333. The evidence placed before the Chamber also provides substantial grounds to
believe that, on 30 December 2007, there was a second meeting at State House with Mungiki members and a number of MPs, where Mr. Kenyatta was also present. This is established to the requisite threshold by the testimony provided by Witness OTP- 11, corroborated by Witness OTP-12 and Witness OTP-6.
334. 334. Witness OTP-11 refers to the occasion as an “urgent” meeting in which Mr. Kenyatta said that he had the capability of organizing his people and mobilizing them for any eventuality.63o According to the witness, during this meeting, Mr. Kenyatta also gave some MPs and Mungiki coordinators 3.3 million KSh each. In particular, the witness states that —– was among the recipients of money to coordinate the Mungiki attack in Naivasha, money distributed at
this meeting was later spent in part to buy the guns that were used in the attack in
Nakuru.
335. Witness OTP-12 corroborates the account provided by OTP-11, stating that
there was a meeting at State House, where the logistics of the attack in Naivasha
were planned. The witness further indicates that the provision of 3.3 million KSh
by Mr. Kenyatta to local politicians to mobilize the people from the ground occurred during the meeting at State House.
336. Finally, the occurrence and the purpose of the meeting as well as Mr.
Kenyatta’s presence therein are corroborated by Witness OTP-6 who states that a
second meeting with Mungiki members occurred at State House during the post-election violence in which logistics of the retaUatory attacks and financing of the
Mungiki’s activities for such purpose were discussed.^36 The witness also alleges that a source close to the Mungiki informed him that Mr. Kenyatta was in attendance of this meeting.
337. The Chamber observes that it is not alleged that Mr. Muthaura was present at
this meeting at State House and, therefore, does not find it necessary to address the
evidence presented by his Defence allegedly demonstrating that he could not have
attended the meeting.
338. The Chamber notes that one of the witnesses relied upon by the Defence of
Mr. Muthaura, Godhard Kamau (D12-52), states that Mungiki members were not
present at State House on 30 December 2007. The witness asserts that he was not at Nairobi State House in the period from 29 December to 31 December 2007 and,
therefore, that the only source of his account is the list of visitors to State House,™ attached to his statement. The Chamber recalls however that it has established, with respect to another date, that a list of visitors does not constitute the complete recording of people present at State House. Thus, the Chamber considers that this, taken together with the fact that the statement of Godhard Kamau (D12-52) is not based on his personal observation, precludes any decisive relevance being attached to this witness’s statement with respect to the issue under consideration.
339. During the confirmation hearing, Mr. Kenyatta asserted that on 30 December
2007 he was at the KICC until the election results were announced and that, at
around 5 p.m., he went to State House for the swearing-in ceremony of the President, which lasted around one hour and after which he went home to sleep. To support Mr. Kenyatta’s assertions, his Defence relies on two videos on the statement of —-. The first of the videos shows the swearing-in ceremony of
the cabinet which actually occurred on 17 April 2008, and is therefore not relevant.
With respect to the second video showing Mr. Kenyatta at the KICC the Chamber
notes that, notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency between the time appearing
on the video and Mr. Kenyatta’s own assertions during the hearing, the video does
not in any way exclude that Mr. Kenyatta met with Mungiki members at State House on 30 December 2007, since it only shows that Mr. Kenyatta was also at the KICC on that day.
340. Turning to the assertions of (D13-20), the Chamber notes the
ambiguousness with respect to dates in his written statement. In fact, taking the
statement on its face, what emerges is that: (i) the witness does not state that he was with Mr. Kenyatta on 30 December when the electoral results were announced; and (ii) on 31 December, the witness and Mr. Kenyatta went to State House for the swearing-in ceremony of Kibaki and after that they went to Mr. Kenyatta’s house. The Chamber is however of the view that dating the swearing-in ceremony of the President as at 31 December 2007, instead of 30 December 2007, could be a typographical error and that the witness, in his account, could be referring to one and the same date, i.e. 30 December 2007. In any event, the Chamber notes that the witness is extremely vague on the timing of Mr. Kenyatta’s movements and that his assertions do not exclude Mr. Kenyatta meeting some Mungiki members at State House on 30 December 2007.
