(Transcript from SBS World News Radio)
Will Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta get his day in court?
A preliminary hearing at the International Criminal Court in The Hague has heard a request that his case be dropped, lawyers citing an apparent lack of evidence he was complicit in crimes against humanity.
As Kristina Kukolja reports, it's not known when the ICC will rule on whether the trial can take place.
(Click on the audio tab above to hear the full report)
"Our freedom was hard-won and now it is under threat. Everyone feels the anger and our impulse is to fight back, but we must not do so indiscriminately. We must identify and defend ourselves against the enemy. Terrorists, criminals, thugs run and hide. Citizens and residents of Kenya, we are together in the fight against terror. And together we will prevail."
This is the image Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta wants the world to see.
That of a leader and protector of his people in the devastating aftermath of a deadly attack on civilians at a shopping centre in Nairobi.
But it's an image that conflicts with the Uhuru Kenyatta seated across from the judge in a pre- trial hearing in the Hague, and the first sitting head of state to go before the International Criminal Court.
The Uhuru Kenyatta indicted on charges of orchestrating violence surrounding Kenya's disputed 2007 election, and being complicit in the killing, rape, displacement and persecution of civilians.
The Uhuru Kenyatta accused of crimes against humanity over the deaths of more than 1300 people and deportation of hundreds of thousands others.
And a man who remained silent in court, and whose lawyer spoke on his behalf.
A handful of Kenyans displaced by the unrest gathered around a television set to watch the proceedings.
Beatrice Mukami says she's disappointed with what she heard.
(Translated)"This case is pretty confusing to us, I don't think it is right. They keep on saying they want justice for us, but I don't see this justice that they keep talking about. First of all they picked fake witnesses and coached them and it has gotten to a point where their witnesses are scared because they know very well they were not there during the clashes. They were just bought and told what to say. I don't see a case here."
Uhuru Kenyatta's defence argues the case against him should be dropped all together, the charges dismissed because the prosecution doesn't have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has conceded the fact, but says she hasn't dropped the case.
Geoffrey Mwaura was also watching the hearing on TV and can't believe what he's seeing.
(Translated)"They keep on saying that the Kenyan government has refused to co-operate and give evidence. We want to know why the office of the prosecutor took a case to court without sufficient evidence and looked for evidence later. Why did they even go to court in the first place?"
The prosecution accuses Kenyan authorities of obstructing the investigation by withholding key documents, and is demanding that sanctions force them to comply.
Kenya Ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations Martin Kimani has told the BBC his government has been nothing but co-operative.
"Accusation is not evidence. Just because the prosecutor says this does not mean it is true. The Kenyan government has cooperated in an extraordinary way for the last few years. Not only the present government, but the last government as well. The prosecutor has had years to make her case and to then try and turn the Kenyan government into an arm of her investigation is not only wrong but it goes against the Rome Statute. But where the cooperation has been sought in a targetted way in line with what the judges asked the Kenyan government has been unstinting in its cooperation."
Mr Kimani also expressed doubt about accusations of witness intimidation from the prosecution.
"These kinds of serious charges need to be proved. What we know from what the judges have said, and what the prosecution has said is that its witnesses have lied, that judges have castigated the prosecution several times for actually having shoddy investigations and taking too long to actually disclose material facts to the defence so when it comes to what charges about intimidation of witnesses, lying witnesses, this is an issue the prosecutor needs to explain, not the accused."
