Failed or ‘Failed’? Postmortem of an Ivory Prosecution (pdf)

ABSTRACT

In the field of international wildlife crime, the international community has been challenged in affecting convictions and/or sentences against high level offenders that are commiserate with the committed offences.  There are a multitude of reasons for this, prime amongst them the bureaucratic and time-consuming processes of mutual legal assistance and the ability of involved transnational criminal organizations to subvert the criminal justice process.

This study is about one such ivory trafficking trial that featured all the elements likely to be encountered in a prosecution whereby the accused are in one jurisdiction and the key exhibits, including seized ivory, are in another. The primary objective was to ascertain if the acquittal of all accused was due to institutional capacity related breakdowns or from the influence of individuals or entities outside the criminal justice.

In April and May of 2015, Thailand and Singapore seized a total of 7727 kg of ivory in two different consignments consisting of 3 containers and obfuscated through tea leaves. The two shipments originated from Mombasa, Kenya.

Kenyan authorities proceeded to charge Mombasa business man, Abdulrahman Mahmoud Sheikh, and eight others for only the Thailand seizure. The subsequent trial lasted for eight years and five months before all were acquitted.

This case study analyses this prosecution in detail from an inside the courtroom perspective including the investigation, the prosecution, the evidence presented, witness selection and testimony,  the mutual legal assistance request to Thailand, the proceeds of crime/asset recovery investigation, the search for the Jefwa brothers, the new evidence application (or second mutual legal assistance request), courtroom delays, the absence of phone data, the use of container seals, the sister Singapore seizure that was not prosecuted, and how this Thailand seizure was related and/or linked to many others, with connections to the West African transnational crime organization, then based in Kampala.

For the purposes of revealing connectivity and similar processes, 23 other Kenyan ivory prosecutions are referenced and three of Ugandan origin.

The study concludes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this prosecution was a ‘fail’ and pre-ordained from the early months of the investigation and prosecution. The failed negotiation in the mutual legal process between Kenya and Thailand was inconsequential to the final outcome.

PDF attached below.