Last week between the 14th and 19th of November 2011, the KPTJ-ICC coalition which ICJ-Kenya is a member of took their outreach to Kericho, Borabu, Kisumu and Kakamega. The objective of the outreach was to go to different parts of the country affected by the ICC process and divulge information on the background of the ICC , its objectives and its intervention in Kenya thereby doing away with the misconceptions present in society as to the ICC process in Kenya.

In the outreach programme that targeted Rift Valley, Nyanza and Western regions, the participants that participated had several questions to ask as regards the ICC process and it was rather obvious that there were a lot of misinformation that existed in society. It was notable to the team that depending on the different areas we visited and the difference in how the areas were affected, the participants were more interested in certain issues of the ICC process and not others. For example:

In Kericho and Borabu for example, the participants were more concerned with whether the prosecutor did investigations in Kenya or if he solely relied on the Waki commission. The question they constantly asked was why his people were not seen on the ground doing the investigations and why his evidence in court was wanting. In this regard, the issue of the events only happening within the rift valley was constantly noted.  They were also very eager to know if the prosecutor could bring charges against more people on the same situation, special emphasis being on Raila and Kibaki who they thought were the people who bore the greatest responsibility for the post-election violence because they were the two major principles. 

In Kisumu, the direction of interest was totally different. The participants were more concerned about the political repercussions of the ICC process and how it would affect the country. A question that was severally asked and that we tried very hard to fan away was whether the suspects of the ICC process who had political ambitions could vie for the presidency if they were subsequently confirmed. This was raised with the same light shining on why the suspects were still in office and if the court could bar them from holding their key positions in government.  Another issue that was raised was about the reparations to the victims of the post election violence. They were of the view that the court should come on board to compensate all the victims of the post election violence and not only those that are recognised by the court. It was also of concern, who were the people responsible of choosing the victims recognised by the court. 

In Kakamega, the participants were just concerned with seeing the judicial process take its cause and did not have very strong feelings towards a particular direction.

Ultimately, it became apparent that there is still a lot of information that is required by the general public on account of several misconceptions that are present in society.

Recommendations

1. As previously suggested, an IEC compilation of FAQ’s collected from all the areas that have been visited by ICJ-Kenya as regards the outreach is to be done.  
2. The IEC compilation to be done in such a way that there is a general booklet speaking on the whole process and then several other pamphlets whose questions shall relate to particular region.
3. ICJ-Kenya to come up with key target areas where outreach and dissemination of the IEC materials would be done.
4. Enhanced outreach targeting the most interior spots before and after the confirmation of charges hearings with key areas located for both before and after the exercise.