Throwing out the baby with the bath water
5283 WORDS
THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER? THE CASE OF KENYA’S EXIT FROM THE ICC AND THE PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES ACT, 2008
By Samuel Ngure1
On 5th September, 2013, the National Assembly had, on its second day after its return from recess, a Special Sitting. The Leader of the Majority2 introduced a Special Motion:
‘a resolution of the National Assembly in the Tenth Parliament to repeal the International Crimes Act and to suspend any links, co-operation and assistance to the International Criminal Court; this House resolves to introduce a Bill within the next thirty days to repeal the International Crimes Act (No. 16 of 2008) and that the Government urgently undertakes measures to immediately withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on 17th July 1998.’3
The motion was successful, though with an amendment to delete the part advocating for the Government to ‘suspend any links, co-operation and assistance to the International Criminal Court’, amended on a motion by Honourable Johnson Sakaja of TNA.4 This was because, according to Kigumo MP Jamleck Kamau, the two leaders had made it clear that they intend to co-operate with the ICC. This was in reference to the cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta5 and his Deputy, William Samoei Ruto6 (and of course journalist Joshua Arap Sang’). This was of course rubbished by Opposition MPs who, though in vain, protested in the strongest possible terms that the motion to withdraw had everything to do with the cases.7
The motives of the motion notwithstanding, is the push for the repeal of the International Criminal Court one in which Kenya will proverbially throw out the baby with the bathwater? Are their merits to the Act that will invariably be lost with the proposed repeal?
1 BACKGROUND TO THE PASSING OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES ACT, 2008
The International Crimes Act was one of a raft of
THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER? THE CASE OF KENYA’S EXIT FROM THE ICC AND THE PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES ACT, 2008
By Samuel Ngure1
On 5th September, 2013, the National Assembly had, on its second day after its return from recess, a Special Sitting. The Leader of the Majority2 introduced a Special Motion:
‘a resolution of the National Assembly in the Tenth Parliament to repeal the International Crimes Act and to suspend any links, co-operation and assistance to the International Criminal Court; this House resolves to introduce a Bill within the next thirty days to repeal the International Crimes Act (No. 16 of 2008) and that the Government urgently undertakes measures to immediately withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on 17th July 1998.’3
The motion was successful, though with an amendment to delete the part advocating for the Government to ‘suspend any links, co-operation and assistance to the International Criminal Court’, amended on a motion by Honourable Johnson Sakaja of TNA.4 This was because, according to Kigumo MP Jamleck Kamau, the two leaders had made it clear that they intend to co-operate with the ICC. This was in reference to the cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta5 and his Deputy, William Samoei Ruto6 (and of course journalist Joshua Arap Sang’). This was of course rubbished by Opposition MPs who, though in vain, protested in the strongest possible terms that the motion to withdraw had everything to do with the cases.7
The motives of the motion notwithstanding, is the push for the repeal of the International Criminal Court one in which Kenya will proverbially throw out the baby with the bathwater? Are their merits to the Act that will invariably be lost with the proposed repeal?
1 BACKGROUND TO THE PASSING OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES ACT, 2008
The International Crimes Act was one of a raft of