Viewing cable 08NAIROBI2551, POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE COMMISSION REPORT: POLITICIANS DIVIED OVER IMPLEMENTATION
- Many Kikuyus feel that Kikuyu leaders implicated in post-election violence were engaging in self-defense
- Uhuru Kenyatta issued a public statement opposing the full implementation of the CIPEV report.
- Martha Karua’s 2012 presidential bid would be helped if Uhuru Kenyatta were to face trial
VZCZCXRO2682
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHNR #2551/01 3091409
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 041409Z NOV 08
FM AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7531
INFO RUCNIAD/IGAD COLLECTIVE
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 0295
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 6150
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 3023
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM 2205
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 2954
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 2848
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RHMFISS/CJTF HOA
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 NAIROBI 002551
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/29/2018
TAGS: PREL PHUM PGOV KDEM KE
SUBJECT: POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE COMMISSION REPORT:
POLITICIANS DIVIDED OVER IMPLEMENTATION
REF: A. NAIROBI 2401
¶B. NAIROBI 2366
¶C. NAIROBI 1838 AND OTHERS
Classified By: Ambassador Michael Ranneberger for reasons 1.4 (B and D)
SUMMARY
¶1. (U) Two weeks after release of the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) report (refs A and B), Kenya’s political leaders continue to publicly grapple with fallout. Of particular contention is whether to implement the report’s recommendations for a special tribunal to try high-level organizers of post-election violence. President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga have consistently called for implementation of the report. Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU) has yet to take a position on the report, though indications are that there is serious resistance.
¶2. (U) On October 30, the Parliamentary Group of Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement’s (ODM) rejected the report. 75 of 102 ODM MPs attended the meeting and concluded that it contains “incurable errors”, creating a serious obstacle to passage of the report in parliament. This opens the possibility of a challenge to Odinga’s leadership or split in ODM. The ODM backlash is led by Rift Valley MPs, while Central Kenya MPs are hesitant to support Kibaki’s call for implementation of the report. Media speculation about the names of the ten suspects mentioned (but not named) in the report is rife. High-level politicians from both sides of the Grand Coalition government are presumed to be among the ten, including key political allies of Kibaki and Odinga, such as Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta (PNU) and Agriculture Minister William Ruto (ODM); each has issued defensive statements challenging the sufficiency of evidence linking them to violence.
¶3. (U) Kibaki and Odinga appear willing to push the issue forward despite the risk it poses to these allies; a Cabinet retreat is planned to try to find common ground on the report. Even if Cabinet adopts the report, PNU will need time to get its MPs to support implementation, while ODM will need to restart discussions after a large majority of its MPs rejected the report. To bring MPs along, Kibaki and Odinga will need to compromise; opponents of implementation will try to dilute the independence of the proposed special tribunal. Agreement is likely to be found if only to avoid the prospect that the International Criminal Court asserts jurisdiction over Kenyans. Despite the challenges, Odinga told the Ambassador on October 27 that he is confident that the report will be implemented. We will continue to push for implementation through a Kenyan mechanism, as called for in the CIPEV report to assure accountability in line with Assistant Secretary Frazer’s public statement of October 29. Clear statements by the U.S. and Annan on the need to carry out fundamental reforms and end impunity are playing a catalytic role to mobilize civil society, the private sector, and media. End Summary.
Implementation Issues
¶4. (U) Since the Commission of Inquiry into Post-election Violence (CIPEV – also known as the Waki Commission) released its report on October 15, Kenyan politics has been dominated by discussion of the report’s conclusions and its political and legal implications. The report called for sweeping reform of the police services and the establishment of a special tribunal with strong international participation to try high-level organizers and financiers of post-election violence (ref a). Kenya’s political leaders have a long history of inaction on recommendations of previous commissions of inquiry. However, their hand has been forced by the Waki Commission’s decision to give Kofi Annan the names of ten high-level organizers of post-election violence for referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if Kenya fails to establish the special tribunal. CIPEV Chairman, Justice Philip Waki, has publicly stated that the names will be submitted to the ICC Prosecutor if no action is taken by February 28, 2009. With Kenya now facing a deadline, debate is raging is whether or not to implement the report. Kenya’s political leaders are divided on the degree and manner of implementation of the CIPEV report.
Frantic Speculation
¶5. (SBU) The Kenyan media has been frantically speculating about which high-level figures are among the ten suspects mentioned (but not named) in the CIPEV report. Some high-level political figures who have been subject to speculation as possible indictees are:
— William Ruto, Minister of Agriculture, Orange Democratic Movement (ODM)
— Uhuru Kenyatta, Deputy PM, Minister of Trade Party of National Unity (PNU)
— George Thuo, MP Juju, PNU Parliamentary Whip
— Zakayo Kipkemoi Cheruiyot, MP Kuresoi (ODM)
— Isaac Kiprono Ruto, MP Chepalungu (ODM)
— Franklin Bett, MP Buret (ODM)
— Cyrus Jirongo, MP Lugari (Kaddu – not affliated with either PNU or ODM)
— Fred Kapondi, MP Mt. Elgon (ODM)
— Kabando wa Kabando, MP Mt. Mukurweini (PNU)
— Simon Nyachae, ex-MP, FORD-K (PNU-affiliated)
— Ruben Ndolo, ex-MP, ODM
¶6. (SBU) William Ruto is widely suspected of being a key organizer of post-election violence in Rift Valley Province, as are Cheruiyot, Isaac Ruto, and Franklin Bett. The PNU figures on the list have been implicated as having either planned, supplied, or provided transport to members of the ethnic Kikuyu Mungiki criminal organization to execute revenge attacks against non-Kikuyu in Naivasha and Nakuru in mid-January 2008. The big fish in this equation, William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta, have had different reactions to the speculation. While Ruto has sought to call into question the credibility of the report by calling it a collection of hearsay and not worth the paper it is written on. He initially also stated that he is not afraid to go before a tribunal to clear his name. Uhuru Kenyatta has been even more defensive and strident in trashing the report. PNU Whip George Thuo has proclaimed his innocence, but accepts that the report should be implemented.
Call for Full Implementation
¶7. (U) President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga have consistently called for the full implementation of the CIPEV report. Initially, they planned to table the CIPEV report at a Cabinet meeting set for October 30. However, this was postponed because President Kibaki opened the IGAD summit taking place in Nairobi that day. Kibaki and Odinga have planned a Cabinet retreat, at which the CIPEV report will be discussed. We do not expect this retreat to result in Cabinet adoption of the report, but it shows that Kibaki and Odinga are moving the issue forward. We understand that the Cabinet will debate the report at its next scheduled meeting on November 13.
Will their parties follow?
¶8. (U) Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU) has not yet taken a firm stand on the CIPEV report. However, indications are that Odinga will have a hard time bringing his Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to support his call for full implementation of the report. On October 30, the ODM Parliamentary group rejected the CIPEV report.
¶9. (C) PNU has not yet come to a unified position on implementation. Some key figures, such as Minister of Justice Martha Karua, call for full implementation, while others have taken a more cautious approach. PNU Central Province coordinator (and Kinangop MP) David Ngugi told poloff that PNU regional leaders agreed that the report should be implemented, but that it must be handled cautiously because of the inflammatory nature of the charges likely to be leveled against Kikuyu leaders. (Comment: Many Kikuyus feel that Kikuyu leaders implicated in post-election violence were engaging in self-defense and should not be equated with Rift Valley organizers, who engaged in unprovoked violence. End Comment).
¶10. (C) Ngugi also noted that PNU feels obliged to protect Uhuru Kenyatta, who many see as the next leader of the GEMA (the ethnic Kikuyu, Embu, and Meru) political grouping and a future president of Kenya. A meeting of the GEMA-dominated Central Kenya Parliamentary (CPK) group called by Uhuru Kenyatta and the Minister of Energy, Kiraitu Murungi, criticized the Waki Report for conducting a partial investigation It concluded that the Report must be amended for parliament to approve it. Kenyatta issued a public statement opposing the full implementation of the CIPEV report.
¶11. (U) Those calling for a go-slow approach in both ODM and PNU accuse those seeking full implementation of the report as attempting to settle political scores against rivals who are potentially implicated in post-election violence. There may be some element of truth in these charges — certainly Martha Karua’s 2012 presidential bid would be helped if Uhuru Kenyatta were to face trial. Likewise, Odinga (and Mudavadi) would benefit from a potential trial of William Ruto — a potential rival whose future would be severely diminished. But it stretches the truth to suggest that support for implementation is solely motivated by these short-term political considerations. Kibaki, in his last term, does not need to worry about future political rivals. He and Odinga seem to be motivated by the need to address post-election violence to move the country forward. For her part, Martha Karua has been a proponent of ending Kenya’s culture of impunity since her days leading the fight for multi-party democracy in the 1990s.
Public sentiment mixed
¶11. (U) Many in Kenyan society have emphasized the need for a forward-looking response to the crisis, focusing on restorative, not retributive, justice. They stress the need to complete Kenya’s healing by using the reform processes laid out in Agenda Point 4 of the National Accord and Reconciliation Agreement to prevent a recurrence of violence. There is, however, a growing chorus urging implementation. This is evident in prominent media editorials and commentary, statements by religious groups, among others. Kenyan human rights and governance organizations support full implementation of the report to bring justice for the victims, but also see establishment of a special tribunal as a key step towards breaking the culture of impunity that remains largely undiminished among Kenya’s elite. Statements by Assistant Secretary Frazer, the Ambassador, and Kofi Annan have played an important role to energize these groups – who were also key in resolving the post-election crisis.
Comment
¶12. (U) The ODM Parliamentary Group’s rejection of the report, while certainly serious, does not necessarily mean the end of the line for the report. It will, however, force Odinga to seriously reevaluate his position and make him more inclined to seek compromise to regain his party’s support on the issue. Kibaki, too, must work to get his supporters to agree on a way forward. We will urge Kenya’s leaders to implement a Kenyan solution to hold organizers of post-election violence accountable.
¶13. (U) The threat of Kenyans being tried by the ICC is powerful leverage to influence Kenya’s leaders to implement a mechanism to hold accountable alleged organizers of post-election violence, even if they vary from the report’s special tribunal proposal. Those opposed to establishing a special tribunal are likely to try to dilute the tribunal’s independence, and will use nationalist arguments to remove the strong international presence proposed for the tribunal’s trial and investigative branches. Their goal will be to create a body more acceptable to Kenyan nationalist sensibilities, but which might also allow high-powered suspects to feel they have a better chance to manipulate the process and beat charges. End Comment
RANNEBERGER
About the Author
Why Kibaki won’t let Muthaura go
“People close to Muthaura say he privately complains that the President’s ‘kitchen cabinet’ set him up and after the 2008 chaos they can only sympathise with him as he carries the cross of those in power. The Head of Civil Service is said to have tendered his resignation in 2007, but President Kibaki prevailed upon him to stay on.”
I am now beginning for fear for the life of Muthaura. He is exposed and is the only one who may finger the boss. This is a man who is over ripe for happy retirement and the prospects of a jail term in a foreign land may just be too much. Definitely at the Hague, Muthaura will sing like a bird ( … you know what this means if you were/are a fan of James Hardley Chase).
It may be in his own security interests that Ocampo may detain him at the Hague.
William Ruto the butcher and burner in the church of Kiambaa in Eldoret >Ajikaanga kwa mafuta yake kama Vile Ngurue(pig) Yajikaanga na NMafuta Yake Kwa Kununuliwa Very cheap by GEMA-PNU Uhuru /Kibaki trap>Soma Hapa>
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5208
NAIROBI, Kenya Aug 3 – Eldoret North MP William Ruto on Wednesday dismissed as falsehood, evidence released by ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo branding him the chief architect of a criminal network that caused mayhem in the country during the post election violence of 2008.
The suspended Higher Education Minister said he was prepared to prove his innocence during the confirmation of charges hearing scheduled for September 1 at The Hague when the judges will determine whether or not to commence a war crimes case against Mr Ruto and his co-accused.
“What we are witnessing in this Ocampo thing is a tragedy of very monumental proportions, things can be cooked… lies, fabrications (made) about a person to look like it happened.,” he said.
Mr Ruto said he was prepared to defend himself against the allegations facing him “because they are all fiction. These are lies.”
“I am confident and sure that there is no mechanism to confer falsehoods and lies into any iota of truth only possible in a movie or in a book of fiction,” he added.
The evidence released by Mr Ocampo on Monday details how Mr Ruto allegedly teamed up with former Industrialisation Minister Henry Kosgey and Kass FM Radio Presenter Joshua arap Sang to coordinate violent attacks against PNU supporters in various parts of Rift Valley province which was the worst hit by the 2008 post election violence.
The chaos broke out soon after President Mwai Kibaki was announced winner of the disputed elections hotly contested by his then top challenger Raila Odinga who was named Prime Minister in a power sharing arrangement.
The prosecution gives specific dates dating back to 2005 when the trio who are among six Kenyans accused of masterminding violence held strategic meetings to plan mayhem.
In the 38-page Documents Containing Charges (DCC) released on Monday, Mr Ocampo said nine preparatory meetings and events were held under their instructions to expel people not from their communities.
To execute their plan, the prosecution said. Ruto and Kosgey together with Sang and others, created a network of perpetrators by capitalising on existing entities in the Kalenjin community.
“As early as December 2006 through January 2008, Ruto and Kosgey together with Sang and others, held no less than nine preparatory meetings and events,” Ocampo said in court documents posted on the ICC’s official website.
Mr Ocampo said in the court documents that Mr Ruto and Kosgey were in charge of a network which he said had a sort of military structure, “In 2006 and 2007, the network also had a military structure that included three “commanders” or “generals” all of whom reported to Ruto or Kosgey,” he asserted.
He also alleges that the two provided financial and material support to the direct perpetrators and also gave them instructions to carry out the attacks.
“Their planning included, selecting commanders to oversee attacks in specific areas, fundraising to purchase weapons, identifying callers to broadcast the network’s message on Sang’s show, providing guns, grenades and ammunition to the direct perpetrators, and encouraging the network to permanently drive out Kikuyu, Kamba and Kisii from the Rift Valley by using derogatory terms such as ‘madoadoa’, ‘kimoriok’, and ‘kamama’ or parables to refer to the target groups, and encouraging their followers to “take back what belonged to them,” he reported.
According to Mr Ocampo, Mr Sang used his radio station to give directions and also gather updates on the attacks by using hate speech and other names to refer to the people the perpetrators should have attacked.
He said Mr Sang helped coordinate the Kapsabet town attack by broadcasting information that “the war had started” in Kapsabet town by encouraging the network members to participate.
“Mr Sang coordinated the violence by using coded language to indicate where to attack, after which attackers gathered and attacked the location. Kass FM also broadcast instructions to close roads in the area,” he said.
Between December 30, 2007 and January 2008 he said, the three were responsible for not less than nine attacks in different locations targeting Party of National Unity supporters carried out by their direct perpetrators from their network.
In the DCC, he further blamed the three for displacement of over 400,000 people and about 230 deaths and injuries to more than 1,000 persons.
According to the Prosecutor, Mr Ruto Mr Kosgey and their network affiliates promised perpetrators immunity for the crimes, or awards if they succeeded.
He alleges that they planned attacks in Kisumu, Langas, Yamumbi, Huruma and Kiambaa.
He said the attackers of Kiambaa Assembly of God Church in January 2008 had been attending the network’s preparatory meetings.
“On 1 January 2008, perpetrators armed with traditional weapons attacked the Kiambaa area. Kiambaa Church was then attacked from different directions. Inhabitants were chased towards Kiambaa Church. They poured fuel on the church and mattresses, which were used to block the doors. They then set the church on fire, killing between 17 and 35 men, women, children, elderly, and disabled persons trapped inside or attempting to flee. As those inside the church attempted to flee, attackers chased them, hacking to death those that they could catch,” Mr Ocampo revealed.
Mr Ocampo said Mr Ruto commanded the network in his capacity as a Kalenjin elder and the most authoritative ODM leader in his region.
He said him and Mr Kosgey had a common goal of driving non Kalenjin communities and PNU supporters from Rift Valley by funding and offering other means of support to carry out the attacks.
He said Mr Sang used his airtime to gather updates from the perpetrators and also direct them on locations of carrying out the attacks.
He believed the three coordinated together with others through their network to drive people from Rift Valley, loot, rape and kill others to substantiate that they had indeed had a case to answer.
OCAMPO CONCEALS RUTO’S EVIDENCE Wednesday, 03 August 2011 00:01 BY NZAU MUSAU
DEDACTED: Ocampo asked that the dossier be handled by a single judge. Photo/REUTERS
ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has withheld information which would lead to the identification of some of the witnesses that he intends to call in his prosecution of William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua arap Sang.
The information was only handed in a single annexture which was given to Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova. “The Prosecution requests that Annex B be received by the Single Judge as “Confidential” as it contains information of a sensitive nature not currently available to the public and/or which was obtained from confidential sources,” Ocampo said when handing over the document containing the charges.
The annexes contain the finer details and items which have been disclosed to Ocampo and which he will use to incriminate the three suspects when they appear before the confirmation of charges hearing next month. It has details and evidence to support Ocampo’s claim that the three planned, organised and executed the attacks targeting PNU supporters in Rift Valley.
In particular, it contains all the evidence about the nine or so meetings during which the violence was planned. The meetings were held in Uasin Gishu on December 30, 2006, September 2007, November 2, 2007, December 6, 2007 and December 14, 2007. It also contains details of further four preparatory meetings held in Nandi in December 2007 and which largely implicate Kosgey and Ruto.
The annex contains evidence of the whole planning aspect including the identification of targets, financing for weapons, organisation of the attacks, involvement of ex-military men at the request of one of the suspects and distribution of weapons. It also details the venue of such meetings, those who attended and what was said or agreed during those meetings.
General aspects of these are alluded to in the public document released by the court where it says: “In December 2007, other ODM‐affiliated MPs participated in planning and financially supported the PEV attacks, or otherwise participated in preparatory meetings and events in the Uasin Gishu and Nandi Districts.”
The document makes a mention of aspiring councillors, MPs, influential people, businessmen and elders who attended such meetings and enjoined themselves in the cause which Ocampo claims was led on both military and political fronts by Ruto. It contains evidence which will justify Ocampo’s claim that three commanders were tasked with overseeing attacks in specific geographical areas — North Rift, South Rift and Central Rift.
The names of the alleged commanders are also indicated as well as the people tasked with logistical support such as organising transport. It is assumed the evidence which Ocampo has withheld will have a list of the people who had been identified to call in at Kass FM — with regard to Joshua Sang.
The same applies to a list of media representatives, aspiring and sitting MPs, area councillors, area chiefs, youth, elders and ex-servicemen who attended such meetings.
The role of Ruto and Kosgey in the alleged meetings is said to be expounded in detail on the list. In the public document, Ocampo claims both Ruto and Kosgey encouraged the attacks, assured perpetrators of rewards and immunity for the crimes and compensated those who attended the meetings.
Ocampo claims the weapons were distributed during these meetings. Ocampo zeroes in on the three for at least nine attacks committed between December 30, 2007 and January 31, 2008 in which he hopes to attach responsibility on the three suspects. The specific contention by Ocampo to the effect that Ruto provided telephones, guns and gas to perpetrators is also justified in detail on the list.
Late last month, Ocampo had objected strongly to revealing to the defence the details of the planning meetings including the dates. He claimed that by revealing the details including placing them in a chronological order would enable the suspects to deduce the witnesses.
Judge Ekaterina partially upheld his requests by agreeing to have sections of the information redacted except for information which was already in the hands of the defence or whose disclosure would not endanger the witnesses.
By commenting on this story
William Samoe arap Ruto is the perfect study in duplicity, subterfuge, and expediency. That’s not to say they haven’t served him well. They did wonders for him till recently, as every Kenyan politician hopes to have their latest updated version at their disposal and practiced.
Ruto is fiercely loyal to anyone if it benefits him in the long run. But Ruto will turn against him at the slightest indication that he is not first in the shortlist as 1st deputy that gives him a claim to succeed him. He would die for Raila in 2007; now he will lay down his life for Kibaki.
Needless to say, even a resilient person of steel like Samoe can become disoriented, thrown off balance and act queerly in the face of diverse adversities coming in battalions. For example we hear — he had left ODM with his lieutenants long ago; now he will stay with them in ODM to fight from within; he is floating UDF (distractors say it’s acronym for UNITED DECEPTION FRONT), he is authorising ole Kaparo to speak to like minded parties to strengthen UDM (as if Gen(Retd) Koech, Chairman of UDM was Ruto’s shamba boy!) to re-baptise it as some guys claim, UNITED DECEPTION MOVEMENT.
Ruto is facing several unpleasant trysts with destiny in the near future. ‘Someone’ in the judicial hierarchy may find it proper to reopen a case he wormed his way out of, in which a more than compliant magistrate ( God Almighty, the man wants to be a HC judge) acquitted him citing the death and disappearance of a dozen or so witnesses, and the only living one who was promoted by Ruto stayed away from the witness box. No witnesses; case dismissed! As easy as that.
