Deputy President William Ruto summed up his joy and relief at being freed from the ICC case in three words — “God is great”.
This came as Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda blamed alleged massive witness interference for the failure of her case against Mr Ruto and journalist Joshua arap Sang, which was declared a mistrial by the Trial Chamber judges.
The DP, who was holed up in his Karen office Thursday, maintained a studious silence 24 hours after the case was dropped and chose to go spiritual, only saying “God is great”.
On Tuesday night, his wrote a similar message on Twitter: “Halleluya! God is great, our God is faithful”.
But Ms Bensouda claimed the prosecution lost the case due to intimidation and bribery of key witnesses.
However, she said the ruling did not stop her from re-introducing the charges in future.
“Ruto and Sang case terminated without prejudice to re-prosecution in future,” she said.
On Tuesday, with one judge dissenting, the Trial Chamber declared the case a mistrial and dismissed the charges of crimes against humanity.
Judges Chile Eboe-Osuji and Robert Fremr declared the proceedings “a mistrial due to a troubling incidence of witness interference and intolerable political meddling”. Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia dissented.
In Nairobi, lawyers for Mr Ruto and Mr Sang attributed the collapse of the case to former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
“The prosecution evidence did not stand up to scrutiny. We tested it and it fell apart. And for the last six years, Mr Ruto and Mr Sang have had their names maligned and continued to go on with their personal lives at great cost to their families. It is not easy if you are a wife or a child. They have bowed their heads to justice and the court has said the evidence presented has fallen apart,” said Mr Karim Khan, who represents Mr Ruto, during a press briefing organised by the Nairobi-based Journalists for Justice (JfJ).
“I think that tells a story and the prosecution, particularly Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has a case to answer as to why on the eve of his departure he rushed to name the big, sexy names of Kenya — Uhuru Kenyatta, William Ruto and all the others — in a rush that wasn’t based on proper, diligent investigations,” he said.
Mr Sang’s lawyer, Mr Katwa Kigen, said the ruling will offer the prosecution “an occasion for a retreat and further reflection”.
“We have always maintained that if they had made the very barest of attempt at investigations, they would have realised that in fact this violence was not planned, that Mr Sang is no way culpable for any of the allegations they made,” he said during the briefing.
Mr Khan and Mr Kigen questioned the decision by the Trial Chamber to terminate the case but decline to acquit their clients.
Mr Khan said the decision demonstrates that Mr Ruto and Mr Sang were being punished for the government’s actions in seeking UN Security Council and African Union intervention.
“I think it is exceptionally unfortunate to make the accused pay a price for what a sovereign government decides to do. Both judges Fremr and Eboe-Osuji make it clear that there is no evidence of any misconduct on the part of Mr Ruto or Mr Sang. And yet, it seems the price is paid for the decision of the republic to go to the Security Council to seek that the proceedings to be deferred,” Mr Khan said.
Victims’ lawyer Wilfred Nderitu, however, welcomed the decision not to acquit the two.
“My understanding of the decision, contrary to what my learned colleague calls a dismissal, is that there is a termination that is without prejudice to possible re-prosecution either before the ICC or before a national jurisdiction. What this means is that Mr Ruto and Mr Sang have, in a sense, been discharged but not acquitted. Words are very important. They have meaning and an acquittal would then have certain consequences in law,” said Mr Nderitu at the testy press conference.
“One foot is potentially in the case and the other foot is out of the case,” he said.
Mr Nderitu said the decision offers a slim hope to victims that the ICC is still seized of the 2007/8 post-election violence.
In addition, he said, that is important when legal arguments as to the extent of assistance available to the victims is possible.
The majority decision had invited the victims’ “views and concerns in relation to reparation or assistance in lieu of reparation.”
