Fresh details reveal that former Prime Minister Raila Odinga received Sh2 billion from President William Ruto’s allies in Dubai to help scuttle the Gen Z protests.
This exposé delves into the financial and political maneuverings that led Raila to betray his supporters and align with Ruto’s interests.
We uncover the role of Dubai’s Arab sheikhs in this intricate deal, Raila’s influence over the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) reforms, and the far-reaching implications for Kenya’s political landscape and future governance.
Raila Odinga’s Financial Ambitions and the Gen Z Protests
Raila’s love for money is no secret. In Luo Nyanza politics, the highest bidder always lands the ODM party ticket.
For instance, in the 2022 Suba South MP seat, Caroli Omondi paid Raila millions to secure the ODM ticket, sidelining party chairman John Mbadi, who ended up with a nominated slot in parliament.
When the Gen Z demonstrations began, Raila, like Ruto, underestimated their potential impact. However, after the storming of parliament, it became evident that the youth’s fight for democratic principles was gaining momentum.
As the protests grew, Ruto reached out to Raila for support, fearing for his presidency and safety.
Raila capitalized on Ruto’s desperation, engaging key players from his inner circle. He convinced them that protecting Ruto’s presidency was crucial.
The narrative was that if Ruto resigned, Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua would take over, which was seen as a less favorable outcome.
The Role of Dubai’s Arab Sheikhs
Ruto enlisted the support of Arab oil sheikhs to convince Raila. They were told that if the Gen Z revolution consumed Kenya, their multi-billion-dollar investments would be at risk.
Consequently, they agreed to fund Raila, leading to a Sh67 billion investment deal between Kenya and the United Arab Emirates.
Raila’s Betrayal of Gen Z and Azimio
After securing the deal, Raila moved swiftly to make it an ODM affair, betraying Gen Z, his supporters, and Azimio heavyweights. Raila’s primary goal was to influence the formation of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and reform the judiciary.
The Dubai Money Transfer
Raila received the money without informing his Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition Party partners.
Once he received the wired money in his Dubai bank account, Raila approved the nomination of ODM allies to the cabinet.
Public Deception and Future Plans
To divert attention from his betrayal of Gen Z, Raila’s team spun the narrative that he was meeting former President Uhuru Kenyatta in Dubai. This was a strategic move to raise stakes and shift public focus.
Siaya Governor James Orengo and other Azimio hardliners favored forming an interim government (IG) instead of a government of National Unity (GNU).
They believed the IG could oversee free and fair elections. However, Raila disregarded their stance and moved forward with ODM’s integration into Ruto’s administration.
Ruto’s friends in Dubai are now eyeing lucrative carbon credit projects in Kenya to recover their money. They also pushed for the nomination of Aden Duale for the Defense docket before he was moved to the environment ministry.
Gen Z has vowed to collect one million signatures to petition the African Union Commission (AUC) to disqualify Raila from the chairperson race.
They plan to highlight the state’s brutal killings during the protests and Raila’s betrayal. Despite Ruto’s apparent success in crushing the Gen Z rebellion, the movement plans to continue their psychological warfare against the government.
This ongoing conflict underscores the deep political and financial entanglements between Raila Odinga and President Ruto’s Dubai allies.
With the 2022 political wars now changing tact from verbal attacks to ‘near deployment’ of the most sophisticated weapons either side may possess, August 9 polls remain a battle between President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, Dr. William Ruto.
The trading of political salvos has heightened since President Kenyatta made it public that he is backing the Opposition Chief Raila Odinga in the 2022 presidential race. Kenyatta is backing the man he beat in both 2013 and 2017 presidential polls but not his deputy William Ruto who backed him (Kenyatta) in those polls.
Ruto is feeling played and he is in the race to win it against Raila Odinga who he accuses of being President Uhuru’s project. Even pundits belittle their war as a mere imitation of a common scene in dirty politics but it is war and power is at play.
President Kenyatta has power in hands to make bold moves with it. He started with a hard hitting purge targeted on Ruto allies in the Cabinet, State Corporations, in the two parliaments and Jubilee Party where he kicked them out.
He has painted the picture perfectly that he can play smooth or even extend military. For instance, Nairobi County which was under Mike Mbuvi Sonko, a corrupt Ruto ally was put under the military man. Sonko was first made irrelevant when his tasks were transferred to Major General Mohamed Badi of Nairobi Metropolitan Services (MNS).
NMS Director, Major General Mohamed Badi [P/Courtesy]Kenyatta’s preference for the military guys has seen him deploy numbers of them in civilian functions so a lot can be expected. Deputy President is alleging that there is a ‘Deep State’ or System that can crash a small man’s dreams but he won’t allow them to steal his vote.
Ruto must be tough enough to resist anything outside the ordinary politics’ because he is facing an incumbent who has many options to respond to a disputed vote.
If Ruto’s backyard revolts in protest of the vote then Kenyatta who has suffered many legal setbacks in the run up to the coming polls will have to flex muscles. BBI was seen as his sinister way to amend the constitution, water down presidency and to allow Kenyatta, Moi and Odinga families have a firmer hand on the next government.
Analysts also argue that Rift Valley may choose to disrupt peace and shutting the busy Nairobi-Busia road that connects the larger Western region, Uganda major parts of East Africa.
A move like that may result into a serious territorial problem that may go beyond the reach of police thus pushing the president to deploy military he says are effective and his preference for a neat job.
While speaking to CNN in October 2018, Uhuru emphatically stated that he will not extend his term beyond 2022 but is now backing Odinga and his opponents are accusing him of planning to plant his successor.
And Ruto alleging that the state may be planning to rig the August vote in favor of Odinga is also a sign that no side will take a loss with humility. Kenya lost more than 1500 lives during the violence that followed the 2007 polls and the president who prefers the military for a neat job may rely on the same.
In the wise words of Carl von Clausewitz, “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. Whether the military is labeled with that scarlet word ‘political’ is not a concern but restoring law and order.
Studies have shown that arguments of whether military should be apolitical is confusing and counterproductive. Military has itself become a very intensely political institution especially in regimes where Commanders in Chief ruthlessly muzzle their opponents.
In May 2020, President Kenyatta picked a new team seen as the one he would prefer to take power when he retires after the August polls. The president made the move after making General Robert Kibochi the military boss. He created history by becoming the first non-infantry to be appointed to that position.
The Chief of Defense forces who has roots from Nakuru and Nyandarua counties will oversee the 2022 power transition together with Lt Gen Levi Franklin Mghalu (Vice-chief of Defence Forces), Kenya Army Commander Lt-Gen Walter Kopoitan Raria, Kenya Navy Commander Major-General Jimson Mutai and Kenya Air force Commander Francis Ogolla.
It’s four months to elections and already there are sharp rifts between the supporters of Ruto’s Kenya Kwanza Alliance and the President’s Azimio La Umoja Coalition. This also presents the August poll as a test to Kibochi, the first non-infantry man who made it to the military top against all odds.
Previous presidents preferred infantry men who are regarded as anchors of any land forces where it’s one of the teeth fighting units. Kenya Army produced Daudi Tonje, Jeremiah Kianga, Jackson Mulinge, Joseph Ndolo and Benard Penfold.
Others like General Samson Mwathathe and Joseph Karangi who are the only rare fete like Kabochi came were from Kenya Navy. Kibochi was picked for his extensive and great professionalism otherwise he would have retired.
He is also the first Chief of Staff at the Eastern Africa Standby Force who served with United Nations as Commander of the Kenyan contingent in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone in 200-2001.
Right now his role includes working alongside other State agencies in safeguarding the country’s security and serving as regime protection.
The Environment and Lands Court in Eldoret has quashed a decision by the National Land Commission to clear allocation of prime plots of land in Eldoret to Deputy President William Ruto.
In the case, the defunct Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC), the predecessor of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), in 2008 had sued Ruto alongside Magut Agencies Ltd, Somog Limited and former Commissioner of Lands Wilson Gachanja.
The case centres around parcels of land LR No Eldoret Municipality Block 8/574 – 588 and Block 8/540, which were subdivided from LR No. Eldoret Municipality, Block 8/83, in the heart of Eldoret town.
Magut Agencies Ltd, through its director Josiah Kiprotich Magut, on the October 7 last year filed an application seeking to have the court adopt a 2018 decision by NLC, which purported to give green light to the allocation to Ruto and others.
“The National Land Commission has already made a determination dated April 20, 2018 that has fully resolved the issues raised in the plaintiff’s suit,” Magut told the court.
He had told the court the NLC award was transmitted to the Chief Land Registrar in Uasin Gishu County Government and should be adopted as an order to settle the suit.
However, EACC opposed the application and told the court that the decision by NLC was made on April 20, 2018, nearly a year after the term of the first land commission had lapsed.
EACC further argued that there was no order referring the dispute to NLC and, in addition, the land commission did not have any power to determine issues relating to the validity of the titles.
Justice Stephen Kibunja in his decision said that there was was no directive referring the dispute to NLC for review or arbitration.
“I have taken time to peruse court records, especially the typed proceedings running from April 23, 2008 to May 19, 2020, and I have not seen any order or direction issued by the court referring the dispute in this suit to the Commission for review or arbitration,” Justice Kibunja said.
The parties had, however, been given time on December 15, 2015 to pursue alternate dispute resolution.
He said that the case was filed two years before the promulgation of the Constitution and five years before the enactment of the NLC Act.
“Even though the Commission (NLC) proceedings do not disclose the date the complaint is acted upon was filed, it is clear the hearings took place in or around February 2017, which is about nine years after the filing of this suit in court,” he said.
He said that NLC went ahead to make a determination despite being informed that the dispute was before the court of law.
“The existence of this suit was brought to the attention of the Commission, and it is baffling how it proceeded to hear and purport to determine the dispute in the absence of any specific order by the court referring the matter to it,” he said.
Justice Kibunja held that NLC decision to hear the case without a verifiable court order contravened the provision of the Civil Procedure Act. “The Commission had no powers to oust the jurisdiction of this court that are derived from Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011,” he said.
He further noted that the NLC powers to review grants or disposition of public land to establish legality had expired by the time the decision was made.
“The said report having been made by the Commission without jurisdiction is null and void, and hence a nullity ab initio (to be treated as invalid from the outset),” Kibunja ruled.
He raised concern over the delay of the case which was filed on April 8, 2008 but has not proceeded to a full hearing.
“This court finds that it is unfortunate that the plaintiff took approximately 12 years to file the application to amend its plaint, but in view of the fact that the matter has never progressed to hearing of the main suit, I find that no prejudice will be occasioned upon the opposing parties,” he ruled.
He said there was no evidence produced in court to prove how consolidation of the more than 10 cases would prejudice the defendants.
EACC was given 14 days to file and serve amended plaint.
Reports by Citizen Weekly indicated that the differences between the Head of State and his Deputy are not political as many people perceive, but the course of their rift is economical after the two disagreed on the financial firm that was to be picked to roll out Safaricom’s multibillion Fuliza program after the 2017 general elections.
Inside sources privy to what transpired revealed that President Kenyatta and DP Ruto suggested different banks sponsor the Fuliza deal which gives room to Mpesa users to get an overdraft even if their balance is insufficient.
The Second in command reportedly fronted Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) to roll out the program while President Kenyatta together with Baringo Senator Gideon Moi fronted the National Commercial Bank of Africa (NCBA) bank that eventually bagged the deal despite an earlier agreement that KCB would also be included in the Safaricom’s program.
This raw deal saw Deputy President William Ruto lose billions of money he would have bagged as commissions if KCB was to be included in the fuliza program.
Reports by Citizen Weekly further indicated that DP Ruto had been made to believe that he was part of the deal during the 2017 electioneering period.
If the deal went on as planned Safaricom, Kenya Commercial Bank, and NCBA Bank would have introduced the payments interface on M-Pesa which allows customers pre-authorization of transactions for payments to be made later.
The publication further revealed that DP Ruto spared all his energy to campaign for President Kenyatta to be re-elected with the hope of bagging the billions from the Fuliza deal the cash he was planning to use in his 2022 presidential ambitions, little did he know that he was only being used to help in Uhuru’s campaigns.
Gloves are off for President Uhuru who now more than ever appears to be moving rocks to hit his friend turned foe and his deputy, Ruto.
It all started with the blockade of his flight to Uganda in a move that was directed from the Statehouse, while making a clearance on the issue, Interior PS said that Ruto didn’t meet the requirements to fly out and more so that he needed to acquire a clearance from the President himself given he’s not only a civil servant but his deputy.
Ruto on his end has said that the blockade was meant to ridicule and embarrass him saying that he has never had to seek clearance or permission from the president to travel.
Reports are now emerging that the decision to block Deputy President William Ruto from travelling to Uganda was made on July 31 following concerns by the government that his frequent travels to the neighbouring country could be linked to money laundering schemes.
And even as debate on the aborted trip rages, focus by security officials has shifted to seven Turkish nationals, six men and a woman, who have been shuttling between Istanbul, Entebbe and Nairobi for the past few months.
Their activities, which culminated in the standoff at Nairobi’s Wilson Airport on Monday when Ruto was blocked from travelling out of the country by immigration, have been closely monitored for months by Kenyan authorities.
Ruto has claimed that he was leading a delegation to commission a Covid-19 vaccine plant that he had helped Turkish businessman Harun Aydin to put up.
Speaking during an interview with a local radio station yesterday, Ruto claimed he had helped Aydin to acquire a Sh15 billion loan from Equity Bank to set up a vaccine processing factory in Uganda, which he and three other businessmen alongside his close allies were scheduled to commission on Monday.
“I helped him on one phone call. He said the benefits Ugandans will get are the same that Kenyans will get.”
Many have questioned as to how simple it is for Equity to dish out Sh15B as a loan merely from a phone call and to foreigners whose past are questionable.
Claim by Ruto that he secured the loan of such magnitude by simply placing a call has elicited reactions from Kenyans who’ve been victims of banks collapsing in insider, fraudulent loans.
One phone call from Doktari William Ruto to Equity Bank can give you kes. 15 Billion…15B…. Some of these Banks have a lot of idle liquidity.
Would you feel safe as a depositor at a bank if a phone call by a politician guarantees a foreigner Kshs. 15 billion loan? With the hindsight of Chase Bank, Imperial Bank, Euro Bank…
Why did Ruto mention the bank and amount? Is Ruto out to destroy Equity Bank?
