The structure of the International Criminal Court which has even allowed victims to be represented to continue proceedings despite the prosecutor’s admission of insufficient evidence, reflects a system that cares little for the validity of the case, but rather for the image of the continuing campaigns against impunity. For the Prosecutor, who chose not to make his notorious video speeches to explain the context in which the PTB was released, it is of little consequence that the allegations contained in them are based almost exclusively on the testimony of people who admitted to lying and who were removed by the prosecution. As predicted by Mr. Kenyatta’s defence, and as a result of the prosecution’s deliberate misrepresentation to the PTB of the evidence underlying the allegations, the document was misinterpreted by the media and resulted in the publication of defamatory statements about Mr. Kenyatta. The lack of verification of the credibility of witnesses, the deliberate blindness to the obvious fabrication of stories by witnesses in the course of handling a case, constituted an inappropriate campaign to prosecute a person at all costs. The paper focuses on the nature of the evidence that the defence proved to be false and whose disclosure ultimately led to the failure of the case. The OPA presents a case of failure based on lying witnesses; it is a document that has neither credibility nor validity. Mr. Kenyatta’s defense today released a report examining the main aspects of the failure of the ICC’s proceedings against Mr. Kenyatta. The rights to ensure the fairness of the prosecution of an accused, which would be expected in any jurisdiction, obviously did not apply in his case. The report concludes that “the trial of Uhuru Kenyatta before the ICC was a miscarriage of justice”. Such behaviour by the prosecutors would be considered a blatant abuse of power in most reasonable jurisdictions. It is not easy to ignore the impact of such behaviour on a person’s private and public life.