Eerst is op 13 april uitspraak gedaan over het aparte proces
dat Ingabire had aangespannen tegen de staat Rwanda, natuurlijk met als
uitkomst dat de staat Rwanda gelijk heeft. Ingabire vond dat ze niet
veroordeeld kon worden volgens een wet uit 2008 voor daden gedaan in 2007.
Klinkt logisch, maar het is toch verworpen. In het artikel van The New Times
lijkt mij de reden van het verwerpen van de eis nogal mager. Het is verworpen
omdat Ingabire verzuimd heeft om een kopie van de desbetreffende wet als
bijlage toe te voegen aan de processtukken.
Misschien heeft de Nederlandse hulp aan het juridische
systeem van Rwanda ook wel gezorgd voor de introductie van het fenomeen ‘vormfout’.
Waarin een land als Nederland niet groot kan zijn!Daarna heeft Ingabire besloten om niet meer aanwezig te zijn op haar eigenlijke proces en ook haar advocaten verboden om nog namens haar op te treden. Zij had geen vertrouwen meer in een eerlijke procesgang. Ondanks deze boycot heeft men besloten om gewoon door te gaan met het proces. Met als uitkomst dat er levenslang tegen haar is geëist.
Ik ben benieuwd of haar advocaten inderdaad niet meet aanwezig zijn geweest. De naam Edwards valt ook nergens meer te horen, dus ik vraag me af of het nog wel in Rwanda is geweest voor het proces. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat men het toegelaten heeft dat Ingabire zelf niet meer in de zaal heeft hoeven verschijnen. Zij zal toch wel zelf fysiek de eis tegen haar aangehoord moeten hebben.
Het duurt nog even voordat er uitspraak gedaan wordt. Dat zal gebeuren op 27 juni. Tja, alles wijst erop dat het ook gewoon levenslang wordt. Daar zit je dan in, levenslang in een gevangenis in Rwanda. En je familie woont nog in Nederland en durft waarschijnlijk uit vrees niet eens op bezoek te komen. Dat wordt een eenzaam bestaan!
High court rejects Ingabire petition
By Bosco R. Asiimwe &
Edwin Musoni
The Supreme
Court, yesterday, rejected a case filed by the embattled leader of FDU-Inkingi,
Victoire Umuhoza Ingabire, challenging the use of the law against genocide
ideology in her ongoing trial.
Ingabire, who faces three counts, including propagating genocide ideology, last month petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking interpretation of the genocide ideology law and if it is relevant in her case.
Ingabire had claimed that the prosecution is using the law on genocide ideology retrospectively, since it came into force in 2008, on crimes she allegedly committed in 2007.
However, the nine-member jury, headed by Deputy Chief Justice, Zainabu Kayitesi, in its ruling, said Ingabire did not fulfil all the legal requirements while filing her petition.
Ingabire, through her lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, had told court that she had failed to secure a copy of the 2008 law on genocide, which was also supposed to be attached to her plea.
Prosecution had also requested that Ingabire’s case be rejected, noting it also lacked the necessary legal backing.
“The court makes its ruling on the basis of evidence (produced before court) submitted,” Justice Marie Theresa Mukakarisa stated while reading the verdict.
According to the ruling, giving Ingabire another chance to produce the missing documents to support her case or to resume the case was immaterial.
“Based on the fact that Ingabire’s plea does not fulfil legal requirements, the court rules that her plea be rejected,” she judge said.
The law against genocide ideology, which Ingabire was challenging, is currently undergoing amendment but prosecution insisted the review had no bearing on the proceedings of the case.
Ingabire faces charges of terrorism, promoting ethnic divisionism and propagating genocide ideology.
In the case, she is accused along with four other suspects who have all pleaded guilty.
Ingabire is also accused of having colluded with the four, who are former officers with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, to form a military activities aimed at destabilising the country.
Based in DRC, FDLR is composed of elements largely blamed for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, which claimed more than a million lives.
14-4-2012Ingabire, who faces three counts, including propagating genocide ideology, last month petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking interpretation of the genocide ideology law and if it is relevant in her case.
Ingabire had claimed that the prosecution is using the law on genocide ideology retrospectively, since it came into force in 2008, on crimes she allegedly committed in 2007.
However, the nine-member jury, headed by Deputy Chief Justice, Zainabu Kayitesi, in its ruling, said Ingabire did not fulfil all the legal requirements while filing her petition.
Ingabire, through her lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, had told court that she had failed to secure a copy of the 2008 law on genocide, which was also supposed to be attached to her plea.
Prosecution had also requested that Ingabire’s case be rejected, noting it also lacked the necessary legal backing.
“The court makes its ruling on the basis of evidence (produced before court) submitted,” Justice Marie Theresa Mukakarisa stated while reading the verdict.
According to the ruling, giving Ingabire another chance to produce the missing documents to support her case or to resume the case was immaterial.
“Based on the fact that Ingabire’s plea does not fulfil legal requirements, the court rules that her plea be rejected,” she judge said.
The law against genocide ideology, which Ingabire was challenging, is currently undergoing amendment but prosecution insisted the review had no bearing on the proceedings of the case.
Ingabire faces charges of terrorism, promoting ethnic divisionism and propagating genocide ideology.
In the case, she is accused along with four other suspects who have all pleaded guilty.
Ingabire is also accused of having colluded with the four, who are former officers with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, to form a military activities aimed at destabilising the country.
Based in DRC, FDLR is composed of elements largely blamed for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, which claimed more than a million lives.
Our court system must be given the respect it deserves
Sunny
Ntayombya
It’s times
like these that I regret not joining the legal profession, having instead opted
for a career in the media. I would have loved being part of the Leon Mugesera
and Victoire Ingabire and Co cases because of the controversial nature of these
trials.
It’s not
every day that a demagogue, infamous for calling for the murder of a section of
populace, is expelled from a western nation and delivered into the arms of the
victims. And, it isnt everyday that the constitutionality of a law is challenged
by a defendant, needing the involvement of the Supreme Court. It’s exciting
times.However, I have been somewhat disappointed in the antic of the defendants, Mugesera and Ingabire. First, Mugesera asks that the trial be held in French, despite the fact that he is fluent in Kinyarwanda and his 1992 incendiary speech, which preceded his flight to first Spain and then Canada, was in his mother tongue. Certainly, he must have been playing a silly joke on all of us when he made this request. Really, did he really think that the Court would roll over and allow him to make a mockery of the proceedings? But at least he hasn’t childishly thrown his toys out of the pram and refused to ‘play’. He is letting the case proceed in his roundabout way. I can’t say the same about Mrs. Ingabire.
She’s facing serious charges of terrorism, endangering state security and genocide ideology. Instead of doing everything possible to defend herself of the charges, she has decided that it’s a good idea to withdraw from the case and dismiss her lawyers. I don’t know what advice she is getting but all I can say is that it is bad. Yes, she will get a few headlines, but at the end of the day the charges won’t mysteriously disappear. Nor will the evidence vanish either. So, Mrs. Ingabire, play for the cameras all you like, at the end of the day nothing will change.
I’m personally sick and tired of hearing the ‘Rwandan legal system is a dud’ mantra because it simply isn’t supported by facts. Why then would the ICTR, the European Court of Justice, the Swedish, Dutch, American and Canadian court systems send Genocide fugitives back to Rwanda for trial? None of these organisations and nations would’ve sent Mugesera, Jean Uwinkindi, Enos Kagaba and Jean-Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka to Rwanda if they believed that they would not get a fair trial here. She is playing for the cameras, which is her right. But, in my humble opinion, she is disrespecting the entire judiciary. She must not be allowed to get away with it. The trial must continue, with or without her.
On another topic altogether, the World Bank has confirmed the appointment of Jim Yong Kim as its new president. His opponent, Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was the first person to seriously challenge a US candidate since the organisation was founded at the Bretton Woods conference after the Second World War.
Ahead of the announcement, Okonjo-Iweala said: “You know this thing is not really being decided on merit. It is voting with political weight and shares, and therefore the United States will get it,” she told reporters.
I personally thought that her candidacy was a huge joke. I found it amusing that she thought that she could compete against a candidate supported by the Bank’s majority shareholder. Instead of complaining about US and European influence, what developing nations must do is earn the right to sit at the table. If you want to have a majority shareholding, you must buy the shares. You cannot be a minority shareholder and then want to choose a company’s CEO.
What
developing nations need to do is justify the ‘noise’ they are making. Pull more
people out of poverty, innovate, have strong systems and become major players
at the international level. Only then will you EARN the right to play with the
big boys.
Contact
email:
sunny.ntayombya[at]newtimes.co.rw Twitter: [at]sannykigali Blog:
sunnyntayombya.wordpress.com18-4-2012
Court to proceed with Ingabire trial despite boycott
By Our Reporter
The High
Court, today ruled that it would continue with the trial of Victoire Ingabire
with or without her presence.
The leader of a yet-to-be registered FDU-Inkingi party, Ingabire, had on Monday this week notified court that she would boycott her trial, citing lack of judicial independence.
18-4-2012The leader of a yet-to-be registered FDU-Inkingi party, Ingabire, had on Monday this week notified court that she would boycott her trial, citing lack of judicial independence.
Ingabire trial to continue
By Edwin Musoni
Ingabire (L)
with her lawyer Gatera Gashabana
High Court,
yesterday, ruled that it would continue with the trial of Victoire Ingabire
with or without her presence in court.
Ingabire, who is facing three charges, had on Monday notified court that she would boycott her trial for the rest of the proceedings, citing lack of judicial independence.
She is accused of threatening state security, Genocide denial and promoting ethnic division.
Ingabire had also instructed her lawyers to stay away on grounds that the prosecution seized some documents from a cell of a defence witness, Lt. Col. Michel Habimana.
The witness, who is a former spokesperson of FDLR, is serving a life sentence handed to him by a Gacaca court for his role in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
Prosecution had earlier watered down Ingabire’s reasons to boycott the court proceedings, arguing that her decision was a result of embarrassment due to the overwhelming evidence against her.
Defence witness, Habimana, claimed some documents were seized from his cell without his consent.
Responding to the claims, Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga said there was no law that was violated as the defence may claim.
“What happened is that the prison authority acting on our request conducted a search in the prison cell where a prisoner witness stays. The document was discovered and it was produced in court to make a point about suspected irregular contacts prior to the testimony.
“There were reasonable grounds to believe the testimony had been irregularly pre-arranged. The document was seized, not stolen and it was produced in Court,” said Ngoga.
“This defendant has been through her prolonged defence for months and the allegations against the judiciary cannot be a new discovery when the case is almost over. It is not unprecedented that defendants boycott trials in national and international courts,” said Ngoga
Habimana was first invited to court on April 4, as a defence witness for Ingabire but court demanded for his complete identity, from whence it was identified that he was serving a life sentence and had lost his civil liberties.
The prosecutor, therefore, submitted that Habimana could not give sworn evidence as a credible witness before court.
Having lost his civil liberties, Habimana has been testifying under no oath, meaning he was not to be held liable for anything he said in court.
Court agreed. However, Habimana was able to be heard as a court informer.
Prosecution had requested the judge to either force Ingabire to return to court or appoint a special lawyer to represent her interest as it happened in the case of Jean Bosco Barayagwiza at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania.
Barayagwiza boycotted the ICTR and the court appointed a special defence counsel to represent him all through the proceedings until his conviction and sentencing.
He is currently serving a 32-year prison sentence.
However, yesterday, Justice Marie Theresa Mukakarisa, rejected both prosecution’s requests and said the hearing would continue in her absence if she so wishes.
“The law provides that if one of the parties in court is summoned and does not appear in court, the proceedings continue without them. In this case, the court registrar will inform Ingabire whenever her case is due and it is upon her to decide on whether she wants to come or not but she will not be forced to come to court,” Mukakarisa ruled.
According to the judge, jurisprudence set in Barayagwiza’s trial cannot apply in Ingabire’s case, considering the fact that the former announced the boycott in the initial stages of the trial.
“Ingabire’s case is different. The charges have been read to her and she has defended herself on them. There is no need for a special lawyer for her,” ruled Mukakarisa.
The court will resume on Monday with prosecution making their final submission and seeking sentence against the accused.
19-4-2012Ingabire, who is facing three charges, had on Monday notified court that she would boycott her trial for the rest of the proceedings, citing lack of judicial independence.
She is accused of threatening state security, Genocide denial and promoting ethnic division.
Ingabire had also instructed her lawyers to stay away on grounds that the prosecution seized some documents from a cell of a defence witness, Lt. Col. Michel Habimana.
The witness, who is a former spokesperson of FDLR, is serving a life sentence handed to him by a Gacaca court for his role in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
Prosecution had earlier watered down Ingabire’s reasons to boycott the court proceedings, arguing that her decision was a result of embarrassment due to the overwhelming evidence against her.
Defence witness, Habimana, claimed some documents were seized from his cell without his consent.
Responding to the claims, Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga said there was no law that was violated as the defence may claim.
“What happened is that the prison authority acting on our request conducted a search in the prison cell where a prisoner witness stays. The document was discovered and it was produced in court to make a point about suspected irregular contacts prior to the testimony.
“There were reasonable grounds to believe the testimony had been irregularly pre-arranged. The document was seized, not stolen and it was produced in Court,” said Ngoga.
“This defendant has been through her prolonged defence for months and the allegations against the judiciary cannot be a new discovery when the case is almost over. It is not unprecedented that defendants boycott trials in national and international courts,” said Ngoga
Habimana was first invited to court on April 4, as a defence witness for Ingabire but court demanded for his complete identity, from whence it was identified that he was serving a life sentence and had lost his civil liberties.
The prosecutor, therefore, submitted that Habimana could not give sworn evidence as a credible witness before court.
Having lost his civil liberties, Habimana has been testifying under no oath, meaning he was not to be held liable for anything he said in court.
Court agreed. However, Habimana was able to be heard as a court informer.
Prosecution had requested the judge to either force Ingabire to return to court or appoint a special lawyer to represent her interest as it happened in the case of Jean Bosco Barayagwiza at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania.
Barayagwiza boycotted the ICTR and the court appointed a special defence counsel to represent him all through the proceedings until his conviction and sentencing.
He is currently serving a 32-year prison sentence.
However, yesterday, Justice Marie Theresa Mukakarisa, rejected both prosecution’s requests and said the hearing would continue in her absence if she so wishes.
“The law provides that if one of the parties in court is summoned and does not appear in court, the proceedings continue without them. In this case, the court registrar will inform Ingabire whenever her case is due and it is upon her to decide on whether she wants to come or not but she will not be forced to come to court,” Mukakarisa ruled.
According to the judge, jurisprudence set in Barayagwiza’s trial cannot apply in Ingabire’s case, considering the fact that the former announced the boycott in the initial stages of the trial.
“Ingabire’s case is different. The charges have been read to her and she has defended herself on them. There is no need for a special lawyer for her,” ruled Mukakarisa.
The court will resume on Monday with prosecution making their final submission and seeking sentence against the accused.
State to close Ingabire case
By Edwin MusoniProsecution will today make its final submissions before the High Court in a case involving Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and her co-accused.
The court proceedings are currently being held in the absence of Ingabire, the lead defendant, after she boycotted the trial a week ago.
She faces charges of terrorism, promoting ethnic division and propagating genocide ideology.
While appearing before court earlier, Ingabire had denied claims that she was sending money to members of FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) who were working with her.
FDLR is a terrorist outfit operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and is mainly made up of elements responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
“Ingabire claimed she never sent the money to DRC, but Vital Uwumuremyi, one of the co-accused, says that Ingabire is the one who always gave him the access code to get the money from Western Union,” charged prosecutor Alain Mukuralinda.
“This is the same case with Phocas Nsabimana, a witness who also confirmed that Ingabire often sent money,” he added.
According to the Prosecution, one Specioza Mujawayezu, another witness, told the investigators that on several occasions, Ingabire asked her to send money to an unidentified person in DRC.
Others who sent money to DRC on the request of Ingabire include her daughter, husband and one Regina Uwineza, according to prosecutors.
“It is evident that the money she was sending to the Congo jungles was aimed at establishing a terrorist group because one of the documents seized from her house in The Netherlands clearly shows how they intended to do that while Uwumuremyi also attested to it,” said Mukuralinda.
Ingabire is also on record saying if the leadership in Rwanda doesn’t change then a lot more blood would be shed than that of 1994. More than a million people were killed then.
Ingabire had denied knowledge of the documents seized from her home in the Netherlands but could not explain how they ended up in her residence.
The documents are part of the evidence against her sent to Rwanda by the Dutch government.
“Before we received the documents, we had interrogated the co-accused and the information they gave to the court clearly matches what was found in Ingabire’s home in the Netherlands,” Mukuralinda told court.
Ingabire’s co-accused include Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta who is accused of being a member a terrorist group and planning activities aimed at causing state insecurity.
Karuta, a former FDLR officer, pleaded guilty.
He defected from FDLR together with Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Col Noel Habiyakare who are also among the co-accused, joined hands to form the FDU-Inkingi’s armed wing, CDF-Inkingi, whose main aim was to destabilise security in the country.
The two officers also pleaded guilty of having acted in cohort with Ingabire to form the rebel movement.
The fourth accomplice in the Ingabire case is Vital Uwumuremyi, a former member of FDLR, and also entered a guilty plea to the three counts against him.
Meanwhile, in a separate interview, Mukuralinda said that apart from Ingabire, the other accomplices are likely to get a lenient sentence considering they pleaded guilty and requested for parole if they are sentenced.
The prosecuting team is made up of Mukuralinda, Bonavanture Ruberwa and deputy Prosecutor General, Alphonse Hitiyaremye.
25-4-2012
Prosecution seeks life for IngabireBy Edwin Musoni
Prosecution
is seeking the maximum sentence, life, for Victoire Ingabire on charges of
terrorism, threatening state security, divisionism, genocide ideology and
denial.
Ingabire is also charged with financing and formatting a terrorist and armed group, and planning to cause state insecurity and divisionism.
She is jointly accused with former commanders in the D.R. Congo based Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, Maj. Vital Uwumuremyi, Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Col Noel Habiyakare.
“We also request a jail sentence of ten years to be handed to each of the four accomplices,” said Deputy Prosecutor General, Alphonse Hitiyaremye,
Hitiyaremye, however, requested the judge to consider that the four accomplices entered a guilt plea from the beginning of the case and have since been cooperative in the course of the entire trial.
Ingabire secret plea bargain
Ingabire recently served the High Court with a letter claiming that the Prosecutor General summoned her to his offices and told her she had become a victim for causing a political stand-off in the country.
The Court requested the Prosecution team made up of Hitiyaramye, Alain Mukuralinda and Bonaventure Ruberwa to explain the letter.
“First of all, I would like to complain the very unprofessional manner in which Ingabire’s lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, has conducted himself. He stood by his client while she was lying to the court yet he clearly knew that Ingabire requested for an appointment with the Prosecutor General,” said Ruberwa.
He added that Gashabana first met with the Prosecutor General and informed him that his client wished to meet with him in private.
The Prosecutor General told Gashabana to inform Ingabire that she can only meet him if she was accompanied by her lawyer, he added.
“Gashabana returned to the Prosecutor General and informed him that Ingabire had accepted to come with her lawyer,” Ruberwa told the Court.
“This is clear. Gashabana fixed the appointment. The court can prove that by summoning him.”
“During the meeting between the suspect and the Prosecutor General, Ingabire ordered her lawyer, Gashabana, out of the meeting room claiming that what she wanted to talk about didn’t concern him and was confidential,” Ruberwa added.
The agreement was that details of the meeting were to remain confidential She wanted to plead guilty on some charges and get a lenient sentence but both parties never reached an agreement,” Ruberwa explained.
Presidential amnesty
Meanwhile, yesterday’s hearing, the prosecution produced a hand written copy of Ingabire’s letter to the President requesting for clemency.
The title of the letter written in Kinyarwanda reads; “Explanation, asking for pardon, and requesting to be released.” The prosecution, however, did not reveal the contents of the letter but gave its copies to the judges.
“This letter deserves no consideration. Ingabire was asking for forgiveness in the letter, but pleading not guilty in court. If she was not guilty, then why was she asking for pardon?” Ruberwa pondered.
The Prosecutors said the President could not forgive someone before a court ruling.
26-4-2012Ingabire is also charged with financing and formatting a terrorist and armed group, and planning to cause state insecurity and divisionism.
She is jointly accused with former commanders in the D.R. Congo based Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, Maj. Vital Uwumuremyi, Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Col Noel Habiyakare.
“We also request a jail sentence of ten years to be handed to each of the four accomplices,” said Deputy Prosecutor General, Alphonse Hitiyaremye,
Hitiyaremye, however, requested the judge to consider that the four accomplices entered a guilt plea from the beginning of the case and have since been cooperative in the course of the entire trial.
Ingabire secret plea bargain
Ingabire recently served the High Court with a letter claiming that the Prosecutor General summoned her to his offices and told her she had become a victim for causing a political stand-off in the country.
The Court requested the Prosecution team made up of Hitiyaramye, Alain Mukuralinda and Bonaventure Ruberwa to explain the letter.
“First of all, I would like to complain the very unprofessional manner in which Ingabire’s lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, has conducted himself. He stood by his client while she was lying to the court yet he clearly knew that Ingabire requested for an appointment with the Prosecutor General,” said Ruberwa.
He added that Gashabana first met with the Prosecutor General and informed him that his client wished to meet with him in private.
The Prosecutor General told Gashabana to inform Ingabire that she can only meet him if she was accompanied by her lawyer, he added.
“Gashabana returned to the Prosecutor General and informed him that Ingabire had accepted to come with her lawyer,” Ruberwa told the Court.
“This is clear. Gashabana fixed the appointment. The court can prove that by summoning him.”
“During the meeting between the suspect and the Prosecutor General, Ingabire ordered her lawyer, Gashabana, out of the meeting room claiming that what she wanted to talk about didn’t concern him and was confidential,” Ruberwa added.
The agreement was that details of the meeting were to remain confidential She wanted to plead guilty on some charges and get a lenient sentence but both parties never reached an agreement,” Ruberwa explained.
Presidential amnesty
Meanwhile, yesterday’s hearing, the prosecution produced a hand written copy of Ingabire’s letter to the President requesting for clemency.
The title of the letter written in Kinyarwanda reads; “Explanation, asking for pardon, and requesting to be released.” The prosecution, however, did not reveal the contents of the letter but gave its copies to the judges.
“This letter deserves no consideration. Ingabire was asking for forgiveness in the letter, but pleading not guilty in court. If she was not guilty, then why was she asking for pardon?” Ruberwa pondered.
The Prosecutors said the President could not forgive someone before a court ruling.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten