In what has become the first international trial of a standing government official, deputy president of Kenya William Ruto has pleaded not guilty to three counts of crimes against humanity. Ruto is charged by the International Criminal Court with murder, forcible population transfer and persecution during the country’s post-election violence in 2007. Nevertheless, days before the accused first stood in court, a majority of Kenya’s parliament voted on Sept. 6 in favor of withdrawing the country from the court’s jurisdiction. Parliament’s intent to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court not only impedes the function of international law, but it also threatens the enforcement of law within Kenya itself and any measures which it has taken to tackle impunity.
The parliamentary recommendation to withdraw from the ICC is of mere symbolic and superficial political worth. Notwithstanding the intention to undermine the court, the vote will have no legal effect on the proceedings against Ruto, and any legislation would not come into effect for another year. Moreover, the Rome Statute itself contends that a “withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations.” Tangible implications would revolve around the future removal of the ICC as a court of last resort — not around dismissal of Ruto’s trial.
The need for ICC involvement in Kenya is found in the inactivity of Kenyan authorities when presented with evidence. The Waki Commission, led by Justice Philip Waki, tasked with investigation, reported that more than 1,100 people died following the 2007 election under Ruto’s orders. A particularly damning aspect is the allegation that civilians were targeted largely on grounds of their ethnicity. Despite the incriminating nature of its report, Waki’s call for the creation of a special tribunal to adjudicate the crimes was repeatedly defeated in parliament. A failure to prosecute has shown that Kenya is evidently unable — or unwilling — to address crimes allegedly perpetrated by senior government officials within sovereign borders.
Therefore the enforcement of law has rightly become the task of, and is dependent on, the court in The Hague. Any attempts to undermine the court’s power cripples a strong legal deterrent for those who would use their position to breach international law. A politically superficial decision from Kenya’s parliament has eased the legal worries of potential criminals, who might relax in the knowledge that their crimes may go unpunished. It is also an affirmation that justice for the living victims and families of the unjustly dead is only a secondary concern behind the threat of national embarrassment.
The trial of Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta is due to begin in November. It is incongruous for Kenyatta and Ruto to plead innocence and pledge their full cooperation before the court while simultaneously endorsing hollow measures to attack the court’s function.
A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, Sept. 18 print version. Peter Keffer is a deputy opinion editor. Email him at [email protected].
