes
Ms Desiree: How many occasions have you spoken to defence of Mr Ali and Muthaura?
Mr Otieno: Some time in August, we met, a friend introduced me to them. Next in their offices
Mr Otieno: Yes , I spoke to ( Ken) Ogeto.Ms Desiree: What about Mr Muthaura’s defence?
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Public Service boss Francis Muthaura brought top government and political leaders to defend them.
In the morning, the defence questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Lawyer Gregory Kehoe argued that the prosecution based their case on Witnesses 4, 11 and 12, whose statements were riddled with discrepancies on the alleged meeting, which took place between his client, top government officials and members of the outlawed Mungiki sect.
Claims of extortion
He described Witness 4 as a person who has an “embedded dislike” for the police and Witnesses 11 and 12 as extortionists who could not be trusted to give credible evidence.
“Witness 4 is person who thinks the police are not human beings. He is a self-confessed member of Mungiki. A man who has been arrested several times by police. A man who has a severe and embedded dislike for the Kenya police,” he said.
On Witnesses 12, he remarked: “The prosecution wants to corroborate their evidence with statements from Witness 12 who has been described as an extortionist. Who is Witness 12? Anonymous. With his extortion conduct, I will be surprised if he passes down the door. He names everybody in Kenya government, including President Kibaki, as a Mungiki member.”
The lawyer said Witness 4 claimed that he met one of the Mungiki leaders who had allegedly met Mr Muthaura and Mr Kenyatta at Nairobi Members’ Club who ‘disclosed what they had discussed’.
“This clearly shows that the witness was not at any of the meetings. The witness does not even talk of any discussion of Uhuru, and there is no discussion of phone calls to Ali. The witness never corrects the aspects of the meeting at Nairobi Safari Club with Muthaura even when given the opportunity to paint the scenario,” he said.
Mr Kehoe told the court that the witness claimed Mr Muthaura attended the meeting at 11am, and yet the National Security Advisory Committee minutes showed that the public service boss was in the security meeting from 9.30 until some minutes after midday.
Lawyer Otachi Bwo’Omanwa said the attacks in Nakuru and Naivasha were carried out by local residents and not Mungiki as claimed by ICC prosecutor.
He used an NTV news clip, testimonies of victims and court records in Nakuru and Naivasha to show the violence was triggered by the tragic stories of displaced people who sought refuge in the towns.
“This video displays people defying police and the Armed Forces. These are people vowing to carry out revenge attacks. It is open defiance which is difficult for the security forces to contain,” he said.
“If the prosecution theory was that Mungiki members were brought in to attack other tribes, then how can you explain attacks on Kikuyus?” he posed. He argued that some of the people who were released on bail at the Naivasha Police Station were residents of the area.He also referred to testimonies of victims in Nakuru who said they saw Kikuyu women being raped by members of other communities.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment