Kenyan – MinBane

ICC: Lessons learned from the Kenyatta Case of 2011

The Internal Investigation of the botched International Criminal Court (ICC) case of the ‘Kenyatta Case – The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta – FORMERLY – The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, ICC-01/09-02/11’, which the investigation started in Kenya in October 2010 and failure to produce anything binding or to justify the charges against them. So the charges was dropped by 2013 and 2014. While the whole case was terminated by March 2015.

Now the ICC has suddenly dropped an statement into their internal investigation into why it ended like this. Even if they have the warning, of if any of the judges get new evidence on the case. They might re-open it. However, what this states is very serious and the acts done to interfere in the investigation. Says also a lot, also about the shortfall of the jurisdiction and help from the government of Kenya. Which isn’t weird, as the state was investigating the President and allies of him. They don’t want any issues with an foreign court. That is all natural in the scheme of things.

Just look here:

“The prosecutorial process in the Kenya cases, the experts found, was hampered by deadlines set by the first Prosecutor that were based on considerations other than what they considered to be sound prosecutorial practice. In their view, the effectiveness of the investigations and prosecutions was significantly undermined by a “decision over assessment” tactic respecting cases and a target-based – as opposed to evidence-based – approach to investigation and charging. This, coupled with other problems, meant that the prosecutions were burdened with weak cases, relying on one or only a small number of insider witnesses – whose evidence could not be independently verified by the OTP – to establish essential elements of the case” (ICC, 26.11.2019).

“The key point concerning the Government of Kenya was the OTP’s delay in seeking the assistance of the Trial Chamber to compel cooperation, resulting in part from the contradictory approaches advocated by JCCD and PD (that is, continue to try to persuade the authorities to cooperate versus applying to the Trial Chamber for a finding of non-cooperation against the Government, respectively). This lesson has been taken on board. The OTP also has a range of strategies to secure cooperation from States Parties and situation countries, and these are still evolving” (ICC, 26.11.2019).

“The investigations were further undermined by the decision to delay in-country investigations, which did not take place until after the CoC hearings. Unfortunately, after those hearings, investigating in Kenya became much more difficult: support for the ICC among Kenyans had been eroded by a concerted campaign of negative propaganda; OTP personnel were followed, putting them and anyone they contacted at risk; the witness interference orchestrated by the suspects/accused became even more pervasive; and the Government of Kenya (GoK) became even less willing to co-operate, if not actively interfering with OTP operations and witness security” (ICC, 26.11.2019).

“As noted above, the GoK did not support the OTP investigative activities, instead it either allowed interference with witnesses inside and outside of Kenya and with OTP activities in Kenya, including surveillance of OTP investigators, and/or may have been directly involved in such interference. It refused Requests for Assistance (RFAs) thereby hampering the OTP’s ability to access potential evidence, or imposed such conditions or access as to, in reality, make that access so cumbersome as to be unworkable” (ICC, 26.11.2019).

We can see the ICC started this out on the wrong premise and lost because of it. They couldn’t present well enough evidence, either because of the deadlines. Nor the way the small pockets of witnesses was silenced. This was done, as the ICC haven’t secured them or ensured their safety. This was a mismanaged approach by the ICC and the ones seeking justice on this case. The Kenyatta case was finally dropped, because the ICC and their partners hadn’t done their job, neitehr had the Government of Kenya done its either. Therefore, this one got stalled and the charges got dropped.

Like the charges against William Ruto, Joshua Arap Sang and Uhuru Kenyatta. This was done because out of the 10 witnesses supposed to be put forward, only 5 showed up. That means the prosecution and the material they could assess wasn’t substantial enough nor digging deep enough. The ICC didn’t do their work and the Kenyans was doing internal actions to ensure the ICC didn’t get a case to begin with. They silenced the witnesses and intimidated the ones who could have come forward to the ICC.

This should be a lesson for the ICC. That to quick deadlines, not enough work with the coordinated leadership of where they charging people and get the proper jurisdiction might be more important. As they couldn’t do their job, as the Kenyans was putting hampers in their way. Next time find out ways to secure the witnesses and the affidavits to collect evidence before they are afraid of testifying. Peace.

Kenya Defence Force: KDF Operational Update – Lamu County (24.09.2018)

Trump’s Trade-War is now hitting East Africa: Because of possible lost trade with Second-Hand Clothes!

Museveni buying shoes in Wandegeya, 02.06.2017.

United States of America is really just cherry-picking the world right now, they are evolving into a beast and not an Uncle Sam. President Donald J. Trump don’t like to have friends, unless they are related or Roger Stone. That is now seen with his recent activity, not that he knows of these countries or these market. That I say, because he has no hotel or haven’t laundered money from there. The countries being hurt by his new policies are Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. Places he would never travel to or have consideration about. That is because in his mind, they are shitholes, but as long as they serve as vassal states for the United States. Everything is fine and dandy.

