The fourth witness in the case against Deputy President William Ruto told Court that Ruto had called for eviction of Kikuyus from the Rift Valley During cross examination, witness 487 told court of an incident where Ruto called for the eviction of Kikuyus during a campaign rally at the Eldoret's 64 Stadium
By Walter Menya
The fourth prosecution witness on Monday admitted that he changed his statement on the planning of the 2007/08 violence to incriminate Deputy President William Ruto.
The lawyer for the Deputy President, Mr Essa Faal, accused Witness 376 of knowingly changing his testimony on the planning of the violence after he was promised financial gain from the Office of the Prosecutor. (READ: Ruto's wife speaks out on case)
In his initial statement, the witness had said that the violence was spontaneous and that the fighting broke out after the presidential election results were announced. He had also been categorical that if there had been planning he would have known beforehand because he had friends, business colleagues and clients from across the ethnicities in Eldoret.
Furthermore, the witness had said that the police had responded quickly when fighting broke out, pitting not only Kikuyus and Kalenjins but other ethnic communities in Langas.
In his original statement he also said he could not identify those who were burning houses but later changed to say that it was Kalenjin youths who had been ferried to the scene.
Later, and even during his examination-in-chief, the witness maintained that the violence had been planned and that Mr Ruto had called on the Kalenjins “to remove madoadoa”, a reference to Kikuyus.
“It is at that particular time that people realised that it was not a laughing matter and this could have been a properly arranged fight,” witness 376 had earlier said in reference to the attacks that erupted after December 30, 2007.
“That incident could not have just happened … for people to have bows and arrows at short notice. It is not normal for people to carry weapons during peace time,” he said.
'HALF STORY'
The defence also put the witness on the spot over a telephone conversation with the prosecution where he maintained that the violence was spontaneous.
“There was a reason I did that,” he responded in reference to a second telephone conversation with the prosecution’s investigators that he says was in a public place where he was constrained from speaking the truth.
“They called me after about three days and I told them I could not talk to them because in my conscience it was bad to tell them it (violence) was planned over the phone in a public place,” he said.
Therefore, according to the witness, during the second telephone conversation with the investigators he only gave the OTP “a half story.”
The half story was that the violence was spontaneous.
The witness narrated how he spurned prosecution attempts to obtain information from him on the phone. According to him, the callers did not identify themselves.
“First time, I declined to speak to them unless I knew their identity,” he said, resulting in the second phone call three days later in which the investigators introduced themselves.
The witness had said the attackers had time to pick out the homes that they were to attack, which mainly belonged to members of the Kikuyu community.
His final day was also characterised by confusion, with the witness disputing clarifications he had supposedly made to his statement to the prosecution a week ago on October 14, this year, stating that he had attended an ODM rally at 64 Stadium in which Mr Ruto spoke and incited Kalenjins against Kikuyus and supporters of PNU.
The clarifications that the defence pointed out were also not signed by the witness.
However, when pressed further by the defence counsel, the witness said he could not recall making the clarifications to correct the inaccuracies in his statement.
Defence: Am I right Mr Witness that you attended a rally at 64 Stadium Eldoret?
Witness: I did not attend.
Defence: But when you met the prosecution on October 14 to make clarifications to your statement you said you attended?
Witness: I don’t remember attending a rally at 64 Stadium.
Defence: During that session (October 14) you clarified inaccuracies in your statement?
Witness: I can’t recall.
Defence: The event happened a week ago Mr Witness. You can’t recall what you said to the office of the prosecutor one week ago?
Witness: I can’t recall.
Mr Faal produced the clarifications to prove that the witness had indeed made corrections of what he felt were inaccuracies in his statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, especially with regard to his presence at 64 Stadium in Eldoret.
With the witness adamant that he could not recall making the clarifications, presiding judge Chile Eboe-Osuji asked whether the clarifications had been signed by the witness, to which senior trial lawyer Anton Steynberg said “no”.
It is not verbatim but in our estimation it is what the witness said,” Mr Steynberg said.
The witness also changed his story that Mr Ruto had incited Kalenjins to evict Kikuyus when his convoy was blocked by youths who demanded that he addresses them on the highway between Transnational Bank Plaza and Paradise Hotel.
According to the witness, though Mr Ruto used the phrase ‘madoadoa’ “he was not on an incitement rally and I don’t think there was enough evidence to arrest him.”
Post a Comment