AU bid to halt Uhuru and Ruto trials flops
The presidency of the International Criminal Court has rebuffed the African Union’s request to have cases facing President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya and his deputy William Ruto halted because it was not properly filed.
AU wrote to the court on September 10, the same day the trial of Mr Ruto and his co-accused Joshua arap Sang started, seeking the presidency’s intervention to have the cases stopped until its application to have them brought back home is determined.
In the letter copied to the UN Security Council, Ethiopian Prime Minister — who is also the current AU chairperson — Hailemariam Desalegn and AU Commission chairperson Dlamini Zuma argued that the court should first determine the application before hearing the two cases.
“In addition, the prosecution has ignored several procedural requirements having the effect of eroding the principles of natural justice. The court’s attention has been drawn to this aspect on two occasions by its own judges,” the letter read in part.
“This leaves the African Union with no option but to ask that until the request of the AU is considered and clearly responded to, the cases should not proceed.”
The continental body further argued that the trials, unless halted, would undermine Kenya’s role in the international arena.
“While Kenya has always cooperated and reiterated its commitment to continue cooperating with the court, it must do so in the context of its own constitutional requirements,” stated the AU.
In response, ICC Second vice-president Judge Cuno Tarfusser said the decision to stop the trials was not the preserve of the presidency but the chamber.
“I regret to inform you that the decision of the Assembly of the African Union as such does not constitute a request to the court in accordance with the court’s legal framework. As President Song conveyed to you earlier, the court is only able to consider requests properly raised in front of the relevant chamber in accordance with the applicable legal procedures,” Judge Tarfusser said in the letter.
The presidency recalled the admissibility challenge filed by Kenya in 2011 that had also not followed the right procedure.
“Accordingly, the court is not seized of any such request. The cases will proceed before the ICC in the absence of any issue that would trigger a decision to the contrary in accordance with the court’s legal framework,” the court said.
Judge Tarfusser said the presidency could not consider any matter or request not properly before the relevant chamber “in accordance with the applicable legal procedures.”
“The presidency has no legal powers under the Rome Statute or the subsidiary legal documents to consider the arguments and concerns raised in your letter with respect to an ongoing case before the court, or can the Presidency convey them to the relevant chambers. For the chambers seized of the case— The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua arap Sang— to consider the arguments contained in your letter, they would have to be formally brought to the attention of the relevant chambers,” the presidency said.
To formally bring the matter to the attention of the court, the law requires AU to contact Trial Chamber V (a) in the case against Mr Ruto and Mr Sang.
The court reassured the AU that its response and the ongoing proceedings were not in any way meant to harm a State Party, which Kenya became following the ratification of the Rome Statute by the International Crimes Act 2008.
Source: Daily Nation
