How fit are Rwanda’s courts?
At the same time that Ingabire and even her lawyer are boycotting her trial and accusing the judge of bias, the International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR) is going ahead with its plan to transfer its first war crimes suspect to Rwanda’s courts: Pastor Jean Uwinkindi, charged with genocide, extermination and crimes against humanity during the 1994 genocide, will be sent to Kigali later this week.
ICTR judges had previously kept Uwikindi in Arusha, saying they couldn’t send him until “a suitable monitoring mechanism is established to oversee his trial." In ruling that Uwikindi could be returned, Court President Judge Khalida Rachid Khan had instructed the registry to “urgently undertake discussions and negotiations” to put such a monitoring system in place. While ultimately the ACHPR (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights) will monitor the domestic trials, for now, an interim monitor is doing the job.
Courts worldwide including those in Canada, Norway, Sweden and even the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) are also ruling that it is safe to send Rwandans back home for fair trials.
Prosecuted Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza (UDF) is boycotting all further hearings of the trial in which she is accused of divisionism and aiding and abetting terrorism. Her defence complains of heavy witness intimidation. Radio Netherlands Worldwide posed a few questions to her British lawyer, Iain Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, what intimidation are you talking about?
“Last Wednesday, our witness Colonel Michel Habimana gave evidence that significantly undermined a large portion of the prosecution case against Victoire Ingabire. This seems to upset the prosecution and the judges.”
“When the hearing adjourned at the end of the day, he returned to prison. Michel Habimana is serving a life sentence. That evening his cell was surged by the police on the instructions of – so we understand – the prosecution. He was also interrogated by a police officer about documents found in his cell and about the evidence that he was giving.”
What kind of evidence was he giving?
“A large part of the prosecution case against Victoire Ingabire is based on evidence given by one of her co-accused, a guy called Vital Uwumuremyi. He’s a former soldier in the Rwandan army. More recently he was a soldier in the Hutu rebel group FDLR, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, in Congo.”
“This witness, Colonel Michel Habimana, was arrested in DRC with Vital Uwumuremyi. They were repatriated to Rwanda and spent time together in reintegration camps. The witness explained last week in court that has been approached by officers of the intelligence service in Rwanda. The officers would have effectively encouraged and persuaded Vital Uwumuremyi to assist them in creating a case against Victoire Ingabire.”
"A person has approached the defense. That person would have been prepared to explain to the juges their knowledge that Vital Uwumuremyi had been offered money by the intelligence service."
Don’t you think that by withdrawing from court your chances of winning will decrease?
“Ingabire’s decision to withdraw from the trial certainly doesn’t increase her chances of being acquitted. But she’s a grown woman, she’s an intelligent woman, she’s an independent woman and she has taken the decision that she has.”
According to Rwandan chief prosecutor Martin Ngoga, the interrogation of the witness never took place. Ngoga could not be reached for further comment on the accusations.
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
why so much lies,
1) the witness fielded by Ingabire, Colonel Habimana former spokesman of FDRL a terrorist organisation that is creating havoc in Congo, he is on record talking to journalist for FDRL ....this guy is convicted and is serving life sentence.
a) in Rwanda , in Europe , in USA everywhere .... a convicted terrorist serving life sentence loose his civil liberties therefore can not testify for or against because he is not liable of what he may say .....
b) the court admitted Colonel Habimana to be heard not as a Witness which is a lie you just fabricated for reason i don't know .... he was to be heard just as someone who may help the court to understand the case but he is not under oath
c) a convict serving sentence in jail in Europe, in USA or anywhere can be subjected to random search in his cell ..... you don't need an order from the court , to search a prisoner , he was searched and off course he can be searched anytime ..... he is not a free man like me or you or presumed innocent he is already convicted .....he wasn't interrogated as you claim ....and even if he was interrogated it is not against the law to interrogate a convicted terrorist .....and it is not to smear witness because he is not witness he can't testify in the court......
It's funny to see that there are people convinced of her guiltiness. Or it's those people paid to give false info.
Anonymous, seriously, you should ask the Dutch MPs now that they are in serious doubt about the will of Kagame to give fair trial to this lady.
I can't confirm if the evidence are fabricated maybe on your side you have proof of what you are saying on my side what I'm saying is that the accusation and evidence are serious. my advise to her was to continue to appear instead of boycotting.if the evidence are false this will help her to dismiss those charge.
I think that the decision to withdraw for the court is more dangerous(INGABIRE)and the prosecutors has a lot of evidence against her .this is not anymore a good strategy ,unless she is sure and convicted that she will lost completely the trial which was at end almost.
Yes the prosecutors had a lot of fabricated evidence against her. It was an open court. You are not going to fool anyone here sir...We have been following the trial. More dangerous? Maybe you are one the ones who's in charge of preparing those false allegations. You can do whatever you want to her, life imprisonment or watever but she's innocent. Kangourous courts won't last
forever.
I can't confirm if the evidence are fabricated maybe on your side you have proof of what you are saying on my side what I'm saying is that the accusation and evidence are serious. my advise to her was to continue to appear instead of boycotting.if the evidence are false this will help her to dismiss those charge.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.