Kenyans trial goes in closed session over witness safety

Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto speaks with broadcaster Joshua Arap Sang ( right) in the courtroom before their trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague a week ago. PHOTO I AFP 

By Walter Menya, The Citizen Correspondent

Posted  Thursday, September 19  2013 at  11:34

In Summary

As soon as the morning session began, the prosecution requested that the court holds the hearing in private because of the sensitive issue it wanted to bring up, believed to be the safety and security of the witness P0536 who began her testimony on Tuesday.

The Hague. The second day of the first witness testimony in the trial of two Kenyans at the ICC was interrupted yesterday after the court went into a closed session.

As soon as the morning session began, the prosecution requested that the court holds the hearing in private because of the sensitive issue it wanted to bring up, believed to be the safety and security of the witness P0536 who began her testimony on Tuesday.

There was concern that the identity of the witness had been disclosed putting her in great danger along with her family.

“There are some serious issues that the prosecution wants to raise,” presiding judge Chile Eboe-Osuji said as soon as the parties had taken their seats. The judge emphasised said the prosecution’s request for a closed session was more important and could precede the submissions the Chamber had directed regarding the motion by Kenya to pull out of the Rome Statute.

Later, the Chamber ordered an ex parte hearing, meaning only one party would be making submissions to the bench from 11am the Hague time.

Issues of witness safety and security have been a concern for the prosecution, with the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda warning those who tamper with witnesses of dire consequences.

“Let me also caution, Mr President, those persons behind the on-going attempts to intimidate and bribe the ICC witnesses. These are serious offences under the Rome Statute and they carry hefty sentences upon conviction.

“The Prosecution is investigating. We will get to the bottom of it and ensure that those responsible also face justice. This trial, Mr President, must be allowed to run its course without interference with the activities of witnesses of either the Prosecution or the Defence,” Ms Bensouda said in her opening statement

President William Ruto and Joshua Sang on September 10.

By the time the Chamber went into a closed session, the witness, under the number P0536 had not been ushered into the courtroom.the parties and those in the public gallery to hear as she narrated her ordeal as one of the survivors of the church attack.

Broke down

She had told the court how she saved her daughter from the fire. “I pushed (name redacted) through the window,” she said.

At this point, Mr Steynberg reminded her against revealing her close relatives. Perhaps realising the mistake she had made, she broke down and wept inside the courtroom.

Mr Steynberg then asked the chamber for adjournment so that the witness could compose herself.

“The witness seems visibly upset and we are just about to go to the sensitive part of the evidence,” said Mr Steynberg while requesting the chamber to adjourn 10 minutes early to enable the witness recollect.

“Madam we know that this is a difficult experience for you and we shall adjourn to enable you compose yourself” said judge Eboe-Osuji as he agreed with Mr Steynberg on the adjournment motion for two hours.

Meanwhile the lead defence counsel for Mr Ruto, Karim Khan wanted the witness to make a written statement that she would not make any false statements, a request the chamber objected to with the judge stating that she could only be reminded of Rule 66 (3) of the rules of procedure that define the penalties for perjury.

“I do not want to create an intimidating atmosphere. The witnesses have an obligation to tell the truth. We expect however the VWU to inform the witness of Rule 66(3) and also inform the court that the witness has understood the same as a standard procedure.”

The judge also reinforced the same after the witness had taken her seat after the first morning break. “

We need to inform you, not that we think that you are giving false testimony. The idea is that we are not suspecting that you are not saying the truth. It is just a matter of procedure,” the judge said.

SOURCE: THE CITIZEN