海角大神

In meetings at Kenya鈥檚 equivalent of the White House late in 2007 and early in 2008, Uhuru Kenyatta, now the president, helped plan the violence that swept the country after its disputed elections. He even transferred millions of dollars to buy weapons.

That is, at least, what two men who claimed to be at the meetings told prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in statements that formed the meat of the court鈥檚 charges against Mr. Kenyatta for聽crimes against humanity.

The problem is that both witnesses now say they lied, so they will not testify. Nor are they alone: Several others key witnesses in the Kenyatta trial, the ICC's highest-profile trial ever, have withdrawn evidence. Some have reportedly disappeared.

Fatou Bensouda, the ICC鈥檚 chief prosecutor, says this is because of an "unprecedented intimidation鈥� of witnesses in the Kenyatta case, and of what she claims are bribes and threats not to testify.

The loss of the testimony of those two men, Witnesses 4 and 12, significantly increases the likelihood that the Kenyatta case may soon collapse, say analysts who both support and oppose bringing Kenyatta to trial.

And that has serious implications for Kenya, they argue, and for what is often termed "international justice" -- in this instance, the relatively recent global effort to prosecute the world鈥檚 worst crimes.

鈥淚f this case fails, it will do terrible damage to the court鈥檚 deterrent effect,鈥� says Fergal Gaynor, the Irish lawyer representing the victims of the post-election violence in Kenyatta鈥檚 trial.

鈥淟ook at what鈥檚 going on in South Sudan, in the Central African Republic 鈥� now is not the time for weakening of such deterrents. It will also send out a message that state obstruction of access to evidence is a viable strategy in closing down these cases."

Both Kenyatta and his current deputy president, William Ruto, were indicted by the ICC. Mr. Ruto is at his trial at the ICC facilities at The Hague.聽

In December, Ms. Bensouda had to tell the court that she could no longer rely on Witness 12 in the Kenyatta case because he 鈥渁dmitted that he provided false evidence regarding the event at the heart of the prosecution鈥檚 case.鈥� Witness 4 had already been excused.

Suddenly losing these testimonies means Bensouda had to concede she is not 鈥渃urrently in a position to present a case鈥� that would prove Kenyatta鈥檚 alleged guilt. In other words, she has no case.

So why have the five crimes against humanity charges that Kenyatta faces not yet been withdrawn? Because Bensouda thinks she has one last shot.

For two years, she has been applying for access to Kenyatta鈥檚 bank accounts, which she says may provide evidence about who paid for parts of the post-election violence.

Bensouda knows that trying to crack open the accounts of the Kenyan president, one of Africa鈥檚 richest men, will be hard. Kenya鈥檚 attorney-general, Githu Muigai, has said that only a Kenyan court can grant such access, and few here believe any judge would be so bold as to order that.

But it would appear to be the prosecution鈥檚 last chance. Bensouda said recently that without access to Kenyatta鈥檚 financial records, and without other new evidence, 鈥渢he prosecution will be required to withdraw the charges."

If that happens, it would be 鈥渁 kind of re-traumatization鈥� for the victims, says Mr. Gaynor. More than 1,100 people were killed and 300,000 forced to flee their homes during the violence, which followed Kenya's disputed 2007 elections.

鈥淵ou have thousands upon thousands of people who were led to believe that they would receive some kind of justice, and now four years later, there will be nothing,鈥� Gaynor tells the Monitor.

But for those in Kenya who do not support the trials 鈥� and they are many 鈥� the collapse of the case is the only fair outcome, and it is a cautionary one.

鈥淚 was one of many who grasped onto the ICC at the beginning as the only way to find justice,鈥� says Ngunjiri Wambugu, a Kenyan political analyst now siding with Kenyatta but formerly opposed to him.

鈥淭he problem is we have come to see the shortcomings of the process. When -- not if -- the case collapses, it must be made clear that the reason is the prosecution鈥檚 incompetence, in order to force them to do a better job next time.鈥�

Stephen Lamony, a senior adviser to the Coalition for the International Criminal Court in New York, says the changing narrative of the Kenya cases has lent each twist and turn perhaps too much importance.

鈥淭here will be a number of factors that feed into any decision by the judges to approve a withdrawal of the charges, but let us not forget that all courts acquit some cases, and convict others,鈥� he says.

鈥淭here should be no difference with these cases. If there is not enough evidence, or the witnesses refuse to testify, there is little a court can do but throw the case out.鈥�

The ICC鈥檚 judges are currently considering various applications in relation to delays to the Kenyatta case, and no date has yet been set for them to make their decisions, a court spokesman says.聽