Blow to ICC's credibility as it drops charges against Kenyan president

Blow for court's credibility as key prosecution witness refuses to testify in Uhuru Kenyatta trial and another admits lying.

The international criminal court's chief prosecutor has dropped all charges of crimes against humanity against Kenya's president, highlighting the court's difficulties in bringing to justice the high-ranking officials it has accused of atrocities.

A spokeswoman for the prosecution office, Florence Olara, said the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, had filed a notice withdrawing the charges against the president, Uhuru Kenyatta. She accused the Kenyan government of harassing and intimidating potential witnesses.

Kenyatta had been charged with murder, rape, persecution, deportation and other inhumane acts as an "indirect co-perpetrator" in violence that flared after Kenya's 2007 elections, leaving more than 1,000 people dead.

The collapse of the case is a new blow to the credibility of the court's prosecution office. The office has begun nine full investigations since it was established in 2002, all of them in Africa, and has just seven suspects in custody.

Reacting to the news on Friday, Kenyatta said he was excited and called for a case against his deputy, William Ruto, and another Kenyan to be dropped as well. "One down, two to go," he said.

Kenyatta's British lawyer, Steven Kay, said the court and its prosecutors "owe [Kenyatta] an apology for bringing proceedings based upon false witnesses and impugning his integrity".

Kenyatta's trial was postponed twice this year while prosecutors attempted to shore up their case after one of their key witnesses refused to testify and another admitted giving false evidence. Earlier this week, judges gave prosecutors a week to say whether their case remained strong enough to continue or to drop the charges.

Kenyatta was indicted in 2011 but went on to become president in the 2013 election, using his indictment at the Hague-based court as an election issue. His government lobbied hard to have the case against him deferred by the UN security council, arguing that the delay was essential because Kenya needed its leader to help fight al-Shabaab terrorists in neighbouring Somalia and at home.

The court's mission is to prosecute perpetrators of atrocities when a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute them itself. It has no police force and must rely on help from governments that may only wish to cooperate when it suits their political purposes.

In a lengthy statement, Bensouda blamed the Kenyan government for obstructing her investigations. "Contrary to the government of Kenya's public pronouncements that it has fully complied with its legal obligations in this case, the ruling has confirmed that in fact it has breached its treaty obligations under the Rome statute by failing to cooperate with my investigation," she said.

"I have persistently sought to secure the cooperation that my office required from the government of Kenya in this case in order to execute my mandate. Crucial documentary evidence regarding the 2007-08 post-election violence, including concerning the conduct of the accused, can only be found in Kenya and is only accessible to the prosecution through the assistance of the government of Kenya. This crucial assistance was ultimately not provided, as confirmed by the recent decision of the trial chamber."

Bensouda said prosecutors had also endured a "steady and relentless stream of false media reports about the Kenya cases, an unprecedented campaign on social media to expose the identity of protected witnesses in the Kenya cases [and] concerted and wide-ranging efforts to harass, intimidate and threaten individuals who would wish to be witnesses."

As a result, she said: "The government of Kenya's failure to provide my office [with] important records has had a severe adverse impact on this case. It has deprived the victims of their right to know the full account of what transpired in 2007-08. It has further undermined my ability to carry out a full investigation. And finally, it has prevented the judges from carrying out their critical functions of assessing the evidence and determining the truth."