The International Criminal Court (ICC) has announced the closure of the probe into Kenya’s 2007 post-election violence.
Deputy prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan said they would not pursue additional charges into the alleged crimes.
This is relief to president William Ruto and former president Uhuru Kenyatta whose cases had been terminated or withdrawn without prejudice.
Khan said they will be focusing on the cases of Walter Barasa and Philip Kipkoech Bett who are wanted at The Hague for witness tampering.
“After assessing all the information available to me at this time, i have decided to conclude the investigation phase in the situation in Kenya. I have reached this decision after considering the specific facts and circumstances of this situation. Accordingly, the office will not pursue additional cases into the alleged criminal responsibility of other persons.” Khan said.
The ICC had given leeway to the Office of the Prosecutor to file charges against the accused persons if they gathered enough evidence.
In 2010, six people were taken to ICC after the 2007 post-election violence after the late president Mwai Kibaki was announced winner of the 2007 election against former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
The violence left over 1,500 people dead while thousands were displaced from their homes and maimed.
The other four suspects were former head of public service Francis Muthaura, former police boss Hussein Ali, former minister of Industrialization Henry Kosgey, and former radio presenter Joshua Arap Sang’.
Barasa, Bett, and the late Paul Gicheru were wanted for allegedly witness tampering against Ruto.
The case against Gicheru was terminated in 2022 after his sudden death after he had surrendered to the ICC in November 2020.
The cases against Ruto and Sang’ were the last to be terminated in 2016 after their request to the court of ‘no case to answer.’
Former prosecutor Fatou Bensouda had indicated that the cases were weakened by witnesses being interfered with through bribes, threats, murder, and enforced disappearances which left the prosecution in Limbo.
Further, the court claimed that the state failed to cooperate with the prosecutors in gathering evidence.
