Capt. (Rtd) Collins Wanderi In 1998 I was working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Branch Office, Nairobi, as an assistant protection officer. At the time UNHCR-BO, Nairobi, was screening asylum seekers from Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea to determine if they deserved protection as refugees under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1969 OAU Convention. Asylum seekers from Somalia and southern Sudan automatically qualified to be admitted as refugees under the 1969 OAU Convention. The complex cases were from Ethiopia and Rwanda where serious atrocities had preceded the violent change of governments and it was not easy distinguishing victims from the perpetrators of atrocities which led people to flee to Kenya. The UN had, in November 1994, established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania to try the perpetrators of 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi which had occurred in Rwanda between January and December 1994. In 1999, the UNHCR, in conjunction with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), decided to bring to a close the issues of legitimacy and eligibility for refugees from Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo. The two agencies launched the Great Lakes Operation (GLO) in Nairobi and hired eligibility officers whose task was inter alia, registration of urban refugees; their families and unaccompanied minors as well conducting interviews to document them. For the Rwandan case, the eligibility officers were required to identify any direct perpetrators, accomplices, financiers and potential witnesses of the Genocide against the Tutsi. Identities and reports of any such people were to be shared with a Liaison Officer in the Office of the Registrar, ICTR, Arusha. The Registrar of the ICTR and his staff visited Nairobi, Kenya to explain to the officers what exactly they were required to do if they positively identified suspects and potential witnesses of genocide and other crimes committed in Rwanda. They explained that although ICTR had strict timelines within which to end their investigations and try the suspects, the timelines could be extended depending on how much information we gathered and the evidential accounts we documented. During a break, one staffer told us (jokingly) that we should collect as much information as possible; document every account with some sort of “evidence” and not “rush” the process because any rush would lead to the disbandment of ICTR and GLO; loss of prestigious jobs and hefty perks we were enjoying from the UN! We laughed at the joke but we got the message. To many ICTR staff in Arusha, the tribunal was not just about justice for the victims of genocide, but about jobs and hefty salaries. The evidential value of the accounts we recorded did not matter so much either. GLO officers documented credible horrendous accounts from the victims of the genocide (possible witnesses) and identities, locations and family relations of some perpetrators who were living in Kenyan and Tanzanian cities but the Registrar’s Office never acted on them. In fact, some of the suspects we identified in Nairobi were able to relocate to West Africa, Belgium and France, while ICTR was sitting pretty at Arusha. This is one reason the Government of Rwanda has unkind words for the ICTR which 20 years down the line is yet to complete the cases before it. The tribunal has already failed to meet its 2008 and 2012 deadlines set by the UN Security Council. The court has a new December 31, 2014 deadline but you can bet it won’t be met either. All because of money! Yes, judges, the prosecutor and the registrar cannot “rush” the process and kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Currently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seized of two cases from Kenya. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has severally admitted that they do not have any evidence to commence the trial against President Uhuru Kenyatta. In the case against Deputy President William Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, the OTP is unable to progress its case since some of the witnesses have withdrawn and admitted having lied to the court. Just like in the case of ICTR, these witnesses and evidential accounts were procured through intermediaries. But the OTP and the judges do not want to end the circus and focus their energies to much more serious situations in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole charade clearly portrays ICC as a political, neo-colonial and racist court which is only fit to try Africans and other racial undesirables. The OTP, the Office of the Registrar and judges know that if they bring the two Kenyan cases to a close, they will become jobless! So, it does not matter to them whether there is evidence against President Kenyatta and his deputy Ruto, the cases will be kept pending for as long as possible. That is international ‘justice’ for you. It is not and was never about justice for the victims or accountability for perpetrators of crime, but about prestige and hefty perks for the lawyers; Judges, Prosecutors and intermediaries contracted to gather ‘evidence’! The writer is the Chair, Kenya Institute of Forensic Auditors Twitter: @DeCaptainCFE