What we are talking about is this:

“(A) THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE A SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRY AS AN ELIGIBLE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRY IF THE PRESIDENT DETERMINES THAT THE COUNTRY (SEE NOTE*)

(1) (A country that) has established, or is making continual progress toward establishing–

(A) a market-based economy that protects private property rights, incorporates an open rules-based trading system, and minimises government interference in the economy through measures such as price controls, subsidies, and government ownership of economic assets” (AGOA – ‘AGOA Country Eligibility’).

It is special that the US President is using this against these three states on the imports of used-clothes and shoes. That these three republics trying to develop their own textile and clothes industry, to create work and also revamp the economies. That would mean, that people would also earn more money and spend more money. In the end buying foreign produced clothes on the fashion-lines, that usually are branding American and European brands. Therefore, I don’t understand why Trump suddenly acts like this, when Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania wants to secure their industries.

Because, it is not many days ago, since the President himself used rules and provisions to secure the Steel and Aluminum industry on his own soil. So, that the giant United States can control it, but their trading with other can be spoiled, because it doesn’t favor the President. Seems like double-standard to be. It is easy to muffle the poor and the ones with lack budgets, that are in need of donors. They need to stifle the demands of the powerful, but the ones with power can just use the same means themselves. Still, that doesn’t make it right.

That the United States are trying to force their used-clothes on Rwanda. Like they don’t deserve their own clothes industry and to secure better products, local designs and local textiles is insane. Why shouldn’t they strive for that? Why shouldn’t Uganda strive for their own Bata’s? What is wrong with Tanzanian made shoes? Nothing really, that should be supported, especially if the United States wants to think long-term and create better exports. They would earn even more on ordinary trade of clothes, not second-hand that sold bulk and through other channels. But I am sure that Trump has no knowledge of this or even could imagine it.

This is clearly a step of imperialism from United States, since they cannot stomach, that the partners and the ones getting donations through USAID. Isn’t accepting to be a bazaar for their used stuff. The products that is B-Level and already had their day in the sunshine.

Knowingly, how he is America First, the man himself should understand how others wants to build to their own industries, but thinking Trump has that capacity of thinking is overstepping and thinking that he could actually calculate, that others are sovereign too and not only his state. The East African Republic’s shouldn’t be punished for acting in their own interests over second-hand clothes. Neither second hand shoes. That is insulting and infuriating. If it was just charity and done out direct needs. It would make sense, but if your forcing bad products, because of own will for quick-profits and at the same time destroying local industries. I understand why Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda is trying to ban it and stop it. I respect that and stand behind it. Who wants a old T-Shirt, when you can buy a local-made?

If you buy a local-made, it would create a job for the one making it, the one designing it and the one selling, plus the distribution within the state. That is good business and create lots of job. These jobs create other jobs and funnel money in the system. So some of them will buy foreign design and clothes, that might even be American. That is how the United States should think, if they cared about a free-market narrative, but they are now planning to punish Rwanda and others, because they want to build-up own industry.

Trump is creating a trade-war over Second Hand Clothes.

Second Hand Clothes to East Africa!

“Washington, DC – The President determined today the eligibility of Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda for trade preference benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). In response to a petition filed by the U.S. used clothing industry in March 2017, the Administration initiated an out-of-cycle review of Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda’s AGOA eligibility regarding their decisions to phase in a ban on imports of used clothing and footwear. The review found that this import ban harms the U.S. used clothing industry and is inconsistent with AGOA beneficiary criteria for countries to eliminate barriers to U.S. trade and investment. Based on the results of the review, the President determined that Rwanda is not making sufficient progress toward the elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment, and therefore is out of compliance with eligibility requirements of AGOA. Consequently, the President notified Congress and the Government of Rwanda of his intent to suspend duty-free treatment for all AGOA-eligible apparel products from Rwanda in 60 days” (AGOA – ‘ President Trump Determines Trade Preference Program Eligibility For Rwanda, Tanzania, And Uganda’ 30.03.2018).

This is infuriating and not cool. AGOA should be used as a method to not destroy industry in the developing countries, but add revenue both ways. Now the United States is just using imperialism. Trade-War with East African Countries.

Trump is foolish and also, this is not gaining sympathy and the reasons for this. This isn’t adding and just show how belittling and narrow-minded he is. But that we knew, we just have to see who spanks him. Peace.

Opinion: Now that the World Bank has new priorities, they will most likely not loan to the pipelines in East Africa!

