Het proces tegen Victoire Ingabire is inmiddels in een
beslissende fase beland, met de nodige verwikkelingen.
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
Ingabire.
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.
14-4-2012
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.com
18-4-2012
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.
18-4-2012
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.
19-4-2012
State to close Ingabire case
By Edwin Musoni
Prosecution
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 Ingabire
By 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.
26-4-2012
