Skip to main content

Rwanda: Mrs Ingabire appeals to the Supreme Court to quash the sentence passed by the High Court: her 1st audition .

 
Kigali le 17 Avril 2013
 
Mrs Ingabire appeals to the Supreme Court to quash the sentence passed by the High Court because it was based on matters that were not brought before the court by the Prosecution. 
 
On Wednesday 17th April 2013 Mrs Ingabire Umuhoza, made submission to the Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court to quash the sentence passed on her by the High court because the latter had cleared her of the charges brought before it but strangely based its sentence on matters that did not appear in the prosecution's charges.
 
Mrs Ingabire reminded the Supreme Court of the charges brought against her by the Prosecution namely: genocidal ideology, complicity in acts of terrorism, subversive activities, spreading rumors, and forming an armed rebel group and trying to jeopardize state security and some dispositions of the constitution.

Mrs Ingabire was then surprised that the High Court which cleared her on these charges, found her guilty of the crimes of high treason and negationism which the Prosecution did not bring against her. Besides, she was never questioned on these issues by the prosecution, the Police, or even the court.
 
Mrs Ingabire told the Supreme Court that her appeal rested on 3 following key issues:
 
1. The agreement between the Governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and of Rwanda which is contained in a communiqué dated 9th November 2007. It was mediated by the UN.
 
The agreement stipulated that FDLR combattants who would be repatriated would not be held accountable for acts that happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo, except those who already have arrest warrants issued by ICTR or Rwanda for the crime of genocide against Tutsi, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Mrs Ingabire pointed out that the Prosecution deliberately ignored this agreement in order to find witnesses against her, namely her co-accused. In her opinion, the case against the co-accused was a tool to bargain their collaboration in order to get false testimony against her.  Unfortunately the High Court ignored this fact which is not only a denial of justice but also a threat to regional peace.
 
2. Mrs Ingabire told the Supreme Court that there were serious issues during the deliberations of the High Court relating to the judicial decision of the Netherlands.  She pointed out that the Dutch justice system never asked the Rwandan government, as it should be the case, to implement its decision. In this regard Mrs Ingabire showed how the High Court had made errors in the interpretation of article 91 of the Rwandan law 051/2008 dated 9th September 2008. The quoted article clearly stipulates that "the High Court will hear complaints which require execution by foreign courts ".
 
3. Mrs Ingabire regretted that the High Court did not respect the decision of the court in Rotterdam that was communicated to the Rwandan justice system. She pointed that the pieces of evidence A, D and E could only be used in the charges relating to complicity in acts of terrorism. However, Mrs Ingabire pointed out that the pieces of evidence were fraudulently used for a different charge relating to a new charge of high treason and violated the agreement with the justice system of the Netherlands. She asked the Supreme Court to reject those pieces of evidence.
 
With regard to the charge of negationism, Mrs Ingabire stated that the Prosecution had retained the charge of genocidal ideology. The defence had shown that the charge of genocidal ideology cannot be held because the law°18/2008 relating to it was enacted and promulgated after the acts she is alleged to have committed. The charge was then changed into negationism. However no evidence was given to her to prove the new charge nor was she ever questioned about it either in court, by the Prosecution or the Police.
 
With regard to negationism and genocidal ideology, Mrs Ingabire declared that some of its dispositions violated the National Constitution.  She informed the Supreme Court that she wanted to use all the judicial processes in Rwanda before she can appeal the African Court for Human Rights.

Regarding other flaws in the trial process, Mrs Ingabire asked the Supreme Court to examine carefully the contradictions in the statements of the Prosecution, its evidence, its statements during the court hearings as well as in the witness statements of her co-accused. She was sure that the judge would have no difficulty in acquitting her of the two charges if all the elements she presented were taken into account.

The submissions by Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza continue on Thursday 18th 2013.
 
FDU-Inkingi
Boniface TWAGIRIMANA
Interim Vice President

--
DON'T GIVE UP, HE WILL NEVER JAIL A WHOLE NATION" (Mrs. Victoire Ingabire, Kigali Maximum Prison, 5 November 2010)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Le Troisième Mandat de Louise Mushikiwabo à l'OIF : Entre Précédent et Principe Démocratique.

Le Troisième Mandat de Louise Mushikiwabo à l'OIF : Entre Précédent et Principe Démocratique. L'Alternance à l'OIF : Pourquoi un Troisième Mandat Fragilise la Crédibilité de la Francophonie. Introduction Louise Mushikiwabo veut un troisième mandat à la tête de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Son annonce, faite bien avant l'émergence d'autres candidats, rappelle une tactique familière en Afrique : affirmer qu'on a le soutien populaire sans jamais le prouver publiquement. La méthode est rodée. Des dirigeants africains l'utilisent depuis des décennies pour prolonger leur règne. Ils clament que "le peuple le demande" ou que "les partenaires soutiennent" cette reconduction. Aucune preuve formelle n'est nécessaire. L'affirmation devient réalité politique. Mais voilà le problème : la Francophonie prêche la démocratie, l'État de droit et l'alternance au pouvoir. Peut-elle tolérer en son sein ce qu...

Rubaya Mine Under USA’s Control: Kagame Has No Grounds to Object.

Rubaya Mine: Strategic Interests, Regional Conflict and the DRC–USA Cooperation Framework Rubaya mine, located in Masisi territory in North Kivu, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a Congolese resource. It was a Congolese resource before the M23 advanced on it, it remains a Congolese resource today, and it will remain a Congolese resource regardless of what any regional actor claims, implies or pursues. That is not a political position. It is a statement of international law and sovereign right. This foundational point must be stated plainly because it is frequently obscured in discussions about the conflict in eastern Congo. Debates about security narratives, mineral partnerships and geopolitical alignment risk creating a false impression that Rubaya's ownership or governance is somehow open to negotiation between external parties. It is not. The Democratic Republic of the Congo holds sovereign authority over its territory and its natural resources. N...

Rubaya Mine Under U.S. Oversight: Why Kigali Would Struggle to Justify Opposition

Rubaya Mine Under U.S. Oversight: Why Kigali Would Struggle to Justify Opposition   The proposed transfer of operational oversight of the Rubaya mine in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo to the United States marks a potentially decisive shift in one of Central Africa's most contentious economic and security flashpoints. Located in North Kivu province, the Rubaya site is one of the world's most significant sources of coltan, a mineral essential to global electronics supply chains. For months, the area has been associated with the presence of armed actors, including the rebel group M23. Rwanda has repeatedly justified its regional posture by pointing to security threats posed by the FDLR, an armed group with roots in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. However, if the mine were to come under transparent U.S.-backed administration as part of a broader cooperation framework between Kinshasa and Washington, Kigali would face limited diplomatic grounds to...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute