(ANN GARRISON) ICC judges say Kenya's Kenyatta can skip much of his own criminal trial
Submitted by Ann Garrison on Sat, 10/19/2013 - 21:02
KPFA Evening News, 2013
International Criminal Court judges say that Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta need not be present for all of his own trial for crimes against humanity.
Transcript:
KPFA Evening News Anchor David Rosenberg: And, you are listening to the Evening News, KPFA and KPFB in Berkeley, KFCF in Fresno, and kpfa.org.
Yesterday a majority of International Criminal Court judges ruled that Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta need not be present for much of his own trial for crimes against humanity, but that he must be present during the opening and closing statements, the victims’ testimony, and, the verdict. If found guilty, he must attend sentencing hearings and the delivery of sentencing, at which point he would presumably be taken into custody, leaving Kenya to replace him. KPFA’s Ann Garrison has more.
KPFA/Ann Garrison: Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta says he’s too busy, as Kenya’s elected head of state, to attend his trial at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and the African Union, in their recent gathering in Addis Abbaba, Ethiopia, passed a resolution that, as a sitting head of state, he shouldn’t have to. The court indicted Kenyatta for organizing violence that rose to the level of crimes against humanity, after his party lost the Kenyan 2007-2008 election, but he was nevertheless elected president in April 2013. His rival, former Kenyan Prime Minister Raul Odinga, who is favored by the U.S., said that he didn’t know how Kenyatta could run the country via SKYPE from the Hague.
Black Agenda Report Editor Glen Ford, like many other critics of the court, says that Kenyatta’s indictment is another example of the U.S. using the International Criminal Court as an imperial tool.
Glen Ford: It is a travesty of justice that the ICC only indicts Africans, but even more importantly, the International Criminal Court also only indicts those politicians that get on the wrong Kenyatta shook hands on deals worth $5 billion with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping in August 2013. side of the United States and the former colonial powers in Africa. The ICC is a tool of U.S. foreign policy.
KPFA: Some say that the U.S. is unhappy with President Kenyatta because he prefers to do business with China, and he did, in August 2013, sign five billion dollar deals with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, to build a railway line, an energy project, and improve wildlife protection. Yesterday an energy professional and Christian Science Monitor contributor said that Kenya’s oil reserves might soar past even Uganda’s.
Glen Ford disagrees with South Africa’s former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who says that African leaders are effectively looking for a license to kill, main and oppress their own people by withdrawing from the ICC. He says that the United States collaborates in such crimes and objects only as a matter of political convenience.
Glen Ford: And here lies the greatest irony. The very nations that most oppose the ICC have the blood of millions on their hands. Rwanda and Uganda are principally responsible for the death of six million Congolese over the past 17 years, an ongoing genocide armed and financed by the United States and Britain. The Ethiopian regime's brutality towards its Somali and Oromo ethnic groups has also been described as genocidal. But because the United States is also deeply complicit in these crimes, there is no threat of prosecution by the Black Agenda Report Editor Glen Ford International Criminal Court.
KPFA: African scholars writing in the African Pambazuka News and Black Star News have sided with Tutu, arguing that despite the court’s obvious bias and imperfection, the threat of indictment and conviction there restrains the violence of African strongmen. And that instead of rejecting the court out of hand, dissidents should demand that it live up to its stated ideals.
For Pacifica, KPFA and AfrobeatRadio, I'm Ann Garrison.
Labels: ANN GARRISON, CHINA, ICC, KENYA, UHURU KENYATTA
Read more...
(BUSINESS DAILY AFRICA KE) Sun setting on British empire?
Opinion and Analysis
By John Kamau
Posted Wednesday, April 10 2013 at 18:04
Three noteworthy events occurred this week — the death of Margaret Thatcher, the swearing-in of Uhuru Kenyatta as Kenya’s fourth president, and the departure of Mwai Kibaki from office.
If we have to remember Mrs Thatcher, it is because of the way she sustained the Kanu government, turned a blind eye to former President Moi’s dictatorship and kept pumping money into the bottomless pit that was his government as budgetary support.
But we have to understand that the relationship between Thatcher and Moi was of two hard-driving hard-headed characters who had assumed office months apart.
While Thatcher had been sworn into office in May 1979 Mr Moi was first sworn into office on October 14, 1978 — two green-horns in power seven months apart.
