The International Criminal Court (ICC) cases arising from Kenya's 2007,08 post-election violence are centrally connected to Kalenjin history and contemporary politics. Two prominent cases involved alleged Kalenjin perpetrators: William Ruto (later Kenya's president) and Joshua arap Sang (a radio broadcaster). Understanding the ICC cases requires examining the charges, the legal processes, how Kalenjin communities experienced the ICC intervention, and whether the process advanced justice.
The Charges and Legal Framework
The ICC cases arose from the Post-Election Violence (PEV) of 2007,08, which killed approximately 1,000 people, displaced hundreds of thousands, and traumatized Kenyan society. The ICC Prosecutor, exercising the court's authority to investigate crimes against humanity, opened investigations into the violence.
William Ruto (then Deputy Prime Minister and power broker in the Rift Valley) was charged with crimes against humanity including murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, and persecution, allegedly committed during the post-election violence. Joshua arap Sang, a radio broadcaster who allegedly incited violence through his media platform, was also charged.
Legal Proceedings and Charges Dropped
The cases proceeded through preliminary examination and pre-trial phases. However, critical challenges emerged. Key witnesses were intimidated or recanted testimony, making prosecutions difficult. Kenyan government pressure and diplomatic efforts worked to weaken the cases. The Prosecution itself faced challenges in building sufficiently solid evidence.
On April 5, 2016, the ICC judges vacated charges against Ruto and Sang, terminating the prosecution. The judges found insufficient evidence to proceed to trial. This was widely interpreted as a major setback for the ICC's accountability project in Kenya. The cases against other alleged perpetrators (Uhuru Kenyatta) had already been dropped or abandoned in 2014.
Kalenjin Community Experience of the ICC
Kalenjin communities experienced the ICC process with mixed reactions. For some, the ICC represented international justice, a mechanism to hold perpetrators accountable and provide justice to victims. The ICC's intervention was viewed positively as offering an avenue for justice when domestic mechanisms were perceived as weak or compromised.
For others, particularly Kalenjin individuals and communities with alleged perpetrators, the ICC was viewed as external intrusion, a Western institution imposing foreign legal frameworks on Kenyan affairs. There was concern that the ICC was selectively prosecuting Kalenjin while overlooking perpetrators from other ethnic groups.
Broader Questions of Justice and Accountability
The ICC cases raised fundamental questions about how post-conflict justice should be pursued in Kenya. Some argued that the ICC's intervention was necessary given perceived failures of Kenyan domestic justice mechanisms. Others argued that the ICC should focus on the most senior and responsible perpetrators rather than intermediate figures like Ruto and Sang.
The eventual failure of the ICC prosecutions left many victims and survivors without the international justice forum they had sought. This contributed to Kenyan frustration with the ICC and strengthened voices arguing for purely domestic justice mechanisms.
Ruto's Presidency and ICC Legacy
Ruto's election as president despite (or partially because of) his ICC history is notable. His political base in the Rift Valley and among Kalenjin continued to support him despite the charges. This reflects how the ICC cases became entangled in Kenyan ethnic and political divisions, with some ethnic groups viewing Ruto as a victim of selective prosecution and others viewing him as an alleged perpetrator whom the ICC (and Kenyan justice) had failed to hold accountable.
Ruto's presidency with his ICC history creates international relations complications for Kenya. Kenyan participation in international forums, dealings with the International Criminal Court, and human rights commitments all intersect with Ruto's political position.
Divided Kalenjin Opinion
Kalenjin communities themselves are divided regarding the ICC cases and broader accountability for post-election violence. Some Kalenjin acknowledge community members' participation in violence and support accountability mechanisms. Others view their communities as unfairly targeted by the ICC while perpetrators from other ethnic groups escaped prosecution.
This division reflects broader Kenyan challenges in achieving inclusive reconciliation and justice processes that acknowledge all communities' suffering and responsibility.
Cross-Links
See Also
Kalenjin Hub | Kericho County | Nandi County | Baringo County | Uasin Gishu County | Doping Crisis