Skip to main content

ICC judges say Kenya's Kenyatta can skip much of his own criminal trial


ICC judges say Kenya's Kenyatta can skip much of his own criminal trial

KPFA Evening News, 2013

International Criminal Court judges say that Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta need not be present for all of his own trial for crimes against humanity.
 

Transcript: 

KPFA Evening News Anchor David Rosenberg: And, you are listening to the Evening News, KPFA and KPFB in Berkeley, KFCF in Fresno, and online at kpfa.org

Yesterday a  majority of International Criminal Court judges ruled that Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta need not be present for much of his own trial for crimes against humanity, but that he must be present during the opening and closing statements, the victims' testimony, and, the verdict. If found guilty, he must attend sentencing hearings and the delivery of sentencing, at which point he would presumably be taken into custody. KPFA's Ann Garrison has more.
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta

KPFA/ Ann Garrison:  Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta says he's too busy, as Kenya's elected head of state, to attend his trial at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and the African Union, in their recent gathering in Addis Abbaba, Ethiopia, passed a resolution that, as a sitting head of state, he shouldn't have to. The court indicted Kenyatta for organizing violence that rose to the level of crimes against humanity, after his party lost the Kenyan 2007-3008election, but he was nevertheless elected president in April 2013.  His rival, former Kenyan Prime Minister Raul Odinga, who is favored by the U.S., said he didn't know how Kenyatta could run the country via SKYPE from the Hague.

Black Agenda Report Editor Glen Ford, like many other critics of the court, says that Kenyatta's indictment is another example of the U.S. using the International Criminal Court as an imperial tool of the U.S.

Glen Ford: It is a travesty of justice that the ICC only indicts Africans, but even more importantly, the International Criminal Court also only indicts those politicians that get on the wrong Kenyatta shook hands on two $5 billion deals with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping in August 2013.side of the United States and the former colonial powers in Africa. The ICC is a tool of U.S. foreign policy.

KPFA: Some say that the U.S. is unhappy with President Kenyatta because he prefers to do business with China, and he did, in August 2013, sign two five billion dollar deals with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, to build a railway line, an energy project, and improve wildlife protection. Yesterday an energy professional and Christian Science Monitor contributor said that Kenya's oil reserves might soar past even Uganda's.

Glen Ford disagrees with South Africa's former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who says that African leaders are effectively looking for a license to kill, main and oppress their own people. He says that the United States collaborates in such crimes and objects only as a matter of political convenience.

Glen Ford: And here lies the greatest irony. The very nations that most oppose the ICC have the blood of millions on their hands. Rwanda and Uganda are principally responsible for the death of six million Congolese over the past 17 years, an ongoing genocide armed and financed by the United States and Britain. The Ethiopian regime's brutality towards its Somali and Oromo ethnic groups has also been described as genocidal. But because the United States is also deeply complicit in these crimes, there is no threat of prosecution by theBlack Agenda Report Editor Glen FordInternational Criminal Court.

KPFA: African scholars writing in the AfricanPambazuka Newsand Black Star News have sided with Tutu, arguing that despite the court's obvious bias and imperfection, the threat of indictment and conviction there restrains the violence of African strongmen. And that instead of rejecting the court out of hand, dissidents should demand that it live up to its stated ideals.   

For Pacifica, KPFA and AfrobeatRadio, I'm Ann Garrison.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OIF : Louise Mushikiwabo, une candidature embarrassante pour un troisième mandat de trop

C'était en novembre 2025, à Kigali. En marge de la 46e Conférence ministérielle de la Francophonie, Louise Mushikiwabo prenait la parole avec l'assurance de celle qui n'a rien à craindre : de nombreux pays, affirmait-elle, lui avaient demandé de se représenter. Spontanément. Naturellement. Unanimement presque. Sauf que les faits racontent une tout autre histoire. L'annonce qui ne devait pas avoir lieu si tôt Novembre 2025. Le Centre de Conventions de Kigali accueille plus de 400 délégués des 90 États membres de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Le thème officiel porte sur les femmes et l'égalité des genres, trente ans après Pékin. Mais en marge des séances plénières, c'est une autre affaire qui agite les couloirs : Louise Mushikiwabo vient d'annoncer qu'elle souhaite briguer un troisième mandat. L'annonce est prématurée. Délibérément. Les candidatures ne ferment qu'en avril 2026. Aucun autre pays n'a encore ...

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines ne fonctionnent pas contre le Rwanda

Pourquoi Paul Kagame a ignoré les sanctions américaines et la Résolution 2773 du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU Entre février 2025 et mars 2026, le Trésor américain a imposé deux séries de sanctions ciblant directement la machine de guerre du Rwanda dans l'est du Congo : d'abord James Kabarebe, ministre d'État rwandais et principal intermédiaire du régime auprès du M23, puis les Forces de défense rwandaises en tant qu'entité, ainsi que quatre de leurs hauts responsables. Chacun des individus sanctionnés est demeuré en poste. Les FDR ne se sont pas retirées. Cette analyse examine pourquoi les mesures de Washington n'ont pas modifié la conduite du Rwanda — et pourquoi, selon les propres mots de Kagame, elles sont rejetées comme l'Å“uvre des « simplement stupides ».     Introduction : des sanctions sans conséquence La campagne de sanctions de Washington contre les opérations militaires du Rwanda dans l'est du Congo s'...

Paul Kagame: “We refuse to remove defensive measures"

Paul Kagame Refuses to Implement the Washington Accords and UN Security Council Resolution 2773: Analysis and Implications In an exclusive interview published on 3 April 2026, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda openly confirmed that Rwandan forces are deployed in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, rejected calls for their withdrawal, dismissed US sanctions as illegitimate, and signalled clear satisfaction with the current military status quo. This briefing examines what Kagame said, what his remarks mean for the Washington Accords, and what concrete steps the United States must now take if it wishes to restore credibility to its diplomacy in the Great Lakes region. Introduction: A Confession Wrapped in Grievance The interview, conducted by François Soudan and published in Jeune Afrique on 3 April 2026, is one of the most candid public statements Paul Kagame has made on Rwanda's military role in the DRC. Its significance does not lie in revealing something previously unknown. Th...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute