6 years later, the story of a Kenyan lawyer, Dola Indidis, who filed a petition with the International Court of Justice in The Hague, suggesting that the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ was unlawful has once again come back to life.
Not that his petition will finally be heard, the story has just came to the attention of most online readers recently.
Dola Indidis said the State of Israel among others should be held responsible, Kenyan news outlet the Nairobian reported some time ago.
His aim is to bring those responsible to justice. An admirable aim, no doubt.
To our knowledge, this case was closed for 2.000 years ago. Should his petition be taken seriously? More so, if we consider that this particular issue has such a significance to a large amount of people across the globe; and that Jesus’ views have had and still have such an impact on the way we act, the laws we have.
“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,” Indidis told Standard Media, a Kenyan news website. “His selective and malicious prosecution violated his human rights through judicial misconduct, abuse of office bias and prejudice.”
“The government for whom they acted still is answerable for their act,” Indidis told Kenya’s Citizen TV. “Pontius Pilate was acting under the government of Rome, which was headed by Caesar.”
Indidis went on to tell the news station that he would be relying on the Bible for evidence and that he thinks he has a good case.
According to Huffington Post, while revisiting a 2,000-year-old case will be a challenge, to say the least, the Religious News Service notes that Indidis is pointing to the trial of Joan of Arc as evidence that there is precedent for his request. (Joan of Arc was burned at the stake but the verdict in her case was reversed years after her death by a papal commission.)
Still, Columbia law professor Anthea Roberts explained to Time magazine’s blog Swampland that Indidis does not have much of a chance at even having his case being considered by the ICJ.
“When it comes to contentious cases, the International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction to hear claims that are brought by one state against another state,” she told the outlet. “As this claim is not brought by a state, the ICJ would lack jurisdiction over it.”
Indeed, when the website Legal Cheek reached out to the ICJ, they denied that they would be hearing the case, with a spokesperson reportedly telling the news outlet, “It is not even theoretically possible for us to consider this case.”
aaron@ugchristiannews.com
