Ingabire’s verdict postponed
The High Court, yesterday, postponed to September the ruling of a case involving the embattled leader of FDU-Inkingi, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who is facing terrorism and genocide denial charges.
Considering that we have not finalised reviewing the whole case, the law allows us to postpone the verdict
“Considering that we have not finalised reviewing the whole
case, the law allows us to postpone the verdict,” Judge Alice Rulisa told a
fully packed courtroom before setting the rulling for September 7.
British High Commissioner, Benedict Llewellyn-Jones,and the Dutch Ambassador, Frans Makken, were among those in attendance.
The prosecution had earlier asked for a life sentence for Ingabire and10 years for each of the co-accused.
Ingabire’s co-accused include Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta who is accused of being a member of a terrorist group and planning activities aimed at causing state insecurity.
Karuta, a former FDLR officer, pleaded guilty.
His co-accused are Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Vital Uwumuremyi and Col Noel Habiyakare, all former members of the FDLR militia.
The two officers also pleaded guilty of having conspired with Ingabire to form a rebel movement.
Towards the end of the trial, Ingabire boycotted the hearings as the prosecution started making its final submissions. The move made prosecution expose her secret plea bargain and a letter seeking presidential clemency.
British High Commissioner, Benedict Llewellyn-Jones,and the Dutch Ambassador, Frans Makken, were among those in attendance.
The prosecution had earlier asked for a life sentence for Ingabire and10 years for each of the co-accused.
Ingabire’s co-accused include Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta who is accused of being a member of a terrorist group and planning activities aimed at causing state insecurity.
Karuta, a former FDLR officer, pleaded guilty.
His co-accused are Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Vital Uwumuremyi and Col Noel Habiyakare, all former members of the FDLR militia.
The two officers also pleaded guilty of having conspired with Ingabire to form a rebel movement.
Towards the end of the trial, Ingabire boycotted the hearings as the prosecution started making its final submissions. The move made prosecution expose her secret plea bargain and a letter seeking presidential clemency.
Ingabire, Mugesera in
Supreme Court today
GENOCIDE
suspect Léon Mugesera and the head of a yet to be registered political party,
FDU Inkingi, Victoire Ingabire, will today appear before the Supreme Court
seeking revocations of articles of some laws that were referred to in their
pre-trial and trial respectively.
“The two filed suits challenging the civil procedural code requesting the revocations of some articles that were referred to in their trials at the High Court,” the Courts Spokesman, Charles Kaliwabo told The New Times.
Mugesera’s challenge is about a decision of the Court denying him more time to study his dossier. He claims he wants the High Court decision repealed.
Mugesera was in January this year deported from Canada after a legal battle that lasted close to two decades.
Mugesera is accused of making an infamous speech in 1992 that allegedly played a major role in sparking the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, in which radical ethnic Hutus killed more than one million Tutsi.
Victoire Ingabire will also appear in the Supreme Court on constitutional matters challenging the genocide ideology law.
Ingabire, who faces three counts, including propagating genocide ideology, she petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking interpretation of the genocide ideology law and if it is relevant in her case.
She 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.
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.
The High Court is expected to pass the final verdict in her case on Friday September 7.
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.
“The two filed suits challenging the civil procedural code requesting the revocations of some articles that were referred to in their trials at the High Court,” the Courts Spokesman, Charles Kaliwabo told The New Times.
Mugesera’s challenge is about a decision of the Court denying him more time to study his dossier. He claims he wants the High Court decision repealed.
Mugesera was in January this year deported from Canada after a legal battle that lasted close to two decades.
Mugesera is accused of making an infamous speech in 1992 that allegedly played a major role in sparking the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, in which radical ethnic Hutus killed more than one million Tutsi.
Victoire Ingabire will also appear in the Supreme Court on constitutional matters challenging the genocide ideology law.
Ingabire, who faces three counts, including propagating genocide ideology, she petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking interpretation of the genocide ideology law and if it is relevant in her case.
She 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.
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.
The High Court is expected to pass the final verdict in her case on Friday September 7.
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.
State calls for nullity
of Ingabire Supreme Court case
Ingabire (L) with her Lawyer Gatera Gashabana. The New Times
/ File.
State
Attorneys yesterday requested the Supreme Court not to accept a case filed by
terror suspect, Victoire Ingabire, seeking to repeal some articles in the
legislations used in her trial.
The head of the yet to be registered party FDU-Inkingi, is accused, among other charges, of terrorism after evidence presented by the prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a group of militiamen based in DRC with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on the Rwandan territory.
She is also accused of promoting genocide ideology.
Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a repeal of articles 4 and 9 of the law against genocide ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of the constitution that guarantee freedom of expression.
In her trial, which began in September 2011, the High Court had earlier found her statements at Kigali Memorial Centre - Gisozi to be in clear violation of the genocide ideology laws of July 2008.
At the Memorial, Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory of which, while appearing before the Supreme Court, she again claimed that she found nothing wrong accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus killed Tutsis.
The High Court is due to deliver its ruling on Friday.
Appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, State Attorney Theophile Mbonera said that it was clear the Genocide ideology constitutes a crime because there is a law against it.
“Secondly, there are always limitations to freedom of expression and the limitations, as the constitution states, are set by laws, of which one is that punishes the genocide ideology.”
“Saying that this law contradicts the constitutional supremacy is ridiculous. I may assume someone would be ignorant to challenge this law or may have decided not to understand the law,” said Mbonera in a counter reaction to Ingabire’s lawyer, Gatera Gashabana.
Following yesterday’s pleadings, Supreme Court judges said they would render the decision on the application by the defendant on October 5.
In the case, Ingabire is accused along with four other suspects who have all pleaded guilty.
The four officers who were part of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, confessed to working with Ingabire to stage subversive activities.
The head of the yet to be registered party FDU-Inkingi, is accused, among other charges, of terrorism after evidence presented by the prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a group of militiamen based in DRC with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on the Rwandan territory.
She is also accused of promoting genocide ideology.
Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a repeal of articles 4 and 9 of the law against genocide ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of the constitution that guarantee freedom of expression.
In her trial, which began in September 2011, the High Court had earlier found her statements at Kigali Memorial Centre - Gisozi to be in clear violation of the genocide ideology laws of July 2008.
At the Memorial, Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory of which, while appearing before the Supreme Court, she again claimed that she found nothing wrong accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus killed Tutsis.
The High Court is due to deliver its ruling on Friday.
Appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, State Attorney Theophile Mbonera said that it was clear the Genocide ideology constitutes a crime because there is a law against it.
“Secondly, there are always limitations to freedom of expression and the limitations, as the constitution states, are set by laws, of which one is that punishes the genocide ideology.”
“Saying that this law contradicts the constitutional supremacy is ridiculous. I may assume someone would be ignorant to challenge this law or may have decided not to understand the law,” said Mbonera in a counter reaction to Ingabire’s lawyer, Gatera Gashabana.
Following yesterday’s pleadings, Supreme Court judges said they would render the decision on the application by the defendant on October 5.
In the case, Ingabire is accused along with four other suspects who have all pleaded guilty.
The four officers who were part of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, confessed to working with Ingabire to stage subversive activities.
High court postpones
Ingabire verdict
Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is facing terrorism and genocide
denial charges. The New Times / File.
Judge
Alice Rulisa averred that the court decided to wait for a Supreme Court
decision on a constitutional interpretation case the defendant filed there.
Ingabire was absent as she boycotted but the four of her co accused where present in court.
“The Court realised that Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the genocide ideology law, and her lawyer requested for stay of the ruling, pending the Supreme Court decision,” ruled Rulisa.
She said that the panel established that the decision by the Supreme Court may affect the High Court verdict and that’s why we decided to wait for their ruling.”
Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a repeal of articles 4 and 9 of the law against genocide ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of the constitution that guarantee freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court set October 5 as the date for its decision on Ingabire’s application.
This is the second time the High Court is postponing its verdict on Ingabire’s case; the first postponement was on June 30 on grounds that the judges hadn’t finalised deliberations.
Prosecution had earlier asked for a life sentence for Ingabire and 10 years for each of her co-accused.
Ingabire’s co-accused include Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, who is accused of being a member of a terrorist group and planning activities aimed at causing state insecurity.
Karuta, a former FDLR officer, pleaded guilty.
The other co-accused are Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt. Vital Uwumuremyi and Col Noel Habiyakare, all former members of the FDLR militia.
The two officers also pleaded guilty of having conspired with Ingabire to form a rebel movement.
Towards the end of the trial, Ingabire boycotted the hearings as the prosecution started making its final submissions.
She was not present during yesterday’s hearing.
British High Commissioner Benedict Llewellyn-Jones was among those who were at the court.
Ingabire was absent as she boycotted but the four of her co accused where present in court.
“The Court realised that Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the genocide ideology law, and her lawyer requested for stay of the ruling, pending the Supreme Court decision,” ruled Rulisa.
She said that the panel established that the decision by the Supreme Court may affect the High Court verdict and that’s why we decided to wait for their ruling.”
Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a repeal of articles 4 and 9 of the law against genocide ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of the constitution that guarantee freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court set October 5 as the date for its decision on Ingabire’s application.
This is the second time the High Court is postponing its verdict on Ingabire’s case; the first postponement was on June 30 on grounds that the judges hadn’t finalised deliberations.
Prosecution had earlier asked for a life sentence for Ingabire and 10 years for each of her co-accused.
Ingabire’s co-accused include Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, who is accused of being a member of a terrorist group and planning activities aimed at causing state insecurity.
Karuta, a former FDLR officer, pleaded guilty.
The other co-accused are Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt. Vital Uwumuremyi and Col Noel Habiyakare, all former members of the FDLR militia.
The two officers also pleaded guilty of having conspired with Ingabire to form a rebel movement.
Towards the end of the trial, Ingabire boycotted the hearings as the prosecution started making its final submissions.
She was not present during yesterday’s hearing.
British High Commissioner Benedict Llewellyn-Jones was among those who were at the court.
Supreme Court rules on
Ingabire petition today
Victoire Ingabire in court during a previous hearing. The New Times / File.
The
Supreme Court will today announce its decision on an application filed by
Victoire Ingabire, who stands accused of terrorism charges.
This was confirmed yesterday by the spokesperson of the judiciary, Charles Kaliwabo in an interview with The New Times.
In the petition, Ingabire, who heads a yet to be registered political party, FDU-Inkingi, filed at the highest court of the land, challenged the Genocide Ideology Law.
The suspect petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a repeal of articles 4 and 9 of the law against Genocide Ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution that guarantee freedom of expression.
Her substantive trial and that of her four co-accused — all former rebels—is underway at the High Court.
She is accused, among other charges, of terrorism after evidence presented by the prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a group of militiamen based in DRC with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on Rwandan territory.
Ingabire is also accused of promoting genocide ideology.
In her trial, which began in September 2011, the High Court had earlier found her statements at Kigali Genocide Memorial – Gisozi– to be in clear violation of the genocide ideology laws of July 2008.
At the memorial, Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory of which, while appearing before the Supreme Court, she again claimed she found nothing wrong accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus killed Tutsis.
In a related development, the High Court will on Friday pronounce its verdict in the trial.
Since Ingabire is accused of genocide ideology and was challenging the law, High Court judges thought the Supreme Court decision may affect their decision hence deciding to delay their ruling.
The prosecution is seeking a life sentence in this case.
The four militia officers who were part of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, confessed to working with Ingabire to stage subversive activities.
This was confirmed yesterday by the spokesperson of the judiciary, Charles Kaliwabo in an interview with The New Times.
In the petition, Ingabire, who heads a yet to be registered political party, FDU-Inkingi, filed at the highest court of the land, challenged the Genocide Ideology Law.
The suspect petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a repeal of articles 4 and 9 of the law against Genocide Ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution that guarantee freedom of expression.
Her substantive trial and that of her four co-accused — all former rebels—is underway at the High Court.
She is accused, among other charges, of terrorism after evidence presented by the prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a group of militiamen based in DRC with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on Rwandan territory.
Ingabire is also accused of promoting genocide ideology.
In her trial, which began in September 2011, the High Court had earlier found her statements at Kigali Genocide Memorial – Gisozi– to be in clear violation of the genocide ideology laws of July 2008.
At the memorial, Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory of which, while appearing before the Supreme Court, she again claimed she found nothing wrong accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus killed Tutsis.
In a related development, the High Court will on Friday pronounce its verdict in the trial.
Since Ingabire is accused of genocide ideology and was challenging the law, High Court judges thought the Supreme Court decision may affect their decision hence deciding to delay their ruling.
The prosecution is seeking a life sentence in this case.
The four militia officers who were part of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia, confessed to working with Ingabire to stage subversive activities.
Ingabire loses Supreme
Court petition
Victoire Ingabire.
The
Supreme Court yesterday rejected an application filed by Victoire Ingabire,
challenging the constitutionality of the Genocide Ideology Law.
Ingabire had filed the suit claiming that the constitution grants her the right to freedom of expression.
“The court finds no contradiction between the law and the constitution. it is true the constitution grants freedom of expression and speech, but the Genocide Ideology Law puts limitations to avoid abuse of those freedoms,” a nine-man panel of judges announced.
In her trial, which began in September 2011, the High Court found her statements at Kigali Memorial Centre – Gisozi to be in clear violation of the Genocide Ideology Law of July 2008.
Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory, and during an appearance before the Supreme Court, she again claimed that she found nothing wrong in accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus killed Tutsis.
Ingabire was not represented by her lawyers in the fully packed courtroom.
The Supreme Court cited the international law and several cases related to hate speech, including that of a Canadian teacher, James Keegstra, who was charged with teaching anti-Semitism.
Ingabire, accused of bankrolling terrorism and denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, brought a suit in March this year contesting the legality of genocide ideology law.
Meanwhile, the High Court is expected to announce its verdict today.
She is accused, among other charges, of terrorism after evidence presented by the prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a group of militiamen based in the Democratic Republic of Congo with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on Rwandan territory.
Four rebel officers who were part of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia confessed to working with Ingabire to stage subversive activities in the country.
The prosecution is seeking a life sentence.
Ingabire had filed the suit claiming that the constitution grants her the right to freedom of expression.
“The court finds no contradiction between the law and the constitution. it is true the constitution grants freedom of expression and speech, but the Genocide Ideology Law puts limitations to avoid abuse of those freedoms,” a nine-man panel of judges announced.