310. In particular, the Chamber is satisfied that there are substantial grounds to
believe that on 26 November 2007 a meeting was held at Nairobi State House
between Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta, Mungiki representatives. President Mwai Kibaki, and others.
311. The occurrence, purpose and subject of this meeting are established, to the
requisite threshold and in considerable detail, by the statement of Witness OTP-4,
who was present at this meeting as a Mungiki representative. The witness states that, among others, a number of named individuals, both on the side of the Mungiki (Maina Diambo, and others) and on the side of the PNU Coalition (Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta, Mwai Kibaki, Hyslop Ipu, Isaiya Kabira and Stanley Murage) were in attendance. The witness states that during this meeting, which was held in a tent at State House, Mr. Muthaura introduced the Mungiki members to the President – referring to them, throughout the entire meeting, as “the youth” – and encouraged them to inform the President of their demands in exchange for their support for his electoral campaign. One of the Mungiki representatives (…) then presented on behalf of Maina Njenga a number of demands to the PNU Coalition. Such demands included:
(i) the cessation of extrajudicial killings of Mungiki members; (ii) the release from prison of Maina Njenga; and (iii) the recruitment of Kikuyu youths into the security and armed forces. Witness OTP-4 states that, after hearing the Mungiki demands, the President addressed Mr. Muthaura telling him “something to the effect of: ‘You have heard what the youth want, so now it is upon you'”. During this meeting, Mr. Kenyatta spoke as well, and told the Mungiki to fully support “the President”, invoking their allegiance to the same community. Witness OTP-4 further states that Mr. Kenyatta told the Mungiki representatives that he would contact |…. and that they would organize more meetings. 2 Witness OTP-4 finally states that, at the end of the meeting, Mr. Muthaura gave money to the Mungiki representatives.
312. The statement of Witness OTP-4 is independently corroborated by the statement of Witness OTP-11, who refers to a meeting held in State House on 26 November 2007, where Maina Kangethe Diambo, and other named Mungiki members met with the President and agreed to support the PNU Coalition for the upcoming elections. Witness OTP-11 further clarifies that the meeting was also convened in order to reassure the Mungiki that the individuals with whom they had been in contact that far, in particular … , were indeed acting on behalf of the PNU Coalition.^65 Corroboration of these accounts is also provided by Witness OTP-12, who states that, as part of “Operation Kibaki Again”, a group led by … a number of named Mungiki members, including … went to State House. Furthermore, Witness OTP-11 states that “Operation Kibaki Again” was a lobby group created by the Mungiki to allow campaigning while concealing their identity as Mungiki.
313. The decision that the Mungiki organization would support the PNU Coalition
in exchange for several concessions as well as the nature of the “Operation Kibaki
Again” as a cover group for the Mungiki operations is further reflected in the NSIS
Situation Report for 28 November 2007, which states:
Some Mungiki national officials […] have resolved to campaign for the president
through a lobby group called “Operation Kibaki Again” (OKA) but on conditions that its members would be recruited into the Military/Police, restitution of the group’s vehicles impounded by police and being allowed to re-open their offices/operation bases.
314. Further corroboration of the evidence concerning the meeting at State House
on 26 November 2007 is provided by the summary of the statement of Witness OTP-
6, which refers to a meeting between members of the Mungiki and the “Government” held at State House prior to the elections, in which President Kibaki, in exchange for Mungiki support, promised cash rewards as well as employment within the armed forces.™ Finally, the Chamber notes the summary of the statement provided by Witness OTP-1 who alleges that a meeting took place between the Mungiki and Government representatives “whereby prior to the elections the Mungiki were recruited to support the PNU” and that both Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Muthaura were involved in this meeting.
315. Both the Defence of Mr. Muthaura and the Defence of Mr. Kenyatta contest
that a meeting with Mungiki members took place at State House on 26 November
2007, with their clients in attendance.
