Press ReleaseNovember 2, 2011
Yesterday, at the request of the National Prosecution Authority, the
High Court of Kigali denied the defence counsel of Ms. Victoire
Ingabire Umuhoza, Chairperson of the FDU-Inkingi opposition party, the right
to cross-examine the prosecution's “key witnesses.” The court ordered the defence counsel
to pre-submit a list of questions in order to decide on their relevance and
allow adequate time for the preparation of witnesses' responses.
Today, Barrister Ian Edwards, one of the lawyers for Ms. Victoire Ingabire
Umuhoza, submitted to the court a list of questions but stressed his
worries
about a covering up the truth mostly owing to the court's decision not to
allow witnesses to respond directly in open session. There is a high risk of making them rehearse their answers. This gives an impression to encourage their
lies confirmed by several contradictions in their statements before the
court.
Fearing those questions will create difficulties
for his protégés, the prosecution demanded the court to grant them the right not
to respond to the questions, allegedly because the cross-examination of
the
co-accused witnesses is not allowed under te Rwandan law. They
will prepare only for the questions the court will
allow.
Defence counsel Gatera Gashabana described the prosecutor's
fears as unfounded if the protégés are honest and committed to reveal the truth.
“If they really decided to tell the truth without any pressure,
nothing explains this amount of fear as the prosecution claims they
are trustworthy”? He also wondered why the prosecution is acting in-lieu of
the defence counsel for the co-accused. In response, the prosecutor
insisted he had the responsibility to defend those pleading guilty for the
sake of justice, especially to make sure they avoid alleged traps set by the
defence counsel.
The court order to pre-submit cross-examination
questions for adequate preparation is not backed by any legal aspect obligating
the defence counsel to do so. Barrister Ian Edwards asked why the cross-examinees
could not take a few questions right away since they insisted they knew the
truth. He also
asked why the prosecution was preventing the witnesses from
answering a few questions to which they already had direct answers so that
the court could filter questions for preparation with regard to those they did not
have direct answers for.
The presiding judge overruled the
objection and confirmed that such a system of cross-examination is not a must
in Rwandan law. The defence may only ask questions about topics discussed
in this hearing if they need more information.
As a result of the
court and prosecutor’s behaviour throughout these proceedings it is
impossible to believe Ms. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza will recieve a fair
trial.
For the FDU-Inkingi,
Boniface Twagirimana
Interim
Vice-President
03 November, 2011
02 November, 2011
Ingabire Trial - Defense Denied the Right to Cross-Examine.
Press Release
November 1, 2011
On the request of the National Prosecution Authority, the High Court retracted its previous authorization and denied defense counsel the right to cross-examine the prosecutor’s witnesses on terror charges. The presiding judge ordered the defense team to pre-submit a list of all the questions in order to decide which one could be discussed in open court and allow sufficient time for preparation by ”the witnesses”. This is another slap in the face of the lawyers who believed that some fairness was possible in this kangaroo trial. ”This process is a circus, it’s not fair and the international community needs to know the truth”, said one foreign analyst based in Kigali.
Since the 27th October 2011, political prisoner Victoire Ingabire exposed the terror charges. All the prosecutor’s witnesses in this trial are officially ”co-accused pleading guilty”. Rwandan criminal law procedure in Article 59 is clear on this: “Persons against whom the prosecution has evidence to suspect that they were involved in the commission of an offence cannot be heard as witnesses”. (LAW N° 13/2004 OF 17/5/2004 RELATING TO THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, O.G SPECIAL Nº OF 30/07/2004). Questioned on this blatant violation and disdain of the law, the National Public Prosecution Authority claims that, “Those people are criminals just pleading guilty and helping justice to halt a terrorist leader. Their information is used only for investigation and completion of pieces of evidence. They are not witnesses and could not be treated like that”. The terms of this blind plea are not clear as all the co-accused don’t seem to care about their freedom.
The whole file on the counts of forming an armed group with the aim of destabilising the country, complicity to acts of terrorism, and conspiracy against the government by use of war and terrorism are based on arranged statements from the so-called co-accused. Now the direct cross-examination procedure is being refused.
The terror charge evidence can’t be challenged in open court any more. “This is not a common-law system, the defence lawyers can not just ask direct questions to those people. They could just give them to the court that will screen their relevance before giving people enough time to prepare their responses”, warned Mr. Bonaventure Ruberwa, one of the pleading prosecutors.
The prosecutor justified the arrest of political leader Victoire Ingabire by documents and material seized after the arrest of suspect Vital Uwumuremyi on 13 October 2010. Later on, the cases of 3 other ex-soldiers already in military detention were adjoined. The first contradiction is that she was previously questioned on the content of the evidence before they were officially obtained. The arrest warrant of the key witness Vital Uwumuremyi is posterior to the arrest of the political leader. The material produced in front of the High Court is comprised of emails, a small number of money transfer forms and interrogations. The prosecution has failed to get any of those documents authenticated. The e-mails dates are contradicting. For example, the headers of a response to one email written by Vital Uwumuremyi show that it was sent before the actual mail it was responding to. Some have clearly been written by the same suspect to himself using different pseudonyms he confessed are his during the identification process. The name of Madame Victoire Ingabire is not mentioned anywhere on money transfer forms.
The key witness of the prosecution is known as Major Vital Uwumuremyi, an ex-member of the Forces Armées Rwandaises (ex-FAR), and ex- FDLR. He stated himself that he was repatriated early 2009 after he reached the rank of Major. He does not have an FAR identification number (matricule), and he does not have any officer's identification number given by the former army simply because, until the end of genocide, he was a civilian driver. The information that he was promoted to the rank of Major in Rwanda or in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or in the FDLR is nowhere confirmed.
If there is no serious correction, we are absolutely and irrevocably convinced that the continuation is a validation of flawed proceedings in a kangaroo trial.
Done in Kigali,
Boniface Twagirimana
Interim Vice-President
FDU-Inkingi
November 1, 2011
On the request of the National Prosecution Authority, the High Court retracted its previous authorization and denied defense counsel the right to cross-examine the prosecutor’s witnesses on terror charges. The presiding judge ordered the defense team to pre-submit a list of all the questions in order to decide which one could be discussed in open court and allow sufficient time for preparation by ”the witnesses”. This is another slap in the face of the lawyers who believed that some fairness was possible in this kangaroo trial. ”This process is a circus, it’s not fair and the international community needs to know the truth”, said one foreign analyst based in Kigali.
Since the 27th October 2011, political prisoner Victoire Ingabire exposed the terror charges. All the prosecutor’s witnesses in this trial are officially ”co-accused pleading guilty”. Rwandan criminal law procedure in Article 59 is clear on this: “Persons against whom the prosecution has evidence to suspect that they were involved in the commission of an offence cannot be heard as witnesses”. (LAW N° 13/2004 OF 17/5/2004 RELATING TO THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, O.G SPECIAL Nº OF 30/07/2004). Questioned on this blatant violation and disdain of the law, the National Public Prosecution Authority claims that, “Those people are criminals just pleading guilty and helping justice to halt a terrorist leader. Their information is used only for investigation and completion of pieces of evidence. They are not witnesses and could not be treated like that”. The terms of this blind plea are not clear as all the co-accused don’t seem to care about their freedom.
The whole file on the counts of forming an armed group with the aim of destabilising the country, complicity to acts of terrorism, and conspiracy against the government by use of war and terrorism are based on arranged statements from the so-called co-accused. Now the direct cross-examination procedure is being refused.
The terror charge evidence can’t be challenged in open court any more. “This is not a common-law system, the defence lawyers can not just ask direct questions to those people. They could just give them to the court that will screen their relevance before giving people enough time to prepare their responses”, warned Mr. Bonaventure Ruberwa, one of the pleading prosecutors.
The prosecutor justified the arrest of political leader Victoire Ingabire by documents and material seized after the arrest of suspect Vital Uwumuremyi on 13 October 2010. Later on, the cases of 3 other ex-soldiers already in military detention were adjoined. The first contradiction is that she was previously questioned on the content of the evidence before they were officially obtained. The arrest warrant of the key witness Vital Uwumuremyi is posterior to the arrest of the political leader. The material produced in front of the High Court is comprised of emails, a small number of money transfer forms and interrogations. The prosecution has failed to get any of those documents authenticated. The e-mails dates are contradicting. For example, the headers of a response to one email written by Vital Uwumuremyi show that it was sent before the actual mail it was responding to. Some have clearly been written by the same suspect to himself using different pseudonyms he confessed are his during the identification process. The name of Madame Victoire Ingabire is not mentioned anywhere on money transfer forms.
The key witness of the prosecution is known as Major Vital Uwumuremyi, an ex-member of the Forces Armées Rwandaises (ex-FAR), and ex- FDLR. He stated himself that he was repatriated early 2009 after he reached the rank of Major. He does not have an FAR identification number (matricule), and he does not have any officer's identification number given by the former army simply because, until the end of genocide, he was a civilian driver. The information that he was promoted to the rank of Major in Rwanda or in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or in the FDLR is nowhere confirmed.
If there is no serious correction, we are absolutely and irrevocably convinced that the continuation is a validation of flawed proceedings in a kangaroo trial.
Done in Kigali,
Boniface Twagirimana
Interim Vice-President
FDU-Inkingi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
