The following is my response in other fora to two individuals who is mistaken that I have been inconsistent in my views on ICC and the Ocampo Six.
You are both operating on a false premise.
First, it does not mean one is right only if they stick to their original positions regardless of changed circumstances or availability of new information. Using that, namely, rigidity to original positions taken as a measure of consistency or right or wrong is wrong.
Second, if you read my legal analysis of the ICC case against Ruto in my blog “Who Is William Ruto” at http://omwenga.com I penned back in April, you’ll clearly see I conclude in that blog that Ruto will walk from the Hague. I also conclude Kosgey and Sang will equally walk because their defenses are closely related to Rutos.
I noted in that analysis that I did not analyze UK, Muthaura and Ali’s cases but I clearly hinted they, too, may walk on at least one technical defense I discuss in the blog.
I have also been very consistent in saying none of the Six will ever see the inside of jail in these cases.
You will note in the analysis, I left it open as to when Ruto, Kosgey and Sang (RKS) walk: before the confirmation, or after trial.
After the confirmation hearings for RKS, I blogged that their charges will be confirmed. This is because they did not attack the prosecutors case in a manner that would essentially result in dismissal of the cases against them.
In my blog yesterday, I allowed that one of the six may not have their charges confirmed and I can tell you now that’s Sang because I gleaned from the Ocampo interview that he bodged in the documentary presentation of Sang’s case.
That does not mean he is forever free, if he walks on this ground for he can be recharged with new evidence.
However, I maintain that all three walk after trial because of the defenses I discuss in my analysis.
The all three or each individually get nailed, of course, if they don’t mount the defense or others to overcome the charges.
It’s not unheard of or uncommon for defendants to be nailed for failure to raise a defense or effectively challenge a case and neither is it unheard of or uncommon for a prosecutor to loose a sure case for failure to effectively prosecute or simply by being overpowered by the defense or by simply fumbling a solid case.
These things happen very routinely and the Hague is no different.
Regarding UK, Muthaura and Ali (UMA)–no pun intended, the charges against all 3 will be confirmed.
As for the outcome at trial, I can’t really call it as authoritatively as I have the other three because I have not thoroughly analyzed their cases as I have the other.
I do see parallels in some of the defenses between the two groups of cases which can result in acquittal of UMA but that remains to be seen as to (a) they raise them and (b) how effectively.
Yesterday, I blogged as follows:
Ocampo is a good prosecutor but brilliance is not usually associated with prosecution; a prosecutor is either tough or not and that is measured by the number of convictions he or she exacts.
Those who think otherwise are mistaken; if you are looking for brilliance, go to a academia and private, not government practice.
That does not mean there are no brilliant prosecutors or brilliant lawyers in government service.
Ocampo should not have done the interview at all and if he had to, he should have done it in Spanish.
Conducting the interview in English he is not a master of made him come across as a bumbling buffoon which he clearly is not.
He has already telegraphed what I have been saying all along and that is, let’s be prepared for some folks to walk and I think Ruto, Sang and Kosgey will walk, much less so the other two and even more less the other one.
It is not inconceivable that all but two would walk.
If this was a Kangaroo court, it will convict Ruto and UK and say, Case Closed.
This is not a Kangaroo court.
Given this record, you can clearly see I have been very consistent in my reasoning and views about this cases.
I have not changed my views like “Dutch weather” as my friend KM suggests.
Again, just so it’s clear, there is nothing wrong with changing views or analysis based on changed circumstances or new information.
Confirming something I left open regarding confirmation of the charges is not “changing like Dutch weather!”
I think you are mistaking the concept of changing one’s principles with changing viewpoints which are two different things: you can freely do the latter but not the former for doing the former is the proverbial being a wobbler–a no-no, especially in politics.
Ask Mitt Romney how he wishes this were not true.
Peace, Love and Unity