Interestingly, Thatcher invited Moi as the first head of state to visit the UK during her reign with Moi arriving at No 10 Downing Street on June 12, 1979. His only other State Visit being Ethiopia in January, 1979.
From then on, Thatcher made the mistake of oiling the wheels of Moi’s dictatorship and it was not until her fall in 1990 that Kenyans were able to push for sensible reforms in the country.
In all that, the British economic interests outweighed Kenya’s desire for change. So close were Moi and Thatcher that when Moi University was built in Eldoret in 1984, the library, with a sitting capacity of 2,500 readers, was named the Margaret Thatcher Library.
Moi also allowed Thatcher to have Kenya as a training ground for troops destined to defend the Falkland Islands in a pact that still brings in 10,000 troops. For all that, Thatcher will always have a place in our history.
The entry of Kibaki in 2002 was unanticipated by British top echelons who had given tacit support to Moi’s candidate Uhuru Kenyatta hoping that there would be no change of policy that would affect their geo-political and economic interests.
But months before Moi left, he had been irked by the British and called British High Commissioner, Sir Jeffrey James a “meddler” when he went to bid him bye.
Sir James’ replacement, Edward Clay, turned as combative as his predecessor with the Kibaki government cancelling British tenders and turning East for development support.
In a radical twist, the government unbanned Mau Mau and unveiled Dedan Kimathi’s monument still regarded in Westminister as a terrorist. And that explains the “they are vomiting on our shoes” remark by Mr Clay.
Mr Kibaki has left State House without paying a State visit to the UK despite being invited. His handlers said he was busy. And that shows that despite the diplomatic speak of cordial relationship with the UK London’s influence on Kenya is on the wane.
The numbers tell the story with UK aid to Kenya on the decline. Since 1997 — when the Tories lost power — the UK’s expenditure on Kenya has been cut by more than 50 per cent from a high of 2.8 per cent of the entire UK DFID bilateral programme.
“With our recent direct experience of fraud in the Ministry of Education, we will make limited use of Government systems to distribute aid, but…the 2012 elections could be a major watershed for governance in Kenya, and we will review our aid delivery instruments again after that,” says a DFID strategy document.
And that is where Mr Kenyatta’s relationship with UK will start. How things change!
Mr Kamau is the Associate Editor, Business Daily. Email: jkamau@ke.nationmedia.com
Labels: 2011 BUDGET, ELECTIONS, KENYA, MARGARET THATCHER, UHURU KENYATTA
Read more...
(BUSINESS DAILY KE) Eleven presidents witness Kenya’s change of guard
Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe received a rousing welcome at the Moi Sports Centre Kasarani from Kenyans who thronged the stadium to witness the Uhuru Kenyatta's inauguration. Photo/Emma Nzioka
Media Group
By EDWIN MUTAI
Posted Tuesday, April 9 2013 at 20:19
In Summary
* The ceremony was witnessed by 11 presidents, five prime ministers, four vice-presidents, two former heads of state and one former first lady.
* The dignitaries were entertained by a military band — Maroon commandos— Mwomboko dancers from Kiangai in Kirinyaga, Sarakasi Dancers from Nairobi and Chuka drummers from Meru among other groups.
* Uhuru sworn in as president
At exactly 1.35pm Tuesday, Uhuru Kenyatta took the oath of office as Kenya’s fourth President amid jubilation from over 60,000 Kenyans who thronged Moi Sports Centre Kasarani to witness the historic occasion.
Five minutes later, a visibly excited Deputy President William Ruto was sworn in at a ceremony witnessed by 11 presidents, five prime ministers, four vice-presidents, two former heads of state and one former first lady.
Mr Kenyatta and Ruto received deafening applause from their supporters who arrived at the stadium as early as 3am to secure vintage positions to capture unfolding events during the colourful ceremony that was marked with a 21-gun salute.
Mr Kenyatta took five minutes to conclude the swearing-in after his supporters interrupted every sentence of the Oath of Office and the Due Execution of the Office, which was administered by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ms Gladys Shollei, and witnessed by the Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court, Dr Willy Mutunga.
Mr Kenyatta, who was clad in a grey suit and accompanied by his wife Margaret, was overwhelmed by his supporters who repeated the words he uttered as Ms Shollei led him to take the two oaths.
“I Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta…. I Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta chorused the supporters drowning his oath and prompting pleas from military commentator Warrant Officer 2 Gibson Mwandawiro.
Mr Ruto got a similar reception after a standing ovation when he was called to take his place at the inauguration square for the oath-taking.
