05 July, 2007
An ICTR Chamber Won't Allow Brugiere Report as Evidence.
Hirondelle News Agency
3 April 2007
On Monday the Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in charge with trying Protais Zigiranyirazo, rejected the referral order issued by the French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière to be used as an evidence by the Defence.
In his enquiry about the attack on President Habyarimana’s plane, which triggered the genocide, Judge Bruguière concluded that it was the work of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the rebel movement which was fighting the Rwandan army. He issued nine warrants of arrest against relatives of the current Head of State, Paul Kagame and suggested that the latter should be tranferred before the ICTR.
The request of admitting this enquiry as an evidence in the “Mr Z.” case was done by Mr John Philpot, Counsel of Zigiranyirazo, at the end of the testimony of Aloys Ruyenzi, former member of the RPF and bodyguard of Kagame. The young officer who took refuge in France launched several accusations against his former superior after having asked to testify publicly.
He notably testified that the RPF had committed massacres against Hutu. Their bodies were buried with a bulldozer in the Akagera square and burnt after the war, he said. He also accused Kagame of having presided a preparatory meeting for the attack on the plane of President Habyarimana on 31 March 1994. “It’s only after the attack that I realized”, he said. Ruyenzi also testified in Bruguière’s enquiry.
Bruguière’s report was admitted as an evidence in two cases pending before the ICTR: The case called “Militaries I”, trying the Military Chiefs in charge during the genocide, and the case called “Government II”, trying four Ministers of the government at that time. Mr Philpot affirmed that this document was “relevant regarding the nature of the conflict”. “My client was fleeing”, he insisted.
Before that, another witness, a former officer of the Rwandan army, explained that the Accused, being a civilian, could not have given orders to the militaries. Major Emmanuel Neretse who most notably commanded the militiarian police explained that the only civilian authorities which were empowered to give orders to the army were the Ministers of Defence and of the Interior, the prefect, and the burgomaster (mayor).
According to the Prosecutor in 1994, Zigiranyirazo ordered militaries who were on duty at a road block near one of his houses to search the neighbouring houses and kill all Tutsi they would find. The militaries obeyed.
Neretse also denied the influence of the Akazu, a circle of people close to the President, which had monopolized the political, militarian, and financial powers using networks parallel to the official administrative structure.
“From my experience, I didn’t know of the existence of parallel systems working outside the normal administrative structure of the army I knew”, Neretse said.
“Any existence of parallels systems would have been denounced and unmasked by the Intelligence services controled by the Opposition” since 1992, the witness affirmed.
Zigiranyirazo, 69 years old, brother-in-law of the assassinated President Habyarimana, was arrested in Belgium in July 2001. He has been on trial since 3 October 2005 and has pled not guilty.
3 April 2007
On Monday the Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in charge with trying Protais Zigiranyirazo, rejected the referral order issued by the French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière to be used as an evidence by the Defence.
In his enquiry about the attack on President Habyarimana’s plane, which triggered the genocide, Judge Bruguière concluded that it was the work of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the rebel movement which was fighting the Rwandan army. He issued nine warrants of arrest against relatives of the current Head of State, Paul Kagame and suggested that the latter should be tranferred before the ICTR.
The request of admitting this enquiry as an evidence in the “Mr Z.” case was done by Mr John Philpot, Counsel of Zigiranyirazo, at the end of the testimony of Aloys Ruyenzi, former member of the RPF and bodyguard of Kagame. The young officer who took refuge in France launched several accusations against his former superior after having asked to testify publicly.
He notably testified that the RPF had committed massacres against Hutu. Their bodies were buried with a bulldozer in the Akagera square and burnt after the war, he said. He also accused Kagame of having presided a preparatory meeting for the attack on the plane of President Habyarimana on 31 March 1994. “It’s only after the attack that I realized”, he said. Ruyenzi also testified in Bruguière’s enquiry.
Bruguière’s report was admitted as an evidence in two cases pending before the ICTR: The case called “Militaries I”, trying the Military Chiefs in charge during the genocide, and the case called “Government II”, trying four Ministers of the government at that time. Mr Philpot affirmed that this document was “relevant regarding the nature of the conflict”. “My client was fleeing”, he insisted.
Before that, another witness, a former officer of the Rwandan army, explained that the Accused, being a civilian, could not have given orders to the militaries. Major Emmanuel Neretse who most notably commanded the militiarian police explained that the only civilian authorities which were empowered to give orders to the army were the Ministers of Defence and of the Interior, the prefect, and the burgomaster (mayor).
According to the Prosecutor in 1994, Zigiranyirazo ordered militaries who were on duty at a road block near one of his houses to search the neighbouring houses and kill all Tutsi they would find. The militaries obeyed.
Neretse also denied the influence of the Akazu, a circle of people close to the President, which had monopolized the political, militarian, and financial powers using networks parallel to the official administrative structure.
“From my experience, I didn’t know of the existence of parallel systems working outside the normal administrative structure of the army I knew”, Neretse said.
“Any existence of parallels systems would have been denounced and unmasked by the Intelligence services controled by the Opposition” since 1992, the witness affirmed.
Zigiranyirazo, 69 years old, brother-in-law of the assassinated President Habyarimana, was arrested in Belgium in July 2001. He has been on trial since 3 October 2005 and has pled not guilty.
03 July, 2007
1st Prosecution for Perjury at ICTR
Hirondelle News Agency
July 3 07
The indictment for perjury recently issued before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a premiere for a tribunal where not a single trial was free from such suspicions.
The indictment followed an independent investigation initiated in 2005 by the chief Prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, following accusations expressed during the appeal trial of Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Rwandan Minister of higher education, scientific research and culture. Other cases had been previously evoked but not prosecuted.
The problematic of “false witnesses” has been raised regularly, by the Prosecution as well as the Defence. Among the previous proceedings, some were given up due to lack of evidence, some others, like in Nsengiyumva case (a senior military officer) where the Defence had lodged a complaint in July 2003, led to nothing.
Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2004. During the appeal hearing, two Prosecution’s witnesses withdrew their testimonies. An investigation for perjury or contempt of court was carried out in May 2005.
The Appeals Chamber confirmed the sentence in September 2005, not waiting for the results of the investigations led by an American Prosecutor, independent from the ICTR, Loretta Lynch.
This procedure for perjury could have important consequences in the Kamuhanda case, completed since three years. The witness GAA indicted was one of the main witnesses who testified against the former Minister. On the basis of these new facts, a motion for a review could be filed.
This case took a new turn with the arrest by Rwandan authorities of a Rwandan lawyer, Leonidas Nshogoza, a member of the Defence team for Kamuhanda. In another case, the Rwandan authorities blame him for having attempted to convince a witness to change his statements, in favour of the defendant.
The files of both the ICTR and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are mainly built on testimonies. Before the ICTR, a lot of witnesses are repentant persons. Others were tried by the Rwandan courts and some of them confessed having lied before these courts to “save their lives”. The Defence often accuses some of them of being “fiction witnesses”, “barefaced and obvious liars” or “a band of denunciators”. It considers that testimonies like these are of no big significance.
A lot of testimonies are fragile. When the witnesses appear before the judges, more than ten years have passed and the statements made sometimes differ from the first ones given to the investigators. It is not seldom that Prosecution’s witnesses become Defence’s ones and vice versa.
The ICTY only faced one perjury, in 1996. Dragan Opacic, sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for genocide and war crimes by a court in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was called to testify against Dusko Tadic, former leading member of the Serbian Democratic Party and former member of the paramilitary forces.
After his testimony, the Prosecution told the Trial Chamber that it did not consider the witness as sincere anymore. Two months later, the Chamber ordered an investigation. After that, the Prosecutor did not decide prosecutions against this witness pursuant to article 91 of the Rules; nevertheless, the Chamber ordered his return to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Apart from “false witnesses”, the parties often accuse each other of subornation or perjury or having put pressure on witnesses. In the Kamuhanda case, the request for investigation of the Appeals Chamber was based on alleged perjury and the attitude of two former members of Witnesses and Victims Support Section of the ICTR which characterized a contempt of court (threatening, intimidating, causing an injury or offering a bribe). The indictment filed by the Prosecutor, who claimed to be impatient to prosecute these occurrences, does not mention the prosecutions against the two former members of the ICTR. Neither does it mention the facts of suspected subornation in the former journalist Ngeze case, which had also been object of the investigation.
While prosecutions for contempt never occurred before the ICTR, sixteen cases were treated by the ICTY. Thirteen addressed the disclosure of the identity of protected witnesses; five of these cases also concerned intimidation and pressure. The prosecutions led to seven convictions. Before the ICTY, persons committing contempt are liable to seven years’ imprisonment, five years before the ICTR.
According to the ICTY jurisprudence, the prosecution for contempt of court by the international tribunals pursuant to article 77 of the Rules of procedure and evidence is derived from their inherent power of sanctioning any interference with the administration of justice in order to guarantee that their “fundamental judicial function [be] saved” (Tadic case, judgement of 31 January 2000 relative to alleged facts of contempt against Milan Vujin). It also aims at the efficiency of the witness protection before the tribunals.
In this matter, the two tribunals (ICTR and ICTY) do not follow the same policy. However the protection of witnesses from Rwanda on the one hand, and from former Yugoslavia on the other hand, do not have the same scope. The protection organized in Rwanda is an open secret. The territory is small and the communitarian links are very strong, which easily makes fail a system of protection because this one quickly becomes well-known. Guaranteeing the witness protection and its possible sanctioning is a complex problem for the ICTR.
The annual reports of the ICTR regularly recall that “without witnesses, there would be no trial” since, pursuant to the common law rules, they are the main source of information and evidence. “No witness will accept to come to Arusha to testify if he doesn’t feel well protected”, the ICTR repeated, while not taking a firm position on this matter.
July 3 07
The indictment for perjury recently issued before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a premiere for a tribunal where not a single trial was free from such suspicions.
The indictment followed an independent investigation initiated in 2005 by the chief Prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, following accusations expressed during the appeal trial of Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Rwandan Minister of higher education, scientific research and culture. Other cases had been previously evoked but not prosecuted.
The problematic of “false witnesses” has been raised regularly, by the Prosecution as well as the Defence. Among the previous proceedings, some were given up due to lack of evidence, some others, like in Nsengiyumva case (a senior military officer) where the Defence had lodged a complaint in July 2003, led to nothing.
Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2004. During the appeal hearing, two Prosecution’s witnesses withdrew their testimonies. An investigation for perjury or contempt of court was carried out in May 2005.
The Appeals Chamber confirmed the sentence in September 2005, not waiting for the results of the investigations led by an American Prosecutor, independent from the ICTR, Loretta Lynch.
This procedure for perjury could have important consequences in the Kamuhanda case, completed since three years. The witness GAA indicted was one of the main witnesses who testified against the former Minister. On the basis of these new facts, a motion for a review could be filed.
This case took a new turn with the arrest by Rwandan authorities of a Rwandan lawyer, Leonidas Nshogoza, a member of the Defence team for Kamuhanda. In another case, the Rwandan authorities blame him for having attempted to convince a witness to change his statements, in favour of the defendant.
The files of both the ICTR and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are mainly built on testimonies. Before the ICTR, a lot of witnesses are repentant persons. Others were tried by the Rwandan courts and some of them confessed having lied before these courts to “save their lives”. The Defence often accuses some of them of being “fiction witnesses”, “barefaced and obvious liars” or “a band of denunciators”. It considers that testimonies like these are of no big significance.
A lot of testimonies are fragile. When the witnesses appear before the judges, more than ten years have passed and the statements made sometimes differ from the first ones given to the investigators. It is not seldom that Prosecution’s witnesses become Defence’s ones and vice versa.
The ICTY only faced one perjury, in 1996. Dragan Opacic, sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for genocide and war crimes by a court in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was called to testify against Dusko Tadic, former leading member of the Serbian Democratic Party and former member of the paramilitary forces.
After his testimony, the Prosecution told the Trial Chamber that it did not consider the witness as sincere anymore. Two months later, the Chamber ordered an investigation. After that, the Prosecutor did not decide prosecutions against this witness pursuant to article 91 of the Rules; nevertheless, the Chamber ordered his return to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Apart from “false witnesses”, the parties often accuse each other of subornation or perjury or having put pressure on witnesses. In the Kamuhanda case, the request for investigation of the Appeals Chamber was based on alleged perjury and the attitude of two former members of Witnesses and Victims Support Section of the ICTR which characterized a contempt of court (threatening, intimidating, causing an injury or offering a bribe). The indictment filed by the Prosecutor, who claimed to be impatient to prosecute these occurrences, does not mention the prosecutions against the two former members of the ICTR. Neither does it mention the facts of suspected subornation in the former journalist Ngeze case, which had also been object of the investigation.