316. First, both Defence teams draw the Chamber’s attention to a number of inconsistencies between the account provided by Witness OTP-4 in his statement to the Prosecutor and the account given by the same witness to the CIPEV. According to the Defence, the main inconsistencies relate to the witness not mentioning to the CIPEV the presence of Mr. Kenyatta at the meeting as well as the difference as to the time the meeting allegedly took place.^7i Furthermore, the Defence of Mr. Muthaura asserts that the witness provides inconsistent evidence as to the amount of money he allegedly received at the end of the meeting at State House and as to his own role in the preparation of the document containing the demands of the Mungiki in order to give their support to the PNU Coalition.
317. The Chamber notes that the asserted inconsistency in relation to Mr.
Kenyatta’s involvement in the meeting is to be more appropriately qualified as an
omission, since the witness did not state to the CIPEV that Mr. Kenyatta was not
present at the meeting at State House on 26 November 2007. As regards the difference in the time of the alleged commencement of the meeting (11.00 a.m. versus 11.45 a.m.), the Chamber considers this difference as minimal and as such
immaterial. Similarly, the Chamber considers as immaterial the alleged inconsistencies in relation to the amount of money received by the witness, and in
relation to the witness’ role in the preparation of the statement containing the
Mungiki’s demands for the meeting. For these reasons, and given that Witness OTP- 4’s statement finds external corroboration in relation to the meeting of 26 November 2007, the Chamber considers that the alleged inconsistencies do not impair the reliability of the witness’ account.
318. The Defence of Mr. Muthaura also asserts that the account given by Witness
OTP-11 cannot corroborate that of Witness OTP-4, since the former “when providing a hearsay account of an alleged Statehouse meeting does not mention [the latter] nor that a meeting took place in a tent with Mungiki in Statehouse”. The Chamber observes that Witness OTP-11, who does not assert his presence at the meeting at State House, does not provide an exhaustive list of participants; rather, he mentions as attendees of the meeting, among others, confirms his presence at State House that day number of Mungiki members, 76 including those mentioned by Witness OTP-4^77 whose presence is also registered in the list of participants provided by the Defence of Mr. Muthaura 78 and confirmed by two witnesses relied upon by the Defence. 79 With respect to the witness’ omission to mention that the meeting at State House took place in a tent, the Chamber finds it of no relevance to challenge the corroborative nature of the account provided by Witness OTP-11 with respect to the facts at issue. The Chamber takes this view given that, as already clarified, the witness does not assert that his presence at the meeting and, therefore, he could be legitimately unaware of its details. This does not however negate that the statement of Witness OTP-11 corroborates the evidence provided by Witness OTP-4.
319. The Defence of Mr. Muthaura further provides a number of witness statements in order to demonstrate that the meeting with the President held at State House in the morning of 26 November 2007 was a meeting with youth leaders who were supporting President Kibaki’s campaign. The Chamber notes that several Defence witnesses confirm Mr. Muthaura’s attendance at this meeting. However, a number of Defence witnesses, who were allegedly present, state that none of the youth attending the meeting was there to represent the Mungiki.
320. The Chamber observes that some Defence witnesses refer to a meeting with
the President which took place on the morning of 26 November 2007, but apparently earlier than the time referred to by Witness OTP-4, i.e. 11.45 a.m. Yvonne Khamati (D12-11) states that she attended a meeting with the President in the Boardroom of State House on that day and that this meeting started at around 9.45/10.00 a.m. and lasted for about one hour. 53 In the same vein, (D13-23) testifies that the meeting he attended with the President and, among others, Mr. Muthaura started at around 10.30 a.m. and lasted for about 1 hour and 20 minutes. 4 Regardless of the apparent inconsistency between the accounts of the two witnesses as to the starting time of the meeting(s) with the President, the Chamber is of the view that no conclusion could be drawn from these witnesses’ statements as to the unreliability of the evidence provided by Witness OTP-4, since they seem to refer to a meeting other than that with the Mungiki mentioned by Witness OTP-4.
