The request by Deputy President William Ruto to appoint an Amicus Prosecutor to investigate claims that the Office of the Prosecutor committed offences during his case has been rejected.
Ruto's defence on May 2, 2016 requested Trial Chamber V(A) to order the Office of the Prosecutor to appoint an Amicus Prosecutor to receive and investigate information obtained by the defence during the course of its investigations and other information in the trial record and in the OTP’s possession, “which provides reason to believe that several OTP witnesses and/or ICC staff members may have committed offences under Article 70.”
In rejecting the request, the Trial Chamber said in its decision of April 5, 2016, it vacated all the charges and discharged the accused (Ruto and Joshua Sang), without prejudice to their prosecution afresh in the future, and considers that
“In the circumstances, the Chamber considers it inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction on the merits of the application made by the Ruto Counsel”. The Chamber, however, suggests another avenue for the Defence request, stating: “As the Ruto Counsel’s application aims to initiate an investigation against certain targets, the proper forum for the applicants to bring their complaint would be the Pre-Trial Division,” ICC said on Thursday.
ICC on April 5 acquitted Ruto and Sang of crimes against humanity charges after six years of grueling legal battle at The Hague based court.
Judges Chile Eboe-Osuji and Robert Fremr dismissed the evidence presented by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and freed the DP and the former radio presenter.
They said the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence to convict the suspects.