Re: [cameroon_politics] AFRICAN COURT: INTERESTING JUDGEMENT

Mukefor,

The Trial Chamber found that Uhuru Kenyatta cooperated with the court. He testified at the confirmation of hearing and was cross-examined by the Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo. The Cross-examination lasted about twenty minutes. He appeared before the court and complied with disclosure obligations. The Prosecutor alleged and the court found that the government of Kenya didnot fully cooperate with the requests of the Prosecutor for cooperation but that the Prosecutor admitted that Uhuru Kenyatta didnot personally participate in the act.

The court found that the Prosecutor didnot act with reasonable deligence in seeking cooperation and was less specific in its requests. The court also found that the Prosecutor did not conduct proper investigations and started making requests for cooperation rather very late after initiating prosecution. For these reasons the court declined to seek sanctions against Kenya and instead invited the Prosecutor to withdraw the case until such a time that its evidence improved to the extent of sustaining a conviction. The Prosecutor admitted that its evidence was insufficient to allow it go on trial.

The Prosecutor issued a statement repeating the allegations of non-cooperation but added one in alleging false reports provided by journalists and civil society organs. This last reason is significant because many in this category who provided the reports on which the case was brought are now members of parliament and senators in Kenya. The Prosecutor withdrew three key witnesses alleging that they had provided false information. The Prosecutor has also alleged that some journalists who worked as her intermediaries later adversely interfered with the witnesses they located and recorded statements on the basis of which the charges were brought. Also crucial to a finding of lack of due deligence is the fact that this case was brought when Raila Odinga was the Prime Minister, Amos Wacko Attorney General, and the Minister of Justice and Vice President who all political adversaries of Uhuru were in power. The Prosecutor would have sought cooperation from these political leaders much earlier. That was not done. The case has failed partly because it was founded on a political balancing act which failed when former political opponents became allies in a political dispensation that brought them to power.

Uhuru Kenyatta vigorously defended himself and challenged a number of Prosecutorial policies and decisions which resonated with a significant component of popular opinion. Wither these approach was correct or not is not evident from the decision of the judges and the press statement of the Prosecutor explaining her reasons for dropping the charges. The alleged tumbing of noose at the rule of law and the ICC is not contained in the court's decision or the Prosecutor's fillings and press statement. On the contrary, some of the criticism that Uhuru Kenyatta and the AU made against the court have been placed on the agenda of the ASP Conference which is ongoing because a sound administration of international justice demands that no criticism how acerbic should be ignored or supressed. For me, I do not percieve the termination of this case in any light other than what the court decision stated. The Prosecutor should go back to the drawingt board and conduct proper investigations on the situation in the Republic of Kenya. The Prosecutor should also investigate all those who provided evidence which the Prosecutor has admitted was false in order to protect the integrity of the investigations and the judicial process.

Chief C.Taku

From: "Dennis Tambe dbtmamfe@hotmail.com [cameroon_politics]" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; Ambasbay CamerGoogleGroup <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: [cameroon_politics] AFRICAN COURT: INTERESTING JUDGEMENT

Chief Taku,
Some Africans have been celebrating Uhuru Kenyatta for thumbing his nose at the rule of law and the ICC. So what is now wrong with political chicanery elsewhere?
Africa will always suffer from the turpitude of its elites who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. What is good for Kenya is good for Cameroon. It is all in the name of political entrenchment.

Mukefor

To: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com
From: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:39:06 +0000
Subject: [cameroon_politics] AFRICAN COURT: INTERESTING JUDGEMENT [3 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from Chief Charles A.Taku included below]

Comment.

At a time that Cameroun is busy criminalizing free speech and civil liberties under the pretext of combating terrorism, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has sent a loud and clear message that the time for dictators to use the law as an instrument of oppression and tyranny may be near.

Please read this judgment and pass the information to the neocolonial contraption in Cameroun.

African Court delivers landmark ruling on criminal libel
Posted on: 5 Dec 2014

Lohé Issa Konaté and his lawyer, MLDI's Legal Director Nani Jansen
In its first judgment on free speech, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has ruled that imprisonment for defamation violates the right to freedom of expression while criminal defamation laws should only be used in restricted circumstances. The Court ordered Burkina Faso to change its criminal defamation laws.
The court handed down judgment today in the case of Konaté v. Burkina Faso. The case was brought on behalf of Lohé Issa Konaté, a journalist from Burkina Faso who was jailed for a year for newspaper reports in which he accused a prosecutor of corruption. The judgment is binding on African Union member States, where imprisonment for libel is rife, and will have major implications for media freedom across the continent.
Lohé Issa Konaté, who edits the newspaper L'Ouragan ('the Hurricane'), was represented before the Court by MLDI's Legal Director Nani Jansen, John Jones QC and Steven Finizio. They argued that the Court should rule not only that Mr Konaté's rights were violated – he had excellent sources for his report, which he was prevented from bringing before the local courts – but that no journalist should ever be imprisoned for defamation. This argument was supported by a coalition of interveners who stated that defamation disputes should be handled under civil law and that criminal prosecutions should be brought only in matters such as incitement to violence.
Criminal defamation laws are a widespread problem not only in Africa, but worldwide, being used as a tool to silence members of the press, bloggers, political activists and human rights defenders.
Lohé Issa Konaté said: "I am very pleased with this judgment. The African Court has recognised the injustice I have suffered. Not only am I happy from a personal point of view, but also because this decision Court will have positive implications for all my fellow journalists who face great risks, including, as I did, imprisonment, for reporting on issues that matter. This is a victory for the entire profession."
Nani Jansen, representing Mr Konaté, said: "This is a very good outcome. The African Court has aligned itself with consistent case law from the European and Inter-American Court by declaring that criminal defamation can only be resorted to under restricted circumstances. Justice has been done for our client, Mr Konaté. We are very pleased with the result."