While prosecutions for contempt never occurred before the ICTR, sixteen cases were treated by the ICTY. Thirteen addressed the disclosure of the identity of protected witnesses; five of these cases also concerned intimidation and pressure. The prosecutions led to seven convictions. Before the ICTY, persons committing contempt are liable to seven years’ imprisonment, five years before the ICTR.
According to the ICTY jurisprudence, the prosecution for contempt of court by the international tribunals pursuant to article 77 of the Rules of procedure and evidence is derived from their inherent power of sanctioning any interference with the administration of justice in order to guarantee that their “fundamental judicial function [be] saved” (Tadic case, judgement of 31 January 2000 relative to alleged facts of contempt against Milan Vujin). It also aims at the efficiency of the witness protection before the tribunals.
In this matter, the two tribunals (ICTR and ICTY) do not follow the same policy. However the protection of witnesses from Rwanda on the one hand, and from former Yugoslavia on the other hand, do not have the same scope. The protection organized in Rwanda is an open secret. The territory is small and the communitarian links are very strong, which easily makes fail a system of protection because this one quickly becomes well-known. Guaranteeing the witness protection and its possible sanctioning is a complex problem for the ICTR.
The annual reports of the ICTR regularly recall that “without witnesses, there would be no trial” since, pursuant to the common law rules, they are the main source of information and evidence. “No witness will accept to come to Arusha to testify if he doesn’t feel well protected”, the ICTR repeated, while not taking a firm position on this matter.
02 July, 2007
ICTR Accuses Rusesabangina of Giving Hearsay.
2nd-July 2007
Kigali - The Office of the Chief prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has accused Mr. Paul Rusesabagina of lying and providing unsubstantiated “information that is of no value in our work”, RNA has established.
The Tribunal’s response comes to counter comments contained in an interview that Mr. Rusesabagina had with BBC Great lakes service Wednesday. Mr. Rusesabagina claimed he met Mr. Abubakar Jallow (Prosecutor) who apparently assured him that the RPF members would be investigated for their alleged crimes.
“I wrote to the prosecutor Abubakar Jallow submitting my case and he personally received the document. In fact he even assured me that they (ICTR prosecution) are going to conduct investigations on the matter”, Rusesabagina said in the interview.
He added: “So much so that all the RPF members and all those that committed Genocide related crimes will be followed up and punished.”
Responding on behalf of his boss, the Spokesman of the Chief Prosecutor Mr. Tim Gallimore acknowledged to RNA that the Office had indeed received “communications” from Mr. Rusesabagina in November 2006.
“As a matter of routine, the Office of the Prosecutor acknowledges all communications, including those from individuals, offering information that might be useful in the prosecution of cases before the Tribunal”, Mr. Gallimore wrote in an email to RNA.
He added: “Our response to Mr. Rusesabagina, (we) asked him to submit whatever information he possessed concerning crimes allegedly committed in Rwanda falling under the statutory mandate of the ICTR”.
Mr. Gallimore said the Prosecutor’s office “took the further step of sending a team of investigators to meet with Mr. Rusesabagina to receive his information”. Gallimore did not however detail when such a mission was made.
“He (Mr. Rusesabagina) offered nothing more than “hearsay” information that is of no value in our work”, Mr. Gallimore said. “This is the extent of the contact and communication between the Office of the Prosecutor and Mr. Rusesabagina”.
On the comment by the controversial Hotel Rwanda hero that the Prosecutor had made some sort of commitment, Mr. Gallimore said “to clarify, the Office of the Prosecutor has made no promises whatsoever to Mr. Rusesabagina”.
Never met Ban Ki-Moon
Meanwhile on Thursday, Rwanda ’s Ambassador Mr. Joseph Nsengemana called in to the similar BBC program and categorically refuted claims by Mr. Rusesabagina that he had met UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon in New York.
“Rusesabagina never met Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. In fact he was not in New York during the same period Rusesabagina claims to have met him”, Ambassador Nsengemana said.
During the Wednesday BBC interview, Mr. Rusesabagina also said he had met and presented the UN boss with his letter asking for an extension of the term of the ICTR. Mr. Rusesabagina later confirmed to BBC that he never met Ban Ki-Moon.
