fbpx

Did Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto Call For The “Expulsion” Of Kikuyus?

Did Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto Call For The “Expulsion” Of Kikuyus?

On Monday November 17, the International Criminal Court resumed its trial of William Ruto, the Deputy President of Kenya, along with a journalist named Joshua arap Sang, over Kenyan post-election violence from the end of 2007 to early 2008.

The trial, along with a similar trial being held for Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, have set the world of international justice ablaze over potential implications and the often strained relationship between the African continent and the Court.

Both Ruto and Kenyatta have so far complied with orders of the ICC, making them the first sitting head of state and deputy head of state to do so.

The road to trial has been laden with pitfalls and there have been repeated calls for the Court to drop the case and allow the pair to go back to the difficult business of running a country. After all of the legal wrangling, the two are complying with the Court and standing trial, allowing for the intricate legalese of pre-trial motions to fall away in favor of the delicate and fascinating fact-finding of a trial and witnesses.

On Monday, as the trial resumed, so-called Witness 800 (witnesses are known by numbers because the security of witnesses is a constant issue for the International Criminal Court) dropped a bombshell.

According to the International Justice Monitor, the witness told the Court that at a meeting on October 1, 2005, Ruto called for the expulsion of Kikuyus from a particular area. The witness recounted that Ruto spoke in code, saying that “he could see there were still white mushrooms in location nine” and “he wanted them uprooted or eaten.”

According to the witness, the reference was widely understood by those present at the meeting because of the tendency of Kikuyus in the area to wear white turbans for religious purposes and the “Kalenjin in attendance approved and applauded” while the Kikuyu in audience were unhappy with the pronouncement.

This testimony is significant because it gets to the heart of the allegations against Ruto. The indictment stems from violence that took place after a disputed election in 2007. The election, which saw incumbent Mwai Kibaki declared victor, was declared fraudulent by supporters of Kibaki’s opponent Raila Odinga. This set off tremendous violence, initially against supporters of Kibaki, who is a Kikuyu, and then in reprisal attacks against Odinga supporters.

Such attacks included a strong ethnic element, as the Kenyan government quickly accused Odinga supporters of carrying out an “ethnic cleansing.”

Of course, inter-ethnic tensions are not new to the extremely diverse country. A 2008 Slate article detailed the historical tensions that surrounded the Kikuyus. According to the article the economic success of the Kikuyus, the country’s largest ethnic group, has bred contempt.

This is particularly true in areas outside the group’s traditional home in the Central Province, including the Rift Valley , the country’s largest and most populous province. This is true of political power as well, with three of the country’s four presidents since independence coming from the Kikuyu, including the country’s founding father Jomo Kenyatta and his son, current President Uhuru.

Ethnic Cleansing

The testimony against Ruto is so damning because it would lend significant credence to the allegations of “ethnic cleansing,” falling into a familiar narrative of violence set off by political issues but due in large part to long simmering ethnic tensions.

Preparations for violence more than two years before the election shows a type of preparedness and animosity that lends itself to the belief that such an “ethnic cleansing” campaign was always in the cards.

It also combines with previous testimony, where Ruto was called either the “spokesman” or the “king” of the Kalenjin, a position that was previously occupied by former President Daniel arap Moi and would give him more than enough clout to call for such an “expulsion.”

Witness 800 continued his testimony Tuesday where he continued a narrative severely damaging to Ruto. The Witness recounted a 2008 “cleansing ceremony” for Kalenjin youth that had taken part in the violence. At this ceremony, not only were the youths cleansed, but they were also paid 300 shillings (about $5 USD at the time) and received a message from Ruto.

According to the Witness, an individual named Farouk Kibet delivered both the money and a message that Ruto “was happy from the unity that the people showed during the violence and the unity they had during the hard time that was there during that period.”

If Witness 800’s story is to believed, Ruto not only prepared for the violence in the years prior to the election, he also rewarded and congratulated those that took part in it. Combined with other testimony that Ruto occupied a position of authority within the community and would have been able to command individuals on a large scale, this is a difficult narrative for Ruto’s defense.

Luckily for the defense, one witness does not an international criminal case make. ICC cases often take years and see testimony from an extraordinary number of individuals with tremendous factual and legal complexity. While Witness 800’s testimony tells a troubling narrative, it is also only one narrative amongst many.

Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.