There is certain movements that will strike as more expensive for the East African Community (EAC). This being for the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Government of Kenya (GoK), who has big plans of petroleum pipelines from their oil-fields and to the coast. That being from Turkana to Lamu Port. While the Ugandan oil goes from Hoima to Tanga Port in Tanzania. Both development and industrial projects will have issues with the funding. The World Bank has supported massive infrastructure projects in both countries.

Therefore, for the two counties big development and oil industry, this is giant set-back, since they have to find funding and loans for the pipelines on the open market. Even with higher interests and making the profits of it lesser, than it would have been with a World Bank loan. It would not hurt the pocket as much as it does on the open market. The banks wants more profits themselves and also make sure they are paid-in-full.

With all this in mind. There are speculations, but first. Parts of the self-answering service. Before we look at the reactions in Kenya and Uganda. All of are important, as the state is involved in the licensing and building the pipelines. They are directly into the development and procurement of the pipelines. That is why this is big blow for the administrations and their possible tax-profits on it.

Word Bank Q&A:

“Q. How is “upstream” oil and gas defined?

Upstream is an industry term that refers to exploration of oil and natural gas fields, as well as drilling and operating wells to produce oil and natural gas” (World Bank, 2017).

“Current projects in our portfolio would continue as planned. However, no new investments in upstream oil and gas would be undertaken after 2019, unless under exceptional circumstances as noted in the decision” (World Bank, 2017).

Kenya Pipeline:

“The announcement by the bank, which has significant interests in Kenya’s oil prospecting sector, does not bode well for the country’s anticipated entry into the club of oil producing nations beginning next year. Analysts said they do not expect an immediate reaction to the announcement even as they acknowledged that it takes the shine from oil in the long term” (…) “Locally, the World Bank is offering technical support to the Kenyan government, through the Kenya Petroleum Technical Assistance Project, to prime all stakeholders for commercial oil production and sale. The six-year programme is scheduled to run until February 2021 and involves the World Bank managing a Sh5.2 billion fund set up by investors from Germany, Norway and Britain. The World Bank’s private lending arm, International Finance Corporation, is however directly involved in Kenya’s oil fields, having a 6.83 per cent stake in Africa Oil, the Canadian exploration firm with interests in northern Kenya oil blocks” (Mutegi, 2017)

Uganda Pipeline:

“The pipeline, is expected to be completed by the year 2020, when the country is scheduled to start oil production. In fact, Uganda’s President, Yoweri Museveni and his Tanzanian counterpart recently commissioned the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. The two leaders laid mark stones for the crude oil pipeline in Mutukula, Kyotera district and Kabaale in Hoima district. Total E&P Uganda, a subsidiary of French oil giant, Total S.A, is spearheading the construction of the crude oil pipeline on behalf of the joint venture partners. Adewale Fayemi, the general manager, Total E&P Uganda says discussions are ongoing to discuss on the formalities of how the pipeline will be run. Already, an agreement has been reached that the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) will be run and managed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) – private pipeline company. This means that a private company will be incorporated with joint venture partners – Tullow Uganda, Cnooc Uganda Ltd and Total E&P Uganda, and the governments of Uganda and Tanzania as shareholders in the company” (Ssekika, 2017)

Certainly, this will put a strain on the projects. They have to deliver another type of arrangement to make sure they get funding and have the funds to pay the added interests the banks wants. The added points on the dollar and the interest-rates will hit state-owned firms and the state itself. Since the pipelines most likely becomes more expensive and will be less profitable.

That the World Bank is pulling out of these projects is all within line of the Paris Accord, as they have professed is the reason. Still, this will make these projects more expensive and make sure they are earning less on it. Unless, the crude-oil prices are going up to a level that makes these investments even more profitable. That is only for time to tell. Since it is costly projects and also sophisticated to build. There is needed lots of expertise combined state planning to achieve the development plans.

This is just the beginning, but the pipelines and these investments are vital for both Kenya and Uganda. As the governments are already borrowing state funds on the possible earnings from the oil reserves in their basins. Therefore, they need to drill and need the petrodollar as quickly as possible. Peace.

Reference:

Mutegi, Mugambi – ‘World Bank dims Turkana oil hopes’ (14.12.2017) link: http://www.nation.co.ke/business/World-Bank-dims-Turkana-oil-hopes/996-4227848-u02v8n/index.html

Ssekika, Edward – ‘East African Crude Oil Pipeline: The Inside Story’ (11.12.2017) link: http://www.oilinuganda.org/features/economy/east-african-crude-oil-pipeline-the-inside-story-details-emerge-of-how-the-crude-oil-pipeline-will-be-financed-managed.html

World Bank – ‘Q&A: The World Bank Group and Upstream Oil and Gas’ (12.12.2017) link: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/brief/qa-the-world-bank-group-and-upstream-oil-and-gas