321. With respect to the individuals named by Witness OTP-4 as present at the
meeting on behalf of the PNU Coalition, the Chamber notes that two of them, Mwai Kibaki (D12-13) and Hyslop Ipu (D12-46), confirmed their participation on that day in the meeting with the representatives of the youth, but denied the presence of the Mungiki therein.^»^ Nevertheless, since these persons are directly mentioned by Witness OTP-4 as having participated in the meeting with Mungiki representatives, the Chamber approaches their statements with reservation and considers that the witnesses’ denial cannot be regarded as decisive in the determination of this fact, in particular given the external corroboration in relation to this meeting.
322. [- who, according to both Witnesses OTP-11 and OTP-12, was the co- ordinator of “Operation Kibaki Again” and brought the Mungiki members to State House on 26 November 2007 – confirms that, together with him, a number of people attended the meeting with the President and Mr. Muthaura at State House on 26 November 2007. In particular (D12-47) mentions the presence of and Maina Kangethe Diambo as representatives of “Operation Kibaki Again” at the meeting. However, … denies that Mungiki issues were discussed during the meeting.
323. Initially, the Chamber notes that the individuals mentioned by m … (D12-47) as members of “Operation Kibaki Again” – which, as indicated by the different sources referred to above,™ appears to have operated as a cover group for Mungiki activities during the election campaign – are the same individuals who Witness OTP-4 and Witness OTP-11 place in attendance of the meeting at State House as representatives of the Mungiki. (D12-47) also declares that Mungiki issues were not discussed at the said meeting, and, more generally, that there was “no other meeting of youth” and no tents pitched outside at the State House gardens. However, the Chamber accords low probative value to these particular statements, mindful of the consistent evidence which contradicts them as well as of a number of sources indicating that … played a significant role in the meeting and, more generally, in the events leading to the commission of the crimes in or around Nakuru and Naivasha.
One Response to “Investigating Kenya: What’s in a Name?”
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?
333. The evidence placed before the Chamber also provides substantial grounds to
believe that, on 30 December 2007, there was a second meeting at State House with Mungiki members and a number of MPs, where Mr. Kenyatta was also present. This is established to the requisite threshold by the testimony provided by Witness OTP- 11, corroborated by Witness OTP-12 and Witness OTP-6.
334. 334. Witness OTP-11 refers to the occasion as an “urgent” meeting in which Mr. Kenyatta said that he had the capability of organizing his people and mobilizing them for any eventuality.63o According to the witness, during this meeting, Mr. Kenyatta also gave some MPs and Mungiki coordinators 3.3 million KSh each. In particular, the witness states that —– was among the recipients of money to coordinate the Mungiki attack in Naivasha, money distributed at
this meeting was later spent in part to buy the guns that were used in the attack in
Nakuru.
335. Witness OTP-12 corroborates the account provided by OTP-11, stating that
there was a meeting at State House, where the logistics of the attack in Naivasha
were planned. The witness further indicates that the provision of 3.3 million KSh
by Mr. Kenyatta to local politicians to mobilize the people from the ground occurred during the meeting at State House.
336. Finally, the occurrence and the purpose of the meeting as well as Mr.
Kenyatta’s presence therein are corroborated by Witness OTP-6 who states that a
second meeting with Mungiki members occurred at State House during the post-election violence in which logistics of the retaUatory attacks and financing of the
Mungiki’s activities for such purpose were discussed.^36 The witness also alleges that a source close to the Mungiki informed him that Mr. Kenyatta was in attendance of this meeting.
337. The Chamber observes that it is not alleged that Mr. Muthaura was present at
this meeting at State House and, therefore, does not find it necessary to address the
evidence presented by his Defence allegedly demonstrating that he could not have
attended the meeting.
338. The Chamber notes that one of the witnesses relied upon by the Defence of
Mr. Muthaura, Godhard Kamau (D12-52), states that Mungiki members were not
present at State House on 30 December 2007. The witness asserts that he was not at Nairobi State House in the period from 29 December to 31 December 2007 and,
therefore, that the only source of his account is the list of visitors to State House,™ attached to his statement. The Chamber recalls however that it has established, with respect to another date, that a list of visitors does not constitute the complete recording of people present at State House. Thus, the Chamber considers that this, taken together with the fact that the statement of Godhard Kamau (D12-52) is not based on his personal observation, precludes any decisive relevance being attached to this witness’s statement with respect to the issue under consideration.
339. During the confirmation hearing, Mr. Kenyatta asserted that on 30 December
2007 he was at the KICC until the election results were announced and that, at
around 5 p.m., he went to State House for the swearing-in ceremony of the President, which lasted around one hour and after which he went home to sleep. To support Mr. Kenyatta’s assertions, his Defence relies on two videos on the statement of —-. The first of the videos shows the swearing-in ceremony of
the cabinet which actually occurred on 17 April 2008, and is therefore not relevant.
With respect to the second video showing Mr. Kenyatta at the KICC the Chamber
notes that, notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency between the time appearing
on the video and Mr. Kenyatta’s own assertions during the hearing, the video does
not in any way exclude that Mr. Kenyatta met with Mungiki members at State House on 30 December 2007, since it only shows that Mr. Kenyatta was also at the KICC on that day.
340. Turning to the assertions of (D13-20), the Chamber notes the
ambiguousness with respect to dates in his written statement. In fact, taking the
statement on its face, what emerges is that: (i) the witness does not state that he was with Mr. Kenyatta on 30 December when the electoral results were announced; and (ii) on 31 December, the witness and Mr. Kenyatta went to State House for the swearing-in ceremony of Kibaki and after that they went to Mr. Kenyatta’s house. The Chamber is however of the view that dating the swearing-in ceremony of the President as at 31 December 2007, instead of 30 December 2007, could be a typographical error and that the witness, in his account, could be referring to one and the same date, i.e. 30 December 2007. In any event, the Chamber notes that the witness is extremely vague on the timing of Mr. Kenyatta’s movements and that his assertions do not exclude Mr. Kenyatta meeting some Mungiki members at State House on 30 December 2007.
Mungiki leaders.
(1) Nairobi State House – 26 November 2007
310. In particular, the Chamber is satisfied that there are substantial grounds to
believe that on 26 November 2007 a meeting was held at Nairobi State House
between Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta, Mungiki representatives. President Mwai Kibaki, and others.
311. The occurrence, purpose and subject of this meeting are established, to the
requisite threshold and in considerable detail, by the statement of Witness OTP-4,
who was present at this meeting as a Mungiki representative. The witness states that, among others, a number of named individuals, both on the side of the Mungiki (Maina Diambo, and others) and on the side of the PNU Coalition (Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta, Mwai Kibaki, Hyslop Ipu, Isaiya Kabira and Stanley Murage) were in attendance. The witness states that during this meeting, which was held in a tent at State House, Mr. Muthaura introduced the Mungiki members to the President – referring to them, throughout the entire meeting, as “the youth” – and encouraged them to inform the President of their demands in exchange for their support for his electoral campaign. One of the Mungiki representatives (…) then presented on behalf of Maina Njenga a number of demands to the PNU Coalition. Such demands included:
(i) the cessation of extrajudicial killings of Mungiki members; (ii) the release from prison of Maina Njenga; and (iii) the recruitment of Kikuyu youths into the security and armed forces. Witness OTP-4 states that, after hearing the Mungiki demands, the President addressed Mr. Muthaura telling him “something to the effect of: ‘You have heard what the youth want, so now it is upon you'”. During this meeting, Mr. Kenyatta spoke as well, and told the Mungiki to fully support “the President”, invoking their allegiance to the same community. Witness OTP-4 further states that Mr. Kenyatta told the Mungiki representatives that he would contact |…. and that they would organize more meetings. 2 Witness OTP-4 finally states that, at the end of the meeting, Mr. Muthaura gave money to the Mungiki representatives.
312. The statement of Witness OTP-4 is independently corroborated by the statement of Witness OTP-11, who refers to a meeting held in State House on 26 November 2007, where Maina Kangethe Diambo, and other named Mungiki members met with the President and agreed to support the PNU Coalition for the upcoming elections. Witness OTP-11 further clarifies that the meeting was also convened in order to reassure the Mungiki that the individuals with whom they had been in contact that far, in particular … , were indeed acting on behalf of the PNU Coalition.^65 Corroboration of these accounts is also provided by Witness OTP-12, who states that, as part of “Operation Kibaki Again”, a group led by … a number of named Mungiki members, including … went to State House. Furthermore, Witness OTP-11 states that “Operation Kibaki Again” was a lobby group created by the Mungiki to allow campaigning while concealing their identity as Mungiki.
313. The decision that the Mungiki organization would support the PNU Coalition
in exchange for several concessions as well as the nature of the “Operation Kibaki
Again” as a cover group for the Mungiki operations is further reflected in the NSIS
Situation Report for 28 November 2007, which states:
Some Mungiki national officials […] have resolved to campaign for the president
through a lobby group called “Operation Kibaki Again” (OKA) but on conditions that its members would be recruited into the Military/Police, restitution of the group’s vehicles impounded by police and being allowed to re-open their offices/operation bases.
314. Further corroboration of the evidence concerning the meeting at State House
on 26 November 2007 is provided by the summary of the statement of Witness OTP-
6, which refers to a meeting between members of the Mungiki and the “Government” held at State House prior to the elections, in which President Kibaki, in exchange for Mungiki support, promised cash rewards as well as employment within the armed forces.™ Finally, the Chamber notes the summary of the statement provided by Witness OTP-1 who alleges that a meeting took place between the Mungiki and Government representatives “whereby prior to the elections the Mungiki were recruited to support the PNU” and that both Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Muthaura were involved in this meeting.
315. Both the Defence of Mr. Muthaura and the Defence of Mr. Kenyatta contest
that a meeting with Mungiki members took place at State House on 26 November
2007, with their clients in attendance.
316. First, both Defence teams draw the Chamber’s attention to a number of inconsistencies between the account provided by Witness OTP-4 in his statement to the Prosecutor and the account given by the same witness to the CIPEV. According to the Defence, the main inconsistencies relate to the witness not mentioning to the CIPEV the presence of Mr. Kenyatta at the meeting as well as the difference as to the time the meeting allegedly took place.^7i Furthermore, the Defence of Mr. Muthaura asserts that the witness provides inconsistent evidence as to the amount of money he allegedly received at the end of the meeting at State House and as to his own role in the preparation of the document containing the demands of the Mungiki in order to give their support to the PNU Coalition.
317. The Chamber notes that the asserted inconsistency in relation to Mr.
Kenyatta’s involvement in the meeting is to be more appropriately qualified as an
omission, since the witness did not state to the CIPEV that Mr. Kenyatta was not
present at the meeting at State House on 26 November 2007. As regards the difference in the time of the alleged commencement of the meeting (11.00 a.m. versus 11.45 a.m.), the Chamber considers this difference as minimal and as such
immaterial. Similarly, the Chamber considers as immaterial the alleged inconsistencies in relation to the amount of money received by the witness, and in
relation to the witness’ role in the preparation of the statement containing the
Mungiki’s demands for the meeting. For these reasons, and given that Witness OTP- 4’s statement finds external corroboration in relation to the meeting of 26 November 2007, the Chamber considers that the alleged inconsistencies do not impair the reliability of the witness’ account.
318. The Defence of Mr. Muthaura also asserts that the account given by Witness
OTP-11 cannot corroborate that of Witness OTP-4, since the former “when providing a hearsay account of an alleged Statehouse meeting does not mention [the latter] nor that a meeting took place in a tent with Mungiki in Statehouse”. The Chamber observes that Witness OTP-11, who does not assert his presence at the meeting at State House, does not provide an exhaustive list of participants; rather, he mentions as attendees of the meeting, among others, confirms his presence at State House that day number of Mungiki members, 76 including those mentioned by Witness OTP-4^77 whose presence is also registered in the list of participants provided by the Defence of Mr. Muthaura 78 and confirmed by two witnesses relied upon by the Defence. 79 With respect to the witness’ omission to mention that the meeting at State House took place in a tent, the Chamber finds it of no relevance to challenge the corroborative nature of the account provided by Witness OTP-11 with respect to the facts at issue. The Chamber takes this view given that, as already clarified, the witness does not assert that his presence at the meeting and, therefore, he could be legitimately unaware of its details. This does not however negate that the statement of Witness OTP-11 corroborates the evidence provided by Witness OTP-4.
319. The Defence of Mr. Muthaura further provides a number of witness statements in order to demonstrate that the meeting with the President held at State House in the morning of 26 November 2007 was a meeting with youth leaders who were supporting President Kibaki’s campaign. The Chamber notes that several Defence witnesses confirm Mr. Muthaura’s attendance at this meeting. However, a number of Defence witnesses, who were allegedly present, state that none of the youth attending the meeting was there to represent the Mungiki.
320. The Chamber observes that some Defence witnesses refer to a meeting with
the President which took place on the morning of 26 November 2007, but apparently earlier than the time referred to by Witness OTP-4, i.e. 11.45 a.m. Yvonne Khamati (D12-11) states that she attended a meeting with the President in the Boardroom of State House on that day and that this meeting started at around 9.45/10.00 a.m. and lasted for about one hour. 53 In the same vein, (D13-23) testifies that the meeting he attended with the President and, among others, Mr. Muthaura started at around 10.30 a.m. and lasted for about 1 hour and 20 minutes. 4 Regardless of the apparent inconsistency between the accounts of the two witnesses as to the starting time of the meeting(s) with the President, the Chamber is of the view that no conclusion could be drawn from these witnesses’ statements as to the unreliability of the evidence provided by Witness OTP-4, since they seem to refer to a meeting other than that with the Mungiki mentioned by Witness OTP-4.
321. With respect to the individuals named by Witness OTP-4 as present at the
meeting on behalf of the PNU Coalition, the Chamber notes that two of them, Mwai Kibaki (D12-13) and Hyslop Ipu (D12-46), confirmed their participation on that day in the meeting with the representatives of the youth, but denied the presence of the Mungiki therein.^»^ Nevertheless, since these persons are directly mentioned by Witness OTP-4 as having participated in the meeting with Mungiki representatives, the Chamber approaches their statements with reservation and considers that the witnesses’ denial cannot be regarded as decisive in the determination of this fact, in particular given the external corroboration in relation to this meeting.
322. [- who, according to both Witnesses OTP-11 and OTP-12, was the co- ordinator of “Operation Kibaki Again” and brought the Mungiki members to State House on 26 November 2007 – confirms that, together with him, a number of people attended the meeting with the President and Mr. Muthaura at State House on 26 November 2007. In particular (D12-47) mentions the presence of and Maina Kangethe Diambo as representatives of “Operation Kibaki Again” at the meeting. However, … denies that Mungiki issues were discussed during the meeting.
323. Initially, the Chamber notes that the individuals mentioned by m … (D12-47) as members of “Operation Kibaki Again” – which, as indicated by the different sources referred to above,™ appears to have operated as a cover group for Mungiki activities during the election campaign – are the same individuals who Witness OTP-4 and Witness OTP-11 place in attendance of the meeting at State House as representatives of the Mungiki. (D12-47) also declares that Mungiki issues were not discussed at the said meeting, and, more generally, that there was “no other meeting of youth” and no tents pitched outside at the State House gardens. However, the Chamber accords low probative value to these particular statements, mindful of the consistent evidence which contradicts them as well as of a number of sources indicating that … played a significant role in the meeting and, more generally, in the events leading to the commission of the crimes in or around Nakuru and Naivasha.
One Response to “Investigating Kenya: What’s in a Name?”
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