Unauthenticated letter doing rounds on social media allegedly from Equity Bank, has distanced the bank from the claims by DP that he secured the loan via a phone call.
The unauthentic letter doing rounds.
However, Uganda President Museveni affirmed that indeed it was Equity Bank that financed the project.
The facility, a brainchild of Mathias Magoola and funded by Equity Bank Ltd will focus on applying biotechnology to solve the health challenges of humanity through the creation of novel drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics.
— Yoweri K Museveni (@KagutaMuseveni) July 6, 2021
The focus is now on the Bank and how easily manipulated it can be that a phone call broke the ice and foreigners easily given Sh15B an amount that can collapse an institution.
Detectives on trailing the money flow and possible fraud in laundering, puts the bank in the middle of a circus that includes the deputy President, the foreign investors in what could be a long chain with conspirators. Banks have been used before in channeling dirty moneySiphoning dirty money and even with fines which Equity has been a casualty of CBK in several plunder of public funds, has never stopped the trade.
Equity Bank was fined Ksh 120 million for facilitating NYS and other scandals where money was packed in bags. Banking industry is the second largest criminal cartel in Kenya second only to the government.
Intelligence sources believe that Ruto by virtue of his office, influenced, brokered and ‘secured’ a loan from Equity Bank while working with Turkish nationals in the suspected money laundering scheme in Uganda before he was caught pants down. Bank allegedly used as a conduit. The new developments now put the bank under investigation and it’s only a matter of time before the truth come to surface. Question is how many such risky deals could be going on without public’s attention. And just how safe is depositors and investors money held at equity safe if a phone call can get Sh15B lifted from their bank with so much ease. Was this a political bargain and part of deal between Ruto and Equity Bank?
All this Wilson airport, Entebe, Uganda, Turks debacle raises more questions than answers. Is Equity Bank a money laundering base. What about other banks in Kenya?
During Ruto’s July 6 private visit to Uganda, he had met two men and a female, all Turkish nationals according to intelligence sources.
Two of the foreigners, Hamit Demir, holder of passport number U23165848 and Mehmet Akif Bagle, holding passport number U11979628, flew from Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta International Airport to Entebbe on July 6. They had applied for Ugandan visas while in Kenya.
Since there are no direct flights between Entebbe and Istanbul, the Turkish capital, travellers have to go through Kigali, Addis Ababa, Cairo, Nairobi or Doha.
The two departed JKIA at around 8.30am and arrived in Entebbe International Airport at around 9.50am, according to sources.
The sources said intelligence officers had launched a probe into the activities of some of the foreigners. Security officials were, however, not sent to Uganda to establish the real agenda of the meeting “due to risks involved”.
Following these developments, senior Kenya government and security officials decided on Saturday July 31 that the DP would not be allowed to travel out of the country. He was, however, not informed.
Equity bank is used as a conduit, but they have realized that this might put them in trouble, it's stinking.
Intelligence officials believe the meetings with the foreigners point to a scheme where the visitors could be used to launder money currently outside the country by purporting to invest it in Kenya.
This might explain why Monday’s controversial trip that involved some politicians and businessmen close to Ruto was billed as an investment mission where the Turkish man Aydin was presented as a partner in a multi-billion shilling fruit farming venture.
Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi, one of the MPs in Ruto’s delegation, has said they wanted to explore farming opportunities in the neighbouring country.
“There is a large fruit farm of which the Ugandan government can buy shares,” Sudi said.
Money laundering, according to authorities, seeks to hide the source of money believed to have been obtained illegally, by passing it through channels including commercial transactions and other forms of investment.
According to the Financial Reporting Centre, such schemes seek to hide and legalise the funds without catching the attention of authorities and also making sure all connections of the funds to criminal activities is removed.
Finally, the “cleansed” money returns to the owner in an indirect way, and is used for legitimate purposes.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) about Sh200 trillion is laundered globally every year.
• Money laundering seeks to hide the source of money believed to have been obtained illegally, by passing it through channels including commercial transactions and other forms of investment.
• According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) about Sh200 trillion is laundered globally every year.
The decision to block Deputy President William Ruto from travelling to Uganda was made on July 31 following concerns by the government that his frequent travels to the neighbouring country could be linked to money laundering schemes, impeccable sources have told People Daily.
And even as debate on the aborted trip rages, focus by security officials has shifted to seven Turkish nationals, six men and a woman, who have been shuttling between Istanbul, Entebbe and Nairobi for the past few months.
Their activities, which culminated in the standoff at Nairobi’s Wilson Airport on Monday when Ruto was blocked from travelling out of the country by immigration, have been closely monitored for months by Kenyan authorities.
The details from security agencies, however, contradict the explanation given by Ruto yesterday that he was leading a delegation to commission a Covid-19 vaccine plant that he had helped Turkish businessman Harun Aydin to put up.
Speaking during an interview with a local radio station yesterday, Ruto claimed he had helped Aydin to acquire a Sh15 billion loan from Equity Bank to set up a vaccine processing factory in Uganda, which he and three other businessmen alongside his close allies were scheduled to commission on Monday.
“I helped him on one phone call. He said the benefits Ugandans will get are the same that Kenyans will get. There were three businessmen in that trip. The Turkish Embassy has issued a statement confirming that the gentleman is an investor who has a valid work permit,” said Ruto.
The DP, who had visited the East African country early last month, condemned those involved in the cancellation of his trip, terming the move “foolish and selfish”.
But government sources revealed that security agencies had placed the DP on the radar after they became suspicious about his movements and interactions.
During Ruto’s July 6 private visit to Uganda, he had met two men and a female, all Turkish nationals. According to sources, the four held a day-long meeting which was not attended by Aydin.
“The pictures circulated showing the DP at the launch of a vaccines factory were diversionary, he spent most of his time meeting with the Turkish delegation,” a security source said.
Two of the foreigners, Hamit Demir, holder of passport number U23165848 and Mehmet Akif Bagle, holding passport number U11979628, flew from Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta International Airport to Entebbe on July 6. They had applied for Ugandan visas while in Kenya.
Intelligence officials
Since there are no direct flights between Entebbe and Istanbul, the Turkish capital, travellers have to go through Kigali, Addis Ababa, Cairo, Nairobi or Doha. The two departed JKIA at around 8.30am and arrived in Entebbe International Airport at around 9.50am, according to sources.
The sources said intelligence officers had launched a probe into the activities of some of the foreigners. Security officials were, however, not sent to Uganda to establish the real agenda of the meeting “due to risks involved”.
Following these developments, senior Kenya government and security officials decided on Saturday July 31 that the DP would not be allowed to travel out of the country. He was, however, not informed.
Intelligence officials believe the meetings with the foreigners point to a scheme where the visitors could be used to launder money currently outside the country by purporting to invest it in Kenya.
This might explain why Monday’s controversial trip that involved some politicians and businessmen close to Ruto was billed as an investment mission where the Turkish man Aydin was presented as a partner in a multi-billion shilling fruit farming venture.
Kapseret MP Oscar Sudi, one of the MPs in Ruto’s delegation, has said they wanted to explore farming opportunities in the neighbouring country. “There is a large fruit farm of which the Ugandan government can buy shares,” Sudi said.
Money laundering, according to authorities, seeks to hide the source of money believed to have been obtained illegally, by passing it through channels including commercial transactions and other forms of investment.
According to the Financial Reporting Centre, such schemes seek to hide and legalise the funds without catching the attention of authorities and also making sure all connections of the funds to criminal activities is removed.
Finally, the “cleansed” money returns to the owner in an indirect way, and is used for legitimate purposes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) about Sh200 trillion is laundered globally every year.
During his July visit to Uganda, Ruto built a case for collaboration in addressing challenges facing African countries.
“We are keen to building partnerships with other African countries to move the continent away from only packaging and labelling of drugs to the restructuring of its market to focus more on upstream production,” he tweeted.
The same evening, President Museveni tweeted: “Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto paid me a courtesy visit at State House Entebbe this evening.” On Tuesday, Sudi told the Daily Nation that the purpose of Ruto’s trip to Uganda was to learn political lessons from the National Resistance Movement (NRM) which has ruled Uganda for more than 35 years.
And yesterday, ODM secretary general Edwin Sifuna wondered why the Ruto team would want to learn any political lessons from Uganda.
“When looking for examples of countries we can emulate, it’s often Singapore, Malaysia, the Nordics like Finland and Denmark. There is reason to worry when someone who wants to lead Kenya gets his inspiration from Uganda,” he said.
In the abortive Monday visit, Ruto was to be accompanied by Aydin, MPs Ndindi Nyoro (Kiharu), Benjamin Tayari (Kinango) and Sudi; Mombasa businessman David Langat, Eric Rutto and Elijah Rono.
The team was blocked at the Wilson Airport before they were allowed to travel, without the DP.
The whereabouts of Aydin, holder of passport holder number U20470175, remained unknown yesterday after it was confirmed that he did not come back from Uganda on Tuesday when the rest of the delegation returned home. Records at a city hotel where he had been staying since June 24 indicated that he had checked out.
24/06/2021 Turkish national Harun Aydin checked into Nairobi’s Radisson Blu Hotel room 047, for face value he was just any other guest and maintained that low profile for weeks until Monday 2nd when he’ll broke lose and his cover blown. He was a terror suspect and has been on intelligence radar.
Hell broke lose when it became apparent that he was on the deputy president’s entourage that was destined for Uganda on a private trip that was supposedly on intelligence focus and blocked by the President. On briefing, the Deputy President was blocked from flying out of the country to Uganda where he was supposed to meet a warlord and seasoned dictator Yoweri Museveni, the country’s president.
Kapseret Member of Parliament Oscar Sudi confirmed that indeed Turkish national Harun Aydin was part of Deputy President William Ruto’s entourage to Uganda on Monday.
According to local daily, Harun is wanted terrorist who has faced terror charges before.
However, Sudi said Harun is Turkish investor interested in modern fruit farming and not a terrorist as alleged.
“To the doubting Thomases, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is not a kid to deal with someone of questionable repute, you can use your diplomatic connection and inquire from Ssebo himself the kind of interest that the Businessman has in Uganda,” Sudi said.
DP Ruto was barred from travelling to Uganda in a dramatic scene at Nairobi’s Wilson Airport after he allegedly failed to seek clearance from the Immigration department.
On Monday, it emerged that the DP was to travel to Uganda with Turkish businessman Harun Aydin.
It was later reported that Aydin had been arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, in October 2001 on charges of “having planned serious acts of violence as a member of a terrorist group with an Islamic fundamentalist background”.
Now more mystery has been thrown to the debacle.
The whereabouts of Turkish businessman Harun Aydin, who was part of Deputy William Ruto’s delegation to Uganda remained a mystery yesterday after it emerged that he was not part of the returning team.
Last evening, it also emerged that the businessman had checked out of a Radisson Blu Hotel where he has been staying since June. It was not immediately clear who checked him out.
It emerged that Immigration officials had stormed the hotel seeking to question the man who has been linked to terrorism.
Entourage of DP to Uganda.
While MPs Oscar Sudi, Ndindi Nyoro, Benjamin Tayari, businessman David Langat and Dr David Kipkoech jetted back to the country yesterday, Aydin did not fly with them from Entebbe. Others who did not take the flight to Nairobi via Eldoret were Dr Eric Rutto and Elijah Rono.
The plane flew to Eldoret from Entebbe where Sudi, Langat, Kipkoech disembarked before it proceeded to Nairobi with Tayari and Nyoro. It remained unclear under what circumstances the Turkish businessman, who has a tourist visa was swiftly checked out of the hotel.
And yesterday, the Kenya government is said to have written to the Turkish Embassy in Nairobi seeking clarification on the identity of Aydin and reasons for his frequent missions to Nairobi.
Private trips
Sources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs intimated that the government was concerned with Aydin’s alleged dark past and has asked the embassy to provide it with more details. “The government has decided to wait for a clarification from the Turkish Embassy in Nairobi before it can decide what necessary step to take,”a source at the Foreign Affairs Ministry said.
Concerns have also been raised on the DP’s private trips most of which are not known by the authorities. Ruto was in Uganda last month where he was hosted by President Yoweri Museveni.
“He went to Uganda and later Zanzibar for a private meeting with local businessmen, which are not known to authorities. Protocol is clear that you get you clearance from your boss. There’s only one boss for the DP,” said a senior official at the Office of the President.
Aydin, who first arrived in the country in May 2018, has allegedly made several trips outside the country together with Ruto. He has also been a frequent visitor to Kenya through the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA). That year, he is alleged to have made at least six return trips between Instanbul and Nairobi.
The Turkish Embassy in Nairobi officials, however, declined to comment on the matter, saying the person concerned was out of office. “The only person authorised to comment on the matter is out of the office,” an official said on phone. The following year 2019, Aydin made four more trips to Kenya while last year he made two trips. This year, he has made six trips to Kenya originating from Instanbul, Cairo and Addis Ababa.
According to reports, Aydin who holds passport number U20470175, had previously been arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, in October 2001 on charges of “having planned serious acts of violence as a member of a terrorist group with an Islamic fundamentalist background”.
During the arrest, Aydin then aged 29, was a student who had been living in Germany.
According to The New York Times and other media houses, a Frankfurt court described Aydin as a leading member of a militant group based in Cologne and led by Muhammed Metin Kaplan. Kaplan’s group of 1,300 people, most of them Turkish, is known as the Federation of Islamic Associations and Communities.
Terror suspect, Harun Aydin.
Aydin was charged with having planned serious acts of violence as a member of a terrorist group with an Islamic fundamentalist background. He was found with luggage containing camouflage clothing, a chemical-weapons protection suit, a ski mask and materials to produce an explosive detonator.
Holy warriors
Investigators also found in his luggage were CD-ROM with a training video for Islamic holy warriors, a suicide note to his wife and a last testament, according to a local newspaper based in Cologne, Germany.
He was also accused of giving instructions for serious crimes such as murder and manslaughter in several incidences.
His lawyer, however, said he was flying to Tehran (Iran) for a book fair and had agreed to take a suitcase for another Turkish passenger with excess luggage.
It is one of the religious-based organisations that is likely to be banned as soon as a new German law goes into effect that will remove the constitutional protection for hate speech provided to faith-based organisations.
Before the arrest, Aydin had been sentenced to four years in jail after he was found guilty of advocating the murder of a rival, Halil Ibrahim Sofu, but was later acquitted.