In her trial, which began in September 2011, the High Court found her statements at Kigali Memorial Centre – Gisozi to be in clear violation of the Genocide Ideology Law of July 2008.
Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory, and during an appearance before the Supreme Court, she again claimed that she found nothing wrong in accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus killed Tutsis.
Ingabire was not represented by her lawyers in the fully packed courtroom.
The Supreme Court cited the international law and several cases related to hate speech, including that of a Canadian teacher, James Keegstra, who was charged with teaching anti-Semitism.
Ingabire, accused of bankrolling terrorism and denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, brought a suit in March this year contesting the legality of genocide ideology law.
Meanwhile, the High Court is expected to announce its verdict today.
She is accused, among other charges, of terrorism after evidence presented by the prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a group of militiamen based in the Democratic Republic of Congo with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on Rwandan territory.
Four rebel officers who were part of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) militia confessed to working with Ingabire to stage subversive activities in the country.
The prosecution is seeking a life sentence.
Ingabire verdict
postponed
Ingabire co-accused leave court amid tight security
yesterday. Neither Ingabire nor any of her lawyers showed up. The New Times /
John Mbanda.
The
High Court yesterday postponed the verdict of Victoire Umuhoza Ingabire and her
co-accused to October 30.
The presiding judge, Alice Rulisa, yet again attributed the postponement to the petition the defendant had filed at Supreme Court, which she lost on Thursday.
“We had previously adjourned the ruling to today expecting that the Supreme Court would pronounce its decision on the constitutionality of the genocide ideology law on October 5. However, the Supreme Court decision was only announced yesterday October 18.
“We need more time to come up with a verdict that puts into the account the Supreme Court decision on genocide ideology,” said Rulisa.
She regretted the continued delay in the trial in which Ingabire is accused of terrorism-related charges.
Ingabire, who heads a yet to be registered FDU-Inkingi party, lost her Supreme Court petition challenging the genocide ideology law, which she averred was contravening the constitutional provision of freedom of expression.
Neither Ingabire nor her lawyers were at the court yesterday.
Her four co-accused and former FDLR combatants namely Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt. Col Noel Habiyaremye, Major Vital Uwumuremyi and Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, were present.
Her trial, which began in September 2011, found her statements at the Kigali Memorial Centre – Gisozi to be in clear violation of the Genocide Ideology Law of July 2008.
Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory and during an appearance before the Supreme Court, she claimed that she found nothing wrong in accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus did.
She is accused of bankrolling terrorism and denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. In March, this year. Ingabire contested the legality of the genocide ideology law.
She is also accused of terrorism. Prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a militia based in the Democratic Republic of Congo with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on Rwandan territory.
The presiding judge, Alice Rulisa, yet again attributed the postponement to the petition the defendant had filed at Supreme Court, which she lost on Thursday.
“We had previously adjourned the ruling to today expecting that the Supreme Court would pronounce its decision on the constitutionality of the genocide ideology law on October 5. However, the Supreme Court decision was only announced yesterday October 18.
“We need more time to come up with a verdict that puts into the account the Supreme Court decision on genocide ideology,” said Rulisa.
She regretted the continued delay in the trial in which Ingabire is accused of terrorism-related charges.
Ingabire, who heads a yet to be registered FDU-Inkingi party, lost her Supreme Court petition challenging the genocide ideology law, which she averred was contravening the constitutional provision of freedom of expression.
Neither Ingabire nor her lawyers were at the court yesterday.
Her four co-accused and former FDLR combatants namely Lt. Col Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt. Col Noel Habiyaremye, Major Vital Uwumuremyi and Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta, were present.
Her trial, which began in September 2011, found her statements at the Kigali Memorial Centre – Gisozi to be in clear violation of the Genocide Ideology Law of July 2008.
Ingabire allegedly espoused the double Genocide theory and during an appearance before the Supreme Court, she claimed that she found nothing wrong in accusing Tutsis of killing Hutus the same way Hutus did.
She is accused of bankrolling terrorism and denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. In March, this year. Ingabire contested the legality of the genocide ideology law.
She is also accused of terrorism. Prosecution and witness accounts linked her to a militia based in the Democratic Republic of Congo with whom she allegedly planned to carry out subversive activities on Rwandan territory.
Ingabire sentenced to
eight years in prison
Victoire Ingabire.
The
High Court yesterday sentenced Victoire Ingabire to eight years in jail after
finding her guilty of terrorism charges, endangering state security and denying
the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
“She has been sentenced to eight years for all the crimes that she was found guilty of,” judge Alice Rulisa told court.
The judge, however, cleared Ingabire on charges of promoting genocide ideology, saying all the statements Ingabire made did not indicate that she was calling for genocide.
The courtroom was filled to capacity, with speakers mounted outside the courtroom to enable those outside to follow the proceedings.
Ingabire is the leader of a yet-to-be registered political party, FDU-Inkingi.
