Thanks @Liv for that very informative link, I had a quick read and I will touch some points ...you have said
...possible, not probable. The article said that the court follows principles of common law, of which precedents are very important. None exist for this scenario. Judges will look for solid, overwhelming grounds to make a ruling on what might undermine ICC itself and be a negative precedent in the long run. These overwhelming grounds are lacking because we took our case there and Kenya as a state, not the defendants, needs to apply for the case
to be repatriated. Your supposition that holds no merit on its own. To get a state organ of Kenya to make the application to get the case back might require an amendment somewhere (I don't see the Judiciary agreeing to do this) or a new law, I do not imagine the opposition will roll with this idea, hence my prediction of "bribery", already as Kenyans we start losing with this development.
Most of the blame for the failures stems from the shortcomings of the former chief prosecutor, not flaws in the statute that established the court. Moreno-Ocampo is out of the picture, his exit making countries opposed to the ICC soften their stance. The super powers will probably never sign the Rome Statute, that won't stop them from creating grief for small countries like Kenya. The superpowers only oppose the court when the prospect of its citizens getting tried there arise; When that is not the case, they turn the wrench and make the appropriate noises on the small prey of a country that happens to be entangled in ICC's claws. It is double standards , I am aware and concede that fact but that is the way it is.
Most of the harm to Kenya, IMO, will not be from the proceedings themselves, but from any deliberate effort to avoid them on the one hand. Ironically on the other hand full compliance will also spell trouble.
We are caught between ICC's ambition to legitimize itself on the international stage, some countries duplicity and our own politicians avarice and thirst for power, and no matter where the dice rolls on an UHURUTO that is in power, citizens will suffer because of these 3 factors.

After elections Kenya simply needs to inform ICC that we do not intend to remain a party to the ICC treaty. Three former treaty members -Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute
It is not a big deal as some believe.

NOTE: Contrary to what some appear to believe, ICC is NOT the highest or best court in the world, it is an international court in the context of JKIA airport or a referral court in the context of Kenyatta Teaching and referral hospital. You can even start your own International Court and look for signatories to your treaty if you want.

Judge Hans Peter Kaul issued a dissenting opinion in both cases. In these opinions he asserted that he continues to believe that the ICC lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae over the situation in Kenya. His assertion was that the although crimes were committed they were not of a nature which constitute crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the ICC. It is enough to dump ICC legally.

It's for ICC to choose whether they want countries (and funding) abandoning them, they will probably do the necessary (refer back the cases) before we try anything, that is why they postponed the hearings to allow for elections. The candidates cannot openly take the above line, they will just say they will cooperate till after the elections, the ICC will do the necessary before us, it is that simple.