Good People !!!
These are flimsy fistula attacks that
have no back-bone.........Very narrow thicksets indeed............!!! I
wonder what voters had in mind about these Juha Kalulus, aka Cartoons in
Parliament...... !!!
Watch out! next election, voters must
crack the whip......!!! These are not materials that fit lawmakers standing...............
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
20 Members of Parliament attack Annan over ICC-pull
out
Updated Thursday, October 10th 2013 at 13:37 GMT
+3
By Geoffrey Mosoku
NAIROBI,KENYA: Members of parliament (MPs) have told off
former UN Secretary General Koffi Annan over his warning to Kenya not to pull
out of ICC.
The MPs, in outburst, accused Annan whom
they termed a foreign in the African continent of being behind the woes facing
leaders who are currently facing trial at the ICC.
"Annan is the initiator and owner of the
ICC project
from the onset. The Rome statute was signed in 1998 when he was the UN Secretary
General and it is him who handed over the list to the ICC,”
Leader of majority Aden Duale said.
He told journalists at parliaments buildings that; “What he began as a
Secretary General is what he came to implement here.”
“It’s no surprise that Koffi Annan is
sentimental about ICC. First
he took Kenya to the court after holding on to the envelop whose contents only a
select few knew. Two, the court was set up during his tenure as secretary
general of the UN.”
Over 20 MPs mainly from Jubilee alliance
flanked Duale at the press conference in parliament that was attended by two
Cord MPS; Victor Munyaka and Joseph Nkaissery.
The MPs, who accused ICC of only
targeting Africans, also dismissed Annan just like Foreign Affairs Cabinet
Secretary Amina Mohamed who said Annan is not even a citizen of the
continent.
“He (Annan) left his home country of
Ghana 35 years ago. Annan is only black in skin colour but European in his
heart,” Duale said in reference to the former UN boss who helped mid wife
Kenya’s signing to the national Accord during the 2007/08 post-election violence
that helped in ending up wanton killings and restore peace to the country.
He however, was non-committal on whether
President Uhuru Kenyatta will travel to ICC or not
saying; “ask me that question on the 11th of November.” The criminal trial
against Uhuru is expected to begin on the 12th of November.
During the meeting, the MPs vowed to
push on with a bill that seeks to repeal the international crimes act, to end
the country’s pact with ICC.
“The pact with ICC is not
a pact with God but it was done by men and women and there is nothing that will
prevent us from passing the law in the house, Duale said adding that the bill
will be tabled in the house within a fortnight from Thursday.
--------------------------------
COMMENTS:
-----
Forwarded Message -----
From: Herment Mrema
To: "wanabidii@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: [wanabidii] Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court
From: Herment Mrema
To: "wanabidii@googlegroups.com"
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: [wanabidii] Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court
You are spot
on. No ICC no justice in Africa. Let us continue with ICC till when we are able
to govern ourselves in civilized manner where justice is a right for all and not
for selected few. The action of parliament under Jubilee to push for withdrawal
from ICC means that Africa laws are only meant that they are applicable for some
people but not for all of us. This impunity must be fought left and right till
we succeed.
Thanks
Herment
Thanks
Herment
=======================
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:58:56 -0700
From: hamisznz@gmail.com
To: wanabidii@googlegroups.com
Subject: [wanabidii] Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court
Perception: The ICC
process isn’t needed because the Kenyan judicial system can deliver justice for
the 2007-2008 post-election violence.
Reality: In the more than five years
since the post-election violence, Kenya’s authorities have failed to deliver
justice in the vast majority of cases stemming from the period. Human Rights
Watch has been able to confirm only a handful of convictions for serious crimes
committed during the violence.
A 2012 review of thousands of pending cases
by Kenya’s Directorate of Public Prosecutions indicated there were difficulties
in obtaining evidence in most cases. There has been impunity for police
officials implicated in crimes. In many cases of shootings by police, surviving
victims or family members who sought to file criminal complaints were turned
away. Nor did the government at the time of the violence show a serious
commitment to ensuring fair, transparent and effective investigations of those
who organized and financed the violence.