In the letter, he asks the UN Secretary General to use his “high authority to grant a term extension” for the Tanzania-based Genocide tribunal beyond its 2008 deadline arguing it has fallen “short of its initial mission”.
The same Council last year ordered the costly tribunal to phase out its activities by 2010. The remaining cases are now being transferred to Rwanda and Europe.
Rwanda News Agency
Kigali - The Office of the Chief prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has accused Mr. Paul Rusesabagina of lying and providing unsubstantiated “information that is of no value in our work”, RNA has established.
The Tribunal’s response comes to counter comments contained in an interview that Mr. Rusesabagina had with BBC Great lakes service Wednesday. Mr. Rusesabagina claimed he met Mr. Abubakar Jallow (Prosecutor) who apparently assured him that the RPF members would be investigated for their alleged crimes.
“I wrote to the prosecutor Abubakar Jallow submitting my case and he personally received the document. In fact he even assured me that they (ICTR prosecution) are going to conduct investigations on the matter”, Rusesabagina said in the interview.
He added: “So much so that all the RPF members and all those that committed Genocide related crimes will be followed up and punished.”
Responding on behalf of his boss, the Spokesman of the Chief Prosecutor Mr. Tim Gallimore acknowledged to RNA that the Office had indeed received “communications” from Mr. Rusesabagina in November 2006.
“As a matter of routine, the Office of the Prosecutor acknowledges all communications, including those from individuals, offering information that might be useful in the prosecution of cases before the Tribunal”, Mr. Gallimore wrote in an email to RNA.
He added: “Our response to Mr. Rusesabagina, (we) asked him to submit whatever information he possessed concerning crimes allegedly committed in Rwanda falling under the statutory mandate of the ICTR”.
Mr. Gallimore said the Prosecutor’s office “took the further step of sending a team of investigators to meet with Mr. Rusesabagina to receive his information”. Gallimore did not however detail when such a mission was made.
“He (Mr. Rusesabagina) offered nothing more than “hearsay” information that is of no value in our work”, Mr. Gallimore said. “This is the extent of the contact and communication between the Office of the Prosecutor and Mr. Rusesabagina”.
On the comment by the controversial Hotel Rwanda hero that the Prosecutor had made some sort of commitment, Mr. Gallimore said “to clarify, the Office of the Prosecutor has made no promises whatsoever to Mr. Rusesabagina”.
Never met Ban Ki-Moon
Meanwhile on Thursday, Rwanda ’s Ambassador Mr. Joseph Nsengemana called in to the similar BBC program and categorically refuted claims by Mr. Rusesabagina that he had met UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon in New York.
“Rusesabagina never met Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. In fact he was not in New York during the same period Rusesabagina claims to have met him”, Ambassador Nsengemana said.
During the Wednesday BBC interview, Mr. Rusesabagina also said he had met and presented the UN boss with his letter asking for an extension of the term of the ICTR. Mr. Rusesabagina later confirmed to BBC that he never met Ban Ki-Moon.
In the letter, he asks the UN Secretary General to use his “high authority to grant a term extension” for the Tanzania-based Genocide tribunal beyond its 2008 deadline arguing it has fallen “short of its initial mission”.
The same Council last year ordered the costly tribunal to phase out its activities by 2010. The remaining cases are now being transferred to Rwanda and Europe.
Rwanda News Agency
Presumed Doctor of Kabuga Questioned.
Hirondelle News Agency
2 July 07
On Wednesday, members of the tracking team of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) questioned the presumed doctor of the businessman Félicien Kabuga, the most famous of the 18 fugitives searched by this court of the United Nations, in Nairobi, Kenya, the Rwandan daily newspaper New Times reports this Friday.
Doctor Gerald Young was questioned on information according to which he treated the accused at large between 2001 and 2003, the newspaper writes.
The doctor admitted having treated foreign patients, among them some Rwandans, the daily newspaper adds.
Asked about this matter by the Hirondelle News Agency, the spokesperson of the Prosecutor, Timothy Gallimore, refused to answer.
According to the Prosecutor, the Gambian Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Kabuga, who escaped several times to common operations of the Kenyan police and the ICTR, runs most of his commercial activities in Kenya.
