At this point, Ruto was still attacking Waki for including his name in the Waki Report as he rubbished the same report at public rallies.
About the Author
Kenya News and Information
Kenya News and Information
At this point, Ruto was still attacking Waki for including his name in the Waki Report as he rubbished the same report at public rallies.
Mr William Ruto and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta can only read their Mothers!Mama Ngina blessed Ruto knowing that Ruto burned Kikuyu Children their parents, sick ,and old inside Eldoret church.That innocent blood will follow them through-out their lives.Both Ruto and Uhuru must be placed in Hague ICC cells to avert chaos in kenya.The so called Prayer meetings, all-over Kenya is War preparations in disguise ,the message being delivered in these ethnical and tribal meetings is nothing but war declaration .If the Duo is taken to Hague court. What the ICC could do is to issue warrant of arrest to the Four Pev war criminals and lock them at Hague waiting for the hearing of their cases.
William Ruto accepted to support Uhuru as next President and he told Kenyans Kenya belongs to Kikuyus and Kikuyu as the biggest tribe in Kenya followed by the Kalenjins has the right to dominate each and every ministry>Staff at AG office cry foul over claims of tribalism
Updated 2 hr(s) 1 min(s) ago
Related Stories
Attorney General Githu Muigai who has asked Chief Justice Willy Mutunga to open a new wing of the High Court to handle i
Parliament’s ‘historic’ business amid frequent battles with Executive
Githu defends move to appeal al-Bashir ruling
DPP proposes new office structure
Ministers, AG to face House team over evictions
Githu: Remove me from Karume caseBy MUTINDA MWANZIA
Staff at the office of the Attorney General have written to Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the AG Prof Githu Muigai and the National Cohesion and Integration Commission over alleged tribalism.
They claim tribalism was being practiced from the highest office.
“All departments are either headed by or deputised by people from one community. As Kenya gears towards national cohesion and integration, a lot needs to be done in some government offices and departments,” said the staff in the letter obtained by The Standard.
The staff alleged the Budget Committee, which meets every Tuesday, is composed of individuals from one community. The committee members are Solicitor General Wanjuki Muchemi as chairman, Senior Deputy Solicitor General Muthoni Kimani who serves as the alternate chair, Onesmus Mutua, senior deputy secretary, John Karu, chief economist, Joseph Mutuma, chief finance, Simon Karanja, accounts controller, Patrick Njoroge, ICT officer, Ephantus Thiga, procurement officer and Miriam Gitau, human resource officer.
“These are people who meet to agree on the utilisation of all resources allocated to the Attorney General’s office. Is it by design that all come from one community,” posed the staff in the letter.
They claimed that all projects are designed to benefit some contractors from one community.
“One contractor supplies ICT materials using different companies,” said the letter.
They petitioned Githu to disband the committee and pick reforms oriented individuals from all communities. The staff asked NCIC Chairman Mzalendo Kibunjia and his team to address the matter urgently, as most of them were demoralised.
Compensation claims
“Some departments like Treaties and Agreements are packed with people from one community,” claimed the staff.
A supremacy battle has been raging at the AG’s office pitting Githu and Muchemi over the transfer of four State counsel to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The four officers have had their salaries stopped for proceeding on transfer without the Solicitor General’s nod.
And an audit of compensation claims paid in the year 2010-2011 done by the Kenya National Audit Office revealed that there was need to verify all awards before payments to avoid illegalities.
Does Ruto and Company watch Ngatias Video and learn something?
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTN7tdRYdw0&feature=related
ruto is a thief
Sarah Elderkin: Is Jeff Koinange on a Mission?
Sarah Elderkin: Is Jeff Koinange on a Mission?
Jeff Koinange On A Mission?
SATURDAY, 04 FEBRUARY 2012 00:07 BY SARAH ELDERKIN
The best description of television presenter Jeff Koinange I ever heard was that he is like a human cartoon. And it seems that the greater the apparent threat to his political godfathers, the more Koinange becomes almost a parody of himself – a parody characterised by strange body jerks, weird facial grimaces and painfully tortured pronouncements – as he falls over backwards (or more often leans dangerously forward) to lick the egos of the carefully selected guests appearing on his K24 programme Capital Talk.
It is amusingly cringe-worthy stuff. But beyond the sblack persons, it is also very serious. Koinange appears to be a man on a mission, and that mission is to push the notion that Prime Minister Raila Odinga was behind the International Criminal Court process that has seen three high-ranking public officers and a journalist charged with heinous crimes against fellow Kenyans.
The Second Schedule to the Media Act 2007has a code of conduct that exhorts journalists to distinguish clearly “between comment, conjecture and fact” and to “vigorously resist undue influence from … powerful individuals and special interest groups”. What Koinange has been doing in his programme is in direct contravention of those guidelines.
The TV station K24 is owned by Mediamax, which in turn is majority, if not wholly, owned by the Kenyatta family. Presumably with his employer’s blessing, Koinange has been openly using his programme to engage in what can only be viewed as blatant propaganda and insinuated falsehoods against the Prime Minister. Does this constitute hate speech? I don’t know, but in pursuit of his objective, there is no one Koinange loves to have more frequently ‘on the bench’ than Miguna Miguna.
Miguna used to work for the Prime Minister. After an acrimonious falling-out following Miguna’s suspension from office, he was offered his job back. He refused it. That was the cue, on January 12, for a warm welcome from Koinange for yet another cosy chat on the bench – the fourth in as many months. On each of these occasions Koinange has clearly been egging Miguna on to say things that go beyond, and are not supported by, Miguna’s statements on the programme. To give Miguna his due, while he has his own axe to grind, he has more or less resisted being forced into saying anything more than he means.
Nevertheless, the inescapable conclusion is that it is only the identity of the person at whom Miguna’s attacks are directed that make him such a frequently desirable guest for Koinange, who uses Miguna to continue his own relentless pursuit of his quarry. In the January 12 programme, Koinange says to Miguna: “The Hague – the big decision is coming up [the programme aired just before the ICC confirmation of charges]. You must have thoughts because – you were partially involved in that as well.”
The truth of the matter is that Miguna has openly declared he spoke to officers of the ICC when they were in Nairobi, and he did so entirely as a private citizen. His actions had nothing to do with the Prime Minister and Miguna had no evidence other than his own opinions to offer. It is a point emphasised by Miguna himself in response to Koinange’s question: “Were you ever interviewed by the investigators – at the ICC?”
Miguna answers: “Uhhhh , uhhh, I spoke with people from the ICC, many times, uhhh, whether you want to call them investigators I don’t know. I’m not a witness AND I DIDN’T HAVE MATERIAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED [my emphasis] but you know, I have my opinions, I have my observations and I have an impression I can give, and I’ve given that …”
Later in the interview, Koinange prompts him back to this topic with: “OK, let’s come back to The Hague. Big decision this week.” Miguna protests that it would be irresponsible of him to speculate on the cases. This does not satisfy Koinange. He persists: “Were you involved at all with the ICC in that period? Because I saw you a couple of times when we went to The Hague.”
It is well-documented, best of all by Miguna himself in his article published in the Star on April 12, 2011, that Miguna went to The Hague during the initial hearings simply as an individual and as an observer – “in fulfilment of my solemn undertaking to [Star] readers”, as he put it in the article. This does not deter Koinange from his insinuations. He persists: “Why were you the only one? How come no one from PNU or ODM-K or anyone else was INVITED [his emphasis] or went to The Hague to give this kind of information?”
Miguna sets him straight: ‘No, I did not give the information at The Hague. I spoke with the ICC people right here in Kenya. I never went to The Hague to speak with the ICC. And I don’t know what PNU or other parties did. And I don’t know what any other person other than myself did.”
Despite the fact that Miguna has already said he only gave ICC officers his personal opinions, Koinange presses on: “On behalf of the Prime Minister, on behalf of ODM, on behalf of who?” Miguna replies, “Both, and on behalf of myself as a Kenyan, as a Kenyan who believes that impunity should not go unpunished, as a Kenyan who believes there should be justice to victims. Yes, I can tell you that.”
This is clearly not the direction Koinange wants Miguna to take at all, so he moves in with: “But being who you are, they must have taken your word as law, because obviously you’re a professional …” Miguna responds, “No, no, no, they can’t. You see, ICC people are professionals. They don’t take evidence based on title. Otherwise, Uhuru and Muthaura’s word would have been the law. Kibaki’s word, on behalf of Muthaura, would be the law. Bashir’s word would be the law. So they don’t do that. They assess what you say, assess your credibility, and see whether or not what you are saying is reliable and credible.”
Koinange is not about to let go and he plunges on rather desperately with: “But did you volunteer yourself to talk to the ICC or were you assigned [insinuation: by the Prime Minister] this task to go forth and talk to the ICC?” Miguna replies: “No, uhhh, I don’t know what happened. I think I was contacted by someone, and I think I spoke with the Prime Minister and he told me I can speak with them and I did.”
There is a huge gulf between the Prime Minister’s being consulted as a matter of courtesy by an employee planning to give his opinions to the ICC, and the Prime Minister’s assigning that task to someone as his representative. Miguna has never claimed he was so assigned by the Prime Minister, nor was he.
Miguna then says that ICC correspondence going to President Kibaki, Prof George Saitoti and the Prime Minister was also copied to him when he was working in his role as adviser to the Prime Minister on coalition affairs. Despite the fact that this was obviously shared, not secret, information, Koinange sees an advantage he can press. “Wow!” he says in hushed tones, and then: “You were in close contact with them [ICC]?”
Miguna: “In some way, yes.”
Koinange (hopefully): “Ocampo?”
Miguna: “No.”
Koinange: “Just the people around him?”
Miguna: “Yes.”
Koinange: “This decision, is it a landmark decision coming?”
Miguna: “It’s a landmark decision.”
Koinange: “And if it does … what you may have told them could have something to do with it.”
Miguna: “No, no, it can’t, because I was not used as a witness. [PNU activist Dr Peter] Kagwanja was a witness, hahaha, his publication was used, but none of the things I said was evidence …They decided who they were going to call as witnesses and what information they were going to relay to the judges.” Koinange (not giving up): “But you may have helped them in that respect.”
Miguna: “Of course I did. I think I did, in terms of analysis. Yes, I mean, for all I know, they are reading even my articles in the newspapers, yes, so in that way, and there were a lot of people who were writing in the newspapers, so in that way, they relied on all kinds of evidence, and you can see they relied directly on Kagwanja.”
Miguna has thus clearly stated that he volunteered only his personal opinions to the ICC. He thinks the ICC might have read his newspaper articles (which they might well have). But by his own admission, the opinions he offered were not considered valuable as evidence. It is interesting to note that what Koinange was trying to do was not lost on viewers. Online blog comments attached to Koinange’s interviews with Miguna include:
“Jeff Koinange u always push miguna to say bad things on raila n you really like it am telling you are one of his haters we know”
“Jeff Koinange has smelt blood. Why don’t you invite Maina Njenga and tell his story on the fallout with the guy you call a brother from another mother?”
“… Jeff, it is a huge payday for you, huh. You sure are an effective hatchet man. Word of caution though … [Miguna] may just be your waterloo”
“This is the type of interview I will call unprofessional and gossiping interview. Jeff continues to drain himself in the unprofessional drainage system. Has gone gutter press”
“Jeff is really enjoying this”
“OK. Just asking: what is the role of this Jeff Koinange in this show? Is it to incite the speakers, or to objectively draw them out and have them talk about some serious stuff … Oh! And by the way, is he planning to get the other side of the story on the show as well?”
“I love the way Jeff is inciting him!”
“Jeff’s energy begins to wane when he sees that Miguna is no longer saying what he wants him to say. At 4:41 Jeff is like ‘This guy needs to get off my bench. Who asked him all that?’”
“Apparently Jeff is happy Miguna fell out with Raila. Jeff wants to exploit it for the benefit of PNU.”
It is evident from these comments and, indeed, from the entire conversation, that Koinange had a noticeable agenda, and that this agenda was certainly not the objective interview of his subject. He tried in every way to insinuate that the Prime Minister could have influenced, or did influence, the ICC process – and he continued trying to insinuate this long after Miguna had made quite clear that this was not the case.
Over the coming year, the conduct of the media is going to play a huge role in influencing how peacefully the next general election will be conducted. There is no room for persistent behaviour by any journalist that is inimical to peace, truth, justice and national unity. Is the Media Council looking? Cohesion and Integration? National Dialogue and Reconciliation? Or do we just let it all hang out like this, with no brakes, and no standards?
Enter Karim Khan, the Queen’s Counsel leading Francis Muthaura’s defence team at The Hague, and last week another willing captive on the bench. Khan spent much of the programme rehearsing arguments that the court had obviously already rejected when it confirmed the charges against the suspects. But it was not long before the two gentlemen got on to the Prime Minister’s alleged role.
Koinange introduces the topic with: “Maybe this case was never about the four but maybe it was the two guys at the top. Maybe that’s what they wanted.” Khan responds with: “Who’s they? That’s the question.” And he goes on to answer that question: “I am not excluding the fact that the professionals at the ICC may have plunged into a certain group within the Kenyan information stream and swallowed everything, as I said in court, lock, stock and barrel.”
To back up this specious suggestion, he moves to the interview with Miguna: “I was very interested to hear that HE SAID HE HAS BEEN A MAIN INFORMATION PROVIDER TO THE PROSECUTOR [my emphasis] and I was taken aback because, firstly, I received no information from the prosecutor in relation to any information given BY THE PRIME MINISTER [my emphasis], particularly when we’ve asserted that maybe there’s some kind of political manipulation of the Kenyan system through the aegis of an international court. We received nothing from the prosecutor to show HIS CONTACT [my emphasis] with the special assistant of the prime minister, who the world knows is the next presidential contender.”
He continues: “Secondly, what portfolio did that special assistant have WHO’S BEING PAID FOR BY THE STATE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE ICC [my emphasis]. One would expect it to come through normal organs of the state that are entrusted with such matters …. No, this comes from a faction of the Kenyan political establishment, a faction of the coalition, IT’S COME FROM THE PRIME MINISTER, WHO’S A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GIVING THE INFORMATION THAT INVOLVES ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE [my emphasis].”
Khan’s insidious and inaccurate remarks are shocking coming from a barrister involved in the ICC case. He says he listened to Miguna on the programme. Obviously he did not listen very carefully. He describes Miguna as “a main information provider to the prosecutor”, he describes such information as “given by the Prime Minister” and he refers to having received no information from the prosecutor about the latter’s “contact” with Miguna.
What Miguna actually said was that he was never in contact with the prosecutor and he only gave ICC officials his personal opinions – not those of the Prime Minister. Thousands of people similarly gave opinions to ICC officials. Like most of them, Miguna’s opinions were not considered of evidential value. That is why Miguna was not called as a witness. Miguna specifically stated that he had no contact with ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo. Khan speaks of Miguna’s being “paid for by the state to provide information” to the ICC. This is a blatant lie. Miguna specifically stated that he offered ICC officials his own personal “opinions”, his “observations” and his “impression” – and his newspaper articles.
Khan goes completely overboard in stating – despite Miguna’s clear and unequivocal statements that these were his personal opinions – that the ‘evidence’ Miguna offered was in fact coming “from a faction of the Kenyan political establishment, a faction of the coalition, it’s come from the prime minister.”
If these remarks by Khan are indicative of his level of understanding and interpretation of Miguna’s answers on the programme, I would personally want any interpretation by Khan of any evidence whatsoever to be very seriously examined. Not only that. Khan is a British barrister (QCs make up about 10 per cent of the list of barristers in the UK). He is therefore presumably subject to the British Bar Council.
The British Bar Standards Board’s ‘Code of conduct of work by practising barristers’ states at Paragraph 709.1, Media Comment, that: “A barrister must not in relation to any anticipated or current proceedings or mediation in which he is briefed or expects to appear or has appeared as an advocate express a personal opinion to the press or other media or in any other public statement upon the facts or issues arising in the proceedings.”
Khan’s conversation on the bench with Koinange is peppered with his personal opinions, liberally cast about with no apparent concern for this professional obligation. He prefaces many of his comments with “I think”, “I thought”, “In all candour, I was …”, “Our objective analysis is …”, “My own objective analysis is …” and so on.
Is the British Bar Standards Board listening? Is the ICC listening? Or does Khan think that, because it’s Kenya, anything goes? Does he think that, because it’s Kenya, you can get away with murder? As Khan might put it, one hopes not. What one does hope is that there is going to be someone, somewhere, who is going to crack down on this kind of sleazy incitement presented as journalism – before it’s too late.
The writer is a freelance journalist. The arguments are entirely the writer’s own and should not be taken as representing those of anyone else in any way whatsoever.
http://www.the-star.co.ke/weekend/siasa/60975-jeff-koinange-on-a-mission
Pwtkaya Miriti said
February 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM
The Germany Judge German Judge Hans-Peter Kaul Cannot be taken seriously Hence he Comes From Adolf Hitler Germany to him killing over a thousand (Niggers from Kenya has no comparison like The Germany Denial of Gassing (six) (6 million Jews) in AUschwitz Poland. The German Judge Must be removed With Emmediate effect from the ICC Hague. He hates Nigroes He seems biased and corrupt !Does he want to be pensioned in Kenyaby the Kenyatta Family?
Reply
NAIROBI, Kenya, Feb 12 2009 – The main architects and financiers of last year’s post-election violence may now be tried at The Hague after Parliament rejected a Constitution Bill seeking to legalise a Special Tribunal to try them locally.
Ninety three Members of Parliament voted to shoot down the Bill, against 101 who supported it.
This in effect means that those behind the poll violence could find themselves facing trial at the International Criminal Court at The Hague. The government has also an option of re-introducing the Bill after six months.
MPs defied pleas from President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who were in the House to lobby support for the Bill, by overwhelmingly voting against the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
“Honourable members we have the results of the division. The aye’s 101, the nay’s 93 and abstentions one. Total voted 194, ” the Speaker announced.
According to House rules if the government gains a majority of votes in a division but does not attain 65 percent of members (145) and the opposition’s numbers are above 35 percent (77) the motion is lost.
Since the opposition side garnered 91 votes the government lost the motion introduced by Justice Minister Martha Karua.
The government was working to beat the March 1st deadline for the tribunal to be set up as recommended by Justice Philip Waki who chaired a Commission of Inquiry into the Post election Violence.
Backbenchers and some Cabinet Ministers had vowed to ensure the Bill was thrown out of the House saying that government had rushed discussions on the Bill.
MPs who voted against (Nays)
1. Abdirhaman H.A – Kanu
2. Ahmed S.A.S
3. Akula B.E
4. Ali M.H
5. Aluoch O.J (ODM)
6. Chepchumba P (ODM)
7. Cheruyiot Z.K(ODM)
8. Ethuro D,.E
9. Gaichuhie N.R
10. Ganya F.C (ODM)
11. Gitau P.N
12. Githunguri S.M (KANU)
13. Gunda B.F (ODM)
14. Imanyara G. (CCU)
15. Jirongo K.S (KADDU)
16. Kaino B.K (ODM)
17. Kaloki P.K (ODM-K)
18. Kamau J.I (PANU)
19. Kamau J.M (PNU)
20. Kambi S.K (PNU)
21. Kapondi F.C (ODM)
22. Kariuki J.M (FORD ASILI)
23. Kathuri E.M (DP)
24. Khalwale B (NEW F-K)
25. Khasilwa W.O (ODM)
26. Kigen L.K (ODM)
27. Kiilu P.L.N (ODM-K)
28. Kilonzo J.K (ODM- K)
29. Kilonzo C.M (ODM- K)
30. Kiuna J.N. (PNU)
31. Kivuti L.M (SAFINA)
32. Koech D.K (ODM)
33. Konchela G.S ( PNU)
34. Kones J.K (ODM)
35. Kones B.J (ODM)
36. Kutuny J.S (ODM)
37. Laboso J. (ODM)
38. Lagat E.K (ODM)
39. Langat B.K (ODM)
40. Lesirma S.S (ODM)
41. Lessonet M.K (ODM)
42. Letimalo R.L (ODM)
43. Linturi F.M (KANU)
44. Litole W.M (ODM)
45. M’mithiaru N. (PNU)
46. Machage W. G (DP)
47. Magerer J.K. L(ODM)
48. Magwanga J.O (ODM)
49. Mbau E.P (PNU)
50. Mbugua S.M (PNU)
51. Mututho J. M. N (PNU)
52. Monda R.O (ODM)
53. Mung’aro G.M (ODM)
54. Mungatana D.M (NARC -KENYA)
55. Munyaka V.K
56. Muoki I.M (ODM-K)
57. Muoki D.M (ODM-K)
58. Mureithi E.K (PNU)
59. Murgor J.R (ODM)
60. Musyimi M. (PNU)
61. Mwadeghu T.L
62. Mwahima M.M (ODM)
63. Mwaita S.S.K (ODM)
64. Mwakulegwa D.M
65. Mwangi B.C Muturi (SISI KWA SISI)
66. Mwatela A.C (ODM)
67. Mwathi P.M (FORD-P)
68. Mwaura D.K.N
69. Mwiru A.M.M
70. Ng’ang’a L.N (KANU)
71. Nuh A.N
72. Nyamai C.M
73. Odhiambo A.B (ODM)
74. Ogindo M.O (ODM)
75. Ojaamong S.O (ODM)
76. Okemo C. (ODM)
77. Ombui W.M (ODM)
78. Onyancha C.
79. Rege J.G.K (ODM)
80. Ruteere S.M
81. Rutto I.K (ODM)
82. Sambu B.A.W (ODM)
83. Simiyu D.E
84. Waibara C.K (PNU)
85. Waititu F.N (PNU)
86. Wambugu C.M
87. Washiali B.J (ODM)
88. Were D.A (ODM)
NOMINATED
89.Abdalla S. (ODM-K)
90. Affey M.A (ODM-K)
91. Noor S.A (ODM)
92. Sirma M.C (ODM)
93. Yakub M.D.M (ODM)
http://www.nation.co.ke/blob/view/-/529810/data/64527/-/iv6axpz/-/Mps+against.pdf
ICC suspects’ confidence misplaced
Published on 19/01/2012
It is possible, even probable, the Ocampo Six could walk away from accusations of masterminding and facilitating the 2007/2008 post-election violence.
Similarly, confirmation of charges is probable, too, and since the accused are sitting astride either, their bravado expresses contempt for the judicial process at the International Criminal Court.
Uhuru Kenyatta’s assertion that his presidential campaign is not built around the ICC and that its decisions cannot, in any way, inflluence his quest manifest misplaced confidence that the stroke of a pen could shatter forever.
The ICC is a reality and the suspects’ fate hinge on it. It does not matter what lawyers say and how they individually interpret the Constitution.
They are known for splitting hairs and muddying waters intent on confusing situations.
While reading from the same script, lawyers come up with diametrically opposed opinions, most of which negate the spirit and letter of the law.
My simplistic understanding of the law is that anybody facing criminal charges or has been convicted of the same in a period six months prior to an election stands barred.
I cannot argue the finer points of the law for then I would be lost. However, if charges are confirmed and Uhuru circumvents the law to vie for president, eventually winning it (purely for argument), how then can we, Kenyans, reconcile ourselves to a situation where our president is summoned to The Hague in person to answer to criminal charges, say, once a month?
President in the dock?
What confidence can a dejected, forlorn president in the dock evoke in his people? Can one quantify the damage this could do to our pride as a sovereign State?
If it reaches a point where the judges decide that the accused be accommodated at The Hague in much the same way as they did with former presidents Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia), Charles Taylor (Liberia) and Laurent Gbagbo (Ivory Coast), what would become of Kenya?
Kenya’s destiny is tied in to the ICC judgement whether we acknowledge the fact or not.
Peace calls
It could have been better for the suspects to lay off the subject of the ICC and await its verdict. Utterances by the suspects are a clever way of raising passions and given this is an election year, there could be some ulterior motives.
An acquittal will definitely give the suspects enhanced stature in the eyes of their supporters and those who stand on the fringes. If the charges are confirmed, many will say ‘see, I told you so’.
However, let us not lose sight of the fact Kenya is not the accused and that none of the suspects is Kenya and maintain peace irrespective of the outcome.
{Alexander Chagema, Kakamega}
As Kenyans await to know the fate of the Ocampo Six, tension is high in some parts of the country. This is most evident during the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission meeting that are being held in various parts.
The meetings are filled with controversies, disagreement and tribal politics resulting to lack of unison in what is good for Kenyans.
It’s at this time that Kenyans should embrace peace and steer clear of taking Kenya back to the experience of 2008. Kenyans should refrain from offensive utterances that might arouse wild emotions.
We should remember the world around us is all ears and eyes to see what will happen.
We need to put our past behind and together fight poverty, illiteracy and corruption among other vices that still embraces our society.
Whatever the outcome of the ICC cases against the six, we should remember we are in Kenya to stay hence should endeavour to live in love and harmony with each other.
{Wanyua Mary, Naivasha}
Pwtkaya Miriti said
February 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM
The Germany Judge German Judge Hans-Peter Kaul Cannot be taken seriously Hence he Comes From Adolf Hitler Germany to him killing over a thousand (Niggers from Kenya has no comparison like The Germany Denial of Gassing (six) (6 million Jews) in AUschwitz Poland. The German Judge Must be removed With Emmediate effect from the ICC Hague. He hates Nigroes He seems biased and corrupt !Does he want to be pensioned in Kenyaby the Kenyatta Family?
Reply
UHURU KENYATTA DECEIVING AND MANIPULATING KIKUYUS THROUGH K24 USING JEFF KOINANGE HIS COUSIN>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtOcPvi6SbA
Mr. Ruto is no stranger to national scandals. But what is even worse is the fact that all the scandals that Ruto is involved in to a large extent threaten the national security of the Kenyan people. Kenyans have become wary of his dangerous character and they are demanding justice this time. His crimes include creating cartel to cause artificial shortage of maize in the country, embezzlement of public funds,training and funding militia, instigating tribal clashes. The list is endless. must go!
oh my god YOU MEAN THE ABOVE 93 rabid dogs voted for Hague and when their request was granted ,all the 93 Mps suffering from rabies turned to accuse Hon:Raila for setting them to be taken to foreign Land that is THE HAGUE ICC! What a shame to these 93 Uncicilized Baboons Chimps and Orangutaungs!
Response to Uhuru and fellow thugs’ Applications for Leave to Appeal http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1302058.pdf
Response to Ruto and fellow thugs’ Applications for Leave to Appeal http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1326962.pdf
Ruto has no respect for Kikuyus:
“Ruto expressed frustration with the media, which he felt had blamed members of his Kalenjin group for locking and burning down a church full of asylum seekers in Eldoret during last yeatr’s election violence,” states the cable. “Ruto emphasised that his people had done no such thing. According to Ruto, the cause of the incident was an accidental kitchen fire during preparations for lunch”.
ICC interested in Ruto’s farm .
Saturday, 03 March 2012 00:03 BY NZAU MUSAU
THE ICC has taken keen interest in a Kenyan court case in which William Ruto is accused of improperly acquiring 100 acres of land that belonged to an IDP until the post-election violence. The case will be back in court on Monday. Investigators believe the land case could be relevant to its prosecution of Ruto for crimes against humanity under the Rome statute. “The prosecution case against Ruto is for murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population and persecution,” Florence Olara, spokesperson for the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, said. She neither confirmed nor denied the ICC’s interest in the land.
ICC overall spokesman Fadi Abdallah declined to comment insisting that it fell within the “interest of the prosecution” and therefore only the prosecution could respond. IDP Adrian Muteshi went to court in 2010 accusing the MP of grabbing his 100 acre piece of land in Turbo, Uasin Gishu district. He has told the High Court that he was forced to abandon the land after chaos broke out in 2007 and found it occupied by Ruto when he went back.
Muteshi acquired a title deed for the land in 1989. In 1992 he also left the land following ethnic clashes but went back to farm on it until 2007. In early February, the lawyer of Eldoret North MP William Ruto said he wanted to surrender the 100 acres of land back to Muteshi. Lawyer Katwa Kigen told the High Court on Wednesday that Ruto wanted a settlement because the Ministry of Lands had decided that the title deed was not properly processed.
He added that the MP would then pursue Dorothy Yator who sold him the property. The hearing of the case was deferred on Wednesday to allow the lawyers representing Mr Muteshi and the MP discuss the terms of settlement. Lady Justice Rose Ougo gave the parties until March 5 to discuss and come up with a settlement. Under the Rome statute, the crime of forceful transfer of persons should include forceful transfer of “one or more persons” to another location by expulsion or other coercive acts. Such persons must have been lawfully in the area.
In the document used at the confirmation of charges hearing last October, the prosecution accused Ruto of forcible transfer of population in locations including Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area (Huruma, Kiambaa, Kimumu, Langas, and Yamumbi), Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills town in the Uasin Gishu and Nandi districts.
Olara also referred the Star to the prosecution’s application for summons filed on December 15th, 2010 and on whose basis Ruto alongside journalist Joshua Sang, deputy PM Uhuru Kenyatta and former head of civil service Francis Muthaura are being charged at the ICC. “This is not the first time that the MP has been accused of grabbing, or fraudulently obtaining land in the country. In April 2011, the Courts let him off the hook because of a failure by the Prosecution to call the key witnesses in the Kenya Pipeline land saga,” the International Centre for Policy and Conflict said in a statement posted on its website this week.
The ICPC said it intended to write to the DPP asking him to charge Ruto over the matter. “It looks like the chaos were meant to forcefully drive out people from their lands. Otherwise, why did he have to wait for the rightful owner to be driven out before acquiring it? If he meant to legally acquire it, he ought to have carried out a search at the Ministry of Lands to determine the rightful owner,” ICPC says. ICPC boss Ndung’u Wainaina said that Ruto’s admission also contravenes chapter six of constitution on leadership and integrity “which is unacceptable for a person who has intentions of leading a country.”
Emmy Kosgei: Ruto’s confession does not change a thing! .
Friday, 17 June 2011 00:09 BY CATHERINE MUKEI
Suspended Agriculture minister William Ruto was on Churchill Live recording on Tuesday and dismissed claims that romantically linked him to gospel singer Emmy Kosgei.
Ruto further denied reports that he beat up his wife in order to marry the Taunet Neelel singer. “Ignore those gutter press stories you read. Those are just false rumours,” said Ruto who was accompanied by his wife and two children at the recording of the show that was aired on Thursday night.
Emmy told Word Is, that Ruto’s confession makes no difference, “nothing has changed, because there has never been anything between us despite the rumours.” The two were romantically linked with numerous media reports stating that Emmy’s father, a renowned Bishop was to officiate their wedding.