A big deal in the ICC: 6 questions with GlobalPost’s Tristan McConnell

Why was today a big deal?

For the first time a sitting head of state appeared before the International Criminal Court, a tribunal established with the express aim of holding the most powerful to account. It wasn’t Uhuru Kenyatta’s first appearance, as he had attended a court hearing before winning election in 2013. Nor was it a trial proper but a “status conference” in which judges listen to arguments from the prosecution, the defense and the victims’ lawyer in order to decide whether the case should proceed and if so, how. Nevertheless, the sight of Kenya’s president in the courtroom where warlords have sat before him was an important symbolic moment in the history of international justice.

Who was in court: Mr. Kenyatta or President Kenyatta?

Kenyatta temporarily handed the presidency of Kenya to his deputy (and fellow ICC accused) William Ruto in order to dodge the ignominy of a head of state being on trial — as well as to not appear cowardly in front of his African Union comrades who have declared that no African head of state need honor demands to appear at the ICC. Kenyatta insists the allegations of crimes against humanity are a “personal challenge” and so he sought to appear in The Hague as a private citizen. Semantics aside, Kenya’s president was in court today.

Who said what?

The prosecution said a “deadlock” had been reached in the case and accused the Kenyan government of blocking their efforts to gather evidence. The victims’ lawyer pointed out that as head of state Kenyatta should abide by his obligations and compel his government to proved the phone, bank records and other requested documents. The defense said the case had “failed," and that there was no evidence to support the allegations against Kenyatta. The case should be thrown out, they argued. Kenyatta didn’t say anything.

What did Kenyans in Kenya make of it?

There is no more divisive issue in Kenya than the ICC. For supporters of Kenyatta the court is neo-colonial institution and another example of hubristic Western meddling in African affairs. For his opponents it represents the comeuppance Kenyatta deserves. And for victims of the post-election violence of 2007 and 2008 it is the last — and fading — hope for any sort of justice for the terrible crimes visited upon them and their families.

What did Kenyans in The Hague make of it?

Supporters of Kenyatta — including his family and 30 parliamentarians led by Nairobi senator Mike Sonko — flew to The Hague to show support for their president. They made a carnival of it, complete with dancing, singing and comedy sunglasses. There were few thoughts spared for the more than 1,100 dead.

What happens next?

Everyone waits. The ICC judges are not known for swift decision making so it could be a month or so before they rule. They have a range of options. At one end of the scale they could make the defense happy by dismissing the case and declaring Kenyatta “not guilty." Or they could make the prosecution happy by leaving the case open and the charges in place but adjourning the trial indefinitely while referring Kenya to the Assembly of States Parties for possible censure over its alleged non-compliance. Or they could make everyone equally unhappy by ruling somewhere in between.

More from GlobalPost: How Kenya took on the International Criminal Court