In 2002 the United States launched a large media campaign in Kenya aiming at the arrest of Kabuga. A reward of up to 5 millions US dollars was granted for any information which could lead to his arrest. But the “big fish” is still free.
Ten-days ago, in a speech before the Security Council, the Prosecutor called on the United Nations to put the Kenyan authorities under pressure in order to arrest the billionaire.
Having started from scratch to become the richest man of his country at that time, Kabuga, who comes from Byumba (North Rwanda) is notably accused of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide.
Related to the former president Juvénal Habyarimana by marriage, the businessman was also the principal shareholder of the sadly famous Radio-télevision libre des Mille collines (RTLM) which spread hatred against Tutsis.
According to the office of the Prosecutor, Kabuga owns numerous travelling documents with several false names.
One of his sons-in-law, the former Minister for Planning, Augustin Ngirabatware, is also on the list of the ICTR fugitives.
2 July 07
On Wednesday, members of the tracking team of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) questioned the presumed doctor of the businessman Félicien Kabuga, the most famous of the 18 fugitives searched by this court of the United Nations, in Nairobi, Kenya, the Rwandan daily newspaper New Times reports this Friday.
Doctor Gerald Young was questioned on information according to which he treated the accused at large between 2001 and 2003, the newspaper writes.
The doctor admitted having treated foreign patients, among them some Rwandans, the daily newspaper adds.
Asked about this matter by the Hirondelle News Agency, the spokesperson of the Prosecutor, Timothy Gallimore, refused to answer.
According to the Prosecutor, the Gambian Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Kabuga, who escaped several times to common operations of the Kenyan police and the ICTR, runs most of his commercial activities in Kenya.
In 2002 the United States launched a large media campaign in Kenya aiming at the arrest of Kabuga. A reward of up to 5 millions US dollars was granted for any information which could lead to his arrest. But the “big fish” is still free.
Ten-days ago, in a speech before the Security Council, the Prosecutor called on the United Nations to put the Kenyan authorities under pressure in order to arrest the billionaire.
Having started from scratch to become the richest man of his country at that time, Kabuga, who comes from Byumba (North Rwanda) is notably accused of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide.
Related to the former president Juvénal Habyarimana by marriage, the businessman was also the principal shareholder of the sadly famous Radio-télevision libre des Mille collines (RTLM) which spread hatred against Tutsis.
According to the office of the Prosecutor, Kabuga owns numerous travelling documents with several false names.
One of his sons-in-law, the former Minister for Planning, Augustin Ngirabatware, is also on the list of the ICTR fugitives.
President Museveni's Son Begins One Year of Military Training at Fort Leavenworth, USA.
Muhoozi sent for training in USA
Daily Monitor
Grace Matsiko
2 July 2007
President Yoweri Museveni has sent Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the first son, to Fort Leavenworth, a prestigious United States military academy, to study leadership skills.
The President appoints and deploys all officers from the rank of Major and above.
Maj. Muhoozi is to stay at Leavenworth until July next year, to study leadership development, collective training, military doctrine, battle command and latest anti-terrorism operations, military sources said.
Fort Leavenworth in the state of Kansas is the oldest US military academy founded in 1827 and is renowned for leadership training. The academy also accommodates the Department of Defense's only maximum security prison - the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks.
According to the information posted on the academy's website, Col. Timothy A. Weathersbee, the Leavenworth Garrison commander, says: "In addition, the Fort Leavenworth Garrison supports numerous tenant organisations that directly and indirectly relate to the functions of the CAC (the US Army Combined Arms Centre)."
Army and Defence Spokesman Felix Kulayigye confirmed that Maj. Muhoozi is in the US for a course.
"He is on a senior command staff course. There are other officers who went before him to other colleges and are about to return. Others went almost the same time he went there," Maj. Kulayigye said.
He said the cost of Maj. Muhoozi and other officers' training would be borne by the "host country" - in this case the US. However, when contacted, the US embassy said they would comment today.
Daily Monitor has learnt that Brig. Nathan Mugisha, the former UPDF 4th Division commander, is among the officers in the US. Others who went before Maj. Muhoozi include Maj. Bosco Mutambi, who is in India, Maj. Francis Onia (Nigeria) and Maj. Fred Twinamatsiko who is in Kenya.