Yesterday, Kapsaret MP Sudi, who was among the MPs briefly detained at the Wilson airport before being allowed to travel to Kampala, described Aydin as a Turkish investor interested in modern fruit farming and not a terrorist as alleged in media reports.
“If anyone is in doubt about the details of Harun then they can visit the Turkish Embassy for more information,” Sudi wrote on Facebook. He added: “Museveni is not a kid to deal with someone of questionable repute, you can use your diplomatic connection and inquire from Ssebo (Museveni) himself the kind of interest the businessman has in Uganda.”
Politicians allied to DP Ruto yesterday reacted angrily to the move to block Ruto from flying to Uganda. Nominated Senator Milicent Omanga accused the media of being used by the government to spread propaganda instead of providing a conducive environment for investors to operate in the country. “Instead of attracting more investors to our country, we are calling them terrorists,” she claimed. Aydin is said to be widely travelled to many cities including Cairo and Khartoum.
Immigration officials told the DP they had not been authorised to clear him and that it was only the President who could grant him permission to travel.
After making a number of calls, the DP was heard saying he would not reach the President nor his people. The Head of Public Service Joseph Kinyua also said he was not aware of the trip and the alleged clearance. “When he got to the airport, he was asked to seek clearance from the Head of Public Service and Secretary to Cabinet. We are surprised. This has never happened in the last nine years,” David Mugonyi, the DP’s spokesperson, said.
Leaked guest list from Radisson Blu revealing details of Aydin and exposing other guests. Leakage criticized for evading privacy and exposing guests. Came from hotel’s insiders.
2018 The year when Turkish businessman Harun Aydin first arrived in Kenya. Sources say he has made several trips outside the country together with DP Ruto.
Aydin’s stay at Radisson Blu brings to focus how hotels could easily harbor terror suspects and lack of proper mechanisms to vet visitors to prevent possible attacks.
Kenya has been a frequent target of terrorist attacks. The largest, most high-profile attack occurred in 1998 when al-Qaeda operatives bombed the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, killing more than 220 people. In recent years, the Somali-based al-Shabaab has perpetrated two largescale attacks in Kenya: the September 2013 siege of Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall that left 67 people dead, and the April 2015 attack on Garissa University in northeastern Kenya in which militants killed 148 people. The Somali terror group has increased attacks in Kenya in order to dissuade the country from sending its military to help stabilize neighboring Somalia. (Sources: CNN, Reuters, Reuters, Reuters)
Al-Shabaab is the most active extremist group in Kenya, but is not solely responsible for the country’s extremist violence. The separatist organization Mombasa Republican Council, for example, has used violence in its quest for the city of Mombasa’s secession from Kenya. Police have accused the group of planning attacks including an attack on a casino in March 2013. Separately, ISIS is not believed to have a foothold in Kenya, though Kenyan citizens have traveled abroad to join the international terror group. (Sources: Reuters, Reuters, Reuters, Reuters)
The Kenyan government has taken an aggressive approach to countering extremism at home and abroad. As terrorist forces have grown in strength, the central government in Nairobi has invested more resources to disrupt terrorist financing and thwart their operations. In April 2015, the Kenyan government began construction of a wall along Kenya’s Somali border to keep out al-Shabaab militants and illegal immigrants. Northeastern Regional Commissioner Mohamud Saleh said in January 2018 that the construction of the wall had helped lower border attacks to “almost zero.” However, lack of payment for construction workers and political quarrels between the Kenyan and Somali governments have slowed development of the wall. The counter-extremism agenda has also suffered from government corruption.
According to Oscar Sudi, an MP allied to the DP, Aydin has been in the country as an ‘investor’ in ‘modern fruits’ but the relationship with the DP has been given a different view by the intelligence.
Kenya and Turkey enjoy a cordial relationship and did not only seal one of the biggest military deals by importing armored vehicles, but extradited nephew of Erdagon foe in Kenya.
Selahattin Gulen, a nephew of U.S.-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, stands between Turkish flags in this photo provided by Turkish intelligence service, on Monday, May 31, 2021, in Ankara, Turkey. Turkish agents have captured Selahattin Gulen in an overseas operation and have brought him to Turkey where he faces prosecution, Turkey’s state-run news agency said Monday. Gulen, who was wanted in Turkey on charges of membership in a terror organization, was seized in an operation by Turkey’s national spy agency, MIT, Anadolu Agency reported. (Turkish Intelligence Service via AP)
Deputy President of Kenya William Ruto apparently is a desperate man appearing strong when weak to confuse the enemy. DP Ruto who is walking on a tight rope with an option either to steadily balance himself through to reach the finishline or mess along the way and fall into Scheveningen, The Hague . He has been a hard rock to his Political competitors and pepper to his critics. A one-man-army against heavyweight political bigfish in the country who are maneuvering left, right and center trying to form alliances to spearhead a force to break his bubble.
DP Ruto is the most embattled political heavyweight in Kenya marinated with tremendous corruption allegations, extrajudicial killings to maim his critics that jeopardize his political moves.
Paul Gicheru. Photo|Courtesy
Since the surrender of one of his right hand man Lawyer Paul Gicheru to ICC, he (Ruto) is a man whose spirits are in limbo and seems the only option to sort his mess out is winning the Presidency, of which is likely to be through ballot or by bullet.
Mid this month – 15th July, the International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmed charges against Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru for allegedly corruptly influencing witnesses. Gicheru surrendered after five years on the run for interfering with witnesses in the 2007/08 post-election violence cases. Some of the witnesses said that they were initially bribed by the prosecution to testify against Ruto and Sang.
The court had issued arrest warrants for three Kenyans — Walter Barasa, Gicheru and Phillip Bett — on charges of obstructing the course of justice. This was after chaos erupted on December 31, 2007, after the announcement of Mwai Kibaki as the presidential poll winner in a race he closely contested with ODM leader Raila Odinga. Over 1,500 people were killed, 650,000 people were displaced. Following the chaos, DP William Ruto was charged with crimes against humanity alongside journalist Joshua Sang and former ODM chairman Henry Kosgey. The general charges also applied to President Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura, and former police commissioner Mohammed Hussein Ali.
The ‘Ocampo six’ were accused of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, persecution, rape, and other inhumane acts during the poll chaos. ICC terminated the case against Ruto and Sang on April 5, 2016, about a year after President Kenyatta’s, which was dropped on March 13, 2015. 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.The ICC issued an arrest warrant against Gicheru after it was established that from at least April 2013, a criminal scheme was designed to systematically approach and corruptly influence witnesses of the Prosecutor through bribery and other methods of inducements in exchange for their withdrawal as prosecution witnesses and/or recantation of their prior statements to the Prosecutor.
The evidence indicated that the said scheme had been run in an organised manner and with a clear distribution of tasks. Gicheru was said to be a manager and coordinator of the scheme, meaning that he had finalised agreements with corrupted witnesses, organised the formalisation of their withdrawal and handled the payment. But the ICC stated that there was no evidence that Ruto or Sang directly interfered with the witnesses.
On 15th July this year, The International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmed charges against Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru who will now stand trial over alleged witness tampering. The ICC, in a statement posted on its website on recently, said Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Pre-Trial Chamber A reached the decision upon going through evidence and submissions presented by both the Prosecutor and the Defence. The court believes lawyer Gicheru committed offences against the administration of justice in order to undermine the Prosecution’s case against Deputy President William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang.
