Vituko Mitaani

Kenya: Deputy President William Ruto’s defence had a rough time fielding questions from International Criminal Court (ICC) judges over his request to be absent during proceedings at The Hague.

Nigerian judge Chile Eboe-Osuji took Ruto’s lead counsel Karim Khan to task over why the Deputy President’s request should be granted yet he presented himself for elective office knowing he had a case before the court.
The questioning followed a written submission by Ruto’s defence to be tried in absentia ‘in view of the unique position in which he finds himself as a serving deputy Head of State’.
“My interest here is, did he find himself in this unique position or did he seek the position and achieved it?” Osuji asked during the status conference yesterday.
But Mr Khan maintained the proceedings against Ruto was not reason enough for him to stop running for office.
“If the simple existence of proceedings will result in the way being cleared for political adversaries, this would be a licence for the court to be used as a tool to clear the way to settle domestic scores,” he argued.
He insisted it would have been unfair to deny the accused of the right to run for political office because he may be acquitted if not found guilty.
He submitted Ruto was engaged in politics before the crimes against humanity charges were brought against him and being elected Deputy President is a continuation of his public service.
More witnesses
The three-Judge Bench led by Presiding Judge Kuniko Ozaki (from Japan), Robert Fremr (Belgium), and Osuji are yet to make a ruling on the application.
They are also expected to make a ruling regarding Ruto’s request to vacate his trial date as well as the prosecution application to add five more witnesses.
ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and lawyers representing victims of the 2008 post-election violence have opposed Ruto and President Uhuru’s request to participate in the trial proceedings via video link.
Common Legal Representative of Victims Wilfred Nderitu said if the requests are granted, the trial and court’s authority might be undermined.