Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 529597,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/529597/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 286,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "adjournment. I remember the prosecutor, Mr. Steinberg, said openly to the whole world that the Deputy President did not have to be in Kenya at that time and that he could appoint somebody else to act in his place. Everybody was in that courtroom, including the judges and the prosecution side. It was with disbelief that somebody enjoined with such an important task as prosecuting a case at the ICC was so ignorant. One of the judges, Judge Osuji asked the prosecutor whether he had read or aware of what the Constitution of Kenya says about that position and he said he had not read. I could not believe that somebody could be so ignorant. This is a lawyer who is purporting to prosecute such an important case. I say this because following the case at the ICC, one notices quite clearly that the prosecution does not know where it is going, assuming it knows where it has come from. For the very first time, unlike what we were taught in first year law that you cannot self- incriminate, you are not expected to give evidence against yourself and so on. In fact, your spouse cannot be forced to give evidence against you. In the same vein, you cannot self-incriminate. This is the first time in the history of law, as far as I am concerned, that I have heard a prosecutor stand up and say that he has no evidence to sustain the case and requesting the case to be adjourned sine die so that he can go and look for evidence. I have never heard anything like that. I have heard it for the first time at The Hague. The judges asked whether the prosecutor had anything to show that the Republic of Kenya or the President himself had acted in any way to ensure that no evidence got to the court. The prosecutor said that they do not have evidence to show that Mr. Kenyatta, as they called him, had acted in any way to make sure that there is no evidence. At that moment, I expected the President to be acquitted. I expected the judges to say that the case is unsustainable. That was enough ground for the lawyers to apply and say that if the accused person has nothing to do with the lack of evidence, then the court cannot keep him indefinitely there. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is common ground that there is absolutely no evidence against the President, against his Deputy or anybody accused at the ICC as regards to the Kenyan cases. Nobody says that what happened in 2007/2008 did not happen because we are Kenyans and we saw it. All of us are very remorseful about what happened. We know there are victims and we feel very strongly about them hoping that they will get recompense much sooner than later, the fact that they are victims does not connote that a particular person must be the one to take that responsibility because this is not political responsibility, but criminal responsibility. Therefore, I believe that it is important to distinguish between the presidency, the country Kenya and the victims. It means that we should look at this case dispassionately. If we agree like Bensuda says that there is no evidence, we expect that His Excellency the President is going to be acquitted. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are discussing this on 21st October, 2014 immediately after celebrating our own Mashujaa Day. This case reminds me of the Kapenguria Trial of the six Kenyans in late 1950s for founding, aiding and abetting Mau Mau in the struggle for freedom. They were six just like the six in The Hague. Everybody recalls that in the The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}