It is amazing that arguments are been raised as to whether Uhuru should attend trial at the Hague.
The answer is right there in black and white.
Article 12 of the Rome Statute states that a Party to the Rome Statute accepts the jurisdiction of the Court and must comply with all abiding orders.
Article 21 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC applies in the first place, the Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
In the second place, where appropriate, the Court can apply applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict;
Failing that, the Court can also apply general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles ARE NOT inconsistent with the Rome Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.
Now that being said and done Article 27 of the Rome Statute states in categorical terms that the Statute shall apply equally to ALL PERSONS without any distinction based on official capacity.
In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
For Barasa's case Article 58 is clear that the Court can issue a warrant of arrest it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court with certain safeguards including application of local law in facilitating the decision of the Court in that regard.
And for Prezzy Uhuru taking into account the totality of all the above cited provisions Article 63 is clear that the accused shall be present during the trial. No exceptions, No favouritism...
possunt quia posse videntur