Before Eldoret-based lawyer Paul Gicheru lurched into William Ruto’s case at the International Criminal Court, the former prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, had pegged her hopes on several key prosecution witnesses. Then Mr Gicheru embarked on what the ICC calls the “witness corruption scheme”, and soon witnesses started withdrawing in quick succession. Some recanted their statements. Others disappeared. Now the ICC and its Pre-Trial Chamber have laid bare the case facing Mr Gicheru.
While court documents adversely mention Deputy President William Ruto as one of the people in the scheme of things, the ICC has not demanded Mr Ruto’s appearance. In 2015, the Prosecutor, frustrated with the Kenyan case, named Mr Gicheru as one of the men behind the witness interference plot. Gicheru fought back attempts to have him extradited to The Hague, with High Court judge Luka Kimaru quashing the warrant of arrest issued by Justice Ekaterina Trendafilova on both the lawyer and Mr Philip Kipkoech Bett.
But in November 2020 Mr Gicheru, 51, surprised many when he turned himself in to Dutch authorities to face accusations at the ICC which carry a prison sentence of up to five years. He is facing 16 counts.
In July 15, 2021 — the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, while confirming the charges against Mr Gicheru, said it “is convinced that between April 2013 and January 2014, Mr Gicheru offered various witnesses (millions of shillings) in cash instalments in exchange for withdrawing as Prosecution witnesses in the Ruto and Sang case”. The decision on the confirmation of the charges only serves to determine whether the Prosecutor’s case should proceed to trial.
The Pre-Trial Chamber also found that besides Mr Gicheru, there was Mr Silas Simatwo, from Amaco Insurance, a Mr Maiyo, Mr Bett, a Mr Yebei and Mr Walter Barasa, who acted together to undermine the prosecution’s case against Ruto and Sang.
The Prosecution, according to documents tabled at the Pre-Trial Chamber, plans to reveal the level of witness interference in the Ruto case and claims that the Deputy President was privy to what was happening.
While both Mr Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta had been charged at The Hague with crimes against humanity, the case against Mr Ruto was only vacated “without prejudice to their prosecution afresh in the future”.
The majority noted at the time that Mr Ruto had “profit(ed) from the interference (of witnesses) by the falling away of several key witnesses that the Chamber found to have been interfered with”. On March 13, 2015, Trial Chamber V(B) terminated the proceedings against Mr Kenyatta upon the Prosecution’s notice of withdrawal of charges due to insufficient evidence.
The Pre-Trail Chamber in the Gicheru says there was a well-planned scheme to induce the witnesses in the Ruto case that involved a first contact with a person who already knew the witness, a meeting with Mr Gicheru, making of an offer, and, finally, intimidation of the witness.
In order to prosecute its case, the prosecution divided the group of offenders into ‘managers’ and ‘intermediaries’ of the common plan. The Pre-Trial Chamber also found that “the (managers) also had a particular proximity with Mr Ruto and seemed to enjoy a special status in comparison with other members of the common plan organisation”.
Mr Simatwo is identified in the Chamber ruling as “in charge of the treasury” and that “several witnesses refer to them as the ‘core’ of the common plan organisation, or ‘the people’ working for Mr Ruto in order to corrupt witnesses”. Mr Simatwo is also identified as the head of the African Merchant Assurance Company, “an insurance company to which Mr Ruto was a shareholder”.
The Pre-Trial Chamber was told that Witness P-0341 was sent abroad to look for witnesses and was to be given a “car, another farm, a plot in town and Sh5 million”. The Chamber has been told that “Mr Ruto… was happy that P-0341 had agreed… not to attend ICC meetings anymore”. It was after this meeting that P-0341 was told that Mr Gicheru “would be the focal point now” and “would deal with everything”, according to court records.
It all seems to have started in April 2013, when the witness corruption scheme was laid. The first payment to P-0397, according to the Chamber, was for Sh1 million. In a heavily redacted ruling, the Chamber says that on or about April 20, 2013, the key witness was “visited” by a person –whose name has been redacted — and it was explained to him “that there was a group of persons working for Mr Ruto who were instructed to identify ICC witnesses and offer them money in exchange for their withdrawal as Prosecution witnesses.”
According to the Chamber records, the witnessed was introduced to Mr Gicheru on or about April 26, 2013 and he spoke to the witness “privately.” “(The Witness) told Mr Gicheru that he was an ICC witness, to which Mr Gicheru added that he had heard,” the chamber quotes filings by the Office of the Prosecutor in file KEN-OTP-0125-0434-R01.
“Mr Gicheru asked P-0397 to assist him by withdrawing as a witness against Mr Ruto. Mr Gicheru told P-0397 that Mr Ruto wanted P-0397 to identify other Prosecution witnesses and bring them to him (Mr Gicheru),” the file notes.
At first, according to the Chamber evidence, the witness requested for Sh10 million after Mr Gicheru asked him to “state his price in exchange for his withdrawal”. During the discussion, Mr Gicheru was joined by another person, whose name is also redacted, and Mr Gicheru explained to the witness that the person “must be consulted regarding the money to be paid to witnesses”.
Mr Gicheru is alleged to have explained to the witness “that Mr Ruto had given him and (the person whose name is redacted) the authority to pay witnesses”. After negotiations, the Chamber has heard, the witness was promised Sh5 million, “which Mr Gicheru promised would be paid in cash”. As they parted, Mr Gicheru gave the witness a business card.
He “in turn handed it to Prosecution investigators”, according to the Chamber. A day after Mr Gicheru privately spoke to the witness, he is said to have paid a cash instalment of Sh600,000. While the witness had been warned not to deposit the money into his bank account “to avoid detection by the ICC people”, the witness kept Sh100,000 and deposited Sh500,000. “He did so as he was afraid of getting robbed,” says the OTP filings quoted by the Chamber.
A week after this initial payment, Mr Gicheru, according to Chamber filings, introduced the witness to a lawyer who was to prepare an affidavit for the ICC. The chamber now says “(the witness) signed a letter giving (the lawyer) the power to act for him before the ICC on this matter. On the same day, (the witness) also signed an affidavit stating that he no longer intended to “testify against any accused persons” before the ICC, which the Chamber understands to include Mr Ruto and Mr Sang, and wished to withdraw his testimony against them”.
Some eight months after the affidavit was sent to the Prosecution by the lawyer, whose name is still redacted, Mr Gicheru is now said to have met the witness on December 7, 2013 and asked him if he was still in touch with the ICC. The Prosecutor alleged that Mr Gicheru “accused him of wanting, along with other individuals, to send Mr Ruto to jail. Mr Gicheru became aggressive; indicating that he believed (the witness) was trying to have him arrested by the ICC”. According to the filings, “the meeting ended when Mr Gicheru was calmed down by the second man and (the witness) left the meeting”. As a result of this exchange, (the witness) felt that he was in danger and could be killed.
When another witness, named P0516, disappeared on July 6, 2014 on the day he was scheduled to meet ICC officials regarding his in-court testimony, the Trial Chamber in the Ruto and Sang case was forced to issue a summons for his appearance before it declared him a hostile witness.
This Witness 2, identified as P0516 in court papers, told the ICC during Ruto’s case that the evidence that he had provided in his original witness statement was false, and that he had been told by a person, whose name is now redacted, on what to say. He also, under oath, testified that he did not know a lawyer named Paul Gicheru. But the prosecution said that it was Mr Gicheru who directed a person, whose name is redacted, to locate Witness 2. And since this person said he was not in good terms with this particular witness, they instructed (Prosecution Witness P-0397) to locate and bring him to the group on the promise that he would receive additional money.
According to the court filings, P-0397 told (Witness 2) that he could get money, such as Sh500,000, but that he had to meet and talk with Mr Gicheru first. (Witness 2) agreed to P-0397’s proposal to meet Mr Gicheru and they had a private discussion. It is now alleged that during the first or second meeting, Mr Gicheru offered Witness 2 some Sh800,000 in exchange for his withdrawal as a witness from the main case. “Mr Gicheru met with P-0516 approximately four or five times and paid him a total of at least Sh500,000,” the Chamber has been told.
After Witness 2 withdrew as a prosecution witness, the court filings state that “he stopped going to (name redacted) to receive money, despite being paid less than originally promised, because it was becoming dangerous”. P-0397 told prosecutors that he did not receive his part for introducing Witness 2 to Mr Gicheru. While confirming the case against Mr Gicheru, the Chamber says it finds the allegations regarding Mr Gicheru’s payments to (Witness 2) in exchange for withdrawing as a prosecution witness are corroborated by P-0397 as well as by other witnesses. It further says that it will assess the credibility of the witness as well as the evidence to draw its own conclusions. “He seemed not entirely forthright, specifically regarding the extent and purpose of his interactions with Mr Gicheru and his contact with P-0613 (who testified for Prosecution),” the Chamber observes, and says that “those elements support the reliance on portions of P-0516’s statements from (redacted) to the effect that he was promised and paid money by Mr Gicheru to withdraw as a Prosecution witness”.
While Gicheru’s defence dismissed these witnesses as “unreliable” by referring to the conclusions reached by the Chamber in the Ruto case which dismissed P-0613’s evidence as uncorroborated hearsay, the Chamber noted that this witness’s evidence stems from her phone conversations as well as text messages that she received from unidentified senders from April to September 2013. The Chamber, by agreeing to rely on her evidence in the Gicheru case, said the judges’ findings in the Ruto case on this witness’s evidence “related to the sufficiency of her knowledge” and that the charges now brought by the prosecutor in this case are different. “The Chamber will assess the credibility of P-0613 as well as her evidence independently and will draw its own conclusions,” the Judges have ruled. “The Chamber further finds that P-0613 also provides direct evidence of attempts by certain individuals to corruptly influence her decision to testify as a Prosecution witness, and that parts of her accounts are corroborated by other evidence.” And on her general evidence, the Chamber said it had found that this witness’s evidence fits the overall pattern that emerges from the evidence regarding how individuals were approached and in turn approached other potential prosecution witnesses to arrange meetings with individuals such as Mr Gicheru in order to offer the prosecution witnesses or potential witnesses money in exchange for their withdrawal and recantation of prior statements given to the Prosecution.
On her credibility, the Judges said that Gicheru’s defence “does not put forward any persuasive factors that would affect the reliability of her statements. “P-0613’s statements are internally consistent, free of contradictions and, as already mentioned, they are partially corroborated by other evidence,” they found. “Accordingly, the Chamber finds P-0613 credible and her statements reliable.”
It also emerged that after another witness, P-0604, recanted his evidence at The Hague, after what the prosecutor terms as “improper interference”, he later resumed his contacts with the Prosecution and will now be used in the Gicheru case. The Chamber formed the view that this witness “can be, in part, relied upon in the case at hand, including from his statement of 2013”. According to the Chamber, this witness was introduced to Mr Gicheru and asked to withdraw his statement in exchange for money and was coached on what to say in court by Mr Gicheru and another lawyer.
The ICC judges who have listened to the Gicheru confirmation case say they have now formed the view that this witness, together with two others and “some anonymous actors working individually or in pairs and even competing against each other” attempted to convince witness P-0613 to withdraw as a prosecution witness. Witness P0613 learnt about the witness corruption scheme from other witnesses, according to the Chamber. From the court records, this witness was approached by P-0495 and asked to accept a cash offer. “P-0495 explained that ‘they’ were interested in suspending the main case because it was taking too long and their objective was to stop it. He told P-0613 that she would be provided with government protection so that she could defect and be protected from others too,” the Chamber noted in its ruling. While this witness never met Mr Gicheru, the Chamber says it is “convinced that Mr Gicheru was involved in attempts to convince P-0613 to withdraw as a prosecution witness in exchange for financial incentives and other advantages.” Mr Gicheru, according to the Chamber, met with P-0800 on July 21, 2013 and offered him money “in locating and corrupting other witnesses, notably P-0613”.
The Chamber identified Mr Bett as the person who took P-0800 to a meeting with Mr Gicheru in Nairobi. During the meeting, Mr Gicheru offered to give P-0800 between Sh1.5 million to Sh2 million. From the interaction, P-0800 got the impression that the money was offered in exchange for being loyal to the Gicheru team and agreeing with what they were going to tell him, the court notes. “During the same meeting, P-0800 was immediately incorporated into plans to interfere with other witnesses. Mr Gicheru asked P-0800 to contact P-0495 and facilitate a meeting between the latter and Mr Gicheru. P-0800 was given travel money by Mr Gicheru to go… and meet with P-0495,” says the court. Gicheru would later take P-0800 to a law firm where he signed an affidavit. The witness told the prosecutors that he “signed the last page of the affidavit without ever reading the entire document” and that he “feared negative consequences if he didn’t”. Initially, the Chamber had noted, this witness had broken contacts with the ICC but in 2014 he resumed the cooperation and testified in November 2014. Mr Gicheru has also been mentioned by P-0536, who is described by the Chamber as “always straightforward in her statements and interactions with the prosecution”. The witness, now adopted as credible, had been promised Sh1.4 million and in one conversation the amount was increased to Sh1.6 million. An unidentified person told her that the money would be paid in cash and “meant to start a new life”. Mr Gicheru is also said to have approached P-0341 and inquired if he was an ICC witness.
In May 2013, Mr Gicheru is said to have paid this witness Sh500,000 and asked him not to deposit the money into a bank. But the witness opened a bank account and deposited Sh300,000 and spent the balance. After that, he was taken to a lawyer and he signed an affidavit of withdrawal from the entire ICC process. He was asked to bring another unnamed witness, make a public statement to the press about his withdrawal and he would be paid Sh5 million. It is also claimed that Mr Ruto “complained many times to Mr Gicheru” about an issue that has been redacted. The witness continued to meet “almost every day” with Mr Gicheru and between May 9 and July 19, 2013 he signed an affidavit stating that he had no evidence against Mr Ruto and that he was withdrawing from the case.