Clad in a dark suit
He was clad in a dark suit and was accompanied by his wife Rachael during the swearing-in which also took five minutes.
Article 141 and 148 of the Constitution require a president-elect and his deputy to take the oath of allegiance and oath of due execution of office before assuming official duties.
Immediately after Ms Shollei declared Mr Kenyatta president and Mr Ruto as his deputy, the stadium erupted into ululation, clapping, song and dance.
Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who lost to Mr Kenyatta in the March 4 presidential poll did not attend the event together with all leaders elected on the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (Cord) ticket.
Pomp and colour preceded the occasion which saw dignitaries enter the venue of the inauguration in style.
The first to arrive was the Chief of Defence Forces Julius Karangi and his service commanders followed by the Chief Justice.
Chinese Second Vice-President Xi Jinping was the first foreign dignitary to arrive followed by former Zambia President Kenneth Kaunda who was accompanied by Vice-President Guy Scott.
Labels: 2009 BUDGET, ELECTIONS, ROBERT MUGABE, UHURU KENYATTA
Read more...
(STICKY) (NEWZIMBABWE) Kenyans give Mugabe rousing welcome
Man of the moment ... Kenyatta waves to crowds as he arrives at the Moi Sports Centre
09/04/2013 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe was cheered wildly at a sports stadium in Kasarani on Tuesday as he joined 11 other heads of state to witness the swearing-in of Kenya’s new President Uhuru Kenyatta.
President Salva Kiir of South Sudan was the first head of state to take his seat at the inauguration podium followed by South African President Jacob Zuma and others including Nigeria’s Goodluck Jonathan, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame, Tanzania’s Jakaya Kikwete and Joseph Kabila of the DRC.
Kenya’s Business Daily reported on its website that “but it was Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni who received a rousing welcome from Kenyans who thronged the stadium” to witness the inauguration of Kenya’s fourth President.
Mugabe might be fighting for his political career in Zimbabwe ahead of elections later this year, but across the African continent, he is seen as a hero for his outspoken attacks on the West and fighting for African liberation.
The 89-year-old veteran leader saluted the cheering Kenyans with his trademark fist – the symbol of his Zanu PF party.
In Kenyatta, Mugabe sees a potential ally. Western countries led by the United States and Britain publicly urged Kenyans to vote for Kenyatta’s rival, Raila Odinga, who was conspicuous by his absence from the inauguration. He is believed to have gone on holiday in South Africa, snubbing Kenyatta's invitation.
Kenyatta – facing prosecution for crimes against humanity over his alleged role in the bloody post-election violence which left over 1,000 people dead in 2007 – turned the Western hostility into a campaign issue, and his message resonated with Kenyans who helped him trounce Odinga by over 800,000 votes. Odinga's court bid to overturn the results was dismissed.
Western countries – citing the impending charges against Kenyatta at the International Criminal Court headquartered at The Hague – sent only special envoys to the inauguration and have vowed to maintain only “essential contact” with Kenyatta’s government.
Museveni, picked by the African heads of state to represent them, said Kenyan voters had rejected “blackmail” by the West.
“I want to salute the Kenyan voters on one other issue – the rejection of the blackmail by the ICC and those who seek to abuse this institution for their own agenda,” he said.
Museveni said he supported the ICC because he hated impunity. But “the usual, opinionated and arrogant actors using their careless analysis have distorted the purpose of that institution,” he noted.
“They are now using it to install leaders of their choice in Africa and eliminate the ones they don’t like.”
After he was sworn in, Kenyatta pledged that Kenya would strive to uphold its international obligations “as long as these are founded on the well-established principles of mutual respect and reciprocity.”
“We must remember that no one country or group of countries should have control or monopoly on international institutions or the interpretation of international treaties,” President Kenyatta said.
Labels: ROBERT MUGABE, SALVA KIIR, UHURU KENYATTA
Read more...
Kenyatta victory: Defiance to Western affirmation
Wednesday, 13 March 2013 21:35
In a week leading to Zimbabwe’s referendum on a new constitution and at a time we are experiencing bizarre claims of supernatural happenings across the country, it is a bit of a quandary for any columnist to focus on a topic far away from home.
Claims about the occurrence of godly miracles and underworld supernatural happenings in Zimbabwe now border on the ridiculous, and the sooner the country wakes up from this superstition stupor the better for the name of human civilisation and for the dignity of Africans in the 21st century.