The judge said Ingabire was found guilty of the “crime of conspiracy to harm authorities through terrorism and war” as well as denial of Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
“Another reason the court based on to reduce her sentence is because the crimes she committed were still in the planning phase and did not cause any major impact,” said Judge Rulisa.
The court also acquitted Ingabire of inciting the public against the leadership as well crimes of ethnic divisionism and discrimination.
Ingabire was not present in court. She had reportedly instructed her lawyers not to attend the proceedings. However, her British lawyer, Iain Edwards, made a surprise appearance at the court although he claimed he was not there to represent Ingabire.
Following the ruling, Edwards said he was going to appeal.
Ingabire was arrested in 2010 and so far she has served a quarter of her sentence which entitles her to apply for parole if none of the parties involved in the case appeals.
Prosecutor Alain Mukuralinda could neither confirm nor deny if the prosecution would appeal.
“Reading the verdict took three hours, we need to first review it and find out if there is indeed something tangible that we could base on to appeal,” said Mukuralinda.
Meanwhile, Ingabire’s four co-accused were also sentenced yesterday, but handed lighter sentences.
Judge Rulisa said the court was lenient because the quartet pleaded guilty, cooperated with the court and that they were all first-time offenders.
“The court found Jean Marie Vianney Karuta guilty of conspiracy to harm authorities through terrorism and war, he is sentenced to two years and seven months. The Court also found Tharcisse Nditurende and Habiyaremye guilty of operating in a terrorist group and crimes of conspiracy to harmg authorities through terrorism and war, they are sentenced to three years and six months each,” read the verdict.
The fourth co-accused, Vital Uwimuremyi, was found guilty of “crime of conspiracy to harm authorities through terrorism and war and complicity in the act of terrorism” and sentenced him to four years and six month of which he will spend the last year out of jail on probation.
Married and a mother of three, Ingabire, 44, returned to Rwanda in October 2010 with an intention to run for the Presidency but failed after her political party was barred from registering on grounds of not fulfilling all requirements.
During the trial, prosecutors gave evidence of Ingabire’s alleged terrorist activities, including proof of financial transfers to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels based in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, whose members are largely responsible for the Genocide.
Reactions
Jean de Dieu Mucyo, Executive Secretary of the National Commission for the Fight against Genocide.
The most important thing is that she was found guilty of particular charges; that is the major achievement for every friend of the judiciary. Regarding the sentence, I personally believe in the Rwandan Judiciary, definitely the judges sat and made their own analysis, they concluded by giving her eight years.
Prof. Peter Rwankindo, Director of Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace;
I followed this case thoroughly right from the time it began; honestly speaking this case is a clear proof of the independence of the Rwandan Judiciary. For example, if you follow some of the statements that Ingabire’s defense counsel was using during the trial, you would easily conclude that they were so daring but the court didn’t use that against them.
The lenience in the sentence is another proof of the independence of the Rwandan Judicially. In a situation where the charges against her amounted to a life sentence, the judges instead considered that Ingabire might reform and be integrated in the community.
“She has been sentenced to eight years for all the crimes that she was found guilty of,” judge Alice Rulisa told court.
The judge, however, cleared Ingabire on charges of promoting genocide ideology, saying all the statements Ingabire made did not indicate that she was calling for genocide.
The courtroom was filled to capacity, with speakers mounted outside the courtroom to enable those outside to follow the proceedings.
Ingabire is the leader of a yet-to-be registered political party, FDU-Inkingi.
The judge said Ingabire was found guilty of the “crime of conspiracy to harm authorities through terrorism and war” as well as denial of Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
“Another reason the court based on to reduce her sentence is because the crimes she committed were still in the planning phase and did not cause any major impact,” said Judge Rulisa.
The court also acquitted Ingabire of inciting the public against the leadership as well crimes of ethnic divisionism and discrimination.
Ingabire was not present in court. She had reportedly instructed her lawyers not to attend the proceedings. However, her British lawyer, Iain Edwards, made a surprise appearance at the court although he claimed he was not there to represent Ingabire.
Following the ruling, Edwards said he was going to appeal.
Ingabire was arrested in 2010 and so far she has served a quarter of her sentence which entitles her to apply for parole if none of the parties involved in the case appeals.
Prosecutor Alain Mukuralinda could neither confirm nor deny if the prosecution would appeal.
“Reading the verdict took three hours, we need to first review it and find out if there is indeed something tangible that we could base on to appeal,” said Mukuralinda.
Meanwhile, Ingabire’s four co-accused were also sentenced yesterday, but handed lighter sentences.
Judge Rulisa said the court was lenient because the quartet pleaded guilty, cooperated with the court and that they were all first-time offenders.
“The court found Jean Marie Vianney Karuta guilty of conspiracy to harm authorities through terrorism and war, he is sentenced to two years and seven months. The Court also found Tharcisse Nditurende and Habiyaremye guilty of operating in a terrorist group and crimes of conspiracy to harmg authorities through terrorism and war, they are sentenced to three years and six months each,” read the verdict.
