UN Security Officer’s Ivory Trafficking Conviction Opens Pandora’s Box of Queries
UN Security Officer’s Ivory Trafficking Conviction Opens Pandora’s Box of
Queries
Chris Morris, International Policy Digest
November 14, 2023
See link
https://intpolicydigest.org/un-security-officer-s-ivory-trafficking-conviction-opens-pandora-s-box-of-queries/
for photo/social media post.
In the shadowy world of ivory trafficking, akin to the narco trade, the
stature of the accused is often gauged by the volume of the contraband or
the prestige of their legal representation. By such a barometer, Kenya has
adjudged a case of seminal importance.
On October 23, within the dual-purpose confines of an office and courtroom
at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) in Nairobi, Handrianus
Theodore Putra, an Indonesian national with duties as a UN security
officer, was convicted and sentenced for possessing and intending to
distribute 38.4 kilograms of elephant ivory. His journey, originating from
Bangui in the Central African Republic with the endpoint envisaged as
Jakarta, Indonesia, encountered an abrupt halt in Nairobi.
Putra, however, diverged from the archetype of an inconspicuous ‘mule’ or
an oblivious traveler ensnared with ivory, despite his assertions of
ignorance.
Following his arrest on October 17, Putra appeared at the JKIA law court
for mitigation arguments predicated on his guilty plea, accompanied by an
entourage of six attorneys. The lead counsel, the high-profile advocate
Danstan Omari, has represented Fred Matiang’i, the ex-Cabinet Secretary for
the Ministry of the Interior, and was presently representing televangelist
Ezekiel Odero, a wealthy Kenyan pastor accused of killing 400 of his
followers. Omari was also recently short-listed to fill the vacant role of
Director of Public Prosecutions for Kenya. Putra’s legal team was supported
by two other experienced lawyers from Nairobi area law firms.
The local media initially broke the news of Putra’s arrest, an alert that
originated not from law enforcement but through a press release from the
Kenya Airport Authority (KAA). They reported: “The vigilant Kenya Airports
Authority (KAA) security team at Terminal 1 C discovered the illicit cargo
during mandatory passenger screening.” The accompanying visuals displayed
KWS personnel alongside the seized luggage containing 23 tusk pieces, 18
worked ivory pieces, and 4 rings. The two pieces of Putra’s luggage were
found to contain 19.6 kg and 18.8 kg of ivory respectively. Notably absent
was the disclosure of his final destination, and his name was curiously
omitted from national media reports.
Subsequent revelations in the courtroom shed light on the saga. The
prosecution, addressing Senior Resident Magistrate Renee K. Kitagwa,
outlined the sequence of events culminating in Putra’s arrest. Detected by
vigilant airport security, leading to his arrest by JKIA police, identity
confirmation through his passport, UN security identity card, and boarding
pass, and the subsequent confiscation of the ivory by the Kenya Wildlife
Service. The ivory’s display in court underscored the gravitas of the
offense.
Omari opened the defense’s arguments. He began by telling the court that
his client had wanted initially to plead not guilty. Omari and the defense
team, however, advised Putra that due to stringent Kenyan wildlife crime
laws that were recently enacted (certainly subjective), he would be better
advised to change his plea.
Omari did not add that there were other advantages to a guilty plea. First
of all, a guilty plea would likely cap any further investigation, important
if this was an organized crime. Secondly, a guilty plea allows the facts of
the case to be read into court by the overworked prosecutor, who while
having many other cases to handle, may only remember the basic facts
thereby translating into a lighter sentence.
Omari stated before the court that his client, Putra, an Indonesian police
officer and a UN security officer in the Central African Republic, was
arrested while transitioning flights. At that time, Putra was moving from a
Kenya Airways flight from Bangui to Nairobi to a Qatar Airways flight bound
for Jakarta, Indonesia. The defense explained that the ivory found in
Putra’s possession was intended as a traditional dowry gift, in line with
his cultural practices. Omari contended that the ivory trade is not illegal
in the Central African Republic—a claim that is incorrect—and asserted that
Putra was unaware that he was breaking any laws. Moreover, Omari argued
that Putra had not planned to pass through Nairobi or its international
airport. He highlighted that the ivory, placed openly in a polythene bag
within the baggage, was not concealed, suggesting no attempt at smuggling
by the accused.
Omari introduced two observers to the court, one being the head of Criminal
Investigations in Indonesia and the other a colleague.
The defense team presented a unified argument in mitigation: their client,
an exemplary police officer subject to thorough vetting for his current
role, was unwittingly caught in an unfortunate situation. They emphasized
his lack of prior offenses, his ignorance of the law regarding his actions,
and his profound regret. They proposed that, given these factors,
deportation coupled with a potential fine would be a fitting sentence. The
proceedings took a turn when the sixth defense attorney was precluded from
speaking by Magistrate Kitagwa, who decided that the testimony presented
was sufficient.
The defense arguments went uncontested, though some points were incorrect.
Transporting ivory out of the Central African Republic requires a CITES
permit, an international agreement ensuring the survival of endangered
species amid global trade. In Indonesia, ivory trafficking is illegal under
Law No. 5/1990 and Article 55 of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to 5
years in jail or a fine of about $6,500.
Putra’s claim, relayed solely by his attorney, that he did not intend to
transit through Nairobi, was baseless, given the current travel protocols.
As far as Omari’s claim regarding Kenya’s stringent wildlife crime laws,
one wonders if Putra was aware that the typical sentence to come out of a
Kenyan court over the past 6 years has been a fine of $6,500 or in default
one year in jail. The lone exception was the case of Chinese national, Cao
Juano, who was arrested in July 2017 with 120 kilograms of ivory as she was
transiting to Hanoi from Zimbabwe. She was fined $40,000 or in default, one
year in jail. She had been in custody for seven months at the time of
sentencing which was included as time served.
Despite the defense’s narrative and the ‘ivory as dowry’ claim, Magistrate
Kitagwa seemed unconvinced. Six days later, on August 23, in a scarcely
attended courtroom, with only a clerk at her side, Omari, the accused, and
a representative of the Indonesian government present, she pronounced the
sentence. On the charge of Dealing in Wildlife Trophies, Putra was fined
$20,000, or in default 7 years imprisonment, and for Possession of Wildlife
Trophies, Putra received another fine of $20,000, or in default 5 years
imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently, meaning that both
sentences would run together simultaneously with 7 years being the longest
serving term in a Kenya prison. The following day, Putra was on a flight
out of Kenya.
The court faces a dilemma in setting fines that are both fair and
deterrent. Wealthy criminals or those linked to organized crime may see
fines as a mere cost of doing business. The circumstances suggest that
Putra’s case might involve more than a mere cultural misunderstanding.
Contrastingly, three individuals were recently sentenced to 10 years
without a fine for transporting a much smaller amount of ivory, showing an
inconsistency in sentencing.
Perhaps surprisingly, despite the initial media interest in Putra’s arrest,
there was no coverage of the conviction and sentencing. The lone outsider
to the proceedings was a representative from SEEJ-AFRICA, a small
organization that follows ivory prosecutions in Kenya. They were approached
and asked what it would take to not publish their report. Were other media
outlets asked the same?
The case prompts several inquiries: Have preventative lessons been
assimilated and disseminated to avoid future infractions? Will the airports
and agencies involved collaborate to exchange critical information and
intelligence?
The baffling security lapse that allowed two suitcases, each laden with
nearly 20 kilograms of unmistakable elephant ivory, to slip through x-ray
scanners and security measures demands scrutiny. It’s unclear at which
point in the journey this oversight occurred, especially since the flight
included a layover in Douala, Cameroon, and the arrest happened at Kenya’s
international airport only three hours post-arrival, moments before the
connecting Qatar Airlines flight. This raises the possibility that Putra
was not on the Bangui-Nairobi flight as assumed, or that the ivory was
handed to him at Kenya’s international airport. The integrity of baggage
handlers at the implicated airports is in question, as is whether Putra’s
United Nations identification was misused to evade security checks.
Further, his travel history could shed light on his activities, and the
claim—propagated solely by his attorney, Danstan Omari—that he had no
knowledge of passing through Kenya’s international airport, is patently
false and implausible for anyone familiar with international travel. This
claim may simply stem from a miscommunication.
Perhaps the essence of all these questions could be answered by just one.
Who actually paid the invoices for the most important ivory trafficker in
Kenyan history?
https://www.k24tv.co.ke/news/airport-authorities-foil-ivory-smuggling-attempt-at-jkia-117880/