The Jackal News recently
reprinted the first two parts of my five part series “The Framing of
William Samoei Ruto” and“How NGOs’s
Faked Ruto’s Evidence”. The reaction of
commenters was extremely negative. One common refrain was “Why now?” Those who
asked this were presumably unaware that the Jackal News first covered this
story long before the last election only to be subjected to a massive hacking
attack which forced it temporarily out of action. The first part of my series
was published a year ago, and the full story (or as much of it as I able to
reveal) was published at the start of this year via my
websitegileshumphry.com/politics. The
mainstream media, Kenyan and international, has chosen to ignore the revelations.
Unlike the Jackal News, they didn’t believe that Kenyan voters had a right to
know that one of the original candidates in the recent presidential elections
(Ruto) was framed by another (Martha Karua), with the help of allies of a third
(Raila Odinga).
I did think that voters had a
right to know this. I weighed the fact
that, as a foreigner, I had no right to intervene in Kenya’s election against
the consideration that withholding what I knew would amount to a different sort
of interference. I decided to let Kenyans judge for themselves.
Many have, and some have
concluded that I am a hired liar or propagandist. Such strong feelings are
understandable given the gravity of the allegations against the Deputy
President. Should anyone choose to hate me I have no objection, provided they
hate me for a logical reason. For example some have objected on the grounds
that I am a foreigner interfering in Kenyan affairs.
However no one who supports the
ICC process can make this complaint without inconsistency since that process is
the most dramatic case of foreign intervention in Kenya since the colonial era.
I write this as a supporter of the ICC and the process of international law.
For reasons that I explain in “Reflections on the ICC Process” I reject the
charge that the ICC is racist and neo-colonialist.
Nevertheless it clearly is a
political court. Prior to the election the ICC took a very stern view of
submissions by the defence. Thus, in
defiance of all sound legal precedent, including its own the court ruled to allow
the prosecution exceptionally broad latitude to coach witnesses, a practice
that can only benefit the party that is lying. In the run up to the election
the ICC was very clear it would make no concessions should Jubilee win. Since
the election however there has been a sea change in the court’s attitude. The
President and the Deputy President have both been granted deferrals.
A majority of judges, falling
just short of the required two thirds, embraced Ruto’s proposal to move the
trial venue to Kenya. The ICCs somersault increases the chances of an acquittal
without reinforcing confidence that the trial will be fair.
Concerns of this sort make it
impossible to believe that we should refrain from discussing the impending
trial and trust that the ICC will make the right call. The “sub judice” principle may legitimately be invoked to
restrain discussion of a forthcoming jury trial but in a non- jury case such as
this it is largely irrelevant except with respect to exposing the identity of
witnesses of witnesses.
This I refrained from doing even
though, in some cases, I could have. Perhaps it will be objected that I have
revealed the identities of certain potential defence witnesses. However this
was done with their agreement, and I leave it to readers to judge for
themselves whether I would have proceeded in this matter without good grounds
for assuming the acquiescence of the defence. I concealed the identities of all
sources who did not wish to reveal themselves, such as that of the late
Kipkalya Kones and Lorna Laboso, though I have passed this on to the Defence
team.
Those who assume Ruto’s guilt
have asked “what about the IDP land case that he lost in the Kenyan courts, was
he also framed there?” I think the question is based on an illogical
assumption, that if Ruto is guilty of stealing someone’s land(which, in any
case was not the issue being determined in this civil trial) he must also be
guilty of crimes against humanity. Anyone tempted to reason along these lines
should take a leaf out of the book of the ancient Romans.
When seeking to solve a crime
they always asked “cui bono?” that is
“who gains”. Ruto might have thought to gain from stealing someone’s land but
he couldn’t have hoped to gain from unleashing war with the Kikuyu.
As I note in “Why the Charges Against Ruto don’t Add Up”
the best outcome he could have achieved from such a course would have been to
emerge as reigning warlord in the Rift valley. Yet if there is anything we know
about Ruto his ambitions are higher than that. He already had the Rift in his
palm prior to the 2007 election, his unfulfilled ambition then as now was to be
President. And since we know he has long desired to lead the Republic of Kenya
I think we must acquit him of seeking to precipitate its breakup.
Readers are at liberty to dispute
my reasoning, or to believe I have been duped or hired but I will state for the
record that all my sources spoke without receiving prior promise of payment,
neither have they received any payment since.
I myself have received no recompense, either from Ruto or from any
outlet that has republished my work. My efforts have gained me only enemies. If
I am wrong I am at least sincerely wrong.
However, even if I believed
either Ruto or Kenyatta to be guilty I might still be inclined to welcome the
dropping of charges against them. I don’t entertain the argument made by some
that they should be reprieved simply because they have won an election. If that
argument holds then every leader who persecuted a minority with majority
support would have to be afforded impunity.
Rather my feeling is that if the
Kikuyu (who bore the brunt of the post election violence), and the Kalenjin,
(who also suffered revenge atrocities) should wish to reconcile it doesn’t make
sense for the international community to try and throw a spanner in the works.
I am aware that the PEV affected more than just these two communities and that
the victims don’t speak with one voice. Also I am a foreigner, though that’s a
card that can be played only by opponents of the ICC process. At any rate, the role I have played has
entirely been at the request of Kenyans frustrated with the unwillingness of
the Kenyan media to report on this matter. Kenyans often travel to my country
to do jobs that the natives are considered reluctant to perform. I have done only
the same thing in reverse.
No comments:
Post a Comment