Who says you can’t sue retroactively?
Dola Indidis, a lawyer from Kenya, told the Nairobian on Friday that he has petitioned the International Court of Justice in The Hague with his belief that the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ was unlawful, and that Israel, along with Roman Emperor Tiberius (42BC-37AD), Pontius Pilate, Jewish elders, King Herod, and the Republic of Italy should stand trial.
His proof? “Evidence today is on record in the bible, and you cannot discredit the bible,” he told Kenyan Citizen News. Despite the fact that those he wishes to take to court have been dead for 2000 years, Indidis believes that the governments they acted for should still be held accountable.
(Dola Indidis)
“I filed the case because it’s my duty to uphold the dignity of Jesus and I have gone to the ICJ to seek justice for the man from Nazareth,” he told the Nairobian. “His selective and malicious prosecution violated his human rights through judicial misconduct, abuse of office bias and prejudice.” Indidis names Italy and Israel due to their incorporation of laws of the Roman Empire when they gained independence. The same laws, Indidis says, that were in effect at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.
According to Shalom life He plans to challenge how Jesus was questioned during his trial, his prosecution, hearing and sentencing, the form of punishment he was given, and the substance of the information used to convict him. Indidis first filed the case with the High Court of Nairobi who, unsurprisingly, rejected it. He applied to the International Court of Justice afterwards, which performed a pre-trial panel to consider his case.
Indidis wants to establish what Jesus was charged with, and hopes that the court will decide “that the proceedings before the Roman courts were a nullity in law for they did not conform to the rule of law at the material time and any time thereafter.” Indidis says that when Jesus died he was not given a chance to be heard. “I am suing as a friend.”
Indidis shook off suggestion that the case might not be valid, saying "I know with a matter of fact and truth we have a good case with a high probability of success and I hope it is done in my lifetime."
The ICJ sees otherwise, with a spokesperson telling Legal Cheek: “The ICJ has no jurisdiction for such a case. The ICJ settles disputes between states. It is not even theoretically possible for us to consider this case."
Well at least he’s ambitious.
No comments:
Post a Comment