Vital Lessons From the Confirmation Hearings at The Hague

Their battle was never going to be easy but the half of the Ocampo six may afford a smile or a wry one for that matter after slightly matching their enemy’s mountain of weapons. The three Kenyans should enjoy this moment-you never know it could be their only moment of happiness. Being subjected to a trial, where your initials changes to ‘Suspect’ to ‘Accused’, is not a sugary endeavour worth a smile. Or is it?

So let’s give these guys good space to smile and thump their chests, at least for three months.

Now the interesting episode has receded there are quite a number of lessons that could be drawn from the proceedings.

First is the eloquence and dis-loquence of the defence counsels. Of course one Kioko Kilukimi starred in the 10-day or so cameo. His eloquence in countering Cynthia Tai’s final submissions is not one which many local lawyers posses. After a surged dismantling of evidence by the rather tongue-juddering Ms Tai who made a good attempt to destroy William Ruto’s initial empowered exonerating evidence, lawyer Kilukumi, definitely with the help of other members of the team, responded in an enviable manner but more importantly in equal measure to Tai’s. If you are facing charges that could scald you to the bone, get an eloquent, experienced lawyer whose tongue would be always ready to wag even the most frightening; that’s the good lesson. 

Other lawyers did well. No question about that. Henry Kosgey’s defence was tactful and must have really drunk their water well. However, such tactics sometime backfires not all times though. Hope they were reminded of the old adage: united we stand divided we fall. Lawyer George Oraro did well to distance his client from the flock and either led him to the hungry lions where he will be dismembered in seconds or to the plush, serene, garden where he’ll enjoy fresh air and happy flowers pamper him with praises after conquering roaring lions.

Then Joshua Sang’s defence whose, in absolute magnanimity, seemed disjointed and unsure of the magnitude of the case in front of them. Lawyer Katwa Kigen did everything for the journalist and despite facing accent challenges in his court address, waged a brave fight and managed to give enough to bother Moreno-Ocampo, just enough. He also struggled with clarity and often left his arguments hanging a problem that could have arisen from the enormity of handling two weighty ICC cases. 

Any court is normally a battle ground for lawyers. The most argumentative counsel, the one who’s outright, unambiguous may easily gain at a go 50% of the judges’ minds without necessarily being honest. Analysts say Sang’s defence didn’t perform well but that could fall on either side because the ICC judges-being the custodians of global justice-are expected to be extremely competent and not easily susceptible to side-shows. Despite this belief good lawyers are indispensable.

Just a quick one: What did that big hearty laugh by Luis Moreno-Ocampo imply? Could it represent a dismissive act by a cornered man trying to cover his weaknesses with a jolly face? Or is it like a hyena-laugh, that is, noise made by a hungry man ready to devour to the last bone just like that sound by a hungry hyena?