What is the fate of Kenya in the ongoing ICC mayhem?
Just before the elections the then mp for gatundu had promised that if elected president he would treat the case against him as a personal issue! Today the tone has changed and through his spokesman after being elected president the former mp for gatundu is claiming that the ICC case is no longer a personal issue!
WHAT HAS CHANGED?Recently a special AU meeting was convened in Adis ababa to discus this contentious issue. The resolution for almost all the anglophone states plus the francophone nations was to give the ICC an ultimatum that they must comply to failure to which they will convene again for a drastic action to be taken against the Hague based court. "African presidents should be exempted from the trials!!" a statement that was highly echoed during the unusual A.U gathering.
Was this to mean that African leaders can commit crimes then be let free just because they are in power and then after they exit power they be reminded of their faults?
Does it mean that if one becomes the president he is immune to the law?
Koffi Annan an eminent personality in Africa tried to clear the wave of confusion about the case by categorically stating that it is not Kenya that is being tried at the Hague but specific individual! This statement was also echoed by Mr. Tutu.
This is very true, it is not Kenya that is being tried at the ICC but specific personalities. If the individuals are very sure they did not commit the crimes why not go and clean their names?
Issues like they are the president and deputy president should not arise at the moment. They all vowed to the public that they would manage the situation even after Mr odinga and Martha karua being very categorical and telling them it would be a turmoil to run the country through skype. Where has the statement a gentleman's agreement gone to? Africa needs leaders that can be able to keep their word.
Kenya entered the Rome statute voluntarily as provided for to every state in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties 1969 article 6, EACH AND EVERY STATE HAS THE CAPACITY TO CONCLUDE A TREATY.
The treaty goes ahead to provide a way through which a state can put across reservation on what the terms of the treaty can not apply to it so long as it does not defeat the purpose and objective of the treaty.
I suppose Kenya didn't put across a reservation that its presidents should be exempted from trials an d if it did the request was not granted for that would be defeating the purpose and objective of the treaty.
The international law has made it clear that no person is above the law through the Nuremberg tribunal of 1950 that set up the seven basic principles of international law.( check principal number 3)
Facts be told, the victims of the 2007/2008 post election violence must get justice so all the alleged actors in it should follow the laid down procedures and be vindicated if not found guilty.
of course the court has also to bear in mind that the accused have constitutional obligations to deliver to the constituencies that gave them the mandate to govern the country. Hence applying the win win approach for both parties would probably be the best but the rule of law must be upheld.
