On the DPM’s Statement on Post Election Violence and the ICC

Five years ago we had what many termed the worst post election violence in Kenya’s history. It is estimated that 1,500 people were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in the violence. Five years on, four Kenyans, two that are presidential aspirants, have been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in connection with the crimes against humanity committed during the post election violence.

A few days ago the Deputy Prime Minister (DPM), and presidential aspirant, Musila Mudavadi released a statement on the 2008 post election violence and the (ICC) cases. In his statement the DPM suggested the way forward which involved: an admission of national guilt, speedy justice for IDPs, and a resolution of the violence culture once and for all. At face value the DPM’s propositions seem plausible, however read as a whole and in context (full statement here) it is difficult not to take issue with the DPM’s statement, which seems devoid of historical perspective (despite the fact that the history itself is quite recent).

In his statement the DPM seems to conflate the issue of national shame with individual, responsibility, culpability and accountability for post election violence related crimes, stating …“We killed each other in 2008…we must accept responsibility collectively. The nation is guilty. “To prosecute four people for the sins of 40 million is therefore preposterous.” I doubt the millions of Kenyans that had no hand the in post election violence would agree with this statement. It is absurd that the DPM should suggest that the issue of individual accountability and responsibility for post election violence related crimes should be hidden under a banner of national/collective guilt.

The DPM then adds, “ I was among those who supported that any trial related to the PEV must be done locally. I still hold this view because no civilised society can allow their own to be tried in a foreign jurisdiction...if it were in my power, I would bring the ICC trials home as part of shouldering the guilt. Admission of guilt is part of the national redemption.”

From his statement the DPM seems vehement that the ICC cases should be tried at “home” it would appear that the DPM has forgotten the trajectory of how the cases ended up at the ICC in the first place. Let’s recap. In the aftermath of the violence in 2007/2008 a Commission (the Waki Commission) was established to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the violence. Among the recommendations made by the Commission was the establishment of a local tribunal to try those accused of organising the violence. It was only on the failure to establish such a tribunal that the Commission recommended that a sealed envelope containing names of those alleged to have borne the greatest responsibility for the violence be passed on to the ICC for investigation and prosecution.

Parliament had the option to not only investigate the post election violence, but also the option of setting up a local tribunal to try those suspected of post election violence related crimes, an option which Parliament rejected not once, but thrice. Further more the government has shown very little political will to try those accused of post election violence at any level let level let alone the highest levels. Almost five years since the post election violence and the country still has more than 5,000 PEV cases pending and only a handful of cases have been prosecuted.

As for bringing the ICC trials home as part of “shouldering the guilt” the DPM seems to forget that government has tried to “bring home the trials” several times (the government has tried to remove itself from the Rome Statute, and appealed to the both the Court and the UN Security Council regarding admissibility) at great cost to and against the will of taxpayer to no avail. If it were truly the DPM’s intention to shoulder the guilt wouldn’t the best way to do this be to support the ICC?

While it may be true that the ICC “will not address the root causes of the growing culture of community and election-related violence” it would certainly be a step towards addressing the culture of impunity and the lack of accountability for instigators of electoral violence.

As for speedy justice for the IDPs, the DPM has been a high ranking member of the Cabinet, holding two positions within Cabinet as DPM and Minister for Local Government during which time he could and should have prioritised the resettlement of IDPs, to suggest this to the media now almost five years seems disingenuous and seems like an empty election ploy.

Posted by Mzalendo Editor on Oct. 4, 2012

Categories:  No tags