Porn video interrupts Kenyan court hearing of post-election sexual violence victims

A hacker on Tuesday jolted the court, advocates and journalists with jaw-dropping images during a hearing of a battle pitting the government and the 2007-2008 post-election sexual violence victims.

Justices Daniel Musinga, Francis Tuiyott and George Odunga were keenly listening to the submissions by lawyers from the rival sides when porn images were posted bringing to a halt of the proceedings.

Justice Musinga, the court’s President, expressed disgust at the distressful and inappropriate images displayed.

He said that it was disturbing and unsettling for the person behind the attack to do the unthinkable while the court was dealing with a sexual violence case.

The session abruptly ended, and the court decided that only lawyers had access to the new link. The court feared that the hacker would breach the Zoom system again.

 The judges were hearing an appeal filed by seven victims alongside the Coalition on Violence Against Women, the Independent Medico-Legal Unit, the International Commission of Jurists and Physicians for Human Rights.

They sued the Attorney General, the Minister for Medical Services, the Director of Public Prosecution, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority and the Inspector General of Police.

Their lawyer Willis Otieno argued that the authorities failed to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of Sexual and Gender Based-Violence (SGBV) during the post-election skirmishes.

 The court heard that the seven victims were all abused by the police.

“The State did owe an obligation to prevent, protect, prosecute and offer reparations to all victims of the election violence when there is conflict,” argued Otieno.

He said that Weldon Korir failed to offer justice to all the victims who had been recorded by among others, the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC).

He argued that the Judge also erred by finding that only those who had been abused by state officers would be compensated.

“State culpability also extends to those violated by non-state actors,” he said, adding that the government ought to have relied on intelligence reports about the violence and provided security to the victims.

At the same time, the lawyer said that the government ought to have offered psycho-social support and apprehend the perpetrators.

There were four victims who the High Court declined to compensate for being violated by civilians.

Otieno also said that the High Court failed to consider that those who did not report to the police station had evidence to show that they had been violated.

He argued that the Judge’s finding that failure to report to the police dented their case ignored that there were records showing that they had been treated at Kenyatta National Hospital.

He said that the little the country would have done would have been an acknowledgment that there were victims of sexual violence and issue a public apology.

“A broader acknowledgement would address the institutional challenges and attitudes that have over time treated victims of sexual violence as an unwanted crop,” he said, adding that this would lead to a healing process and policy change to re-integrate the victims.

He also said that the High Court declined to order the government to keep a database of victims for restoration.

Otieno said that IPOA ought to be compelled to investigate and punish officers who committed SGBV crimes and misconduct during the chaos.

In the case, three victims said that they were raped by the General Service Unit Officer while five others said that the members of the public did the unthinkable.

The Attorney General opposed the case.

Senior State Counsel Emannuel Bitta argued that the incidents happened before the 2010 constitution and, therefore, the victims could not argue on behalf of other victims who were not petitioners.

Bitta said that it was impossible to compensate persons or hold the police liable if it was not reported.

“The superior court’s decision was sound and there are no grounds to set aside the partial judgment,” replied Bitta.

IPOA, on the other hand, said that it was not there when the acts happened. According to the authority, its work started in 2012 and, therefore, could not have undertaken the investigations before then.