Withdrawal of Kenyatta case highlights ICC prosecution weakness
The withdrawal of charges against Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta two weeks ago has raised questions about the capacity of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to secure evidence against suspects if states are unwilling to cooperate.
On 5 December, in the ICC’s most high-profile case yet, prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced she was dropping the charges against Kenyatta. The first sitting head of state to appear before the ICC had been charged with crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the 2007-2008 post-election violence that swept the East African country, leaving over a thousand people dead and many more displaced.
The prosecutor’s decision came after the trial chamber refused her request for an adjournment in order to secure more evidence. The need arose as a number of key witnesses had withdrawn or recanted their evidence and the Kenyan government did not hand over solicited documents, such as financial and phone records.
While judges chided Nairobi for not complying with its duties to the court, they decided against a formal finding of non-cooperation, which would trigger a referral of the matter to the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties. The prosecution has since filed for leave to appeal that ruling.
Want to read more?
We have tailor-made memberships for students, individuals, groups of professionals and large companies and organizations. A subscription entitles you to receive the International Justice Tribune every two weeks as well as become a member of the Justice Tribune Foundation, supporting independent reporting on international justice.