The case against William Samoei Ruto and journalist Joshua Arap Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11, charged both men with crimes against humanity for allegedly organizing violence in the Rift Valley. Ruto was accused of funding and directing Kalenjin militia groups to conduct ethnic cleansing, while Sang was accused of using his radio program to broadcast hate speech that incited violence. The charges were murder, forcible transfer, and persecution. The trial opened in September 2013 and proceeded for approximately three years, with extensive witness testimony and evidence presentation. However, like Uhuru's case, the Ruto case collapsed in April 2016 when the trial chamber issued a decision terminating the trial due to witness unreliability and insufficient evidence.
The prosecution's case against Ruto centered on his role in coordinating Kalenjin militia groups in the Rift Valley. Evidence included testimony from individuals claiming to have attended meetings where Ruto provided direction and financial support, bank records allegedly showing payments from Ruto's office to militia coordinators, and documentary evidence of Ruto's communications with regional leaders. The prosecutor argued that Ruto, as a Rift Valley politician with significant influence among Kalenjin communities, had mobilized youth militia groups as part of a deliberate campaign to displace non-Kalenjin populations from the Rift Valley. The violence was not spontaneous; it was orchestrated by Ruto and other political figures, with Kalenjin Warriors as the foot soldiers.
The prosecution's case against Sang was based on his broadcasts on Kalenjin Fm (a radio station), where Sang had allegedly made statements that incited violence against Luo and Kikuyu populations. The radio testimony was presented as evidence that a coordinated propaganda campaign, led by Sang, had prepared the groundwork for militia violence. By broadcasting inflammatory rhetoric about Kalenjin grievances and ethnic identity, Sang had allegedly created a psychological climate where violence was seen as justified and necessary. The incitement narrative was meant to show that violence was not spontaneous but consciously stoked by those with media platforms.
The Ruto case experienced even more dramatic evidentiary collapses than Uhuru's. Key witnesses recanted testimony, claiming that they had been intimidated by Ruto's supporters or that their original accounts were false. One witness admitted in court that he had been paid to testify against Ruto. The trial chamber, faced with such systematic unreliability, determined that it could not rely on witness testimony as the sole basis for conviction. Documentary evidence was sparse and ambiguous. Without credible witnesses, the prosecution's case could not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Additionally, William Ruto's election as Deputy President in March 2013 (the same month Uhuru became president) created similar obstruction dynamics as Uhuru's case. Once Ruto was in the government, Kenya's official cooperation with the ICC investigation diminished. Witnesses faced intimidation, and the government's willingness to facilitate testimony was absent. By 2016, the trial chamber concluded that the case was untenable and terminated the proceedings without acquitting or convicting Ruto. Like Uhuru, Ruto's charges were withdrawn rather than adjudicated on the merits.
The collapse of Ruto's case was portrayed differently by different audiences. Ruto claimed vindication, arguing that he had been falsely accused by the ICC at the behest of political enemies (Uhuru and Kibaki). Human rights organizations argued that the case had failed due to witness intimidation and government obstruction, not because Ruto was innocent. The International Criminal Court itself was criticized for pursuing cases that it could not successfully prosecute given political obstacles. By 2026, William Ruto was president of Kenya, having risen from ICC indictee to the country's highest elected office. His trajectory demonstrated the limits of international justice when national politics override accountability.
Joshua Sang, the journalist, faced a different trajectory. His case was also terminated, but Sang's subsequent career was less prominent than Ruto's. He eventually returned to media work and was not prosecuted domestically. His case raised questions about the ICC's willingness to prosecute media figures for incitement, a legally and politically contested area. By 2026, Sang's case was a footnote to the broader story of ICC failure in Kenya, remembered mainly by legal scholars studying international justice.
See Also
Ocampo Six ICC Collapse Kalenjin Warriors Impunity William Ruto Role
Sources
- International Criminal Court. "Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11." Trial chamber decision (April 2016) terminating proceedings available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/
- Human Rights Watch. "Justice at Risk: Witness Intimidation and the ICC Investigations in Kenya." New York, 2013. Pages 60-90 on Ruto case and witness issues. https://www.hrw.org/
- Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. "Statement on the Situation in Kenya." The Hague, April 2016. Available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/