Media reporting on the case so far by CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera)

1. Regarding the dropped witnesses most reporting is focused on those who allegedly have been bribed or intimidated. I have so far heard only one mention of those who have been dropped because they said they had been coached or promised monetary rewards.

2. All these media houses are concentrating on the prosecutors report that Mr Kenyatta has used his influence as President to withhold "crucial"evidence. None of these three media houses are interrogating the fact that a) Mr Kenyatta was not president during the collection of evidence and confirmation of charges stage b)it is awkward that a case has been confirmed yet without sufficient evidence c) It is never the responsibility of the accused to incriminate himself by providing evidence against self.

3. Justice for the victims: None of these media houses are concerned on whether it could be possible that Mr Kenyatta is actually innocent and thus needs a fair trial. Justice for victims does not mean prosecuting a possibly innocent person just for the sake.


He who pays the piper calls the tune.

By majuu here we mean the EU, they fund ICC by over 70%, Africa's contribution almost 0%...and kasin's word can't carry much weight here coz Uncle Sam treats ICc with contempt and doesn't contribute any funds. Things are still thick, kamwana should have called Brussels not Washington

What do you mean things are thick? At the end it boils down to evidence.

Prior jurisprudence means little particularly because this is a "precedent setting" case in international law(first sitting president in an international court), secondly the court obviously feels it needs to set a precedent (and massage their egos as well as fart on their powerful seats), particularly because technology is heavily involved.

Feel like placing a wager on:- trial via VIDEO CONFERENCING