Why the Charges Against Ruto Don't Add Up

According to the ever expanding charges laid by the ICC against William Ruto, from as early as 2005 Ruto was planning the expulsion from the Rift Valley of supporters of Kenya's Party of National Unity (PNU) and the Kikuyu people, two substantially overlapping groups. His alleged aim was to turn the Rift into a fief of the Orange Democratic Union (ODM) and to transform it into a Kikuyu free zone.

In “The Framing of William Samoei Ruto” I showed how the ICC was hoodwinked by “evidence” manufactured by Ruto's political enemies co-ordinated by Kenya's then justice minister Martha Karua. However even absent my own researches there would be good grounds for scepticism about the ICC's charges.

The application of a little logic is in order here. Ruto's long time political home was KANU until he joined forces with the ODM in 2005. In 2006 he launched a bid for the ODM nomination and was placed third with just 368 votes compared with 2,656 votes for the winner Raila Odinga. This result was unsurprising considering that the Orange Democratic Movement was always Raila's creature. In 2012 Ruto moved to the United Democratic Movement, only to launch his own United Republican Party later that year. Today the URP is allied with Uhuru Kenyatta's TNA, the heir to the Party of National Unity.

If we are to believe the ICC prosecutor no sooner had Ruto joined the ODM than he started plotting to purge the rival PNU from the Rift, sticking to his plan even after it became clear from the results of the presidential nomination ballot that that the ODM was owned by Odinga and not Ruto. This imputes to the party hopping Ruto precisely the kind of long term identification with a particular political vehicle that he manifestly lacks.

As for Ruto's supposed hatred of the Kikuyu, it is true that this claim cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds that he has had long term friendships with paticular Kikuyu such as Kenyatta. Many people are capable of combining hostile feelings towards a group while maintaining friendships with individual members of the same group. However even Ruto's enemies dont accuse him of stupidity. What some call intelligence others may label cunning. Still others might say he is too clever by half. Yet the plan for ethnic cleansing attributed to him makes sense only on the assumption that he is an imbecile. And if he were an imbecile he would never have risen so high.

During the months and years of planning Ruto is supposed to have devoted to plotting the expulsion of the Kikuyu it must be assumed that, at some point, he would have considered the probable consequences of putting his plan into action.

A moments reflection would have sufficed to convince him that Kikuyu leaders would not simply stand by and let their people be slaughtered. That is to say he would have predicted the counterviolence. To have proceeded with his alleged plan would have made sense only if he desired the break up of the Republic of Kenya, leaving him as reigning warlorld in the Rift. Yet if there is one thing we know about William Ruto it is that his ambitions are much larger than that.

By 2007 Ruto was already first citizen amongst the Kalenjin. There is debate over whether he delivered the Rift to the ODM in the 2007 election or merely took the credit for doing so but both sides take it for granted that he is only contender for the title of leader of the Kalenjin. Like any ambitious man he wanted to rise higher still, which is why he sought the ODM nomination for the presidency. The last thing he wanted was to destroy the Republic of Kenya as with it he would have destroyed his own dream of occupying the State House. In short the allegations against Ruto simply don't square with what everybody knows about the man.

When seeking to solve a crime the Romans used to ask “cui bono?”, “who gains?”. We know who gained from the post election chaos, it was Raila Odinga, who secured the consolation prize of the premiership as a result. And there have been many who have accused Raila of driving the violence. As an admirer of the Prime Minister I make no such accusation. I dont actually believe it is necessary to look for a controlling hand behind riots that broke out across the country the moment the election result was announced. I merely observe that if one wanted to find such a prime mover Odinga's portrait would fit much more neatly into the frame than does Ruto's.

I suppose it might be argued that Ruto could have sponsored the violence in the hope of gaining a reward from Raila if he succeeded in wresting the presidency from Kibaki. Had the ICC limited itself to imputing such a motive and set aside the fantasies about a long term plan to expel PNU supporters/Kikuyu its case would at least have cleared the hurdle of conceivability. Even then there would not be any good reason to believe in Ruto's guilt. The same posse of hired witnesses who accuse him of sponsoring the post election violence also accuse him of manifestly impossible plans and motives with respect to the years prior to the election. Indeed given what I have unearthed about the activities of Martha Karua and Joseph Kamua, (from which one can infer also the probable involvement of the security services), I would not believe in Ruto's guilt even if the prosecution produced a tape recording of him saying “kill all the Kikuyu!”

The lawyers for the “Ocampo four” have been accused of theatrics. However it is not theatrics to say that your client has been framed when he has, or to say that a prosecution is political when it is, or yet to say that he isnt getting a fair trial when he clearly isnt. Are we to think it merely coincidence that the ICC chose to indict three men from the ODM and three from the Government side? Or that at the next stage in the case it struck off one from each side? Shouldn't we suspect politics when the two apparent principals in the violence escape prosecution while those under them carry the can? And how can one have faith that a trial will be fair when the prosecution simply refuse even to consider the evidence of those (such as Tony Gachoka) who think they have made a wrong call, withold crucial evidence and the names of witnesses from the accused and seek and gain permission for extensive witness coaching?

As a passionate believer in the system of international law and the necessity of an international criminal court I have been extremely distressed by the accumulating evidence of the ICCs failings. I regret to say that at present it isn't fit to try a ham sandwhich let alone Presidents and Prime Ministers.