The fourth co-accused, Vital Uwimuremyi, was found guilty of “crime of conspiracy to harm authorities through terrorism and war and complicity in the act of terrorism” and sentenced him to four years and six month of which he will spend the last year out of jail on probation.
Married and a mother of three, Ingabire, 44, returned to Rwanda in October 2010 with an intention to run for the Presidency but failed after her political party was barred from registering on grounds of not fulfilling all requirements.
During the trial, prosecutors gave evidence of Ingabire’s alleged terrorist activities, including proof of financial transfers to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels based in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, whose members are largely responsible for the Genocide.
Reactions
Jean de Dieu Mucyo, Executive Secretary of the National Commission for the Fight against Genocide.
The most important thing is that she was found guilty of particular charges; that is the major achievement for every friend of the judiciary. Regarding the sentence, I personally believe in the Rwandan Judiciary, definitely the judges sat and made their own analysis, they concluded by giving her eight years.
Prof. Peter Rwankindo, Director of Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace;
I followed this case thoroughly right from the time it began; honestly speaking this case is a clear proof of the independence of the Rwandan Judiciary. For example, if you follow some of the statements that Ingabire’s defense counsel was using during the trial, you would easily conclude that they were so daring but the court didn’t use that against them.
The lenience in the sentence is another proof of the independence of the Rwandan Judicially. In a situation where the charges against her amounted to a life sentence, the judges instead considered that Ingabire might reform and be integrated in the community.
The Victoire Ingabire
verdict: No matter what the evidence, the haters will hate
Sunny Ntayombya
Will
our courts ever be seen to be free and fair (and impartial) in the eyes of bleeding
heart ‘human rights campaigners and do-gooders’? I doubt that. It doesn’t
matter whether the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda deems them so. It
doesn’t matter whether the European Court of Justice deems them so. It doesn’t
matter whether the Canadian Supreme Court deems them so. It doesn’t matter
whether Rwandans, themselves, deem them so. No matter what happens, or what the
evidence is, the narrative remains the same. ‘The courts are subjugated by the
Government’.
Well, the Victoire Ingabire trial and judgment has put it to test. If the courts were in the pockets of Village Urugwiro, à la Stalin, (as plenty of so-called experts think) they would have thrown Mrs. Ingabire into the prison and thrown away the key. After all, the public prosecutor asked the High Court to sentence her to life in prison. Instead however, the Court sentenced her to eight years in jail on the charges of threatening state security and denying the Genocide.
If that isn’t evidence of impartiality I don’t know what is; especially when one realizes that the eight-year sentence is actually a six-year one because of time already served. She’s been in prison since the 14th, October 2010. Throw in another, lesser-known fact, that a convict can apply for parole after serving a one-fourth of the sentence, and we have a situation where Ingabire can ask, for, and get, parole as early as tomorrow. In fact, her co-accused Colonel Tharcisse Nditurende, Lieutenant Colonel Noel Habiyaremye, Lieutenant Jean Marie Vianney Karuta and Major Vital Uwumuremyi, will be free men tomorrow, despite their differing sentences ranging from two years and seven months to four years and six months.
According to the BBC, Ingabire’s supporters were “stunned by the verdict”. This is probably because they believed their own feverish rhetoric. In a press statement they released yesterday, they write, and I quote, that “sources confirm that a special cell in Mpanga central prison has been already prepared for her before this symbolical ruling by the High Court”. I’ve taken a bit of an interest in the ‘opposition’, and this is what I’ve gleamed. It seems to me that they live in a world where everything in Rwanda is bad and going to the dogs. They naturally assume the worst and they can’t begin to even fathom a situation where they are wrong in that assumption.
When they hear about a reshuffle in the military and intelligence services, they talk about a ‘coup plot’. When they learn about a programme to eradicate Nyakatsi (grass thatched huts), what they hear is a plot to condemn peasants to homelessness.
Well, the Victoire Ingabire trial and judgment has put it to test. If the courts were in the pockets of Village Urugwiro, à la Stalin, (as plenty of so-called experts think) they would have thrown Mrs. Ingabire into the prison and thrown away the key. After all, the public prosecutor asked the High Court to sentence her to life in prison. Instead however, the Court sentenced her to eight years in jail on the charges of threatening state security and denying the Genocide.
If that isn’t evidence of impartiality I don’t know what is; especially when one realizes that the eight-year sentence is actually a six-year one because of time already served. She’s been in prison since the 14th, October 2010. Throw in another, lesser-known fact, that a convict can apply for parole after serving a one-fourth of the sentence, and we have a situation where Ingabire can ask, for, and get, parole as early as tomorrow. In fact, her co-accused Colonel Tharcisse Nditurende, Lieutenant Colonel Noel Habiyaremye, Lieutenant Jean Marie Vianney Karuta and Major Vital Uwumuremyi, will be free men tomorrow, despite their differing sentences ranging from two years and seven months to four years and six months.
According to the BBC, Ingabire’s supporters were “stunned by the verdict”. This is probably because they believed their own feverish rhetoric. In a press statement they released yesterday, they write, and I quote, that “sources confirm that a special cell in Mpanga central prison has been already prepared for her before this symbolical ruling by the High Court”. I’ve taken a bit of an interest in the ‘opposition’, and this is what I’ve gleamed. It seems to me that they live in a world where everything in Rwanda is bad and going to the dogs. They naturally assume the worst and they can’t begin to even fathom a situation where they are wrong in that assumption.
When they hear about a reshuffle in the military and intelligence services, they talk about a ‘coup plot’. When they learn about a programme to eradicate Nyakatsi (grass thatched huts), what they hear is a plot to condemn peasants to homelessness.
When
they hear about a VOLUNTARY vasectomy programme, they immediately assume that
it is a Machiavellian plot to lower the birth rate. When Gacaca is instituted
to try the hundreds of thousands of cases relating to the 1994 Genocide, these
people assume that it was a plot to exact victor’s justice. In other words,
nothing is good. Everything is bad. And if they had their way, society could
collapse for all they cared. It would all be worth it just to see the back of
this government. So, in my opinion, these people cannot be helped.
However, for the genuinely curious and open minded, I believe that this court case will help them distinguish the real from the fake. The facts on the ground prove that the government doesn’t always get its own way, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that the courts aren’t merely institutions that rubber-stamp all and sundry.
However, for the genuinely curious and open minded, I believe that this court case will help them distinguish the real from the fake. The facts on the ground prove that the government doesn’t always get its own way, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that the courts aren’t merely institutions that rubber-stamp all and sundry.
Prosecution disappointed
by Ingabire sentence
Prosecutor General, Martin Ngoga.
Prosecutor
General Martin Ngoga acknowledged yesterday that prosecution was unhappy with
the eight-year jail term handed to Victoire Ingabire by the High Court.
Ingabire, 44, was on Tuesday sentenced after court found her guilty of terror charges and denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
She was convicted of two counts of Genocide denial and conspiracy and planning to cause state insecurity, and was acquitted of four other charges that included genocide ideology, promoting ethnic divisionism and supporting armed groups.
“The general feeling at NPPA [National Public Prosecution Authority] is that we are not comfortable with some findings as well as punishment,” said Ngoga, when contacted yesterday for his comment on the Tuesday ruling.
A leader of FDU-Inkingi, a political party that has hitherto failed to fulfil necessary requirements for registration, Ingabire has been in detention since 2010, and she was arrested following evidence pining her to working with some elements outside the country to launch subversive attacks on the Rwandan territory.
Ngoga did not explicitly say they would appeal against the verdict, saying they were still weighing the option.
“As a party to the case, we too have the right to challenge it (the decision) at a higher level,” said Ngoga, in an exclusive interview held in his office in Kigali.
The same ruling saw Ingabire’s four accomplices- all former officers with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda militia group- handed varying prison sentences.
Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta was sentenced to two years and seven months, Lt. Col. Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Col Noel Habiyaremye got three and half years while Maj. Vital Uwumuremyi was sentenced to three years and a half and a two-year suspended sentence.
They had all pleaded guilty.
Upon pronouncing the verdict by the High Court panel led by Alice Rulisa, in an exercise that took four hours, Ian Edwards, a British attorney that worked on Ingabire’s defence team said she would appeal.
The appellate authority in this case is the Supreme Court, the highest jurisdiction of the land.
“We are continuing to analyse (the verdict) in depth, after which we shall decide whether to appeal or not,” Ngoga said.
Asked whether he faulted the court for the ruling, Ngoga was quick to state that his institution has respect for the court. “The court made a decision within its competence and within the framework of the law.”
Mitigating circumstances
During the ruling, Rulisa averred that the judges took into account a letter written by Ingabire, to President Paul Kagame seeking clemency.
In May this year, it emerged that Ingabire, who had lived in Netherlands for over a decade before returning to Rwanda in 2010, beseeched the President “asking for clemency.”
It is in this letter that the three-person panel found a mitigating factor, thereby reducing her jail term to eight, saying she had expressed remorse for the actions for which she was convicted.
However, a legal pundit who followed closely the case but requested anonymity said the judges, should never have considered the letter, because it was never attributed to court.
“The context of this letter was misplaced, because as far as I know, it was never addressed or attributed to court, and having followed all the proceedings, I don’t remember seeing Ingabire showing any remorse in all appearances she made in court,” said the observer.
Ingabire appeared in court until May, when she decided not to return to courtroom, saying the judiciary was not impartial.
Meanwhile, Ngoga was more cautious when asked about what he thought was the main area of contention in the verdict.
“We shall look at our points of disagreement with the findings (contained in the verdict) and that is what will inform our future decision. But generally speaking, prosecution was not satisfied with the judgement,” he said.
Contacted yesterday, Gatera Gashabana, one of the defence lawyers for Ingabire, said he was yet to confer with his client to see the way forward despite earlier assertion by Edwards that they would appeal.
“We need to get the written verdict, which we were told would be available within five days after the verdict, we need to carefully look at it and until then I cannot comment on the ruling,” Gashabana said on phone.
Meanwhile, other experts say that even if the mitigating factors were justified, the punishment meted out on the two counts Ingabire was convicted of carried a much heavier sentence, as a principle of precedence.
Ingabire, returned to Rwanda in January 2010 with an ambition to stand for the presidential elections which were held in August that year.
Part of her charges were drawn from a speech she gave at Gisozi Genocide Memorial, where her utterances, which included insinuation that there had been double genocide in Rwanda, were seen as trivialising the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
Subsequent accounts from her co-accused pinned her for coordinating with them, at times sending them money to organise subversive activities aimed at destabilising Rwanda.
Ingabire, 44, was on Tuesday sentenced after court found her guilty of terror charges and denying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
She was convicted of two counts of Genocide denial and conspiracy and planning to cause state insecurity, and was acquitted of four other charges that included genocide ideology, promoting ethnic divisionism and supporting armed groups.
“The general feeling at NPPA [National Public Prosecution Authority] is that we are not comfortable with some findings as well as punishment,” said Ngoga, when contacted yesterday for his comment on the Tuesday ruling.
A leader of FDU-Inkingi, a political party that has hitherto failed to fulfil necessary requirements for registration, Ingabire has been in detention since 2010, and she was arrested following evidence pining her to working with some elements outside the country to launch subversive attacks on the Rwandan territory.
Ngoga did not explicitly say they would appeal against the verdict, saying they were still weighing the option.
“As a party to the case, we too have the right to challenge it (the decision) at a higher level,” said Ngoga, in an exclusive interview held in his office in Kigali.
The same ruling saw Ingabire’s four accomplices- all former officers with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda militia group- handed varying prison sentences.
Capt. Jean Marie Vianney Karuta was sentenced to two years and seven months, Lt. Col. Tharcisse Nditurende and Lt. Col Noel Habiyaremye got three and half years while Maj. Vital Uwumuremyi was sentenced to three years and a half and a two-year suspended sentence.
They had all pleaded guilty.
Upon pronouncing the verdict by the High Court panel led by Alice Rulisa, in an exercise that took four hours, Ian Edwards, a British attorney that worked on Ingabire’s defence team said she would appeal.
The appellate authority in this case is the Supreme Court, the highest jurisdiction of the land.
“We are continuing to analyse (the verdict) in depth, after which we shall decide whether to appeal or not,” Ngoga said.
Asked whether he faulted the court for the ruling, Ngoga was quick to state that his institution has respect for the court. “The court made a decision within its competence and within the framework of the law.”
Mitigating circumstances
During the ruling, Rulisa averred that the judges took into account a letter written by Ingabire, to President Paul Kagame seeking clemency.
In May this year, it emerged that Ingabire, who had lived in Netherlands for over a decade before returning to Rwanda in 2010, beseeched the President “asking for clemency.”
It is in this letter that the three-person panel found a mitigating factor, thereby reducing her jail term to eight, saying she had expressed remorse for the actions for which she was convicted.
However, a legal pundit who followed closely the case but requested anonymity said the judges, should never have considered the letter, because it was never attributed to court.
“The context of this letter was misplaced, because as far as I know, it was never addressed or attributed to court, and having followed all the proceedings, I don’t remember seeing Ingabire showing any remorse in all appearances she made in court,” said the observer.
Ingabire appeared in court until May, when she decided not to return to courtroom, saying the judiciary was not impartial.
Meanwhile, Ngoga was more cautious when asked about what he thought was the main area of contention in the verdict.
“We shall look at our points of disagreement with the findings (contained in the verdict) and that is what will inform our future decision. But generally speaking, prosecution was not satisfied with the judgement,” he said.
Contacted yesterday, Gatera Gashabana, one of the defence lawyers for Ingabire, said he was yet to confer with his client to see the way forward despite earlier assertion by Edwards that they would appeal.
“We need to get the written verdict, which we were told would be available within five days after the verdict, we need to carefully look at it and until then I cannot comment on the ruling,” Gashabana said on phone.
Meanwhile, other experts say that even if the mitigating factors were justified, the punishment meted out on the two counts Ingabire was convicted of carried a much heavier sentence, as a principle of precedence.
Ingabire, returned to Rwanda in January 2010 with an ambition to stand for the presidential elections which were held in August that year.
Part of her charges were drawn from a speech she gave at Gisozi Genocide Memorial, where her utterances, which included insinuation that there had been double genocide in Rwanda, were seen as trivialising the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
Subsequent accounts from her co-accused pinned her for coordinating with them, at times sending them money to organise subversive activities aimed at destabilising Rwanda.
