By CYRUS OMBATI
Lawyers representing security chiefs who served during the post election violence period, claim they have been denied visas to travel to The Hague to represent their clients.
The lawyers now want the Kenyan case that the International Criminal Court is investigating be moved to a friendlier country where access is easy and fast.
They told journalists in Nairobi they had since December 1 been trying to get visas to The Hague through the Dutch embassy in the city in vain.
“We applied for the visas in urgency hopping the case will be considered but the officials at the embassy said they had to consult the ICC and Dutch government before granting us the same. This is unnecessary frustrations,” said the lawyers.
Lawyers Ken Ogeto, Evans Monari, Gerishom Otachi and Caroline Gichuri who represent the ten PPOs and PCs addressed the briefing.
Monari said they based the urgency for issuance of the visas on an application they had made at the court in regard to the case that it is investigating in Kenya and touching on their clients.
ICC is investigating Crimes Against Humanity in the country, which were committed in the post election violence period and as stipulated under the Rome Statute.
Monari said they are being frustrated and hampered in seeking justice for their clients, who he expressed fears may be among the wanted six.
An official at the Dutch embassy said there are procedures, which must be followed for one to obtain a visa to travel and denied the denial was deliberate.
Monari insisted their clients are ready and willing to cooperate with the Court in its investigations even as he complained of unfairness in the whole process.
The Hague
The lawyers have already filed an application at The Hague to among others seek an order staying any decision on a possible application by the Office of the Prosecutor for the issuance of indictments in relation to the 2007-2008 violence until such a time that the applicants are in a position to record statements and same are provided to the prosecutor.
They emailed their application to The Hague after they failed to get the visas on Friday and the case has been received at the Registrar’s office.
On Monday, the lawyers were busy at the ICC court that sits in Nairobi arguing for former Central PPO Philip Ndwiga who has been summoned for grilling.
Ndwiga had been summoned alongside his former colleagues but ignored the summons on grounds that he is no longer in government.
But in a twist of events, the ICC court sent him fresh summons and a set of questions they intend to ask him beginning this Monday.
The summons require Ndwiga to appear before the team which works under Lady Justice Kalpana Rawal
The lawyers want the grilling, which begins this Monday to be suspended until the three judges at The Hague give ruling on their application.
The security chiefs had asked the Court to also stop the grilling process because they were being forced to give evidence contrary to the standing rules.
The ICC detectives are trying to tie loose the loose ends on its upcoming cases against those deemed to hold higher responsibility for the post poll killings.
The detectives have summoned the ten security chiefs for grilling as part of their investigations.
Those named in the application that was made at The Hague are Ernest Mwinyi, Kingori Mwangi, Hassan Noor, Grace Kaindi, Njue Njagi, James Waweru, Paul Olando, Japter Rugut and Joseph Ashmala.
It was addressed to Pre-Trial Chamber II Judges Ekaterina Trendafilova (presiding Judge), Hans-Peter Kaul and Cuno Tarfusser who are handling the Kenyan case.
Loui Moreno-Ocampo is expected to appear before the Chamber in two weeks time to seek the indictment of the suspects.
Their move came after Justice Rawal rejected the security chiefs’ application requesting to be provided with questions they are to be asked by the ICC team beginning Tuesday.
In a ruling dated November 25, Justice Rawal rejected an application by the security chiefs requesting to be provided with questions they are to be asked by The Hague in relation to post-election violence.
Justice Rawal held that the witnesses intended to give evidence are compelled to appear before her, but could refuse to give answers, which could incriminate them.
The Justice Rawal ruling was based on submissions made by the security chiefs’ lawyers dated November 15, when Moreno-Ocampo objected a request by the counsel to supply in advance specific details and questions.
“A single answer or set of answers may appear innocent and harmless but when placed in perspective of the totality of facts and circumstances, may turn out to be grossly incriminating,” they said.
Comments