The ICC noted that a few days later, Mr Gicheru told P-0341 that Mr Ruto was very happy with the affidavit and that P-0341 should receive Sh5 million for that. On that day, however, Mr Gicheru gave him a smaller amount, but superior to Sh20,000. The court was told that Mr Gicheru wanted the man to be Mr Ruto’s witness. Gicheru continued to spend money on this witness, according to court records, with most of it banked into the witness’ account. On two occasions, according to the Chamber, Mr Gicheru summoned P-0341 because he was furious that P-0341 had attended a PEV victims meeting and had met with (redacted). Mr Gicheru accused him of interacting with white people who were spies for the ICC. In total, this witness is reported to had received Sh2 million from Mr Gicheru. It was this witness who brought a former PNU supporter to Mr Gicheru who explained that they were “giving witnesses money to stop assisting the ICC, and that they needed to reach everyone involved in this case since ‘the boss’, who P-0274 understood to be Mr Ruto, ‘wanted no stone left unturned”. “Mr Gicheru also asked P-0274 to give him the names of other OTP witnesses. Mr Gicheru gave P-0274 a phone number from which he said he would call P-0274 in the future. Mr Gicheru also gave him some money to reimburse him for transport back home. Feeling ‘very sceptical about all this’, P-0274 reported what had happened to an ICC staff member,” the ICC prosecutor told the court.
The Chamber was told that P-0274 received a call from the number and was to meet Mr Gicheru. Scared, the witness switched off his phone. “When he switched his phone back on, he saw that he had received a new threat from another telephone number. After that, he never dealt with Mr Gicheru again,” says the prosecution. Later, P-0274 was told by an unnamed person that “Mr Ruto wanted to meet him in person.” The Pre-Trial Chamber has now identified Mr Gicheru as a co-perpetrator and has also retained the charges of direct perpetration as requested by the Prosecution. On the others who are yet to surrender to The Hague, the Chamber said that “by the very nature of their tasks (directly bribing witnesses), it cannot be said that they were mere executors who did not know what the common plan was about. On the contrary, by the very nature of their action and awareness of the consequences of the implementation of the common plan, they became participants and members of the common plan organisation.
Head of State Immunity.
The provision in Article 27(2) of the ICC Statute that “Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person” , according to the summary of the judgment.
Literally Head-of-state immunity is a doctrine of customary international law — the doctrine maintains that a head of state is immune from the jurisdiction of a foreign state’s courts, at least as to authorized official acts taken while the ruler is in power.
The ICC’s success has been questioned by many and the Al-Bashir situation placed a major obstacle in ICC’s jurisprudence regarding immunity to heads of state. Article 27 of the Rome Statute states that no position of authority of an individual, shall bar the Court from exercising jurisdiction.
However, Article 98 of the Rome Statute confers that the Court may not proceed with a request for surrender, if this would require the requested state to act inconsistently with international law obligations pertaining to immunity of officials in relation to a third state. Article 98 is interpreted such that it applies to non-state parties since the members have not ratified the Rome Statute and thus are not bound by the obligations created by Article 27.
Immunity to heads of state is well recognized in international customary law. Putting the concerns into context, Sudan is not a party to the ICC. Bashir, at the time, travelled to many countries within the African Union – wherein Statesrefused to extradite him to the ICC, due to the immunity his position confers on him. Since Sudan’s referral to the ICC is made by the UNSC, not only does Article 27 apply but also Article 98 (1) which would consequently, create serious doubts on the prohibition of head of state immunity for Al Bashir.
Due to the lack of clarity of the situation, the African Union (AU) have been looking at the option of an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the matter. Some countries of the AU have even threatened to withdraw from the ICC which makes the matter extremely complicated.
In the case of then Sudan Head of State Omar Al bashir, where ICC ordered his arrest and whereby the 122 member states were to act on behalf of ICC to aid in the arrest of the then Sitting Head of State should he visit any of the member state. Omar however managed to visit 10 member states who declined to arrest him on the ground of International Customary laws.
There haven’t been a clear jurisdiction as to if ICC can arrest and prosecute a non-member sitting Head of state should need be and with the help of the member states should the wanted head of state enter any of the member state territory.There have been divided legal opinion whether to adhere to ICC’s non-immunity law or International Customary Law that bars ICC’s directive.
At some point African Union through UN- General assembly on behalf of member state set to challenge ICC’s Appeal chamber ruling on ‘No- immunity’ against sitting head-of-states to International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine whether to uphold Customary law for all or ‘No-immunity’ ICC’s law. African Union prohibits prosecution or conviction of a sitting Head-of-state.
Since the ICC is an international organization, not a State, the consistency of its actions with customary international law can only be determined by the reactions of States. As per the current status quo- some member states are not upto the task to act on ICC’s request to make such arrest should there need be. Should the decision be made clear by ICJ, ICC member states will have no option but to adhere. This is a case yet to be determined.
With DP Ruto as head-of-state and should Lawyer Gicheru admission expose rekindle Ruto’s ICC case, he’ll be enjoying the immunity unlike if he’ll be out of the office.
With General elections just few months away and with 9.5 percent probability of his ICC case being rekindled, Ruto, the favorite candidate likely to win Kenya’s Presidential election not on Integrity ground but symphathy and smartness in the political umbrella will likely be out and about to use every available resources to clinch the seat. And should he clinch the seat, he’ll use every available resources at his disposal like every other African Head-of-State to cling into power for another 5 years. Enough time to meddle African Union business to influence ICJ and ICC whose current prosecutor Karim Khan was his former lawyer in the same court —or through his government push for withdrawal of Kenya from ICC like his Uganda counterpart Dictator Yoweri Museveni whom they’ve deliberately tightened their friendship in recent times and DP Ruto has become a frequent visitor to the Uganda’s head of state — should he succeed in Kenya’s election, they’ll flock together to spearhead their (state) withdrawal from ICC so as to freely rule by the bullet without a watchdog.
DP Ruto with Museveni during construction foundation launch of Deputy President William Ruto’s Institute of African and Leadership Studies at the Makerere University.
He knows he won’t have these options possible out of Government since he’s standing on a loose rope between freedom and prison. His conviction if the ICC case is re-opened and found guilty as charged — shall be Justice served to the 2007/08 PEV victims while his win for Presidency will be an escape goat from prosecution, conviction and shall solidify his melting political butter.
Deputy President William Ruto has hit out at ODM leader Raila Odinga accusing him of derailing government projects.
The Deputy President claims that the opposition leader used his handshake tricks to infiltrate the government and is currently running a cartel that is busy swindling public resources.
The Deputy President while attending a church service at the Presbyterian Church in Nairobi’s Umoja 1 estate blasted Raila whom he accused of exporting confusion into government.
Ruto and Raila have been trading accusations of corruption with the latter declaring in Mombasa where he was attending a function that he will jail all corrupt public officers if he becomes the President.
Raila slammed the DP over his huge donations saying they were proceeds of corruption.
In a rejoinder, the DP claimed that the opposition which Raila leads was running a cartel within the government that has led to the loss of taxpayers money.
According to Ruto, Raila’s handshake with President Uhuru Kenyatta has derailed the government’s agenda.
“It’s only in Kenya where the opposition pretends to run the government, and the opposition runs corruption cartels in government and the same opposition pretends to run lectures on how to fight corruption. Surely what an irony” he posed
Ruto further claimed the ODM chief was being contemptuous of the poor insisting that the bottom-up economics he propagates is what will bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots.
“People have a problem with the support given to the church, bodaboda and mama mboga because they have contempt for the weak, the bible tells us to support the weak. These people are contemptuous and it is against the word of God” he added.
The DP maintains that those harbouring thoughts that the next general election will be postponed are leaving in their dreamland.