Maj. Muhoozi has been the commander of the Presidential Guard Brigade motorised battalion, a key element in the President's security. Before he left for the US last week, he was stationed in Semiliki Game Park, Bundibugyo, where a combined force was formed to fight off incursions of the Allied democratic Forces (ADF) rebels who are alleged to be in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Maj. Muhoozi, a graduate of economics and political science from Nottingham University in the United Kingdom, underwent his first army training at athe elite British military academy at Sandhurst. He has attended several courses in Egypt, China, US and Libya.
Maj. Kulayigye said it is because of the several courses that Maj. Muhoozi has attended that he qualified to go to the US alongside other officers.
"To qualify, you must be a major and undergone junior courses," he said. To dispel rumours that Maj. Muhoozi is being favoured, Maj. Kulayigye said the first son, like other officers, went through the UPDF career development directorate, which also considers the period one has served.
"It is after the directorate has screened the officers that the candidates' list is forwarded to the President," he said. Maj. Muhoozi's military career has raised eyebrows especially from President Museveni's opponents, who claim he is being groomed for the country's leadership.
While still a student in the UK, he recruited youth into the UPDF, a development that created controversy until the President explained that Maj. Muhoozi belonged to the Local Defence Force.
Libyan President Muammar Gadhafi, while on a visit to Uganda, promoted him from a Lieutenant to the rank of Major, two ranks up but the President did not honour the gesture.
Daily Monitor
Grace Matsiko
2 July 2007
President Yoweri Museveni has sent Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the first son, to Fort Leavenworth, a prestigious United States military academy, to study leadership skills.
The President appoints and deploys all officers from the rank of Major and above.
Maj. Muhoozi is to stay at Leavenworth until July next year, to study leadership development, collective training, military doctrine, battle command and latest anti-terrorism operations, military sources said.
Fort Leavenworth in the state of Kansas is the oldest US military academy founded in 1827 and is renowned for leadership training. The academy also accommodates the Department of Defense's only maximum security prison - the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks.
According to the information posted on the academy's website, Col. Timothy A. Weathersbee, the Leavenworth Garrison commander, says: "In addition, the Fort Leavenworth Garrison supports numerous tenant organisations that directly and indirectly relate to the functions of the CAC (the US Army Combined Arms Centre)."
Army and Defence Spokesman Felix Kulayigye confirmed that Maj. Muhoozi is in the US for a course.
"He is on a senior command staff course. There are other officers who went before him to other colleges and are about to return. Others went almost the same time he went there," Maj. Kulayigye said.
He said the cost of Maj. Muhoozi and other officers' training would be borne by the "host country" - in this case the US. However, when contacted, the US embassy said they would comment today.
Daily Monitor has learnt that Brig. Nathan Mugisha, the former UPDF 4th Division commander, is among the officers in the US. Others who went before Maj. Muhoozi include Maj. Bosco Mutambi, who is in India, Maj. Francis Onia (Nigeria) and Maj. Fred Twinamatsiko who is in Kenya.
Maj. Muhoozi has been the commander of the Presidential Guard Brigade motorised battalion, a key element in the President's security. Before he left for the US last week, he was stationed in Semiliki Game Park, Bundibugyo, where a combined force was formed to fight off incursions of the Allied democratic Forces (ADF) rebels who are alleged to be in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Maj. Muhoozi, a graduate of economics and political science from Nottingham University in the United Kingdom, underwent his first army training at athe elite British military academy at Sandhurst. He has attended several courses in Egypt, China, US and Libya.
Maj. Kulayigye said it is because of the several courses that Maj. Muhoozi has attended that he qualified to go to the US alongside other officers.
"To qualify, you must be a major and undergone junior courses," he said. To dispel rumours that Maj. Muhoozi is being favoured, Maj. Kulayigye said the first son, like other officers, went through the UPDF career development directorate, which also considers the period one has served.
"It is after the directorate has screened the officers that the candidates' list is forwarded to the President," he said. Maj. Muhoozi's military career has raised eyebrows especially from President Museveni's opponents, who claim he is being groomed for the country's leadership.
While still a student in the UK, he recruited youth into the UPDF, a development that created controversy until the President explained that Maj. Muhoozi belonged to the Local Defence Force.
Libyan President Muammar Gadhafi, while on a visit to Uganda, promoted him from a Lieutenant to the rank of Major, two ranks up but the President did not honour the gesture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
