Is the ICC credible and is there a possibility that it's used by Powerful Western countries as a political tool?

ICC Ruling-Ignorance or Blinded?

I have gone through most of the ICC comments in Wazua and one thing strike me most of the people commenting in Wazua seem to buy into a notion that ICC rulings is incorrect.

First, like I have said before, people died and someone has to be responsible, the question is, are the 4 responsible? We don't know, but Ocampo and ICC judges believe that there is a ground that implicate the 4, so who are we to reject the claim? we've not seen the evidence, we've not interview the witness, most of us cannot even interprate a law!

Secondly, ICC clearly stated that they are only handling those with greatest responsibilities so the argument that some killers still walk free has been answered- yes they're killers but ICC believe they are not in top 4-.

Thirdly, You might be Uhuru or Ruto fun, but get over it, they have a case to answer in ICC and your opinion do not matter, I am a Kalenjin, I do not believe that Ruto gave orders to attack Kikuyus but I understand the fact that there is a probable course to beleive that during the 2007 campaign politicians including Ruto could have utter statements that can be believe to have eventually trigger the violence. To a layman it doesn't seem to make sense but according to the law if there is a probable course to believe that what you did could have caused someone else to act on it make you as guilty as the person who carried out the act, Infact in most cases the person who acted could be guilty of less charges than the person whose statement or doing cause another person to act.

Lastly, why are we even talking about the 4, we have IDP!

@ Drunkard, i like the way you have objectively analysed the issue. Emotions Kando,......some of these guys WR & UK in particular have been chest thumping all over why should i be sorry on their behalve now.

The whole ICC thing maybe not be propoerly constituted but did Kenyans think that all the 6 suspects cases should not have been confirmed.
The credibility of the court was at state also and thats why they want a full trial.

It's justice and politics and at worse Selective justice and politics.

I find the ICC debate a bit puzzling and very divisive. I find the argument that ICC is being used by the west to clear way for Raila far-fetched. However, some interesting things have been happening.

6 Kenyans were initially listed by Ocampo. 3 from each side(ODM and PNU??). Coincidence? Maybe. Then the judges confirmed charges for 4, 2 from each side. Another interesting coincidence!

Can I safely deduce from this that if any appeal was to go through a balancing one would have to be sought on the other side?

Some of the ICC funders have been contemplating withdrawing from assisting the court because of its inability to convict suspects. Infact, the ICC could cease existing! Could this be a reason as to why Kenyan cases had to go this far? Could it also mean that the court will be very lenient with the prosecutor in an attempt to secure convictions?

On the other hand we had the 91/92 clashes, the 97 and 2005 clashes all for which no one was punished! Elsewhere in Africa, Mengistu, Amin, Bokassa, PW Botha etc committed crimes for which they were not punished. A court like the ICC would be necessary to reduce such incidents but it is apparent that such would only be for 3rd World leaders(when will they investigate Britain and US over Libya?)

The ICC is a necessary evil.