The decision by International Criminal Court’s appellate chamber to rule against use of recanted evidence in Deputy President William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang's case has been faulted by two lawyers from Nyamira County.
The defense team of the accused had appealed an earlier decision by the trial chamber to allow the prosecution use recanted evidence in the case.
Speaking in Bosamaro ward on Saturday, former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) chairman Okong’o Mogeni said the decision was guided by pressure from the African Union (AU) over the threat to pull out en mass from the Rome Statute.
He said that the decision was detrimental to the victims of the 2007/2008 post election violence.
“I respect the due process of the law but it’s clear that the appellate chamber was guided by increased tension by African States to pull out of ICC. This will weaken the prosecution’s case yet we have several victims who were displaced and even sexually abused who haven’t gotten justice,” Mogeni said.
He said the prosecution should have carried the day after tabling evidence on witness intimidation and bribery to recant the evidence.
“The prosecution had tabled sufficient evidence on witness tampering and bribery and I believe that is why the trial chamber initially allowed her (Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda) to use recanted evidence. This is a blow to justice because Mr Ruto’s camp has been immensely involved in witness tampering,” he said.
His counterpart Steve Mogaka blamed the African States and accused leaders of defending impunity by using the political process to intimidate the international court.
“The appellate chamber simply succumbed to political pressure from AU and this led to that decision. It’s a blow to prosecution since the witnesses on spot were crucial to the case. Honestly, the appellate chamber should have upheld the trial chamber's decision to admit recanted evidence since the argument of the prosecution is valid on retroactive use of Rule 68 of Rome Statute,” he said.