Are Mungiki Back?

Any journalist who has worked on investigative stories will tell you that not all investigations for stories get completed successfully.

For weeks now I have been following up on what I think is a big story albeit very scary news. I would hate to be the one to alarm my readers for nothing and so I have resisted the temptation to do a half-baked post without the concrete evidence to back it up.
Still this news is so important and secondly after the killings in Meru recently there is a clear trend and so I have decided to go ahead with this post and give you my dear reader the little information that I have so far and let you make your own decision as to whether my haunch is correct or off the mark, even as I continue to do more digging. The decision is entirely yours.

Since the beginning of this year there have been very strange killings happening around the country but mainly in Central province and its’ environs that have the Mungiki trade mark written all over them. Indeed in some cases locals have clearly pointed out to the authorities that the killings suggest that Mungiki are back. Nobody wants to even consider that possibility and so these voices have been muffled. Even reporters and editors have been quick to edit the Mungiki link out of these stories dismissing them as unsubstantiated claims.

But on the ground many Kenyans are living in great fear for their lives. A case in point is Muranga where a headless body of a woman was recently found. The body of Julia Njeri was dumped along Nguthuru-Muruka road and was discovered early in the morning. Residents suspected that Njeri was murdered elsewhere before her body was dumped beside the road. The head is yet to be found. Residents have been living in fear since then. See a video of this news report HERE.

I have followed several other very similar killings since that Muranga incident in May with the latest being the blood letting incident in Meru. Read the story HERE.

In my view this is all very worrying bearing in mind that we are headed for the most competitive general elections in the history of Kenya. Less competitive elections in the past have shed lots of blood and so what should we expect this time? Less blood-letting or more?

Of course we also know that Kenyan politicians are a superstitious lot and ritual killings to complete witchcraft spells to win elections are usually common as we head to the elections with plenty of killings, disappearances and bizarre road accidents. However we also know that the killer Mungiki gang is usually most active as we head to general elections.

Does the Mungiki terror group have any chance of resurrecting after the bloody so-called shut down by former police commissioner Major General Hussein Ali and his hit squads created to do just that? Read all about these hit squads and other unpublished secrets, like how all the dirty money was made by Kenya's top 5 wealthiest families, now. As I have said many times here before, wiping out every suspected Mungiki member in site is not the way to deal with this kind of problem. It is a case of dealing ruthlessly with the symptom and then cheating yourself that you have cured the disease. Besides those with good memories will remember that the Prime Minister Raila Odinga promised to negotiate with the group not too long ago, meaning that Mungiki is far from being extinct.

And so clearly anybody who thinks that the Mungiki are dead and buried would be gravely mistaken. Still experts on these matters consulted by this blogger are of the opinion that it is unlikely that the Mungiki would have recovered enough organizational teeth to carry out the killings across such a wide area of Central province. To be honest I personally disagree.

So the mystery remains; what are the bizarre killings all about?

Can Kenyatta and Ruto run for president while facing ICC trial?

What do Congo and Kenya have in common, except an obvious undying love for rhumba? The answer: politicians who stand accused at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and want to be president of their respective countries.
Former Congolese vice-president and senator Jean-Pierre Bemba, who has been charged at the ICC with two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes, was unable to pursue his ambitions of leading Congo because he is detained in The Hague. Bemba is alleged to have committed the crimes when his Movement for the Liberation of Congo got embroiled in the 2002 to 2003 conflict in the Central African Republic. Bemba’s detention in The Hague, however, did not stop him from exploring the possibility of running for president in Congo’s 2011 election. It also did not stop other Congolese opposition leaders seeking his support for their own bids for the country’s top seat. In the end Bemba was not on the ballot, and his former ally-turned-nemesis, Joseph Kabila, was re-elected Congo’s president.
Kenya’s Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and his former Cabinet colleague, William Samoei Ruto, are not as hampered in pursuing their presidential ambitions as Bemba was. Kenyatta, who faces five counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the violence that consumed Kenya after the 2007 presidential election, is able to campaign freely because the court has not issued an arrest warrant against him. Ruto, who faces three counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the Kenya violence, enjoys the same freedom. The two are free so long as they obey the restrictions the court set for Kenya case one, which involves Ruto, and case two, which involves Kenyatta. They are also expected to attend all trial hearings, which are scheduled to begin in April next year, about a month after Kenya’s election is held.
Everything appears smooth for the two individuals, except a court case in Kenya. Two individuals and two organizations are asking the High Court to interpret the leadership standards set out in the constitution and whether those would restrict people facing serious crimes charges from contesting for public office. The first day of hearings is scheduled to start this Tuesday.
The court case is driven in part by the continuing public debate in Kenya about whether Kenyatta and Ruto should even consider running for president, especially once the ICC pre-trial chamber ruled in January that they should face trial for the charges the prosecutor has filed against them.
The common sense view is that the two individuals should not run for public office until the ICC’s trial chamber determines their cases. This is not a comment on their guilt or innocence. It is a comment on the spirit behind the decades-long agitation in Kenya for a new constitution. This spirit, in brief, included an aspiration for a higher standard of leadership in Kenya that would help the country fulfil its potential. This aspiration was informed by the country’s collective experience of past bad leadership and a sense Kenya can and should do better. This is a moral argument that supporters of Kenyatta and Ruto dismiss.
They rely on two constitutional principles. One is that the constitution presumes any one facing a court case is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, they argue Kenyatta and Ruto should not be penalized and stopped from running for public office because they are facing charges of serious crimes at the ICC. The other principle they advance is the constitution provides that each citizen has the right to vote for the person of their choice. The implication being that by locking out Kenyatta and Ruto from the presidential race, their supporters will be denied their freedom of choice.
The general public is, however, divided on this issue. Independent polling company Ipsos Synovate conducted a survey on the issue between January 27 and February 1. The poll, which was released on February 20, found that the Kenyan public was almost split in half on the issue. This was about a week after the ICC pre-trial chamber’s January 23 decision that Kenyatta and Ruto, together with two other co-accused, should face trial. Ipsos Synovate also found that almost half of those polled believed that nothing will happen if either Kenyatta or Ruto is barred from contesting the presidential poll.
When Ipsos Synovate asked the same question between April 6 and April 17, the poll it released in May found that public opinion had shifted. More people opposed Kenyatta’s and Ruto’s presidential aspirations than those who supported their ambitions. Those opposing Kenyatta’s presidential aspiration rose to 49 percent in April, compared to 46 percent in January-February. Those supporting Kenyatta’s bid dropped to 44 percent in April, from 48 percent in January-February. Those opposing Ruto’s presidential aspirations rose to 51 percent in April, compared to 47 percent in January-February. Support for Ruto’s presidential bid declined to 42 percent, compared to 47 percent in January-February.
Another polling company found that more than half of respondents did not support any one facing a court case running for public office. Strategic Public Relations and Research interviewed 5,000 people between April 27 and May 2 and found that 56 percent of them did not support any one charged with an offence in court seeking public office. The company found, however, that a high number of people, about 42 percent, supported individuals facing charges in a court campaigning for public office. Strategic Public Relations and Research did not name Kenyatta and Ruto in the question they asked respondents but the answers are a comment on the bids of Kenyatta and Ruto as well as one of their co-accused at the ICC, Joshua arap Sang, who has indicated he may run for a national Senate seat.
Aside from the legal and moral questions facing them, Kenyatta and Ruto have not found the nuts and bolts work of political campaigning easy going. The law governing political parties and their operations has forced the two to do the hard work of building from scratch their political vehicles, recruiting members across the country and laying the infrastructure for these parties to be viable national organizations. The law demands political parties have offices in at least half of the country’s counties as well as a minimum of 1,000 members in each of those counties. These requirements are in the almost two-year old constitution Kenyans voted for in August 2010. Previously, political parties did not have to have a minimum number of members or even offices outside the capital Nairobi. Political parties were in essence the property of the rich and powerful.
The efforts of Kenyatta and Ruto to forge an alliance also have not gone far because of the myriad of interests they have to accommodate beyond their personal presidential ambitions. Although opinion polls consistently put Prime Minister Raila Amolo Odinga in the lead with at least a 10 point margin ahead of anyone else, there are too many variables that make the Kenyan presidential poll still wide open. One variable is that no aspirant crosses the 50 percent margin in opinion polls. This threshold is constitutionally decreed for a candidate to win an election in the first round. Another, which is not included in the opinion polls, is the views of Kenyans living outside the country. Kenyans in the diaspora will for the first time have the right to vote in the presidential election, and they are a huge untested factor.
by Tom Maliti

