A Practitioner's Perspective on the Kenya I and Kenya II Cases Before the ICC

AuthorBrianne Mcgonigle-Leyh
PositionInstitute of Human Rights, Utrecht University, Netherlands, University College Utrecht, Netherlands
Pages51-57
Brianne Mcgonigle Leyh, ‘A Practitioner’s Perspective on the Kenya I
and Kenya II Cases Before the ICC’ (2014) 30(79) Utrecht Journal of
International and European Law 51, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/
ujiel.co
Introduction
On 10 September 2013 the International Criminal Court (ICC) began hearing a case against William Ruto,
Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, and Joshua Sang. The related case against the President of Kenya,
Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, was scheduled to begin in November 2013 but has since been postponed until
October 2014. Both cases are noteworthy since they are the first against sitting politicians. Unsurprisingly,
they have not been without controversy.
The two cases stem from post-election violence that erupted in Kenya from December 2007 to February
2008. The violence began after allegations of election fraud after the main opposition party, the Orange
Democratic Movement (ODM), and its presidential candidate Raila Odina, were defeated in the final hours of
voting by the incumbent President Mwai Kibaki of the Party of National Unity (PNU). Armed gangs attacked
individuals from other ethnic and tribal groups. Approximately 1200 people were killed, 3500 injured and
350,000 forcible displaced (some figures go as high as 600,000 displaced). Additionally, a high number of
rape and sexual-based violence occurred. Given the scale of the violence, an African Union mediation team,
led by Kofi Annan, stepped in to negotiate a peace.
The mediation resulted in the two political parties agreeing to share political power and to implement
important legislative and economic reforms. As part of the agreement, the Kenyan government appointed
a judicial commission to investigate the crimes that took place, referred to as the Commission of Inquiry
into Post Election Violence or the Waki Commission after the Appeals Judge who chaired the body. The Waki
Commission compiled a report along with a list of alleged perpetrators of violence, and the chairman gave
this report to Annan who in turn handed it to the then Prosecutor of the ICC, Louis Moreno Ocampo.
INTERVIEW
A Practitioner’s Perspective on the Kenya I and Kenya
II Cases Before the ICC
Interviews with the Lead Defense Counsel in the Ruto Case (Kenya I), Karim A.A.
Khan, and Lead Prosecutor in the Kenyatta Case (Kenya II), Adesola Adeboyejo
Brianne Mcgonigle Leyh1
1 Institute of Human Rights, Utrecht University, Netherlands, University College Utrecht, Netherlands
b.n.mcgonigle@uu.nl
UTRECHT JOURNAL OF
INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW
Keywords: ICC; International Criminal Law; Ruto; Kenyatta; Kenya I and Kenya II
On 10 September 2013 the International Criminal Court (ICC) began hearing a case against Wil-
liam Ruto, Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, and Joshua Sang. The related case against
the President of Kenya, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, was scheduled to begin in November 2013 but
has since been postponed until October 2014. Both cases are noteworthy since they are the
rst against sitting politicians. Unsurprisingly, they have not been without controversy.
These trials are challenging for the Court, not least because the Kenyan government recently
passed a resolution withdrawing from the ICC and repealing its domestic legislation criminal-
izing international crimes, arguing that Kenya needed to restore it sovereignty and resist neo-
colonialism. Although this withdrawal does not aect the current cases before the Court, it
certainly makes cooperation with Kenya for the purpose of further investigations more dicult.
Karim A.A. Khan, QC, formerly the defense counsel of Muthaura and currently the lead defense
counsel of Ruto, raised these issues in an interview taking place one week before his opening
statements in the Kenya I case. These same issues and concerns were also raised with Adesola
Adeboyejo a lead prosecutor in the Kenya II case in December 2013.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT