LAWYER Nicholas Kaufman, lead defense counsel for former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte in his International Criminal Court (ICC) case, has vehemently denied accusations of employing “delaying tactics” and addressed concerns regarding his past professional associations, including a meeting with Imelda Marcos.
In a recent written interview on July 29, 2025, shared by “Alvin & Tourism,” a Netherlands-based supporter of the former president, Kaufman provided detailed responses to questions surrounding Duterte’s ongoing legal battle at the ICC.
Addressing the delaying tactics allegation
Kaufman firmly pushed back against claims that he is intentionally stalling proceedings.
“I am stalling nothing,” he stated. He clarified that he would not pursue a request for interim release while being “prevented from accessing information which I believe to be crucial to obtaining that objective.”
While unable to elaborate on the precise nature of the information, he indicated that these delays are not attributable to the defense, emphasizing his commitment to thorough representation.
“I am not going to apologise for doing my job thoroughly even if it is not at the pace required by others,” Kaufman asserted, adding that the former President is “fully informed and consents to his team’s activity on his behalf.”
On loyalty and past clients
Responding to a question regarding a Forbes Africa article and potential conflicts of interest due to his previous clients, particularly a meeting with Imelda Marcos, Kaufman was unequivocal.
He stated that “The former President is fully aware of my former clients and also knows that my meeting with Imelda Marcos took place more than 13 years ago over a Chinese meal in Manila.”
He further noted that this meeting occurred “before the Duterte family was recognized as a political force to be reckoned with in the Philippines.”
Kaufman also revealed a recent meeting with Senator Imee Marcos, Imelda’s daughter, acknowledging her “invaluable assistance to the Filipino people in exposing the illegal actions taken by her own brother’s administration” through the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
He concluded this point by firmly stating, “There is no question of my loyalty to former President Duterte.”
Duterte’s awareness of the case and lawyer visits
Kaufman dismissed claims that former President Duterte is unaware of his case and that his lawyers are not visiting him as “baseless claims circulated by petty-minded and self-interested individuals.”
He directly addressed the interviewer, “As you know, Alvin, we visit the former President on a daily basis. You see us coming out of the prison regularly, and you are our best witness to the fact that these statements and rumours are malicious lies.”
The “crazy scheme” involving Dutch laws
Kaufman reiterated his previous characterization of a “crazy scheme” legal remedy involving Dutch laws, referring to an alleged initiative by Harry Roque to sue the Dutch Government for facilitating the rendition of the former President.
He deemed this a “big mistake” because “the release of the former President would require the cooperation of the Dutch Government – something unlikely to be forthcoming if they are being sued by the person concerned.”
Kaufman also stated that a Dutch lawyer severed contact with Roque upon learning he was “a fugitive from justice.”
He strongly criticized Roque’s persistence, claiming it “could very well have jeopardized the Defence’s efforts to release the former President.”
Kaufman made it clear that he would “find it hard to forgive him for that, and I refuse to entertain his ramblings.”
He advised Roque to focus on his own legal issues, specifically his appeal against the denial of his supposed refugee status, and stressed that neither the former President nor his immediate circle is interested in Roque as a lawyer.
“The former President has made it known that Roque should stop interfering in his case and return to the Philippines to sort out his own troubling legal issues.”
“Substantial grounds” for dismissal
Referring to his prior interview with ABS-CBN, Kaufman elaborated on what constitutes “substantial grounds” for the dismissal of the case against the former President before the confirmation of charges.
He explained that the Prosecution needs to convince the Pre-Trial Chamber judges that there are “substantial grounds to believe that the former President has committed the crimes of which he is accused.” This standard is lower than “beyond reasonable doubt” required at trial but higher than “reasonable suspicion” for arrest.
Kaufman noted a challenge for the defense: “credibility of witnesses and their motives for lying about the former President are given very little weight at confirmation.”
He added that the defense’s arguments will be primarily legal, focusing on demonstrating how elements of the imputed offenses are not met due to “lacking evidence or the evidence that does exist is so inherently contradictory that it cannot be relied on.”
No prosecution witnesses will be presented at this stage, limiting the defense’s ability to cross-examine.
Judicial recess and case developments
Regarding the judicial recess, Kaufman clarified that while there is a recess, “Consequential and urgent applications and decisions can be introduced at any stage.”
This suggests that developments in the case are not strictly on hold until late August.
Strategic Decision on Witnesses and Alibi
Finally, Kaufman explained the strategic decision not to present an alibi, invoke grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, or call witnesses during the confirmation hearing.
He reiterated that the confirmation of charges hearing is “limited in scope.” Presenting witnesses at this stage would be a “mistake” as it would “alert the Prosecution as to its ammunition should the case go to trial.”
He noted that only a few witnesses currently incriminate the former President, in contrast to “many potential Defence witnesses who held positions of consequence and who will be prepared to rally to the former President’s side to dismiss the lies of the Prosecution’s witnesses.”
Kaufman also addressed the alibi, stating it’s unnecessary since “the Prosecution is not alleging the former President’s direct involvement in criminality.”
He described the Prosecution’s case as a “fantastic theory of indirect co-perpetration,” which posits that crimes were committed by others “subordinated to the former President’s supposed domineering control” and enacted pursuant to an “elaborate criminal plan.”
The defense, he concluded, will demonstrate this “bizarre, highly convoluted and speculative theory of responsibility to be thoroughly baseless.”
Photo courtesy of YNet News
