Het proces tegen Ingabire volgens de krant – deel 4

Het proces tegen Victoire Ingabire is nog steeds lekker bezig, met horten en stoten. En soms stond over dit proces iets in The New Times. De laatste maanden vooral met berichtgeving over de documenten die in Nederland zijn verzameld. Dit is er de laatste maanden gepubliceerd.

Dutch court approves transfer of Victoire Ingabire evidence

By Charles Kwizera

The petition to block the transfer of documents incriminating Victoire Ingabire was yesterday dismissed by a Dutch court ending a long standing tug-of-war between the prosecution and Ingabire’s husband, Lin Muyizere.

Prosecution alleges that the evidence includes several documents discovered during a search of Ingabire’s residence in Holland that contain proof of her subversive activities, telephone records that indicate her past communication with militia commanders, as well as testimonies of people in The Netherlands who worked alongside the accused.

According to a note verbale sent by the Dutch Embassy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seen by The New Times, the court in The Hague found the objections not admissible.

“Today, the court in The Hague has passed judgment in the case of Muyizere against the State of The Netherlands on the issue of sending the evidence collected in The Netherlands to Rwanda. The judge ruled that the objections of Muyizere were not admissible,” yesterday’s note reads in part.

“This means that all legal obstacles for sending the said evidence to Rwanda have been cleared. The embassy will keep you informed about the progress with regard to further steps that are required before the actual dispatch of the material to Rwanda”.

Prosecutors had earlier accused Ingabire of attempting to sabotage the transfer process, warning that it could delay her case as the court would not go ahead without the evidence.

Ingabire and her four co-accused are currently on trial on charges of; forming an armed group, terrorism, complicity to commit terrorism, and genocide ideology, among others.

The issue of the evidence in question was first raised on September 5, when prosecution requested the court to adjourn the hearing, pending the transfer of the documents. 

Prosecution spokesperson Alain Mukurarinda, told The New Times that the legal procedures were now over but are awaiting political procedures before the transfer of the documents.

“We are not very sure when the transfer will mature, but what remains is the political operandi which we think will not take too long,” said Mukurarinda.

Alice Rulisa, the presiding judge in the case that has been going on for th last two months, had earlier ruled that the case would have to adjourn pending the transfer of the evidence.

Ingabire’s co-accused, all former senior members of the DRC-based FDLR militia – linked to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi – are among those who testified against her, insisting she directly worked with them when they were still members of the terrorist group prior to their arrest.

5-11-2011

 Holland hands over Ingabire evidence

By Charles Kwizera

The long awaited pieces of evidence incriminating Victoire Ingabire were at last handed over to the prosecution by the Dutch Ambassador, Frans Makken, yesterday.

In a press statement, prosecution spokesman, Alain Mukuralinda, said they received the documents after long joint efforts between the prosecution in Kigali and their counterparts in Holland.

The evidence includes several documents discovered during a search of Ingabire’s residence in Holland. Prosecution alleges that they contain proof of her subversive activities, telephone records that indicate her past communication with militia commanders. They also include testimonies of people in The Netherlands who worked alongside the accused.

The transfer comes after a protracted battle between the prosecution in the Netherlands and Ingabire’s husband, who, on several accounts, attempted to block the transfer of the documents. The Court in The Hague earlier this month threw out a legal suit and ordered that the documents be transferred to Rwanda.

Ingabire and her four co-accused are currently on trial on charges of; forming an armed group, terrorism, complicity to commit terrorism, and genocide ideology, among others.

The issue of the evidence in question was first raised on September 5, when prosecution requested the court to adjourn the hearing pending the transfer of the documents. 

Alice Rulisa, the presiding judge in the trial that has been going on for the last two months, had earlier ruled that the case would have to adjourn pending the transfer of the evidence.

Ingabire’s co-accused, all former senior members of the DRC-based FDLR militia – linked to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi – are among those who testified against her, insisting she directly worked with them when they were still members of the terrorist group.

15-11-2011

We have fresh evidence pinning Rusesabagina-Ngoga

By Edmund Kagire

The National Public Prosecution Authority (NPPA) has obtained new evidence implicating Paul Rusesabagina in financing terror activities.

Speaking to The New Times, Prosecutor General, Martin Ngoga said that the new evidence confirms earlier proof that the self-exiled politician has been financing the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). Evidence obtained  include numerous email correspondences between Rusesabagina and  Providence Rubingisa, a Rwandan based in the United States, and top FDLR commanders discussing  plans to cause insecurity in Rwanda.

 “We  have continued to investigate Rusesabagina and have recently uncovered documents that actually reveal discussions on how to continue providing material support to FDLR, including weapons, and explicit conversations on causing insecurity in Rwanda to discredit the government of Rwanda.”

Rusesabagina has been linked to Western Union money transfers to the FDLR, which were forwarded to law enforcement agencies in the US and Belgium. Belgian Police in June questioned Rusesabagina in the presence of a rogatory committee from Rwanda.

Ngoga said that Rwanda is contemplating the next step in Belgium which may likely be initiating a process that could lead to possible prosecution in Belgium, since Rusesabagina is a Belgian national, adding that Rwanda would find no problem with that.

The US State Department lists ALIR, which changed names to FDLR, on the list of terrorist organisations and has indicated that it is “an administrative error” not to have FDLR on the list.

Some of the FDLR commanders that Rusesabagina has communicated with have since been arrested and are charged alongside terrorism suspect, Victoire Ingabire.

Last year in October, the Prosecution revealed that Rusesabagina sent funds through Western Union to two FDLR top commanders. The funds were meant for recruiting fighters for a new terrorist organization known as Coalition of Democratic forces (CDF) which would form a military wing of the FDU-Inkingi led by Ingabire.

 Ngoga said that legally, the issue isn’t about US not having the name FDLR on the list of terrorist organisations but rather the threat posed by the group, confirmed by the fact that FDLR’s top leaders of FDLR are currently on trial at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

“There are several UN Security Council resolutions that categorise FDLR as a terrorist organisation that is being fought and must be fought by the International community.”

2-12-2011

Prosecution presents Dutch evidence against Ingabire

By Edmund Musoni


Victoire Ingabire sharing a light moment with her lawyer Gatera Gashabana as she appeared before court. The New Times / file

Evidence from the Netherlands pinning the embattled leader of FDU-Inkingi, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, was tabled before the Kigali High Court this morning.

However, before the evidence could be read out, Ingabire objected, requesting the presiding judge, Alice Rulisa, to give her and her team more time to review the evidence.

“I got a copy of this evidence implicating me last week… I request to be granted one month to go through the document and prepare my defence,” Ingabire told the court. The request was granted.

Ingabire faces charges of terrorism, promoting ethnic divisionism and propagating genocide ideology.

Read tomorrows issue for more details

14-2-2012

Prosecution unearths more evidence against Ingabire

By Edmund Musoni

Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza.

The prosecution has discovered new evidence from the Netherlands pinning Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, the embattled leader of the yet-to-be-registered political party, FDU-Inkingi, who yesterday reappeared before the High Court in Kigali.

the judge granted Ingabire one month to review the evidence against her.

Before the evidence could be disclosed in court, Ingabire objected, requesting the presiding judge, Alice Rulisa, to give her more time to review the evidence.

“I got a copy of this evidence implicating me last week… I request to be granted one month to go through the document and prepare my defence,” Ingabire told court.

Ingabire faces terrorism charges with the prosecution alleging that she collaborated with senior members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) to form a military wing known as Coalition of Defence Forces (CDF), to destabilise the country

She is also accused of promoting ethnic divisionism, propagating the genocide ideology and trivialising the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

The prosecution team made up of national prosecutors Bonaventure Ruberwa and Alain Mukuralinda, said they were ready to table the evidence any time Ingabire was ready.

Following a brief session, the judge granted Ingabire one month to review the evidence against her.

However, after the court session, Ingabire’s lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, insisted that he found nothing new in the Dutch document implicating his client.

Ingabire was arrested in October 2010; she has since been accused by prosecution of delaying her trial by continuous requests for adjournment.

She is jointly accused with four former FDLR combatants; Major Vital Uwumuremyi, Colonel Tharcisse Nditurende, Lieutenant Colonel Jean Marie Karuta and Lt Colonel Noel Habiyaremye – who have all pleaded guilty.

15-2-2012

Ingabire pinned down on ties with co-accused

By Edmund Kagire

The embattled leader of FDU-Inkingi, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza was yesterday pinned on her earlier connections with one of her co-accused Maj. Vital Uwumuremyi, despite her denying any alliances with the four men she is charged with.

As the case resumed for the second day after reopening, Ingabire, who was standing in the dock with Maj. Uwumuremyi, was put to task by the High Court Judge to explain her earlier acquaintances with the former member of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).

Ingabire together with Uwumuremyi and three others face charges of charges related to forming a terrorist organisation with the aim of causing state insecurity.

Prosecution alleges that Ingabire and the four former FDLR commanders had formed an armed group, Coalitionof Defence Forces (CDF)-an armed wing of her party, based in the DR Congo, with the aim of causing insecurity in Rwanda.

She denies the charges. The four men have however pleaded guilty and begged the court for leniency.

The High Court heard how Ingabire worked with Maj. Uwumuremyi, a former Ex-FAR and a commander before and after she arrived in the country at the beginning of 2010.

Yesterday’s proceedings were based on the evidence presented by Prosecution that Ingabire, on several occasions, met with Uwumuremyi with the aim of setting up a training program for CDF rebels.

The Prosecution further alleges that Ingabire sent funds to and met Uwumuremyi and two other former FDLR commanders; Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt. Col Noel Habiyambere and Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, in Kinshasa and Brazzaville, to plan their activities.

The talking point yesterday was that upon arrival, Ingabire was in close consultation with Uwumuremyi, who was responsible for securing her a house, supervise the repairs, get her a house help and even secure security guards.

Ingabire however denies any knowledge that she was dealing with Uwumuremyi, who was working for her under the alias Gaspard Kalimba.

The Judge asked Ingabire to explain how she could trust the so called Gaspard Kalimba with such vital assignments without any knowledge of who he was since the transactions he conducted on her behalf were worth over Rwf 2 million.

Uwumuremyi asked Ingabire’s defense to explain how a prospective presidential aspirant who knew what she was doing and where she was going, would entrust a stranger with the task to look for her accommodation and security.

Ingabire’s told court that she wasn’t aware that it was Uwumuremyi she was dealing with and added that most of her correspondences with Kalimba (Uwumuremyi) were by email and did not actually bother to meet him physically.

Uwumuremyi was arrested at the Rwanda-DRC border at La Corniche as he tried to sneak into the DRC where he was suspected to be conducting CDF activities. It was revealed that he tried to bribe police officers with US$50 to let him free.

Uwumuremyi was found with forged Congolese travel documents bearing the names Muhindo Muhima Dieudonné Katumba Pepe Pipiyu.

Prosecution led by the Deputy Prosecutor General, Alphonse Hitiyaremye, further argues that despite Ingabire denying knowledge of the co-accused, Uwumuremyi, who has many aliases, was one of the closest allies and aides of Ingabire, since her arrival in Rwanda.

Uwumuremyi was also one of the people who welcomed Ingabire at the airport, brought in ushers who welcomed her and even arranged meetings in several parts of the country.

He is also said to have signed the lease agreement for the house that Ingabire lived in.

The case resumed today after it was adjourned yesterday after the lawyer representing Col. Nditurende told court that he had misplaced a paper with the questions her had prepared for Ingabire’s defense.

Language issues continue to dog the case with the other four co-accused not able to express themselves fluently in French, while Ingabire’s British lawyer Iain Edwards can also not follow proceedings in Kinyarwanda.

14-3-2012

Court quizzes Ingabire on seized documents

By Edmund Kagire

As the case against Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza continued at the High Court, yesterday, documents seized from her Kigali and Dutch homes were the centre of attention.

The documents, dated between 2004 and 2006, are part of the evidence presented by Prosecution proving that Ingabire and her co-accused were allegedly planning terrorist activities.

Judges sought to ascertain the legitimacy of two documents, one seized from Ingabire’s home in Holland and another from her Kigali residence, which Prosecution allege proves Ingabire’s communication with her co-accused, as well as activities designed to create a military organisation.

The head judge, Alice Rulisa, requested Ingabire to elaborate more on some of the accusations linking her to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and other political groupings, mainly based in Europe, and defend herself against the allegations that she wanted to form an armed wing of FDU-Inkingi, the organisation she heads.

One of the documents allegedly shows the alliances between the Europe-based groups, which eventually led to the creation of FDLR. Ingabire replied that while many groups merged, she remained the leader of the non-military political wing, while others, led by Ignace Murwanashyaka, opted for a military option.

Ingabire told the court that the groups under her leadership signed a charter in October 2006 to form one organisation, FDU-Inkingi. But a document dated February 2005 seized from her house in Holland allegedly indicates that the political groups agreed to come together and form one front.

The same document indicates that when the groups came together, they also agreed to form an armed group called Coalition of Defence Forces (CDF), as evidenced in the emails exchanged between Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende and Ingabire shows, countered the Prosecution.

Ingabire denied any such development, though she admitted that at one point there was communication between her and the alleged commander of CDF. She denies there was any plan to cause insecurity or secure weapons, as one of the email states.

According to the Prosecution document, CDF, which constitutes former commanders of FDLR, would recruit 500 people who would cause insecurity in Rwanda and force a political dialogue between the government and FDU-Inkingi.

Ingabire said that while she could have received emails from her co-accused, suggesting the military course, there is no evidence to prove that it was her plan or that she responded to them in the affirmative.

The Judge looked into the coalition charter and asked Ingabire what the “committee for security and defence” was charged with, to which she responded that after the 2006 coalition, there was a need to form a committee to provide security during party meetings.

Attention then shifted to a document recovered from her house in Kigali, which allegedly proves that she planned terrorist acts, but Ingabire said that the document found in her drawer was not her own publication.

“It could have been picked from the Internet or brought by someone l am not aware of,” she said.

The Judge asked Ingabire to explain how the document ended up in her house but she maintained she had no knowledge of the document.

Ingabire’s defence team argued that the document are a tract which should not be given any weight in the case.

The Prosecutor, Bonaventure Ruberwa, maintained that Ingabire should explain the documents, which show the activities some of the parties under the coalition are involved in, and stop saying that the document was useless.

“We plead with the Court to request Ingabire to stop from diverting from real issues. We have a document which has facts. She is trying to downplay it, saying that these organisations had ceased to exist by 2006. There should be evidence to that effect, not mere words,” Ruberwa said.

The case continues today.

20-3-2012

Engeland - Nederland

Vanavond is er de vriendschappelijke interland tussen Nederland en Engeland. Deze zou eerst in het najaar van 2011 plaatsvinden, maar door de plotselinge rellen in Londen is deze toen niet doorgegaan. Ik zal in Nederland deze wedstrijd gewoon thuis op televisie gaan bekijken en dan zal ik ongetwijfeld even terugdenken aan Rwanda. Als ik nu nog in Rwanda geweest was, dan had ik mij ongetwijfeld naar een bar vervoegd om de wedstrijd aldaar te bekijken. Misschien wel in Nyoma Choma of in La Pirogue. Meer waarschijnlijk in Le Capital, de bar in Kisimenti die het meest centraal ligt.

Hier in Nederland is het maar een vriendschappelijke wedstrijd die met een heleboel andere programma’s moet concurreren. In Rwanda is het het enige vermaak dat er te beleven is in de wijde omtrek. Des te leuker om dat dan te delen met mijn Engelse vrienden, zoals Mark en Tammy en Darryl en Lynne. En dat zou het des te leuker zijn als het Nederlandse elftal de Engelsen zou verslaan. Zo’n overwinning, of eventuele nederlaag, zou in Rwanda veel intenser worden beleefd dan voor de buis in het koude Nederland.

Nederland en Engeland zijn dus nog bezig zijn met de voorbereidingen voor het EK in 2012. Ondertussen zijn ze in Rwanda al bezig met wedstrijden in de aanloop naar andere toernooien. In de eerste plaats voor de Afrika Cup voor 2013 in Zuid-Afrika. Daarom is er vandaag in Kigali dus ook een wedstrijd tussen Nigeria en Rwanda. De terugwedstrijd is pas op 15 juni. De winnaar van deze strijd zal in het najaar nog twee wedstrijden spelen tegen nog een tegenstander en de winnaar hiervan zal dus naar Zuid-Afrika gaan. Rwanda is dus maar vier wedstrijden verwijderd van deelname.

Ook is men al bezig voor het WK van 2014 in Brazilië. In een voorronde heeft Rwanda in november over twee wedstrijden gewonnen van Eritrea. De eerste wedstrijd in Eritrea was geëindigd in 1-1. De terugwedstrijd in Kigali, in het Amahoro stadion, werd een afgetekende overwinning voor Rwanda (3-1). Ik het zeker niet uitverkocht stadion werden vlaggetjes uitgedeeld en de overwinning werd dan ook begroet door een enthousiast vlaggend publiek.

Als een gevolg van deze overwinning is Rwanda ingedeeld in groep H met als tegenstanders Algerije, Benin en Mali. Vanaf juni 2012 zullen hier de eerste wedstrijden gaan plaatsvinden. Als Rwanda deze groep gaat winnen, dan mag het doorgaan naar de volgende ronde om zodoende kwalificatie voor het WK af te dwingen. Het zou een hele prestatie zijn als ze dat zou lukken!

Hoe een baanbrekend initiatief smoorde in bureaucratie

Ergens in het najaar was er een workshop georganiseerd door JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) met als titel ‘Friendly Environment for All” en als subtitel “Barrier-Free Facilities for People with Disabilities”. Voor deze workshop hadden ze een Japanse professor uitgenodigd. Deze professor beweegt zicht voort in een rolstoel en had in de dagen voorafgaand aan zijn lezing allerlei filmpjes gemaakt van de mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden om met een rolstoel voort te bewegen in Kigali. En dat bleek nog niet mee te vallen. Daarnaast had hij voorbeelden meegenomen van kleine aanpassingen zoals een extra handgreep om aan te geven dat er al verbeteringen te maken zijn zonder al te veel kosten te maken.

Alle bezoekers van deze workshop vonden dit een fantastische lezing. Iedereen was heel erg onder de indruk van de mogelijkheden die er waren. Maar dat is de ellende met een heleboel workshops. Er worden best wel eens leuke en interessante dingen gepresenteerd, maar na een hapje en een drankje ging ieder weer naar huis en gebeurt er verder niets. Zo ook bij deze workshop, terwijl deze toch zo mooi praktische was met relatief eenvoudige toepassingen.

Een weekje later vonden Nicole en ik dat we hier iets mee moesten doen. Wij haalden Maho van JICA erbij. Zowel wij van de RNDSC als Maho van JICA houden kantoor in het gebouw waarin ook MINALOC zit. Dit is het ministerie dat het aanspreekpunt is voor alle zaken met betrekking tot gehandicapten. Wat zou er mooier zijn dan het gebouw van MINALOC als voorbeeld te laten zijn op het gebied van de toegankelijkheid van overheidsgebouwen voor gehandicapten?

Van te voren wisten we al dat het gemakkelijk scoren was, want de lift doet het niet, de toiletten functioneren maar matig en een helling voor rolstoelen is er ook niet. Toch wilden we het wel serieus aanpakken. En dat wilden we doen door het uitvoeren van een ‘Disabilty Accessibil​ity Audit’. Het resultaat van die audit zou een rapport voor het ministerie zijn met aanbevelingen voor de korte termijn met eenvoudige aanpassingen, maar ook verbeteringen voor de wat langere termijn.

Op een mooie dag in september hadden we dan ook zo veel mogelijke gehandicapten van diverse pluimage bijeen laten komen. In ieder geval was er iemand in een rolstoel, iemand die blind was aanwezig en ook meerdere mensen op krukken. De vertegenwoordiger van de doven kwam helaas niet opdagen, maar dat heeft ons niet belet om verder te gaan met ons onderzoek. Ook was er iemand van de RHA (Rwanda Housing Authority) aangeschoven, dat was iemand die heel veel wist over de wettelijke eisen over allerlei maten die er bestaan voor het bouwen en inrichten van gebouwen.

Gewapend met een groot vel papier en een vragenlijst gingen we goedgemutst op pad. Het eerste opstakel was al de toegankelijkheid om het gebouw van buitenaf binnen te komen. Het gebouw heeft een opstaande rand van 20 centimeter afgegrensd door een rooster boven op een goot voor de afvoer van het overvloedige regenwater in Rwanda. Voor een rolstoelgebruiker zonder begeleiding is het gewoon onmogelijk om het gebouw binnen te komen. En met een begeleider is het al moeilijk, omdat de banden kunnen blijven steken in het rooster en omdat de rand van 20 centimeter overwonnen moet worden. Ook voor de blinde was het zonder begeleiding moeilijk om het gebouw binnen te gaan, ondanks zijn blindengeleide stok. Dit euvel is eigenlijk vrij eenvoudig te verhelpen door een rolstoelhelling, en dat was dan ook onze eerste gemakkelijke conclusie.

Binnen aangekomen gingen we verder met onze tocht. Opeens bedenkt iemand dat het ook wel goed is om de houding van het personeel te beoordelen. We sturen eerst iemand die vroeg om assistentie voor een rolstoelgebruiker om het gebouw binnen te komen en even later een blinde die om assistentie vraagt. Beide keren was de reactie van de receptioniste dat ze niets kon betekenen, omdat ze alleen was en niet geoorloofd was om haar plek te verlaten. Iedereen vroeg zich vervolgens wel af wat ze zou gaan doen als ze naar het toilet moest. De voorzichtige conclusie was dat er nog heel wat te verbeteren was aan de behulpzaamheid van het personeel. Dan zou dan kunnen door middel van de Rwanda veel gebezigde term van ‘sensitisation’.

In het gebouw zijn gelukkig een aantal positieve zaken te benoemen. De gangpaden zijn allemaal breed genoeg voor een rolstoelgebruiker en ook de deuren om in de diverse kantoorkamers te komen is breed genoeg. Er zijn gelukkig ook geen drempels in het gebouw die dienen als obstakel. Maar er is ook veel te verbeteren. De lift werkt niet, en deze heeft eigenlijk gedurende het gehele jaar 2011 niet gewerkt, en de toiletten zijn een regelrechte ramp, ook voor de reguliere bezoeker. Regelmatig is er geen water voor het doorspoelen en het handenwassen. Dat wordt dan opgevangen door een grote ton met water met een schepje. Die kan dan gebruikt worden voor doorspoelen en handenwassen. Voor een blinde of een rolstoelgebruiker is het natuurlijk helemaal niet te gebruiken. Als de rolstoeler al de mogelijkheid heeft om bij de toiletgroep te komen, want de ingang wordt geblokkeerd door een enorme kast.

Beneden in het gebouw is de kantine. Omdat de lift het niet doet is deze binnenshuis niet te bereiken, dus gaan we buitenom. Onderweg komen ook nog een gebouw tegen van immigratie tegen. Buiten onze eigenlijke opdracht om proberen we ook hier te toegankelijkheid te testen. Dat dit begeleidt wordt door een flinke stoet mensen, met camera’s en zonder dat het aangekondigd wordt, valt niet geheel in goede aarde bij de dienstdoende functionaris. Na een flinke discussie gaan we maar gauw verder. Dit onderdeel hebben we dan bij de uiteindelijke rapportage dan ook maar niet meegenomen. Het laat alleen maar zien dat men niet zo houdt van onaangekondigde pottenkijkers. Waarschijnlijk ook niet van aangekondigde.

Nadat de kantine is bekeken vervolgen we onze weg naar het onlangs gebouwde openbare toilet. Dit openbare toilet heeft zelfs een invalidentoilet. Het is wel heel erg jammer dat een toilet voor invaliden totaal ontoegankelijk is voor rolstoelgebruikers. Deze is namelijk alleen toegankelijk via een enorme helling die zelfs met flinke duwkracht moeilijk is te nemen. Het eigenlijke toilet is verder zo klein dat deze ook totaal niet gebruiken is. De toiletjuffrouw is totaal overvallen door het onaangekondigde massale bezoek, maar is wel heel vriendelijk en behulpzaam waar ze kan zijn.

Dan is het tijd om de tocht te beëindigen en al onze bevindingen op te gaan schrijven in een rapport. Wij krijgen ondertussen wel berichten binnen dat sommige ambtenaren van MINALOC wel onaangenaam verrast waren door ons bezoek en het wel zeer ongepast vonden dat er ook nog foto’s zijn gemaakt. In de wandelgangen horen we ook de minister zelf wel heel enthousiast is, al weten we niet zeker of dat ook werkelijk zo is. Iedereen die iets voorstelt in de wereld van gehandicaptenorganisaties was heel erg enthousiast over dit project. Het is alleen een beetje jammer dat het volledig gedragen worden door de zogenaamde muzungo’s, de Rwandezen doen graag mee, maar hebben heel weinig initiatief getoond met betrekking tot de voortgang. Initiatief nemen is nog een heel moeilijke zaak voor Rwandezen.

Na een weekje is het rapport en klaar en is het tijd voor het eerste obstakel. Men vindt dat het rapport ondertekend moet worden door alle aanwezigen tijdens de beoordeling van het gebouw. En dat betekend dat er van iedereen een handtekening op de het eerste en laatste blad moet komen en daarnaast moet er nog een paraaf op elke tussenliggende bladzijde komen. Het moet allemaal zo officieel mogelijk. Het lijkt wel een koopcontract bij de notaris. Voordat iedereen is benaderde om de benodigde krabbels te zetten waren we zo al weer twee weken verder.

Maar achteraf gezien was dit nog maar een oponthoud dat te overzien was. Nadat iedereen het document heeft ondertekend is het afgegeven aan de RHA. Afgesproken is dat deze instantie een aantal in het rapport gedane suggesties gaat doorrekenen op hoeveel het gaat kosten. Best handig voor de besluitvorming om dat paraat te hebben, al had het voor mij niet gehoeven. Ik had liever gehad dat het document heel snel gepresenteerd zou worden bij MINALOC, om zo bij te dragen aan bewustwording en zodoende ook snel wat resultaat te boeken. En met de eerste, kleine verbeteringen hadden we dan ook goede sier kunnen maken voor verder plannen bij andere gebouwen.

Het heeft allemaal niet zo mogen zijn. Het document ligt inmiddels al weer zes maanden bij de RHA en lijkt daar voorlopig niet weg te komen. Ons aanspreekpunt binnen de RHA zegt dat het niet meer in zijn handen is. Een andere afdeling is ermee aan de gang gegaan en daar is het nog steeds. Wie weet wat voor hogere politiek hierachter zit? Zitten de afdelingen binnen de RHA niet allemaal op een lijn, of werken ze elkaar soms tegen? Is de RHA misschien bang om een rapport uit te brengen over een ministerie? Moet het ministerie waar de RHA onder valt eerst toestemming geven? Of is er mogelijk ergens druk uitgeoefend vanuit MINALOC in de richting van de RHA om het rapport maar niet uit te brengen?

En dit is het rapport zoals dit is aangeleverd aan de RHA:

Disability Accessibility Audit: Report of Findings and Recommendations

I. General Information

Date of audit: Thursday, 8 September, 2011.

Name of the audited organization: Ministry of Local Government - MINALOC (though areas of the building used by other Ministries were also audited).

Address of the audited organization:  

Audit Organisers:

·                     Rwanda Decade National Steering Committee for the African Decade of Persons with Disabilities (RNDSC/ADPD or “Decade”), and

·                     Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

Both have their offices in the MINALOC building (RNDSC – ground floor; JICA – second floor) and work for the benefit of PwDs.

Audit Participants: 

Maho Harada – JICA/ECOPD;  Richard Gasana - JICA/ECOPD;  Harouna Ndhimiyimana  - MININFRA – RHA; Oswald Tuyizere – DRPI/NCPD;  Innocent Kabayiza - RDRC; Augustin Ngendanumwe – RDRC; Bruno Shyirambere – RNDSC; Nicole Piché – RNDSC; Bert van’t Oever – RNDSC; Aloys Nzeyimana - NUDOR

Purpose of the Audit: As MINALOC is the Ministry with responsibility for the welfare of PwDs, it could set a good example for other Ministries and public agencies in terms of the accessibility of its building(s).  This audit therefore aims to record access and ease of use of the MINALOC Ministerial building by a range of potential users (both visitors and employees) with disabilities, particularly those with sensory and mobility impairments, and to identify specific measures to improve accessibility (including quick and cost-effective modifications). 

Policy and Legislation Imperative: (i.e., Relevance to the laws and policies of the Government of Rwanda, including the National Programme for Disability 2010):

o                    Law relating to the Protection of Disabled Persons in General (2007), Article 25: Public buildings are required to be built in a way such that they facilitate the disabled persons to acquire access to services;

o                    Ministerial Order No. 01/cab.M/09 of 27.07.09 determining the modalities of constructing buildings providing various public services to ease the access of PwDs:  Article 3, paragraph 1: All buildings shall be equipped with the necessary facilities to enable PwDs have access to services therein.  In particular whether a public or private building meant to provide services to the public, must provide passage ways for PwDs so as to have easy access to services being offered.

o                    Rwanda Building Control Regulation, April 2009, Sub-section 3.3.15: Facilities for PwDs (applicable to new buildings, though if existing buildings are altered the original part of the building may have to comply with the regulations also);

o                    Ministerial Order No. 03/19.19 of 27.07.09 determining the modalities of facilitating PwDs to easy access to employment, Article 2, Rights of a PwD to employment: With the exception of specific conditions referred to under this Order, a PwD shall enjoy the same rights as other persons to employment and shall be offered by various employment organs the facilitation required in the execution of work;

o                    National Programme for Disability – First Edition (January-December 2010):

□     Overall Aim 6: Increase Communication and Independence, Specific Objective 1: Implement Ministerial Order No. 01/cab.M/09 of 27.07.02 (as above): Buildings are equipped with the necessary facilities to enable PwDs to have access: Review the accessibility of a sample of Government buildings and recommend realistic ways to improve access;

□     Overall Aim 1: Reduce Poverty amongst PwDs and Increase Material Quality of Life, Specific Objective 1: Implement Ministerial Order No. 03/19.19 of 27.07.09 (as above).

o                    UN Convention on the Rights of PwDs (ratified by the Government of Rwanda in 2008), Articles 9 and 27.

II.  Main Audit Findings and Specific Recommendations for Improving Accessibility

Overall Impressions of Audit Participants

The audit participants recognized that the building had been constructed long before the accessibility needs of PwDs had been a consideration, let alone a legal duty. 

However, though the building is currently not very accessible to various PwDs, particularly those with physical disabilities and/or sight impairments, the audit participants agreed that many relatively low-cost modifications could be made which would greatly improve accessibility.

Main impediments to Accessibility

Getting to the Premises, and In and Out of the Premises

More specifically, people in wheelchairs and those with visual impairments find it very difficult to access the building, and the main entrance, from the road, and to locate the main entrance. 

·         There is no designated disabled parking. 

·         There is a step from the road at first instance it looks like it’s the public road onto the pavement encircling the building and, between the road and the step, a grill with widely spaced slats covering a shallow moat, causing problems for both wheelchair users (as it is hard for them to mount the step and their wheels can get caught between the slats) and people with visual impairments (especially those using a white cane, as the cane can get caught between the slats and break). 

·         There is no sign indicating the location of the main entrance, which can result in confusion. 

·         MINALOC staff did not appear sensitive to the needs of PwDs trying to access the building and either ignored the PwDs in question, or did not, were reluctant, or did not know how to offer assistance when asked.

Trying to enter Immigration Offices from the parking areas, particularly the Visa Office adjacent to the parking at ground level and the Laissez Passez Office adjacent to the parking at the lower level, was very difficult.  (It is recognized that accessibility to these offices may not be the responsibility of MINALOC, but it was felt important to inspect these offices nonetheless as their sole purpose is to offer services to the public). 

·         There are steps leading up to the entrances and other obstructions making it difficult for wheelchair users, people with physical disabilities and people with visual impairments to access the offices. 

·         If there is only one staff member in the Office, it is not possible for him/her to come out to provide the necessary assistance.

Getting Around the Premises

After having entered the building, it is impossible for wheelchair users, and difficult for the physically disabled and those with sight impairments, to access higher floors and the basement.

·         The stairs between the floors are steep, and without a handrail or any markings on the treads. 

·         The elevator has not been working for over a year. 

·         The basement, where the canteen is located, can be accessed, with difficulty, from outside, going down the hill to the back, but not for wheelchair users from the inside as the elevator does not extend to the basement. 

On each individual floor, however, it is easy to get around.

·         The corridors are wide and generally do not present any obstructions.

·         Doors to and in the passageways are generally kept opened.

·         The doors to each individual office along the corridors, though well under the standard 90 cm wide, are still wide enough for wheelchair users and easy enough for other PwDs to enter. 

Using Facilities On the Premises

The other major difficulty is the indoor toilets.  They are very difficult for PwDs, particularly those who are physically disabled and those with a visual impairment, to use. 

·         There is no disabled toilet inside the building. 

·         The doors to the individual cubicles, though they open from the outside which facilitates entry and exit, cannot be closed by wheelchair users as there is not enough space inside.

·         Inside the cubicles, there is no handrail and no place to hang crutches. 

·         It is also impossible for most PwDs to wash their hands as most sinks do not work and water has be scooped from a big tub, which requires locating and bending over the tub.

In the public toilets outside, which were built very recently, at the edge of the parking at the lower level, there are two designated disabled toilets, one each in the women’s and the men’s section.  Unfortunately, these are difficult to access. 

·         The slope leading up to the toilets and the slipperiness of the tiles makes it hard for many PwDs to use safely.

·         On the men’s side, the ramp is so steep (with an approximate gradient of 1:4.5) that it is impossible for wheelchair users to go up the ramp and open the door unassisted. 

·         It is hard to understand why the toilets had to be raised, rather than at ground level.  

·         On both sides, the handle is far too high making the door very difficult to open unassisted. 

·         There’s no handrails.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following six recommendations, to be implemented as soon as possible, were made by the audit participants to improve accessibility (estimated costings have also been provided):

·         To put a gently sloping ramp outside the front of the building, to extend from the pavement to the parking area, so PwDs can easily access the pavement encircling the building from the parking area and avoid the grilled area;

·         To fix the elevator and ensure it is properly maintained, so it can be used by PwDs, and other users of the building, on a regular basis to access the upper floors, allowing the steep stairs to be bypassed;

·         To install at least one designated toilet for PwDs, inside the building, on the ground floor, easily accessible to all PwDs and in accordance with the building standards currently in force,;  

·         To put clearer signage indicating the main entrance to the building and the location of the various services/reception areas within the building, in Kinyarwanda and one other language;

·         To have at least one designated disabled parking space at the ground level and at the lower level parking areas, to allow for easy accessibility to the main entrance of the building;

·         To train reception and guard staff, as well as other staff working at the Ministry, to be more sensitive and accommodating to the needs of PwDs visiting and working in the building.       

·         Include improvements to the public toilet outside the building

·         To improve emergency procedures for everyone, including PwDs