Kenyan case looking into Kenyatta, Ruto presidential bids postponed

Kenya’s High Court has postponed the case to determine whether two prominent Kenyans facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and aspiring to be president meet the constitution’s integrity standards for public office.
High Court Judge Issac Lenaola postponed the case to September 27 in order to allow lawyers representing the petitioners to amend their petition. He also postponed the case because the other two judges who were supposed to be sitting on the panel were not available to do so Tuesday.
Judge Lenaola ordered Ambrose Otieno Weda, who is representing some of the petitioners, to submit the amended petition within the next 14 days to the respondents and interested parties in the case. They in turn will have 14 days to respond to it, Lenaola ordered. He also said that if the petitioners wished to comment on the responses, they had seven days after that to do so.
Weda told the court the amended petition will include the names of other “substantive Kenyans” in order for the court to deal with the issue of integrity in leadership at one go. Weda declined to state whom he intended to name as additional respondents in the case before he had filed the amended petition.
The petitioners are individual voters, some civil society organizations, such as the Kenya Youth Parliament and the Kenya Youth League, as well as some of the people who were displaced from their homes during the bloody upheaval that shook Kenya following the country’s last election in December 2007.
The petitioners are asking the court to determine whether Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and former Cabinet Minister William Samoei Ruto pass the integrity standard set in the constitution. The petitioners would like the court to rule on this because Kenyatta and Ruto have declared their intention to run for president while they are set to face trial at the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity.
Kenyatta faces five counts of crimes against humanity allegedly committed after the December 2007 presidential poll. His trial is due to begin on April 11, 2013. Ruto faces three counts of crimes against humanity and his trial begins on April 10, 2013. The next Kenyan elections are due to be held on March 4, 2013, one month before the ICC trials begin.
Some of the interested parties in the case are the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution, which is an independent institution responsible for overseeing the process to implement Kenya’s nearly two-year old supreme law. Others include the Law Society of Kenya and Kenyatta’s newly formed political vehicle, The National Alliance party.
The constitution lays out in broad terms the integrity standards any one holding, seeking to hold or being appointed to public office must satisfy. These are in chapter six of the constitution. The National Assembly is also required to pass a law that expands the broad principles on integrity in the constitution and that also describes the penalties to be applied in case of violation. The National Assembly is yet to do this because a draft bill is at the public comments stage.
This lack of legislation is one of the grounds for preliminary objections to the case some lawyers indicated on Tuesday that they would be making. They will be arguing the court has no jurisdiction because no subsidiary law has been enacted. They will argue the court is in effect being asked to do the work of the legislature.
by Tom Maliti

Cases Against Kenya 4 to Kick off in April 2013

The International Criminal Court’s Trial Chamber has set April 10 and 11 next year as the commencement dates for the trials in the two Kenyan cases before it.

A statement from The Hague based Court declared that the cases against Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua arap Sang should start on April 10, 2013 while that of Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Former Head of Civil Service Francis Muthaura will commence on April 11.

The four are accused of perpetrating the post-election unrest of 2008 that killed at least 1,300 people.

Kenyatta and Ruto are potential candidates in presidential elections set for March 4 next year and prosecutors have voiced concern over potential unrest should one of the accused be seen as being favoured over the other.

Both Ruto and Kenyatta have proclaimed their innocence.

The violence shattered Kenya’s image as a beacon of stability in east Africa when the then opposition leader Raila Odinga accused President Mwai Kibaki of rigging his way to re-election following the 2007 polls.

The statement also establishes a time table for the various procedural steps required to be undertaken before the opening of the trials to guarantee the fairness of the procedures.

According to the International Criminal Court trial Chamber V, the trial will commence on April 10, 2013, a month after the elections if they are held in March.

The announcement came as the African Union renewed its efforts to seek the referral of the crimes against humanity cases facing the four Kenyans.