But there is a shared feeling of relief across the Kenyan population after the conclusion of last week’s presidential election. This time Kenya did not burn — no images of barbaric Africa with victims of political violence being ferried to surgical rooms with spears and arrows stuck into their skulls. We saw these kind of images in December 2007, and the use of traditional weapons between the clashing political rivals painted Africa as a backward continent struggling to transit into civilised democracy — perhaps the same way it makes civilised people across the planet raucously laugh when they hear of Zimbabwean young men that pretend to be prophets of God with powers to create babies and cash from thin air — or weird counter claims of satanic powers that purportedly turn school kids into baboons, or any other such primitive nonsense.
At the conclusion of the election in Kenya, there were no inflammatory statements this time around. After losing to outgoing President Mwai Kibaki in 2007, Raila Odinga was asked by a BBC correspondent to restrain his supporters and he responded, “I refuse to be asked to give the Kenyan people an anaesthetic so that they can be raped.”
That was a tacit encouragement to the violent rioters, and Odinga is lucky not to be among those later indicted by the ICC for playing key roles in the violence that killed 1 200 people.
At the height of the political clashes the then Lands Minister, Kivutha Kibwana, said about Raila Odinga’s supporters: “It is becoming clear that these well-organised acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing were well planned, financed and rehearsed by the Orange Democratic Movement leaders prior to the general elections.”
This time Odinga complained that the election he lost to Uhuru Kenyatta “lacks integrity,” but he quickly called for “calm, tolerance and peace.” It would appear like the people of Kenya have learnt that violence does not pay, and as one Kenyan said to the BBC’s Karen Allen, there has been a “revolution in Kenya’s political maturity but not a revolution in the leadership.”
While young Kenyans are celebrating the election of the country’s youngest leader ever, the losing candidate Odinga seems to lack the maturity to concede defeat — or the decency to accept the verdict of the Kenyan people on his political fate. This time he seems to be licking his wounds all by himself — with no solidarity message even from his ally Morgan Tsvangirai.
The court challenge announced by Odinga might simply be a gimmick to conjure up solidarity so he can retain the leadership of his party on a sympathy vote, or a mere face-saving tactic to exit the political scene with the image of a robbed gallant fighter. From a legal perspective, the challenge looks badly compromised by the fact that Odinga simply does not have the numbers.
Francis Eshitemi, an Odinga supporter from Kibera, conceded that it was clear his candidate had lost in a free and fair election. He said: “The problem is that Raila doesn’t have the numbers. There were a few irregularities, but the gap between Raila and Uhuru is big.”
A Kenyan academic resident in Australia, Charles Okumu, had this to say: “The ethnic implications for the Kikuyu-Kalenjin-Meru alliance that gave Kenyatta and Ruto victory are huge and very significant. It is indisputable that these three ethnic groups easily make up about half of Kenya’s population, and the ‘we stand with our own’ sentiment was quite evident in the campaign leading to this election.”
Mr Okumu added: “Apart from the numerical advantage of this coalition, it must be credited to the coalition leaders that they did an excellent job of mobilising their supporters for both voter registration and for turning out to vote on the election day. Raila Odinga lacked in this respect.”
Another Odinga supporter, Isaac Khayiya, was wary of violence. He said: “This time we want post-election peace, not war. We will be the ones to suffer if there is violence. For them, Uhuru, Ruto and Odinga — they have security and they are rich.” And in comes the quandary of the West — the dilemma the West faces after their sponsored candidate, Raila Odinga, was defeated by about one million votes. Kenyatta, the ICC-indicted candidate that the West so wished to be the loser, was delivered a solid mandate by the Kenyan people, and that reality is a bitter pill to swallow for Western policymakers, let alone for the sponsors of the Kenyan ICC cases. The ICC indictment hugely boosted Kenyatta’s profile.
However paper-thin his victory margin might be described, Uhuru Kenyatta still won the election outright. The result itself shows the defiance of Kenyan people to Western affirmation in the affairs of their country, and the rest of Africa was watching.
The West’s affirmation for the leadership of Zimbabwe is on Morgan Tsvangirai and his Western sponsored-MDC-T, but perhaps it is time the West begins to realise that the financing of election victories in Africa is no longer as straightforward as the United States used to do in Central America in the seventies and the eighties.
Like Odinga proved to be a worthless leader as Prime Minister of Kenya under a coalition government with Kibaki’s party, Morgan Tsvangirai has done worse in proving his lack of leadership depth as Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister in a coalition government with President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party — and there are more chances of the scandalous Tsvangirai losing the vote to the veteran Zimbabwean leader than there ever were for Odinga losing to Kenyatta.
The alliance between Tsvangirai and Odinga can be easily described as camaraderie in confusion.
To the majority of Kenyans the matter of the ICC indictments is viewed as an inconvenience rather than an impediment, just like sanctions against Zimbabwe have rallied the masses on the side of President Mugabe. Those who voted for Uhuru Kenyatta simply do not regard him as a criminal, and to them he is an innocent man facing a smear campaign from a politically motivated international court. It appears both Uhuru and his supporters are confident that it will be easy to have Kenyatta cleared. For Kenyans it was the victory of politics over justice and at The Hague the West will want imperial politics to triumph over justice.
Kenyatta is tremendously influential in Kenya and it can be predicted that a verdict based on the travesty of justice as was seen in the Saddam Hussein conviction would certainly trigger a disastrous mob backlash in Kenya. In the run-up to the election, Johnnie Carsons, the top American envoy to Africa, bullishly warned that “choices have consequences,” and that was widely interpreted as a threat to Kenyans not to vote for Kenyatta.
Clearly the majority of Kenyans have responded by an open “game on” gesture, and the whole world waits curiously to see Carsons’ threatened consequences.
Carson’s predecessor, Jendayi Frazer, has already rubbished her successor’s utterances, saying the statement was “reckless and irresponsible,” adding, “Kenyatta knows that he needs the United States, and the United States knows it needs Kenya. While it might be awkward, there won’t be a significant change in our policy stance toward Kenya or theirs towards us.”
In addition, US Secretary of State John Kerry said: “We will continue to be a strong friend and ally of the Kenyan people.” In reiterating that the ICC indictment has no effect on his capacity to do his job, Kenyatta has also urged “the international community to respect the will of Kenyans,” and he has called on the West to recognise “the sovereignty” of Kenya.
The indictment of Kenyatta has rallied Kenyan citizens to the side of their new leader — in total defiance to the expectation of the West. This is precisely because the ICC stands as a discredited politically motivated court whose sole focus is on the continent of Africa.
Since its establishment in July 2002 the ICC has indicted 30 people and they are all from the African continent. Of these, 10 are fugitives, one is dead, 9 are either on trial or pre-trial, 4 have been arrested, one has been acquitted, 3 have had their charges dismissed and one has been convicted, and that is Thomas Lubanga of the DRC, who has since appealed.
All this is despite the fact that the illegal Iraq invasion happened almost a year after the ICC had been instituted, or that the drone bombings of Afghanistan civilians still goes on unabated, or that the deadly and ruthless Nato grazing down of Sirte in the lead-up to the murdering of Muammar Gaddafi was fully televised for the world’s full viewing.
The ICC has no political motivation to investigate any of these Western-inflicted atrocities, and that alone is enough enragement to rally Kenyans around their own leaders they perceive to be victims of this egregious conspiracy.
Ayo Johnson, the director of View Point Africa, had this to say: “Many Africans have lost faith in the ICC and view it as targeting African leaders and failing to discharge its justice among non-African leaders.” He added: “Kenya sent a loud message to the ICC — don’t interfere.” In what seems to be a strong affirmation of African resentment for the motives of the ICC, senior lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi wrote in the newspaper The Nation that the Kenyatta-Ruto victory “must be seen as a slap in the face of sponsors of the ICC”.
Britain committed about US$25 million to the Kenyan election, and the stakes are quite high for the former colonial power. The top five Kenyan corporations are British owned, and there is a strategic military base where British soldiers are sent before deployment to Afghanistan. These cannot be abandoned easily and certainly will not.
The United States considers Kenya a central part of its military strategy in East Africa, especially when it comes to the anti-terror efforts targeted at Somalia.
The United States should not exactly worry too much about the ICC status of Kenyatta, if only the country was principled enough to respect its own rejection of the relevance and usefulness of the court.
The US has not only refused to be a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC but has vastly mobilised against the work of the ICC by arm-twisting weaker states to exempt its citizens in their commitment to the ICC.
Kenya has brought to the fore the dilemma of peace versus justice. Those that say the result of the election must be upheld to keep peace in the country now face the prospect of being labelled rule of law traitors, while those who favour the route of the ICC idea of justice risk the label peace traitors.
Kenyan patriotism has been put on trial as well, and it is hard to believe the ICC can thwart the patriotic resolve of a defiant people. It is highly likely that the ICC will drop the charges against Kenyatta and his co-accused in a show trail to save the face of the West.
Hardly after Kenyatta’s victory the ICC dropped its charges against Francis Muthaura — the president-elect’s co-accused. For once the people of Africa seem to be determining global affairs.
Africa we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer based in SYDNEY, Australia. Feedback at wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or visit www.wafawarovawrites.com
Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, ELECTIONS, ICC, KENYA, NEOCOLONIALISM, UHURU KENYATTA
Read more...
Kenyatta wins Kenya vote by slim margin
08/03/2013 00:00:00
by Reuters
UHURU Kenyatta, the son of Kenya's founding president, won the presidential election with a slim margin of 50.03 percent of votes cast, provisional figures showed, just enough to avoid a run-off after a race that has divided the nation.
Kenyatta, who faces international charges of crimes against humanity, secured victory over his main rival, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who trailed with 43.28 percent of the vote.
To secure an outright win a candidate needed more than 50 percent of the votes. Kenyatta, the deputy prime minister, achieved that but with a margin of just 4,100 of the more than 12.3 million votes cast.
The first-round win, which must be officially confirmed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, means Kenyans who waited five days for the result of the vote will not now face a second round that would have prolonged uncertainty.
The winner also needs to get at least 25 percent of the votes in 24 counties out of 47. This is expected be confirmed by the electoral commission. The commission is due to announce the official result on Saturday at 11 a.m.
But such a narrow win will almost certainly prompt legal challenges from Odinga's camp, which complained about the election process throughout. Odinga also lost in a disputed vote in 2007 that led to weeks of tribal killings.
John Githongo, a former senior government official-turned-whistleblower, urged the rival coalitions, Odinga's CORD and Kenyatta's Jubilee, to ensure calm. "Jubilee and CORD, what you and your supporters say now determines continued peace and stability in Kenya. We are watching you!" he said on Twitter.
International observers broadly said the vote and count had been transparent so far and the electoral commission, which replaced an old, discredited body, promised a credible vote.
Provisional figures displayed by the election commission showed Kenyatta won 6,173,433 votes out of a total of 12,338,667 ballots cast. Odinga secured 5,340,546 votes.
The result will pose a dilemma for Kenya's big Western donors because Kenyatta is due to go on trial in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity, accused of orchestrating the tribal violence five years ago.
Reputation
The United States and other Western states warned before the vote that diplomatic ties would be complicated with a win by Kenyatta who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court along with his running mate, William Ruto.
Western nations have given a broad range of views on how to deal with Kenya under Kenyatta and to what extent they will be ready to deal with his government.
"It won't be a headache as long as he cooperates with the ICC," said one Western diplomat. "We respect the decision of the majority of the Kenyan voters."
Both Kenyatta and Ruto deny the charges and have said they would cooperate to clear their names. However, Kenyatta had to fend of jibes during the campaign by his rival Odinga that he would have to run government by Skype from The Hague while he attended hearings.
Kenyans hope this vote, which has until now passed off with only pockets of unrest on voting day, would restore their nation's reputation as one of Africa's most stable democracies after mayhem last time.
Cars drove through the streets honking their horns, and one taxi driver shouted "50+1, that's OK," referring to the 50 percent plus one vote threshold required by law to win the vote, as noisy pockets of people yelled on the rainy streets.
The test will be whether any challenges to the outcome are worked out in the courts, and do not spill into the streets.
Odinga's camp had said even before the result that they were considering legal action, but said they would pursue it through the courts and the newly reformed judiciary.
That is a change from 2007, when Odinga said he could not trust the judiciary at the time to treat the case fairly.
Kenyatta's camp had also complained about delays in counting and other aspects of the process.
But many Kenyans had said this race was more transparent than previous votes. Turnout reached 86 percent of the 14.3 million eligible voters, in a nation where tribal loyalties largely trump ideology at the ballot box.
Kenyatta, comes from the Kikuyu tribe, Kenya's biggest ethnic community, accounting for about a fifth of Kenya's 40 million people, and Odinga, 68, is a Luo. Their ethnic groups alone could not have secured victory, so both picked running mates from other tribes to beef up their support.
Labels: ELECTIONS, KENYA, UHURU KENYATTA
Read more...
