Courtesy of capital FM: The evidence given by the prosecution will not be accepted since it contrasted the evidence given by the witness
The fourth witness in the trial against Deputy President William Ruto
and journalist Joshua arap Sang on Monday disowned part of the
testimony presented by the prosecution which sought to link Ruto to the
term madoadoa.
The witness differed with the prosecution after telling the court
that he never attended a rally at 64 Stadium in Eldoret during the 2007
election campaigns as indicated by the prosecution.
During cross examination by Ruto’s lawyer Essa Faal, the witness said
he cannot recall ever telling the prosecution that he attended a rally
at the 64 stadium despite the prosecution correcting his statement and
indicating that he attended the rally.“We have the clarification
document provided by the office of The Prosecutor. In paragraph 8 it
says ‘the witness also indicated that he attended a rally at 64 Stadium
in Eldoret sometimes during the campaign period. Ruto didn’t mention
‘madoadoa’ in this rally.
He was just campaigning for his party’. Do you recall saying that to
the prosecution,” Faal asked, prompting the witness’ firm reply of “I
can’t recall. I don’t remember attending a rally at 64 Stadium.”“Mr
Witness, this event occurred just one week ago, you cannot recall what
you said to the prosecution one week ago.
I have read it out for you to remember, you still cannot remember, is
that the case?” Faal wondered informing the court that the prosecution
even video-taped the evidence.“Unless I might have forgotten,” the
witness responded; “you have read to me.
I do not recall clarifying inaccuracies in my statement to the
prosecution.”Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji who also asked the witness
for clarifications over the matter said the evidence given by the
prosecution will not be accepted since it contrasted the evidence given
by the witness.
Osuji told the prosecution that it should have noted that statement
but not included it as evidence.Faal further prodded the witness over
his evidence that he heard Ruto telling a crowd near the Transnational
Bank in Eldoret to drive Kikuyus who he referred as madoadoa out of the
town.
According to the witness, Ruto was not using a microphone when he
addressed the crowd. He said it was the only place he heard Ruto refer
to the Kikuyus as madoadoa and not in the context of three piece voting
for the Orange Democratic Movement.
Faal however, described the stopover at the Transnational Bank as one
that was noisy with people shouting and clapping and that the witness
was about 20 metres away when he heard Ruto say that Kikuyus should be
driven out of Eldoret.
The Defence Counsel further tasked the Witness identified in court
documents as P0376 over his earlier statement in which he told the
prosecution that he had read in one of the Kenyan newspapers that Ruto
used the term madoadoa in the context of attacks on Kikuyus.
According to Faal, the witness did not read such a statement as he
had told the prosecution in his evidence against Ruto.“Can you confirm
that you have never read or seen the issue reported in any newspaper in
Kenya?” Faal asked.“It must have been reported, only that I cannot
recall the date and time especially in the newspapers.
It might have been reported once or twice, I could not have read it…
not usually that I read all newspapers published in Kenya daily. I just
read one public newspaper,” witness responded.“You said you could not
have read it but you still want the court to believe that it must have
been published, is that the case?
In fact you are only guessing Mr Witness,” Faal insinuated.“I am not
guessing because the publications in Kenya do not report same issues
daily, they normally come up with different publications and stories
every day which do not correspond each other,” the witness answered.“I
am correct in saying that you never read it in any newspaper because it
was never published,” Faal asserted.
Ruto’s defence lawyer further asked the witness to clarify whether
the attacks in Eldoret were spontaneous.He said the witness gave
contradicting information in which he said the attacks were planned and
again said the attacks were not planned.
The witness who concluded his evidence to the court on Monday also
admitted to the court that he had changed his original testimony after a
meeting with prosecutors.
(Visited 92 times, 92 visits today)
SCROLL DOWN TO LEAVE A COMMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment