Deputy President William Ruto’s legal team says they are keenly monitoring the events at the International Criminal Court (ICC) following the Friday initial appearance of Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru after surrendering to the Hague-based court.
In an interview with the Sunday Nation , lawyer Katwa Kigen, who was on the legal team during the case of Dr Ruto and radio host Joshua arap Sang, said they will consult widely and decide on their next step once they establish the motive of Mr Gicheru’s surprise surrender to the court on November 2.
“After issues of surrender and its context become clearer, we will consult and decide if and what we may need to do,” said Mr Kigen. “Being so recent and yet to unfold, they (Dr Ruto and Mr Sang) will in the course of time apply their minds to it, consult and then take a position.”
But establishing the motive may have to wait until March 15, 2021, when Mr Gicheru is expected to file his written submissions. The presiding judge Reine Alapini-Gansou opted for written submissions rather than the traditional open court confirmation of charges hearings, thereby denying Kenyans the spectacle of courtroom proceedings.
“The chamber considers that at present, given the nature and the scope of this case, it is not necessary to hold a confirmation of charges hearing. Nevertheless, I would like to apply the logic contained in Rule 121–1 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence which seek to give an indication of the calendar of proceedings notably for the benefit of the suspect,” the judge Reine Alapini-Gansou said on Friday.
She has fixed key dates by which the prosecution and the defence are required to file their documents. The prosecution will be required to file their document setting out a detailed description of the charges and a list of evidence on which they intend to base the case by February 12, 2021.
The prosecution and the defence will then be required to file their detailed, written submissions by March 15, 2021 at the latest, which is 30 days after the filing of the document containing the charges.
“After that the prosecutor will have until March 27, 2021 to reply to the written submissions of the defence. And finally, the defence will have until March 29, 2021 to reply to the submissions of the prosecutor,” the judge said.
Mr Gicheru and his co-accused Philip Kipkoech Bett are suspected of offences against the administration of justice committed in or around 2013 in Kenya consisting corruptly influencing witnesses of the ICC prosecution who were to testify against DP Ruto. He faces a maximum of five years in prison, a fine, or both, if found guilty.
In the past confirmation of charges hearings against the original six post-election violence suspects, the then Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura, Hussein Ali, William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua arap Sang, the court was full of drama as the suspects sought to discredit the prosecution witnesses and the case as a whole. The suspects were also allowed to call witnesses.
That will not be the case this time round and Mr Gicheru’s next appearance in court remains unknown, as the next stages will largely be done in written filings.
According to Mr Kigen, the surrender of Mr Gicheru came as a surprise to them.
“For DP Ruto and Mr Sang, the event of surrender of Mr Gicheru just happened. We had no notice,” he said.
As the judge was giving the timetable for the proceedings moving forward, Mr Gicheru, who was attending the proceedings through video link, appeared to be a man in a hurry, at least on two occasions agreeing to remove procedural matters that could delay the start of case against him.
First, Mr Gicheru confirmed that he was comfortable with the single judge carrying on with the pre-trial phase of his case.
Earlier on Friday, the ICC’s Office of Public Counsel for the Defence had raised objections to the constitution of the chamber with just a single judge, stating that the president of the pre-trial division had acted on a non-existent rule. But Mr Gicheru brushed aside those objections when the court asked for his observations.
“On the issue whether the pre-trial court should continue handling the matter in spite of the objections (by the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence), I agree with the court. There is already an order by the president of the pre-trial division assigning this case to this court. That order has not been set aside. As matters now stand, we are perfectly entitled to proceed before this court,” he said.
The concern had been raised by the prosecution lawyer, Anton Steynberg who wanted a confirmation from Mr Gicheru that he has no objections to the way the chamber has been constituted with just a single judge instead of three.
On another matter that indicates Mr Gicheru’s desire to fastrack his trial, he has supported the separation of the case against him and that of his co-accused Philip Kipkoech Bett.
According to Mr Gicheru, there is no indication as to when Mr Bett will be arrested and brought to stand trial and, therefore, he cannot wait.
“Only one observation regarding the last issue counsel, Mr Steynberg has dealt with (severance of the cases). I similarly agree that we can separate the trials and this is for the basic reason that we do not know when the other accused person will surrender or be arrested,” he said.