The case filed in the HC by two ODM members to have Ruto and four others’ parliamentary seats declared vacant as per regulations of the Political parties Act is just another nightmare. Ruto says he won’t contest it in court. Wise choice man; it won’t make much difference, any way. The bye-election results may be however humiliating as it’s only Ruto who may squeeze through, but the invincibility of ‘the supreme Kalenjin elder’ will have been shattered beyond redemption.
An inevitable paradigm shift in political thinking shaping up among the educated Kalenjin is noteworthy. This will be proved if he faces a re-election. Many consider him reckless and too self-centered that he doesn’t mind burning bridges for the fun of it. The initial animosity Ruto fired up among the Kalenjin is now waning.
Ruto knows his grand dreams of KKK alias G-7 alias UDM alias UDF dreams are as realistic and permanent as a line drawn in water. He also knows the exact wordings of the prayer Brother Steve recites everyday. It’s a curse to be forced by circumstances to cohabit with an despicable unscrupulous opportunist like Musyoka.
Once the confirmation hearing of ICC charges begins at the Hague, the cock and bull story of Raila invented the PEV cases against him and others in collusion with Waki and Okambo will fall flat on its face. Witnesses are likely to be so credible that discrediting them won’t be a walk over for Ruto’s Kemboi and Kigen Advocates.
Ruto might fight tooth and nail to the bitter end, but I don’t foresee a Ruto presidency for a long time to come even if he is absolved of his supposedly leading criminal role in the PEV. This also goes for his arch enemy turned bosom friend, Uhuru.
Ruto’s worst tragic flaw is unbridled ambition far removed from deference to seniors, party discipline and existing realities on the ground. All politicians are ambitious , but Ruto’s is in a class of its own.
2 witnesses each at Ocampo Six hearings2 witnesses each at Ocampo Six hearings
Posted by SIMON NDONGA on August 10, 2011
3Share
NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 10 – The Ocampo Six will only be allowed to call two witnesses each during the confirmation of charges hearings at The Hague next month.
The decision was arrived at after Eldoret North MP William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua arap Sang asked to be allowed a total of 48 witnesses.
Speaking during the opening of an International Criminal Court (ICC) training programme in Nairobi, ICC spokesperson and Head of the Public Affairs Unit Fadi El Abdallah explained that the decision that will be made at the September hearings will be whether the cases should go to trial or not.
“For a confirmation of charges hearings with this limited scope which is only to examine if the evidence of the Prosecutor is enough to go to trial or not, the judges said that the number of witnesses was excessive. It goes beyond the scope of hearings,” he stated.
He further said that the prosecution would be required to support each of the charges with sufficient evidence showing that the suspects committed crimes against humanity.
“Is there a need to go on trial or not? That is the purpose of what will happen in September. That is very important to keep in mind that the decision of the (pre-trial) Chamber will not be a decision on the innocence or guilt of the person,” he expounded.
Mr Ruto, Kosgey and Sang are accused alongside Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura and Maj Gen (Rtd) Mohammed Hussein Ali of allegedly planning or financing the 2008 post-election violence.
Last week, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo revealed his Documents Containing Charges (DCC) against Mr Ruto, Mr Sang and Mr Kosgey. He will release more evidence against Mr Kenyatta, Mr Muthaura and Major General (Rtd) Ali before their appearance for the confirmation of charges hearings on September 21.
He alleges that the three attended nine preparatory meetings and events to plan on how to expel people from their communities in Rift Valley.
According to the DCC, Mr Ruto and Mr Kosgey were in charge of a network which he said had a sort of military structure that had three commanders or generals who reported to either of them.
They were further accused of providing financial and material support to the direct perpetrators and also gave them instructions to carry out the attacks.
He alleges that Mr Sang used his radio programme to give directions and also gather updates on the attacks by using hate speech and other names to refer to the people the perpetrators should have attacked.
Some 1,500 people were killed and more than half a million others forcibly displaced during the crisis, which rocked various parts of the country, including Rift Valley, the worst hit by the crisis.
Efforts to establish a local tribunal to deal with perpetrators have hit a dead end after Parliament rejected three Bills seeking to try the perpetrators locally.
Despite that, the government has been keen to frustrate the ICC process after moving to challenge the principle of admissibility.