The failure to hold those responsible for the
election violence to account continues a cycle of impunity in Kenya. Those
responsible for political violence in 1992 and 1997 also escaped justice.
There is, of course, a need for additional
cases in Kenyan courts to bring full accountability beyond what the ICC process
may yield. This will only be possible if Kenya’s authorities have the political
will to move forward with genuine investigations.
In early September, Kenya’s parliament passed
motions aimed at withdrawing Kenya from the Rome Statute, the ICC treaty, and
repealing the International Crimes Act, which enables Kenya to carry out its
responsibilities under the treaty and provides a basis for the prosecution of
ICC crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—in Kenya. Repeal of
the law thus would remove an important tool for the domestic prosecution of
international crimes. Any further action toward repeal would be a worrying sign
that Kenya lacks the political will for domestic trials.
Perception: The ICC
can and should heed an African Union call for a “referral” of the cases back to
Kenya for investigation and prosecution.
Reality: The African Union
(AU) called for a “referral” of the ICC’s cases to Kenya at the May 2013 AU
summit in spite of Kenya’s poor record on accountability. Whether the ICC should
defer jurisdiction in favor of national courts is, however, a matter for the ICC
judges to decide on the basis of a legal challenge from the Kenyan government or
the defendants to the admissibility of the cases. ICC judges had rejected a
previous challenge by the Kenyan government in view of a lack of national
investigations and prosecutions.
When the African Union wrote to the ICC
presidency to ask it to respond to the AU’s call for a “referral,” the ICC
presidency made it clear that it has no authority to respond to the African
Union’s request outside of the legal procedures provided in the ICC treaty. No
legal challenge is pending before the ICC to the two Kenya cases.
Perception:
The UN Security Council should act under article 16 of the ICC treaty to defer
the Kenya cases for 12 months. This would allow Kenya time to carry out
investigations and prosecutions so it can mount a successful admissibility
challenge.
Reality: Article
16 allows the UN Security Council to pass a resolution under its Chapter VII
authority to defer an ICC investigation or prosecution for a renewable period of
12 months.
Article 16 states in full: “No investigation
or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a
period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under
Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the court to
that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same
conditions.” Chapter VII of the UN Charter empowers the Security Council to take
measures to “maintain or restore international peace and security” if it has
determined “the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace or act of
aggression.”
Article 16 was not intended for use in other
than exceptional circumstances, and the Security Council has never deferred an
ICC investigation or prosecution. National trials are not a basis for an article
16 deferral, though. An admissibility challenge, under article 19, is distinct
from deferral under article 16 and is made to the court, not to the Security
Council. The Security Council in 2011 declined to act on a request by the Kenyan
government, supported by the AU, to defer the cases under article 16.
Any argument that Kenya simply needs more
time to carry out investigations and prosecutions ignores that for more than
five years there have been at best a handful of convictions for serious crimes
committed during the 2007-2008 post-election violence. There is no indication
that the government is now serious about pursuing accountability, let alone
would be willing to prosecute the president and deputy president nationally.
Kenya’s promised legal and institutional reforms have moved slowly and
haltingly.
An
adjournment in the ICC’s Kenya cases would mean delaying justice yet further for
the victims of Kenya’s post-election violence, and prolonging the vulnerability
of witnesses who have already been subject to what the prosecutor alleges are
“unprecedented” levels of witness interference. The end result of an article 16
referral would most likely be continued impunity in Kenya.
Perception: Kenya has cooperated in the cases before
the ICC, including the voluntary appearance by the defendants in court
proceedings. The ICC should take steps, therefore, to accommodate the need for
President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto, two of the three
defendants, to carry out their responsibilities.
Reality: The Kenyan
government signed a memorandum of understanding with the court in 2010 and has
facilitated some court activities in Kenya. But the ICC prosecutor has indicated
that Kenya has stalled or failed to assist the ICC with collecting evidence,
including access to government records, although the prosecutor has not sought a
formal finding of non-cooperation against Kenya. In addition to assistance in
investigations, however, the ICC depends on the public support of its member
countries and other interested parties to create a climate conducive to its
work. Efforts by Kenyan government officials to lobby other governments to
support referral elsewhere or termination of the ICC’s cases have the opposite
effect.
