Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 370097,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/370097/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 87,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "with the case. But, the Committee had the mandate to go and enquire from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about their position on the Ambassador’s comments, which were totally uncalled for. The Ambassador was purporting to speak on behalf of the ICC suspects, really, which is not part of his mandate as Kenya’s representative to the United Nations. When the Attorney General talks of Kenya’s preparedness to try the ICC cases in Kenya, he goes ahead and talks about the political, legislative as well as the democratic landscape having changed since the promulgation of the new Constitution. It is Government’s belief that the Kenyan courts can handle those cases. One is left wondering: If that is the case then, why has it taken this long to prosecute those minor cases related to the post election violence, which took place almost seven years ago? As we speak, there are thousands of Kenyans still living in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps in an independent Kenya. The question is: If the Government is ready, and if the courts have the capacity to try the ICC cases, can we know for sure the stage of the investigations of the minor cases pertaining to the post election violence of 2007/2008? Secondly, can we know when exactly the prosecution of those minor cases will commence? The Attorney-General talks of the country intending to create an international crimes division of the High Court. Really, it does not require the creation of such a division for the Attorney General to try the very numerous minor cases related to the post election violence of 2008. I find this Report shallow and unsatisfactory. On the question of the Government’s position, I asked: What is Government’s position on the Resolution of the 21st Ordinary Session of the African Union (AU) held on 26th May, 2013 in Addis Ababa? The answer given by the Attorney General - and which the Committee has happily adopted - is that, the decision was collective. We all know that the decision at the conference was collective but my question still remains: What is Kenya Government’s position regarding the referral of those cases back to the country? That resolution resulted in the comments by Kenya’s Ambassador to the UN, which the Committee has been unable to expound."
}