Lawyer Paul Mwangi(todays Nation pg 28) gives us an interesting comparison of evidence rules in magistrates courts vis a vis in international courts. In international courts, a prosecutor can even present hearsay as evidence and it will be admitted. Witnesses can be inconsistent without raising a red flag. The six are in deep trouble! I see a minimum of 3 convictions.

I continue to hope for six convictions. My hopes are now raised.

Some wana nishi are supporting the kangaroo court for various, viable/controversial reasons. 1. Raira 2. Tribal 3. End of impunity (totally fallacious since electral violence forms a tiny n seldom percentage of impunity whereas the major form-corruption- will still b with us) 4. Retribution...probably to the wrong pple since, I strongly beleive, the main culprits roam free. Anyway, time will tell.

I tend to think that this matter is taken out of context.

What some may perceive as a low threshold, is actually an approach meant to cut down on red tape - technicalities that do not always serve JUSTICE.

However I believe evidence will have to be convincing.

May be what passes here is that the Judges are given a lot more leeway to decide what to accept and what not to.

In an international court this is necessary otherwise it would be practically immpossible to sustain any case.

@mcr, did the scumheads get such orders fm the H6?? Going by such emotive examples we are thus crucifying the wrong pple!

Charles Taylor didnt participate directly in the amputing of limbs of innocent people in Liberia.He is roasting in Haki because he financed the people on the ground .Watu wakwende Heki.So no one will ever think of dishing cash to brainwashed (therefore brainless)unemployed youth to commit atrocities to innocent Kenyans Ever again

When you have a mass following , there is something called political responsibility. You don't have to murder or rape some1. You even don't have to give express instructions. But should your followers particpate in such actions, you are CRIMINALLY responsible. Idea is , you are in charge of your followers and their behaviour. No one else is better placed to control them than you. You can influence their behaviour. Mahtma Gandhi, just as an example , was able to convince his followers to accept non-violence means to achieve their objectives.

The same even happens in football matches , especially in Europe. When fans become rowdy - misbehave, even though the actual culprits are pursued , it is the club , which they which they support , which is heavily fined.

@2 miles, nice flow of argument but it leads us to the line fronted by @impunity and others: Kibaki and Raila should have faced ICC and they bore greatest responsibility. According to Ocampo, the war was between ODM and PNU supporters(read Raila and Kibaki supporters), not tribes.

I refuse to buy it.

Guys...lets be realistic. In Kenyan politics, especially in the rural masses.......it is the decisions of local leaders which influences how the majority vote. That is, if I am a very influential Maasai pastor , my political opinion , is taken as gospel truth by my Maasai flock. So , if I support person Y for presidency, my followers will also support person Y. And even though person Y doesn't make it , they still owe allegiance to me. So, if there is a probability that they will resort to violence , who is better placed to control them???? If they actually do resort to violence, who is best placed to control them???? If they resort to violence , who is likely to escalate it???? Well, its me ( the Maasai pastor ) and not person Y , who was the presidential contender.

Same script applies here.