So how did Ocampo get to be this lousy? Or, how did ICC get to hire a lousy prosecutor?

So Ocampo was a slick talker who said the politically correct things, just like Wako, got the job of putting these words into action but failed to deliver, just like Wako did.

And consequently, especially for Ocampo's case, the whole institution he represented has to be overhauled in order to rectify his inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

Question is; is the premise in the first paragraph sufficient cause for the conclusion? For example, did Wako's ineffectiveness lead to an overhaul of the AG's office?

What about the constraints of job itself? Like, Wako got the job because he said what was politically correct and in fact sustained correctness through his tenure and consequently kept his job to the end just like Ocampo did.

Is there a reasonable defense for Ocampo's mode of operation? Budgetary and human resource constraints perhaps? May be too wide a scope?

In the end, this whole ICC story doesn't add up. Even the allegations on the above article aren't convincing enough.

Perhaps their probity couldn't stand the corrupting influence of power and money. Such people only fight when they are hungry, cause then they have nothing to lose. There are a few who resist corrupting influence, and when it becomes such that they can no longer function, they quit leaving with their dignity intact....people like Githongo, Leakey when they got government appointments. I think Moi's and Kibaki's intentions were to window-dress things but they got more than they bargained for.
Even with constraints of the job, if on the balance of things the outcome is considerably more bad than good, then there is something wrong somewhere. The article says Ocampo consistently ignored advice from his staff and advisers, went about the job in a manner which is unorthodox to established traditions of collecting evidence and prosecuting cases.
May be he was dancing to a tune the rest of the world couldn't hear.
Anyway, I think the court in its present form is fundamentally flawed. It is not immune to pressure not only from the powerful West, but also from a small country like Kenya. Sure, it was a deterrent, otherwise its likely there would have been violence in 2007 -on the flip side, powerful people have been observing and they know it can be manipulated. Its like when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics.