We the people of Kenya, thank the Almighty God for protecting our country, uniting our communities and answering our prayers. Over the last few months, we have witnessed revelations in various forms.
Starting with the judge who
withdrew her participation in the cases due to her involvement in the passage of the controversial Rule 68; actors on both sides of the political divide now admitting for the first time that they either knew of, or participated in the framing of the
accused, and yesterday's confirmation by human rights activists of their knowledge of the use of false witnesses.
We wish therefore to restate the following:
1. We affirm our strong belief in and commitment to the rule
of law, due process and constitutionalism. Kenya is a sovereign, democratic society with a robust Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of thought, speech and expression. When we subscribed to the Rome Statute, we believed that these constitutional
rights would be the basis of our engagement with the ICC.
2. The statement by the Trial Chamber attempting to lecture,
intimidate and gag Kenyans and their leaders in the mistaken hope that they will subdue them into silence is unfortunate, unlawful and a gross violation of the basic values of the Rome Statute and fundamental principles of international law.
3. We are shocked that this unwarranted lecture and attempted intimidation by the Chamber was orchestrated, prosecuted and determined by the Court without an application by any party as would be expected of any judicial institution of any standard.
4. This raises fundamental questions on the general independence and integrity of the Court: on whose behalf, at whose behest, on whose motion and for what benefit was the
Court acting in making this bizarre intervention?
5. We want the ICC to understand that respect is EARNED.
When the Court violates basic tenets of international law and its own Statute by orchestrating the introduction of rules midway through a trial, then goes ahead to enforce them retrospectively, how do they expect any respect? When the Court degenerates into believing statements that have been recanted by the witnesses who authored them before judges in court, the court cannot and should not escape criticism. When the Court frustrates the establishment and operationalisation of an independent oversight mechanism as provided by Article 112(4) of the Rome Statute to ensure accountability of all its
organs, and instead opts to operate opaquely and with impunity, then where does the court find the morality and legitimacy to lecture Kenyans and their leaders?
6. For the record, on Friday, Kenyan parliamentarians from CORD and Jubilee petitioned both the Assembly of State Parties and the United Nations Security Council to without any further delay set up and operationalise the independent
oversight mechanism envisaged in Article 112 (4) and to immediately conduct an inquiry into the Kenyan cases and specifically the matters of witness procurement, bribery and
coaching that have bedeviled the Kenyan cases from their commencement, and which have recently been corroborated by
critical actors.
NOW THEREFORE, AND FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, we the people of Kenya wish to state that we are a sovereign, democratic and independent nation founded on the principles of the rule of law, respect for human rights and constitutionali
sm, and that we now do and will resist at all costs, by all means
and at all times any forms of dictatorship from any quarter,
including the ICC. Kenya is and shall continue to be a free, open and democratic society and nothing less. We shall continue to speak and continue in prayer. These we will defend with our all.