The ICC’s cases were well-advanced at the
time of Kenyatta and Ruto’s election. The management of court proceedings should
be left to the independent exercise of the ICC’s judges. An attempt to insert
political solutions into a judicial process will only undermine the court’s
independence and credibility, and its ability to deliver on its mandate to
afford fair justice. The latter is in the interest of both victims and
defendants.
Perception: Subjecting democratically elected leaders
to prosecution defies the will of the Kenyan people.
Reality: Kenyatta
and Ruto campaigned for elected office on pledges to continue their cooperation
with the ICC.
Article 143(4) of the Kenyan constitution,
adopted in 2010, specifically prohibits the president’s immunity from criminal
prosecution for “crime[s] for which the President may be prosecuted under any
treaty to which Kenya is party and which prohibits such immunity.” The Rome
Statute is such a treaty and Kenya remains a state party.
The election outcomes should have no bearing
on the issue before the ICC, which is the determination of the individual
criminal responsibility of the defendants in the cases.
Perception: Kenyans elected Kenyatta and Ruto and this
means they just want to “move on.” Kenyans no longer support the
ICC.
Reality: Although Kenyatta
and Ruto campaigned on pledges to continue their cooperation with the ICC, their
campaign rhetoric also painted the ICC as a tool of Western imperialism. Since
taking office the Kenyatta government has actively courted the support of other
African leaders to undermine the ICC. It has also ignored threats against human
rights defenders and journalists that appear to be linked to their perceived
association with the ICC. Authorities in some areas have pressed people to “move
on.”
In this context and with the passage of time
since crimes were committed it is not surprising that views about the ICC
process have become increasingly polarized among Kenyans and that polls have
shown a drop in support for the ICC. The ICC process itself has suffered
setbacks. Some witnesses have become unwilling to testify, including some who
have cited security concerns, which may have undermined confidence that the ICC
cases can produce justice for the post-election violence.
However, serious crimes were committed in
2007-2008 and, in the vast majority of cases, those responsible have yet to be
held to account. As one Kikuyu elder told Human Rights Watch in advance of the
March 2013 elections:
I see
people who killed my relatives, raped my cousin, destroyed my property. They
have not been arrested and tried. They have not apologized for what they did.
How do you expect me to just accept that and move on?
Perception:
There was no violence around the 2013 elections. This shows justice isn’t
important to peace in Kenya.
Reality: Justice is an
important right and an end in and of itself. But Kenya’s own history suggests
that the failure to deal head-on with past crimes may only encourage future
violence.
While the 2013 elections were not marked by
the scale of violence witnessed in 2007-2008, they were preceded by
inter-communal clashes in parts of Kenya, which, as of February 2013, had
claimed more than 477 lives and displaced another 118,000 people.
In
advance of the election, victims of the 2007-2008 violence told Human Rights
Watch researchers that an absence of justice had contributed to tensions in the
Rift Valley, where most of the 2007-2008 crimes were committed.
Looking further back, it is clear that
Kenya’s impunity crisis is profound and has led to cycles of violence. Those
responsible for political assassinations under President Jomo Kenyatta’s
post-independence government and the use of torture against political opponents
and excessive use of force by the security services under President Daniel arap
Moi were not prosecuted.
The violent episodes around the 1992 and 1997
elections were treated with similar impunity. Government commissions named
names, including prominent politicians, but no one was prosecuted. It is widely
thought that this entrenched impunity encouraged politicians to believe in 2007
that they could get away with virtually anything to achieve their political
ends.
Perception: The ICC
is targeting certain communities in Kenya and favoring others because
it summoned suspects from just two tribes. The cases are damaging to national
reconciliation.
Reality: Ruto, Kenyatta and
Joshua arap Sang, the third ICC defendant in the Kenya cases, are charged as
individuals, and, in the case of Ruto and Kenyatta, not in their capacity as
government officials. The cases before the ICC will determine only their
individual criminal responsibility. One of the benefits of a criminal justice
process is that it determines individual responsibility for specific crimes.
This can help to break away from assigning blame to the totality of an ethnic or
political group.
References:
--
Send Emails to wanabidii@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment