Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, regarding Trial Chamber’s decision to vacate charges against Messrs William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang without prejudice to their prosecution in the future
Yesterday, a majority of the Judges of Trial Chamber V (A) of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or the "Court") vacated the charges against Messrs William Samuel Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang.
The Chamber declined to acquit the accused due to the special circumstances of this case. In so doing, the Chamber endorsed the Prosecution's position that this case has been severely undermined by witness interference and politicisation of the judicial process. The decision further noted that other evidence may have been available to the Prosecution "had it been able to prosecute the case in a different climate, less hostile to the Prosecution, its witnesses and the Court in general."
The Chamber made it clear that their decision is without prejudice to the presumption of innocence or the Prosecution bringing the case on the basis of the same charges in the future, or in a different form, in light of new evidence.
We regret that due to deliberate and concerted efforts to derail this case through witness interference, the Judges have been prevented from determining the guilt or innocence of the Accused on the full merits of the case. What is also troubling is that the onslaught against this case has – for now – denied the victims of the 2007-2008 election violence in Kenya the justice they so rightly deserve.
We are currently in the process of carefully assessing the Trial Chamber's decision to determine the appropriate next steps.
The fact is that Prosecutions before the ICC can stand or fall on the willingness of witnesses to come forward and tell their story in the courtroom.
In this case, 17 witnesses who had agreed to testify against the Accused subsequently withdrew their cooperation with the Court.
Prosecution witnesses in this case were subjected to intimidation, social isolation and threats to prevent them from testifying. In the end, the Trial Chamber was in effect prevented from having the opportunity to assess the true merits of the Prosecution case.
It has been a difficult journey since the Office of the Prosecutor opened its investigation of the 2007-2008 election violence in Kenya in March 2010. Our one, consistent objective has always been to secure independent and impartial justice for the many victims of that violence.
The violence that swept through Kenya following the elections of December 2007 was shocking to all. Neighbours took up arms against neighbours; Kenyans turned on fellow Kenyans; men, women and children were burned alive, raped or hacked to death. Over a thousand Kenyans were killed; thousands more were injured; and over two hundred thousand people fled their homes.
In accordance with our mandate under the Rome Statute, we decided to initiate an investigation into the post-election violence only when it was clear that the victims of that dreadful violence had no other recourse to justice in Kenya and their pleas for accountability had fallen on deaf ears.
This Office engaged in principled and diligent efforts, from February 2008 to November 2009, to encourage the Kenyan authorities to fulfil their duty under the Rome Statue to investigate and prosecute those who orchestrated and inflamed the 2007-2008 violence. Although the Kenyan authorities agreed to establish a Special Tribunal by November 2009, that date came and went. With increasing urgency, Kenyans from all walks of life called on the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction.
The ICC intervened in Kenya when it became clear that a Special Tribunal would not be established. Notwithstanding the changes ushered in by Kenya's new Constitution in 2010, the Government of Kenya appeared to be unable to hold individuals from Kenya's political elite accountable for resorting to violence to achieve political goals.
The Rome Statute of the ICC defines my mission: to combat impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, by investigating and prosecuting those crimes - professionally, fairly, and without fear or favour.
My Office does everything within its power to ensure that those who are responsible for crimes within the Court's jurisdiction are brought to justice. As Prosecutor, I am deeply, personally committed to ensuring that this Office upholds the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate.
The Rome Statute requires my Office to exercise its powers to establish the truth. In this case, we endeavoured to identify, secure, and place before the Judges, evidence that could assist them to determine whether the Accused were responsible for violence that was unleashed on Kenyans in the Rift Valley following the 2007 election.
Yet, despite our resolve to unveil the truth and advance the course of justice in Kenya, this case was ultimately eroded by a 'perfect storm' of witness interference and intense politicization of the Court's legal mandate and work.
There was a relentless campaign to identify individuals who could serve as Prosecution witnesses in this case and ensure that they would not testify. This project of intimidation preceded the start of our investigation in Kenya, intensified in the weeks leading up to the beginning of the trial, and continued throughout the life of the case.
As a result, potential witnesses told us they were too afraid to commit to testifying against the Accused. Others, who initially gave us accounts of what they saw during the post-election period, subsequently recanted their evidence, and declined to continue cooperating with the Court.
In addition, at public prayer rallies, local politicians and community leaders branded Prosecution witnesses as liars who had all given false evidence. On social media, anonymous bloggers engaged in a steady stream of speculation about the identity of protected witnesses. This speculation frequently devolved into vitriolic commentary about witnesses' motives for cooperating with the Court.
This, then, is the harsh reality that witnesses, and in certain instances their families, faced in this case. Witnesses, however, should be embraced for the critical role they play in the Judges' determination of the facts, and admired for their courage. No witness deserves to face what the witnesses in this case have had to confront.
Within our mandate and means, we sought to counter interference with the administration of justice in this case, by investigating incidents of witness intimidation or corruption, documenting the evidence, and apprising the Chamber of the situations as they arose. We obtained from the Judges additional protective measures for witnesses. Following our investigations, we also sought and obtained warrants of arrest for Messrs. Walter Osapiri Barasa, Paul Gicheru and Phillip Kipkoech Bett, on charges of obstructing the course of justice. As noted in yesterday's decision, the Accused, Messrs Ruto and Sang profited from such interference with the administration of justice.
None of the three suspects, who have been charged by the Court with obstructing the course of justice in this case, has yet been surrendered to the Court by the Government of Kenya.
I call on the authorities of the Republic of Kenya to fulfil their obligations under the Rome Statute, and surrender these three suspects to the Court without further delay, so their guilt or innocence of the charges against them may be independently and impartially determined in a trial.
The witness interference and hostile environment referenced in yesterday's decision underscore the necessity for the Government of Kenya to honour its obligations and surrender these suspects to the custody of the Court.
We also sought to use creative legal measures to preserve the evidence we had collected. When key witnesses changed their account of events, we obtained the assistance of the Trial Chamber to compel them to appear before the Judges, so their competing versions of events could be tested before the Chamber. When we had collected sufficient evidence to demonstrate that witnesses were recanting their initial accounts because of interference, we applied to the Trial Chamber to admit the initial evidence of those witnesses under the amended Rule 68 of the Court's Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
However, on 12 February 2016, the Appeals Chamber decided to reverse the Trial Chamber's decision to admit into the record of this case the initial, incriminating testimony of witnesses who had been interfered with. Notably, although the Appeals Chamber ruled that the amended Rule 68 could not be applied retroactively to admit into evidence the initial testimony of witnesses who recanted, it did not reverse the Trial Chamber's conclusion that there was systematic interference with witnesses in this case.
It is worth underscoring the point that, despite the misinformation and misunderstanding that appeared in both social and traditional media, this was never a case that targeted a country or a particular community within a country. Similarly, we must never forget the hundreds of participating Kenyan victims in this case.
This was not a case about the collective responsibility of the Kalenjin, Kikuyu, Kisii, Luo, Maasai or the people of Kenya. This was a case of an individual having to answer to criminal charges brought against him in his personal capacity and whose guilt or innocence was to be determined in a fair and impartial trial.
In the ordinary course of events, the Government of Kenya would have been a critical ally and partner of the Office, since the case was about crimes committed against Kenyans, crimes defined and proscribed by a treaty ratified by the Government of Kenya. As a State Party to the Rome Statute, the Government of Kenya has both an international and constitutional obligation to assist the Office with our investigations.
However, despite repeated assurances of cooperation with the Court, the Government of Kenya provided only selective assistance to the Prosecution. The net result is that my Office did not have full access to documents and records that may have had probative value or been able to further shed light on the truth.
Ultimately, the hurdles we encountered in our efforts to investigate and prosecute have frustrated the course of justice for the victims in this case, and this must be a matter of profound regret.
We learn from our setbacks. This Office is committed to reviewing, adapting and improving its working methods. Indeed, since I became Prosecutor in 2012, we have implemented a series of changes to enhance the effectiveness of our work, on the strength of lessons learned. Our latest strategic plans are just one example of such concrete efforts, which are already bearing fruit in practice.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who supported the Office's work in Kenya, first and foremost, the victims themselves.
I thank the witnesses in this case, who courageously came forward and testified at great personal cost. I wish to thank a special category of Kenyans - farmers, doctors, journalists, humanitarian workers and others - who from the outset may have been unwilling to serve as witnesses in this case, but nevertheless provided us with critical insights into what happened during that tumultuous post-election period.
Indeed, I wish to thank all those, inside and outside of Kenya, who bravely and tirelessly facilitated and supported our work in Kenya because of their conviction and commitment to the cause of justice. Finally, I wish to thank the States Parties to the Rome Statute who cooperated with the Office in relation to this case and firmly stood by the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute.
During the course of this case, I have been deeply touched and humbled by the extraordinary courage, conviction and perseverance of so many Kenyans with whom we have interacted.
Yesterday's decision sends a strong message: witness interference and perverting the cause of justice will not be tolerated at the ICC. Time is on the side of justice.
Notwithstanding the challenges my Office has faced in this case, we remain firm in our pursuit of international criminal justice.
Jana, idadi kubwa wa Majaji wa Chumba cha kesi V (A) wa Mahakama ya Kimataifa ya Jinai ("ICC" ama "Mahakama"), iliondoa mashtaka dhidi ya Bwana William Samoei Ruto na Bwana Joshua Arap Sang.
Chumba ilikataa kumwachia mshtakiwa kutokana na hali maalum ya kesi hii. Kwa kufanya hivyo, Chumba iliunga mkono msimamo wa upande wa Mashtaka ya kuwa kesi hii imedhoofishwa na washahidi kuingiliwa, na kisiasa ya utaratibu wa kisheria. Uamuzi ulibanisha zaidi kuwa ushahidi mwingine ingeweza kupatikana kwa upande wa Mashtaka "kama ingekuwa na uwezo wa kushtaki kesi katika hali tofauti, bila uadui kuelekezwa kwenye upande wa Mwendesha Mashtaka, washahidi wake na Mahakama kwa jumla."
Chumba ilisema wazi kwamba uamuzi wao ni bila ya kuathiri dhulma ya kutokuwa na hatia au upande wa Mashtaka kuleta kesi kwa msingi ya madai sawa katika siku zijazo, au kwa namna tofauti, katika mwanga wa ushahidi mpya.
Tunasikitika kwamba kutokana na juhudi za makusudi na za pamoja ili kufuta kesi hii kwa njia ya washahidi kuingiliwa, Majaji wamezuiwa kutoka kuamua hatia au kutokuwa na hatia ya Washtakiwa juu ya uhalali kamili ya kesi. Jambo pia ya kusumbua ni kwamba mashambulizi dhidi ya kesi hii ina - kwa sasa - imekanusha waathiriwa wa ghasia za baada ya uchaguzi wa mwaka 2007-2008 nchini Kenya haki yao kama walivyo stahili.
Kwa hivi sasa tuko katika mchakato wa makini kutathmini uamuzi wa Chumba cha kesi na kuamua hatua sahihi za kufuata.
Ukweli ni kwamba Mashtaka mbele ya ICC inaweza simama ama anguka kulingana na kujitokeza kwa washahidi na kusema hadithi yao mbele kwa chumba cha mahakama.
Katika kesi hii, washahidi 17 waliokuwa wamekubali kutoa ushahidi dhidi ya Washtakiwa hatimaye walijiondoa katika ushirikiano yao na Mahakama.
Washahidi wa upande wa Mwendesha Mashtaka walitishwa, wakatengwa kijamii na kuhatarishwa ili wasitoe ushahidi. Mwishowe, Chumba cha kesi walikuwa katika athari kuzuiwa kutoka kuwa na nafasi ya kupima uhalali kweli ya kesi ya upande wa Mashtaka.
Imekuwa safari ngumu, tangu Ofisi ya Mwendesha Mashtaka ilifungua uchunguzi ya ghasia baada ya uchaguzi namo 2007-2008 nchini Kenya namo Machi 2010. Moja ya lengo letu thabiti, daima imekuwa kupata haki huru na bila ya upendeleo kwa waathiriwa wengi wa ghasia hilo.
Ghasia yaliyoenea nchini Kenya baada ya uchaguzi namo Desemba 2007 ilikuwa ya kushangaza kwa watu wote. Majirani walichukua silaha dhidi ya majirani; Wanakenya waligeuka juu ya Wanakenya wenzao; wanaume, wanawake na watoto walichomwa hai, ubakaji au kukatwakatwa hadi kufa. Wanakenya zaidi ya elfu waliuawa; maelfu zaidi walijeruhiwa; na watu zaidi ya mia mbili elfu walikimbia nyumba zao.
Kwa mujibu wa mamlaka yetu chini ya Mkataba wa Roma, tuliamua kuanzisha uchunguzi wa ghasia za baada ya uchaguzi tu wakati ilikuwa wazi kuwa waathiriwa wa unyanyasaji hilo hawakuwa na namna lolote wa sheria katika nchini Kenya na maombi yao kwa uwajibikaji ilianguka kwenye masikio ya viziwi.
Ofisi hii ilishiriki katika juhudi kanuni na bidii, kutoka Februari 2008 mpaka Novemba 2009, kuhimiza mamlaka ya Kenya itumize wajibu wao chini ya Mkataba wa Roma wa kuchunguza na kushtaki wale walioendesha na kuchochea ghasia namo mwaka wa 2007-2008. Ingawa Serikali ya Kenya ilikubali kuanzisha Mahakama Maalum ifikapo Novemba 2009, tarehe hiyo ilifika na ikamalizika. Pamoja na kuongeza uharaka, Wanakenya kutoka kila matembezi ya maisha walitoa wito kwa ICC itekeleze mamlaka yake.
ICC iliingilia kati ya Kenya wakati ilionekana wazi kwamba Mahakama Maalum haitaanzishwa. Pamoja na hayo, mabadiliko ilipoingia katika Katiba mpya ya Kenya namo 2010, Serikali ya Kenya ilionekana kuwa hawawezi kushika watu binafsi kutoka nchini Kenya, tabaka la wanasiasa wenye uwezo kuwajibika kwa kutegemea nguvu ili kufikia malengo ya kisiasa.
Mkataba wa Roma wa Mahakama ya Kimataifa ya Jinai imefafanua kazi yangu: kupambana na ukatili kwa makosa makubwa zaidi ya wasiwasi na jumuiya ya kimataifa, kwa kuchunguza na kufungulia mashtaka ya uhalifu - kitaalum, kwa haki, na bila uwoga au upendeleo.
Ofisi yangu inafanya kila kitu ndani ya uwezo wake kuhakikisha kwamba wale ambao waliusika kwa uhalifu ndani ya mamlaka ya Mahakama wanaletwa kwa haki. Kama Mwendesha Mashtaka, mimi binafsi nina nia ya kuhakikisha kwamba ofisi hii inazingatia viwango vya juu vya uadilifu, taaluma, na ufanisi katika kutimiza mamlaka yake.
Mkataba wa Roma inahitaji Ofisi yangu kutumia mamlaka yake ya kuthibitisha ukweli. Katika kesi hii, tulijaribu kutambua, kuhakikisha, na kuweka mbele ya Majaji, ushahidi ambao unaweza kuwasaidia kuamua iwapo Washtakiwa walihusika na vurugu ambayo ilitokea upande wa Bonde la Ufa nchini Kenya kufuatia uchaguzi mwaka wa 2007.
Hata hivyo, licha azimio letu la kufunua ukweli na kuendeleza kozi ya haki nchini Kenya, kesi hii iliharibiwa hatimaye na 'dhoruba kamili' ya mashahidi kuingiliwa na siasa kali kuwekwa kwa Mahakama na mamlaka ya kisheria na kazi yake.
Kulikuwa na kampeni kali ya kutambua watu ambao wangeweza kutumika kama washahidi kwa upande wa Mashtaka katika kesi hii na kuhakikisha kwamba hawakutoa ushahidi. Mradi huu wa vitisho ulianza kabla ya kuanza kwa uchunguzi wetu katika nchini Kenya, na ikazidi katika wiki ya mwanzo wa kesi, na kuendelea katika maisha ya kesi. Matokeo ni kwamba, mashahidi walituambia kwamba waliogopa mno kujitoa kwa kushuhudia dhidi ya Mshtakiwa. Wengine, ambao awali walitupa akaunti ya kile walichokiona katika kipindi baada ya uchaguzi, hatimaye walibadilisha ushahidi wao, na wakakataa kuendelea kushirikiana na Mahakama.
Zaidi ya hayo, katika mikutano ya hadhara ya maombi, wanasiasa nchini na viongozi wa jamii waliwatambua mashahidi wa Mwendesha Mashtaka kama waongo na wote walikuwa wametoa ushahidi wa uongo. Kwa vyombo vya habari ya kijamii, bloggers bila majina walishiriki katika mkondo wa kutosha wa uvumi kuhusu utambulisho wa mashahidi walio na ulinzi. Uvumi huu mara nyingi ulisababisha ufafanuzi uchungu kuhusu nia ya mashahidi kwa kushirikiana na Mahakama.
Hii, basi, ni ukweli mkali kwamba mashahidi, na wakati mwingine familia zao, walikabiliwa katika kesi hii. Mashahidi, hata hivyo, lazima tuwatie moyo kwa jukumu wao muhimu wanayofanya katika uamuzi wa Majaji ya ukweli, na kuheshimiwa kwa ujasiri wao. Hakuna shahidi anastahili kukabili na hali ile hawa mashahidi walikabiliana nayo katika kesi hii.
Ndani ya mamlaka na uwezo wetu, tulitafuta kukabiliana na kuingiliwa na utawala wa haki katika kesi hii, kwa kuchunguza matukio ya vitisho kwa shahidi au rushwa, tuliweka kumbukumbu ushahidi, na kuzingatia Chumba cha hali kama vilivyotokea. Tulipata kwa Majaji hatua zaidi za kukinga mashahidi. Kufuatia uchunguzi wetu, tulitafuta na tukapata vibali vya kukamatwa kwa Mabwana Walter Osapiri Barasa, Paul Gicheru na Phillip Kipkoech Bett, juu ya madai ya kuzuia mwendo wa haki.
Kama ilivyoelezwa katika uamuzi wa jana, Washtakiwa, Bwana Ruto na Sang walifaidika kutokana na kuingiliwa huo kwa utawala wa haki.
Hamna kwa watuhumiwa hao watatu, ambao wameshtakiwa na Mahakama kwa kuzuia mwendo wa haki katika kesi hii, bado hawaja salimishwa kwa Mahakama na Serikali ya Kenya.
Natoa wito kwa mamlaka ya Jamhuri ya Kenya itimize majukumu yao chini ya Mkataba ya Roma, na kusalimisha watuhumiwa hawa watatu kwa Mahakama bila kuchelewa zaidi, ndivyo hatia yao au kutokuwa na hatia ya mashtaka dhidi yao iweze kutegemewa na bila upendeleo iuamuliwe katika kesi.
Kuingilia mashahidi na mazingira ya uhasama inatazamwa katika uamuzi wa jana inasisitiza umuhimu wa Serikali ya Kenya kutekeleza majukumu yake na kujisalimisha watuhumiwa hao mikononi mwa Mahakama.
Pia, tulitafuta na tulitaka kutumia hatua ya ubunifu wa kisheria wa kuhifadhi ushahidi yenye tulikuwa tumekusanya. Wakati washahidi muhimu walibadilisha akaunti zao za matukio, tulitafuta msaada wa Chumba cha kesi kuwalazimisha kutokea mbele ya Majaji, ili matoleo yao inayo pingana iweze kujaribiwa mbele ya Chumba. Wakati tulikuwa tumekusanya ushahidi wa kutosha kuonyesha ya kwamba mashahidi walikuwa wakikana akaunti zao za awali, kwa sababu ya kuingiliwa, tuliomba Chumba cha kesi ikubali ushahidi wa kwanza wa mashahidi kulingana na marekebisho ya Ibara 68 ya uwezo wa kisheria wa Mahakama.
Hata hivyo, namo tarehe 12 Februari 2016, Chumba cha Rufaa iliamua kubadilisha uamuzi wa Chumba cha kesi na kukubali kuweka katika rekodi ya kesi hii ya awali, ushahidi ya lawama wa mashahidi ambaye walikuwa wameingiliwa. Hasa, ingawa Chumba cha Rufaa iliamua kwamba hatungeweza kutumia marekebisho ya Ibara 68 kwa mambo ya zamani iwe ushahidi wa mashahidi waliobadilisha msimamo yao, haiku badilisha hitimisho la Chumba cha kesi ya kwamba kulikuwa na utaratibu kuingilia mashahidi katika kesi hii.
Ni thamani kusisitiza hatua hiyo, licha ya taarifa potofu na kutokuelewana yalionekana katika vyombo vya habari ya kijamii na za jadi, hii haikuwa kesi ambayo yalilenga nchi au jamii fulani ndani ya nchi. Vile vile, ni lazima kamwe tusisahau kwamba mamia ya waathiriwa wa Kenya walishiriki katika kesi hii.
Ningependa kusisitiza hatua hii. Hii haikuwa kesi kuhusu uwajibikaji wa pamoja wa Wakalenjin, Wakikuyu, Wakisii, Wajaluo, Wamaasai ama wananchi wa Kenya. Hii ilikuwa kesi ya mtu binafsi kuwa na kujibu kwa mashtaka ya jinai ilioletwa dhidi yake katika uwezo wake binafsi na ambaye ana hatia au hana mara kuangaliwa katika kesi ya haki na bila ya upendeleo.
Katika mwendo wa kawaida wa matukio, Serikali ya Kenya ingekuwa mshirika wa Ofisi hii, kwa sababu kesi ilikuwa inahusu uhalifu dhidi ya Wanakenya, uhalifu inavyoelezwa na uliowekwa kwa mkataba na kuridhiwa na Serikali ya Kenya. Kama nchi inayounda Mkataba wa Roma, Serikali ya Kenya ina wajibu za kimataifa na za katiba kusaidia Ofisi katika uchunguzi wetu.
Hata hivyo, licha ya kuhakikishiwa mara kwa mara ya ushirikiano na Mahakama, Serikali ya Kenya ilichagua msaada wa kutoa kwa upande wa Mashtaka. Matokeo halisi ni kwamba Ofisi yangu haikuwa na huduma kamili ya nyaraka na kumbukumbu ambayo ingeweza kuwa na ushahidi wa thamani au kuweza kumwaga mwanga katika ukweli.
Hatimaye, vikwazo zilizotokea katika juhudi zetu za kuchunguza na kufungua mashtaka kuwa ngumu na kuchanganyikiwa kutokana na mwendo wa haki kwa waathiriwa katika kesi hii, na hii ni lazima suala la masikitiko makubwa.
Tunajifunza kutoka vikwazo zetu. Ofisi hii ina nia ya kupitia upya, kurekebisha na kuboresha mbinu zake za kazi. Hakika, tangu niwe Mwendesha Mashtakwa mwaka 2012, tumetekeleza mfululizo wa mabadiliko ili kuongeza ufanisi wa kazi yetu, juu ya mambo ambaye tumejifunza. Mipango mikakati ya hivi karibuni ni mfano mmoja tu wa juhudi hizo saruji, ambayo tayari kuzaa matunda katika mazoezi.
Nataka kuchukua fursa hii kuwashukuru wale wote ambao walisaidia Ofisi hii kwa kazi yake nchini Kenya, kwanza kabisa, waathiriwa wenyewe.
Nawashukuru mashahidi katika kesi hii, ambao walikuja kwa ujasiri na ushahidi kwa gharama kubwa binafsi. Nawashukuru jamii maalum ya Wakenya - wakulima, madaktari, waandishi wa habari, wafanyi kazi wa misaada na wengine- ambao kutoka mwanzo inaweza kuwa hawakutaka kutumika kama mashahidi katika kesi hii, lakini hata hivyo walitoa ufahamu muhimu katika kile kilichotokea katika kipindi hicho cha vurugu baada ya uchaguzi.
Hakika, napenda kuwashukuru wale wote, ndani na nje ya Kenya, ambao uhodari na ushupavu na bila kuchoka kuwezesha na kusaidia kazi yetu katika nchini Kenya kwa sababu ya hatia yao na kujitolea kwao sababu ya haki. Hatimaye, napenda kuwashukuru Mataifa Wanachama wa Mkataba wa Roma wale ambao walilishirikiana na Ofisi katika mahusiano ya kesi hii na kwa imara walisimama na kanuni yanazingatiwa katika Mkataba wa Roma.
Wakati wa mwendo wa kesi hii, nimeguswa undani na wanyonge na ajabu ujasiri, imani na uvumilivu wa watu wengi wa Kenya ambaye tuliwasiliana nao.
Uamuzi wa jana ina ujumbe nguvu: Kuingilia mashahidi na kupotosha chanzo cha haki hautavumiliwa katika mahakama ya ICC. Muda iko upande wa haki.
Licha ya hayo matatizo Ofisi yangu imepata kwa kesi hii, tutabaki imara katika kutekeleza azma yetu ya haki ya kimataifa ya uhalifu.