In order to ensure the expeditious conduct of the trial pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Rome Statute and to facilitate the preparation of the parties and participants, the, Chamber issued the following schedule leading up to trial:

“The prosecution and the defence teams for both accused are directed to liaise with a view to reaching agreement about non-contentious issues. The first joint submission on agreed facts is to be filed by 3 September 2012,” read a ruling by the Chamber.

In order to assist the Chamber and the Witnesses Unit, the prosecution is to file a provisional list of witnesses to be relied on at trial. This list should include a bullet-pointed summary of the main facts on which each witness is expected to testify.

“Additionally, the prosecution should indicate the estimated length of time required for each witness and the total time for the presentation of the prosecution case, in hours. The prosecution is also to provide a provisional list of the material it intends to rely on at trial. The prosecution is to file the provisional witness and evidence lists by 16 October 2012,” read the schedule.

The prosecution and the defence for both accused are to liaise in order to discuss the joint instruction of experts, and the prosecution is to revert to the Chamber on the outcome of these discussions by 31 October 2012.

The prosecution is to provide its witness list, which should include a bullet-pointed summary of the main facts on which each witness is expected to testify, an indication of the estimated length of time required for each witness and the total time for the presentation of the prosecution case, in hours. Both the witness list and the list of evidence are to be submitted by 9 January 2013.

Prosecution disclosure to the defence of all incriminatory material in the form of witness statements and any other material to be relied on at trial, as well as disclosure of all material for inspection to the defence should be completed by 9 January 2013.

The prosecution shall provide a document explaining its case with reference to the evidence it intends to rely on at trial. This document will be referred to as the “pre-trial brief”.

The pre-trial brief is to be filed by 9 January 2013.

The statement reads: “The pre-trial brief should contain, for each count, a summary of the relevant evidence of each witness to be relied on at trial and all other evidence upon which the prosecution intends to rely, and shall clearly explain how the evidence relates to the charges.”

Prosecution disclosure to the defence of identities of International Criminal Court Protection Programme (ICCPP) witnesses should be completed by 11 February 2013 while disclosure of the reports of any expert witness who will be called during the prosecution case should be completed by 14 February 2013.

The second joint submission on agreed facts (including agreements as to evidence) is to be filed by 8 March 2013. This will however be preceded by the Second joint filing session where the prosecution and the defence teams for both accused are to liaise with a view to reaching agreement on facts as well as the authenticity of evidence.

Any party which is unable to agree to a proposed stipulation shall reflect the reasons and indicate the factual basis for this disagreement in an annex to the joint filing.

Prosecution disclosure to the defence of identities of non-ICCPP prosecution witnesses with security concerns who have been the subject of an application for delayed disclosure should be completed by 12 March 2013.

Source: Capital FM

ICC turns ten as prosecutor faces hard task of proving Kenya cases

By Sang-Hyung Song
On July 1, 2002, the first three staff members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered the Court building in The Hague, The Netherlands. On that day, the ICC founding treaty, called the Rome Statute, entered into force. Ten years after that modest beginning, the ICC has turned into a major international institution, securing justice for victims when it cannot be delivered at the national level. And 121 States have ratified the Rome Statute, and another 32 countries have signed it, indicating their intention to join the treaty.
The ICC is working in seven situation countries, and monitoring developments in seven others on several continents, turning the principles of the Rome Statute into reality.
In March this year, the ICC delivered its first judgement in a case concerning the use of child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Six cases are in the trial stage and nine others in pre-trial phase. These proceedings are testimony that impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is no longer tolerated by the international community.
The victims are a vital part of the ICC’s work. Thousands of victims have been given a voice in the arena of international justice, where their rights are upheld and their suffering recognised. Support for international justice is growing around the world every year. Everywhere, people want peace, justice, rule of law and respect for human dignity. The ICC represents the voluntary gathering of nations in a community of values and aspirations for a more secure future for children, women and men around the world.
However, rather than rejoice over our accomplishments, it is far more important that we recognise the shortcomings and the obstacles that remain, and redouble our commitment to further strengthen the Rome Statute system in order to move closer to our ultimate goals. If we act wisely, pulling our strength together, we can prevent terrible suffering before it takes place.
The ICC is the centrepiece of the evolving system of international criminal justice, but the most important aspect of the fight against impunity takes place in each country, society and community around the globe.
Domestic justice systems must be strong enough to be able to act as the primary deterrent worldwide, while the ICC is a “court of last resort”, a safety net that ensures accountability when the national jurisdictions are unable for whatever reason to carry out this task. In a spirit of solidarity, the States Parties to the Rome Statute have expressed their commitment to work together to ensure that this principle of complementarity is effective.
Another crucial aspect of the ICC is the cooperation of states and the enforcement of the Court’s orders.
The ICC has no police force of its own. The Court relies entirely on states to execute our arrest warrants, to produce evidence, to facilitate the appearance of witnesses and so on.
Unfortunately, several suspects subject to ICC arrest warrants have successfully evaded arrest for many years. Political will and international cooperation is crucial in order to bring these persons to justice.
While we work together to prevent impunity and to ensure accountability, we must remember that international criminal justice is one piece in a bigger framework for protecting human rights, suppressing conflict and working for peace and stabilisation. It is vital that other essential elements of conflict prevention and post-conflict recovery are present where needed, alongside international justice mechanisms. Only when accompanied by education, democracy and development, can justice truly help prevent the crimes of the future.
Let us cherish our spirit of solidarity as we look forward to the ICC’s next decade, celebrating our achievements and acknowledging the challenges that remain ahead. We must be united in our resolve to defeat impunity and the lawlessness, brutality and disdain for human dignity that it represents.
The writer is the President of the International Criminal Court

Uhuru team, ICC agree on release of evidence

By Wahome Thuku
Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta has reached an agreement with the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecution on how evidence against him will be released in court during trial.
The two parties agreed on release of pre-trial briefs, which will include reference to the witnesses to call. The prosecution will also explain to Uhuru’s defence how the evidence relates to charges against him.
The office of the prosecutor, however, said it had not made a similar agreement with Uhuru’s co-accused Francis Muthaura.
The other two suspects in the second case are Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang.
The parties had been asked by the chamber to consult and agree on several issues regarding the summary of the prosecution evidence.
agreement
When they appeared before the Trial Chamber on Status Conference on June 12 they had been asked to report on the agreement in ten days.
The prosecutors said they had not discussed whether Uhuru’s defence would also be required to file a Pre-Trial Brief if they decide to call their witnesses. They had agreed that the issue should be addressed at the closure of the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution had also prepared an analysis chart of the material they would produce if so ordered by the Trial Chamber, which include facts of their case, sources and title of sources. The court will soon be announcing when the trial will commence, which would most likely to be after March next year.

Lawyer pushes for more charges against Ruto, Sang at ICC

By FELIX OLICK
Lawyers of post-election violence victims at International Criminal Court (ICC) want trial judges to include more express and independent charges against two Kenyan suspects in the event of a conviction.
Ms Sureta Chana wants looting, destruction of property, and infliction of injuries also included as express charges in the event of a conviction against Eldoret North MP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.
In her submission to the trial chamber led by Presiding Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Chana said the crimes should also be specifically referred to in the description of accounts.
“There is every reason why acts of destruction and burning of property, infliction of injuries and looting should also be specifically referred to in the description of counts as well as included as express independent charges in the event of a conviction,” reads the submission in part.
Huge impact
Currently, both Ruto and Sang face three counts of charges that include murder, deportation and persecution at The Hague-based court.
However, Chana said that crimes of destruction, burning of property, infliction of injuries and looting are very serious and had a huge impact on the victims and their communities. She, therefore, urges the judges to acknowledge them as crimes that have been perpetrated directly against the victims.
She argues that it would not be in the interests of justice if the two were to be acquitted on technical reasons that some other elements specific to the umbrella charge were not proved on the evidence.
“For instance, on the charges as presently formulated, the accused could not be convicted on counts three or four in respect to these acts,” she argues.
According to Chana, in an instance where victims did not leave their home areas despite injuries, destruction of property and looting, the perpetrator would not have committed deportation or forcible transfer.
“Mr Ruto has only been charged under the mode of liability in Article 25 (1) (a) of the Statute (committing the crime), and therefore any attempted deportation or forcible transfer would not be within the charges as presently formulated against him,” she argues.
She adds that for justice to be seen to have been done, any charges and convictions should reflect evidence of what actually happened.
Chana argues that victims saw systematic destruction and burning of property during 2007 post-poll chaos. However, she adds, they have not seen the crimes charged.
Even if international criminal lawyers can be expected to understand that these acts have been incorporated under the umbrella charges of forcible transfer, or attempted forcible transfer, the community at large will not understand this,” she argues

African presidents in final bid to stop ICC

Africa’s final assault on International Criminal Court is scheduled next week at African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and on it rests hopes for referral of cases against four Kenyans.

Heads of State are expected to approve amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice designed to facilitate the takeover of cases facing top African leaders at The Hague-based court.

The summit intends to endorse recommendations by Africa’s Ministers of Justices and Attorney Generals to extend the African court’s mandate to include prosecutions for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Besides stamping a seal of approval to the amendments, the leaders attending the 19th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union will also endorse “the African

It includes a resolution that the UN Security Council acts on requests by the AU for deferral of proceedings against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and cases against four Kenyans set to go to full trial at The Hague.

The four Kenyans facing crimes against humanity charges include two presidential aspirants – Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto – former Head of Civil Service and Secretary to the Cabinet Francis Muthaura, and Kass FM head of operations Joshua arap Sang.

AFRICAN COURT
The AU meeting, which runs from July 9-16, was moved to Ethiopia after Malawi warned Bashir he was not welcome to the talks in Lilongwe.

Malawian President Joyce Banda warned her Government would promptly arrest Bashir, the first sitting president indicted by the ICC for war crimes. Sudan petitioned AU to move the venue to Addis Ababa saying Bashir’s attendance was critical.

The refusal of AU’s request for the suspension of cases against the Sudanese leader and the Kenyans prompted Africa’s hard line position on ICC, which has been accused of targeting African leaders.

Last week, Kenya’s Ambassador to AU Monica Juma said the newly empowered African court to try those accused of committing international crimes would be based in Arusha, Tanzania.

Arusha hosted the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which is winding up its activities. It is also the seat of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

“The process of establishing the court has commenced, but it is a matter of negotiation. The location, however, has been identified and it would be in Arusha,” said Dr Juma, who is also the permanent representative to Intergovernmental Authority on Development.

Kenyatta and Muthaura have petitioned the ICC to move their trials from The Hague to Kenya or Arusha. In their submissions during the status conference last month at The Hague, the two argued the Rome Statute provides that the ICC may sit elsewhere whenever it considers it desirable to do so.

Muthaura submitted that the trial could affect his health, as it would not only significantly disrupt his life but would also be stressful.

“It is principally for this reason – a desire to reduce disruption and the strain of a criminal trial – that Ambassador Muthaura would continue to prefer that this trial before ICC takes place in Kenya or in Arusha,” his lead counsel Karim Khan submitted.

On behalf of Uhuru, Queen’s Counsel Steven Kay submitted: “The defence requests the trial to be held in Kenya for reasons of judicial economy and to ensure the judicial process takes place within the territory affected.”

Muthaura requested that the governments of Kenya and Tanzania be invited to address it on the feasibility and willingness of hosting the ICC. Judges of ICC’s Trial Chamber V are yet to rule on the requests.

The AU meeting comes after President Kibaki told Parliament in April that the Government is still exploring a local mechanism to try the post-election violence suspects.

It also follows an earlier resolution by the East African Legislative Assembly (Eala), sitting in Nairobi, to have the Kenya cases transferred to the East African Court of Justice.

A draft agenda for the AU assembly includes “consideration of legal instruments as recommended by the Executive Council and Ministers of Justice and Attorney Generals”.

Expanded jurisdiction
Also listed is the consideration of the draft African Union model national law on universal jurisdiction over International Crimes and draft Protocol on the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.

The AU seeks to expand jurisdiction of African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights so that it can deal with international crimes, which are currently exclusively left to The Hague court.

The African Court of Justice handles civil matters particularly with regards to the protection of human rights and consolidation of good governance.