With the election of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto into office and with witnesses pulling out, or threatening to do so, in the Uhuru and Ruto case at the ICC, serious questions on the conflict between Peace and Justice are raised. Ideally, peace and justice are supposed to be mutually reinforcing goals, BUT unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. The ICC is therefore faced with an interesting dilema of justice versus peace. This dilema is unfolding at two levels.At the first level, the ICC is meant to uphold justice for the Kenyan people....and therefore peace (theoretically). This is to be achieved by prosecuting Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto on crimes against humanity. Unfortunately for the ICC, the Kenyan people have elected in the two in an election that was widely considered to be free and fair. The question therefore arises as to whether justice can be truly pursued and achieved where the victim of said injustice stands with the accused. Is that justice? The pursuit of justice is also meant to uphold peace. Does the ICC's pursuit of the Kenyan cases against democratically elected leaders promote peace or does it contribute to the instability that may be caused by a president and deputy-president facing charges at the ICC?
At the second level, is the issue of the sudden withdrawal of witnesses coinciding with the rise to power of the Uhuru and Ruto duo. The ICC stands at the top of a slippery slope and this writer hopes that justice isn't that blind. Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is an enemy action. (taken from Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger one of the greates all time Bond movies) The trend suggests that for one to slip through the gaps of an ICC case, it is as easy as (or as difficult as) getting into power, or for that matter, staying in power. This should be a matter of gravest concern to the ICC whose main mandate is the prosecution of those who hold the highest level of culpability. The court must continually send strong signals indicating that power is not an impenetrable shroud against justice.
When examining the law, one must analyze the letter of the Law as well as the spirit of the Law. In this case, the spirit of the Law governing the ICC was meant to bring justice and promote peace. Therefore in determining the course to be taken by the court, the maintenance of peace must be a significant consideration of the court and not just a blind following of the letter of the law. However, this may come at the cost of the pursuit of justice. Must justice be sacrificed at the alter peace? Is peace a form of justice?
The view behind the attache's desk suggests that Ms. Bensouda and her crack team of lawyers, as well as the ICC judges, have huge issues to address, over and above the prosecution and adjudication of a case against suspects. Perhaps a baptism of fire is what the ICC needs in order to establish what type of court it is going to be for the rest of humanity. Perhaps the baptism of fire will simply leave a corpsy shell. As always, I follow this issue closely from behind this attache's desk.
Whether the spirit of the law or the letter of the law, I think the ICC will have a very hard time in this case for sure! Thanks for the analysis, keep it coming!
ReplyDelete"The question therefore arises as to whether justice can be truly pursued and achieved where the victim of said injustice stands with the accused."
ReplyDeleteYou make a terrible assumption in the above. UK only won the election by a slim margin. This essentially means that at least 50% of the country voted the other way. Therefore not all so called 'VICTIMS' stand with the accused. On a more worrying note, will those victimized by the violence and consequent eviction ever get the justice they deserve? Will history sweep this under the carpet as we celebrate a new presidency? The ICC got it wrong from the word go. No amount of investigation and prosecution will overrun the power of the owners of the land!! THIS IS AFRICA!!
@kibe Gitau...That's the down side of democracy. When Uhuru was declared president of Kenya, it didnt mean just the Kenyans that voted for him.....it's all Kenyans.
ReplyDelete