Kenyan Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta faces International Criminal Court judges at a hearing to determine if he should stand trial for crimes against humanity comitted three years ago.

Prosecutors say Kenyatta together with co-defendants Francis Muthaura and Mohammed Hussein Ali plotted "one of the most violent periods in Kenya's history." At least 1,133 people died and more than 663,000 others were displaced after after contested presidential elections, when political riots turned to ethnic killings, sparking further reprisals.

"I am fine," Kenyatta said when he stepped down from a black Mercedes at the court in The Hague, adding that he is "absolutely" ready for the confirmation of charges hearings scheduled for twelve days. The three suspects entered the courtroom on Wednesday surrounded by a bevy of lawyers, as their families sat in the public gallery.

"Not a mini trial"
ICC judge Ekaterina Trendafilova opened the hearing by saying "our duty is to distinguish between those cases which should go to trial or not on the evidence provided." She explained "this is not a mini-trial or a trial before a trial" but "it is a hearing to establish wheter there is enough evidence to believe the prosecution can succeed in securing a conviction."

ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo told the panel of three judges that Kenyatta and Muthaura - who both support Mwai Kibaki's PNU - were present at two key meetings in Nairobi in late 2007 and early 2008 at which revenge attacks on supporters of Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement were discussed. The prosecutor went on saying Muthaura used a criminal gang called the Mungiki to carry out murders and rapes in the Rift Valley province while police commanded by Ali established "free zones" where the crimes could be committed with impunity.

"Inconvenient truth"
The three Kenyan suspects were shaking their heads while listening to Ocampo. They are hoping to convince the judges his allegations against them are too shaky to authorise a trial. Muthaura's lawyer Karim Khan was the first to take the floor to challenge the admissibility of the proceedings, saying the prosecutor had not disclosed certain documents to him."They may be exculpatory," he told the court. "Is it an inconvenient truth, an oversight? Whatever the reason, it is not good enough. It cannot be right there was evidence in the hands of the prosecutor and it was not disclosed."

Khan said the evidence "has the potential to occasion a miscarriage of justice." He hinted that he had evidence two prosecution witnesses had fabricated evidence against his client and urged judges to look into the issue. Without going into detail, he said he had evidence of witnesses "offering to bribe, offering evidence for hire, offering to give evidence to the prosecution if they are given a good way of life."

Muthaura himself told the court he "came to this court with respect and humility." He said he considers himself "as a firefighter who was mistaken as an arsonist by a policeman who came to the scene too late." He continued: "What I had from the prosecution was packaged lies from people who want to make money and favours from the prosecutor. He asked the judges "to separate facts from lies and ensure justice is done."

A new rule
Before the hearing, Ocampo said "the judges will decide if the evidence is enough to start a trial". Ocampo also said he thought it was important that the suspects were in The Hague “so that they can exercise their rights to present their views." The prosecutor added that the case should "help establish a new rule which says leaders cannot commit atrocities to gain power or to retain power to ensure that the next elections in Kenya will be peaceful and Kenya has a great future."

In the coming days, the prosecutor will outline his case and present his evidence. The defence then has the right to challenge this evidence and hear witnesses. The suspects will make statements as well. Kenyatta, the most high profile of six Kenyans accused by the prosecutor, is expected to be the only one to take the stand directly, in a move analysts say could be risky because he is likely to be questioned by the court.
 
The hearings are scheduled to run from September 21 to October 5 and a decision on whether their cases will go to trial is expected just before Christmas.
 
Post-election violence

At least 1,133 people died and more than 663,000 others were displaced, following disputed elections in December 2007. After the dust settled, the Kenyan parliament voted down a bill to establish a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the killings, rapes and forced evictions that took place during the fighting.

The 30-day bloodshed between Kenya’s Orange Democratic Movement and the Party of National Unity damaged the country’s reputation for stability in an otherwise turbulent region.

Because Nairobi, which is a signatory to the Rome Statute, chose not to send an official invitation to the prosecutor, Ocampo took matters into his own hands. In May 2010 he started investigating crimes against humanity. It took a year to bring his investigation before the Court in two cases.

The cases
Kenya’s Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta is in the dock together with the head of the country’s civil service Francis Muthaura and former police Chief Hussein Ali. They are charged with murder, deportation, persecutions and rape. These three are seen as allies of President Mwai Kibaki, belonging to the Party of National Unity (PNU).

The other case comprises former Higher Education Minister William Ruto, former Minister for Industrialisation Henry Kosgey and radio host Joshua Arap Sang. They back Kibaki’s political rival, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).They are accused of being part of a “network targeting members of the civilian population supporting the PNU, in order to punish them and evict them from the Rift Valley with the ultimate goal of gaining power and creating a uniform ODM voting block.”

Ruto, Kosgey, and Sang came to The Hague earlier this month to argue that there is no evidence to back to charges against them.

The Ocampo Six

Dubbed the ‘Ocampo Six’, they are all accused of crimes against humanity. Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, who have both announced that they intend to run for president in 2012, reject the charges, saying they are politically motivated because other contenders, who were already on the political stage at the time of the atrocities, are not on Ocampo’s list.

The suspects had appeared voluntarily before the court on 7 and 8 April 2011, following summonses to appear issued by the judges.

The Kenyan government tried to interfere and did everything in its power to bring the case back to Kenya. But the ICC’s appeals judges rejected claims Nairobi can deal with the cases itself and that there is no need for the ICC to interfere. Nairobi says that, with its new constitution, “national courts will now be capable of trying crimes from the post-election violence, including the ICC cases.”