forgive my hormones but we agreed to take people there, we weren't told to go there. they agreed they would go. They agreed they would be there every day, they even said they aren't afraid. They even said they could rule with skype.

So what changed?

Just asking.Uhuru is not my mother and even my mother has to go to court when required. I did not ask him to be president, he decided that he was good enough to be president even when he was in the Hague. Then the majority agreed that it was possible.

Double standards?

And Al Bashir is not something that I want. But Kenya ni jina, nchi ina wenyewe.

forgive my hormones but we agreed to take people there, we weren't told to go there. they agreed they would go. They agreed they would be there every day, they even said they aren't afraid. They even said they could rule with skype.

So what changed?

Just asking.Uhuru is not my mother and even my mother has to go to court when required. I did not ask him to be president, he decided that he was good enough to be president even when he was in the Hague. Then the majority agreed that it was possible.

Double standards?

And Al Bashir is not something that I want. But Kenya ni jina, nchi ina wenyewe.

This is law not politics. The letter matters. Was Uhuru Kenyatta President of the Republic of Kenya then?

This is a new Kenya where the Constitution limits the terms one President can serve Kenya. Apende asipende. You can always have the joy of watching him suffer at the dock when he leaves office.

All these ICC judges need to do is rule in favour of UK's application which is sensible and kill this unnecessary speculation. It requires he appears physically only at the key stages which are outlined in the application. He has cooperated all along.

Precedent is very very clear. NO SEATING HEAD OF STATE HAS EVER BEEN HURLED TO A COURT, A FOREIGN ONE EVEN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. He has a responsibility to Kenyans first. He has been cooperative and the application is sensible.

ICC tuheshimiane.

It's called Precedent. It applies to law you know.

Official Immunity is exemption from a penalty or burden that the law generally places upon other citizens.

Previous courts e.g. US have emphasized the singular importance of the duties of the president, and noted that the diversion of the president's energies over concern for lawsuits "would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government."

They also observed that the president, in view of the visibility of the office, would be an easy target for lawsuits.

The ensuing personal vulnerability and distraction would prove harmful to the nation.

President Uhuru Kenyatta is already duly elected as head of state. Deal. It is his considered legal opinion that seating in lengthy court appearances would impede effective functioning of government.

All he legally asks is - not that the trial be stopped but - that in line with precedent that recognizes the effects of litigation on state duties and realities of the ongoing case, his physical involvement is as far as it only required in person.

I rest my case.

Sticking to law, the mechanistic requirement of continuous presence at the seat of the Court – in the case of an elected head of state who cooperates with the Court and who appears on a summons – would deprive the Kenyan electorate of the best government they are entitled to without necessary cause, an effect outrightly undesired by precedential law.