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 Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placé le Rwanda là-bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le déploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   Résumé exécutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de Défense du Rwanda (RDF), imposées par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayées par une pression croissante de l'Union européenne, ont mis à nu une contradiction stratégique de premier ordre. La même force militaire sanctionnée pour son soutien opérationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en République démocratique du Congo est simultanément le principal garant sécuritaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploité par le géant français TotalEnergies à Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse répond à trois questions interconnectées dont les réponses définissent ...

UK and US in Africa Great Lakes: A Strategy Built on Sand

  A Strategy Built on Sand: How Western Military Support for Rwanda and Uganda. Fuelled Authoritarianism and Prolonged Conflict in the African Great Lakes Region.   Introduction: The Logic That Failed For more than three decades, the United States and the United Kingdom have invested heavily in building what they hoped would be stable, capable, and pro-Western security partners in the African Great Lakes Region. Rwanda and Uganda were the centrepiece of this strategy. Both governments received billions of dollars in financial assistance, advanced military training, logistical support, and sophisticated equipment. Both were celebrated in Western capitals as models of governance, post-conflict reconstruction, and economic development. That strategy has failed — comprehensively and consequentially. What the United States and United Kingdom created were not pillars of regional stability. They created highly militarised, authoritaria...

The Killing of Karine Buisset. RDF/M23 Responsible in Any Scenario.

The Killing of Karine Buisset in Goma: Rwanda's Occupation, a Drone Strike, and the Long Pattern of Targeted Violence In the early hours of Wednesday, 11 March 2026, a drone struck a two-storey residential building in the Himbi neighbourhood of Goma, a city held by Rwanda-backed RDF/M23 rebels since January 2025. Karine Buisset, a 54-year-old French national from Belz in Morbihan and a UNICEF child protection officer, was sleeping in the apartment of Christine Guinot, UNICEF's head of security in the DRC, who was not present that night. Buisset died at the scene. Two other people were also killed. By 4:12 a.m., a second wave of strikes had hit the city. RDF/M23 spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka attributed the drone attack to the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC), describing it as a "combat drone" strike and a "terrorist attack" on civilian areas. France's President Emmanuel Macron confirmed Buisset's death on...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

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

Migration Policy Institute