To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
On April 5, 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) dismissed without prejudice its case against current Kenyan Deputy President, William Samoei Ruto, and his co-accused, Joshua Arap Sang, a former radio journalist. According to the press release, the two were charged with three counts of crimes against humanity for murder, forcible deportation or transfer, and persecution. According to a news report, the charges arose in connection with violence that erupted following the contested 2007 elections in Kenya. Supporters of Ruto clashed with those of current Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta, with whom Ruto now shares power as part of a coalition government. The violence, which erupted along interconnected ethnic and political lines, resulted in roughly 1,300 deaths and the displacement of over half-a-million Kenyans. The ruling terminating the case followed a motion by the defense to dismiss the charges after the prosecution had rested its case. In its “no case to answer” motion, the defense argued that the prosecution had failed to meet its burden of providing evidence upon which a reasonable finder of fact could convict the accused. Ruling on the motion in a split decision, the majority found that there was insufficient evidence to convict Ruto and Sang, but refused to acquit them. Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia, in her dissenting opinion, argued the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence on which a conviction could be based, and thus the trial should have proceeded to the presentation of the defense’s case. Concurring in the majority’s evidentiary ruling but writing separately in the split opinion, Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji declared a mistrial due to the "troubling incidence of witness interference and intolerable political meddling." In a lengthy press release, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda highlighted the issue of witness tampering, stating that “[p]rosecution 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.” The decision is subject to appeal by both sides. The effect of the non-acquittal ruling is that, though the case was terminated, the accused may still face trial in a national or international court, including through a new trial at the ICC.