Ingabire's Lawyer Talks Her About Trial Withdrawal and his Working Conditions.

Buitenpost De Wereld
18 April 2012
by Anneke Verbraeken

Last Monday opposition leader Victoire Ingabire announced in court that she would no longer attend her own trial. Because of the treatment of her witnesses she has lost all faith in what can be called a fair trial. I asked her English lawyer, Iain Edwards what he thought of the trial, the judges and the prosecution.

At this stage he can only talk about the position of Ingabire, but he admits he’s very disappointed about the trial.  “From the beginning, we were hoping for some kind of fair trial. But it didn’t take long before we realized that a fair trial never would take place.”

His working conditions were not easy. His e-mail was hacked, his telephone tapped.  Edwards said, “One afternoon I got back in my hotel room and found my hard disc was disconnected from my computer and then connected again.”  Edwards knows everything he did was watched by the regime but finds it impossible to prove anything.

According to Edwards Ingabire found it impossible to keep faith in her own trial. “She realized things would not change, whatever happened and no matter what evidence we produced. From the beginning the judges were very hostile towards her and her defence team.” For Ingabire the point of no return came with the hearing of her witnesses. Last week Michel Habimana could not give his full statement because the judges would not allow it. After he returned to his cell (he has a life sentence) he found his things searched and his notes in the possession of prosecution. He was questioned for hours. It became clear other witnesses were too afraid to give testimony or were harassed and threatened.

According to Edwards Ingabire was not expecting much of the trial, so there was no surprise at how things were going. But things were far worse as she expected them to be.

Independent observers acknowledge the different treatment by the judges of Ingabire and her defence team, compared to the treatment of prosecution and the co-accused. The judges were hostile from the start. Witnesses for prosecution could give their statement without any testing of the judges. They would not cross-examine them. They would not ask questions. They were not challenged. The judges would not try to find out the quality of the statements.

And that, according to Edwards, is the duty of judges.  With Ingabire it was the opposite. The judges would jump on every word she said and she would be cross-examined for hours.

There is another example, which shows the failing of the judges, where they even ignored Rwandan law: Some co-accused were held incommunicado at military detention after they were arrested in Burundi. It was only through questions of ingabires defence team that facts emerged of that secret detention. Because of these questions it became clear they were visited by the intelligence service and that they were questioned. There were notes taken from these questionings. These notes were in the possession of prosecution, but never reached the defence team. On the contrary, prosecution denied that the co-accused were held incommunicado.

When all this became clear during the trial, the judges never reacted. They never woke up. They allowed the co-accused to tell whatever they liked. That is against Rwandan law.

Edwards said, “When people say this is a fair trial, they have every right to say so. But what the world is waiting for is the assessment of the observer teams. When the trial is over, they will publish their findings.”

Those reports can be very important for Rwanda that desperately tries to prove they can organize fair trials. So Rwandans living abroad and accused of genocide can be extradited. Edwards: “I don’t have any problems with that. If people have committed serious crimes they must stand trial. But it must be a fair trial.”

Edwards expects Ingabire will be given a new lawyer to represent her, to show the world they follow the rules of a fair trial. But that lawyer will have no access to her file; will not be informed by Ingabire about the ins and outs of her trial. The only material that lawyer will see will be that of prosecution. It will be a harmless lawyer in the eyes of the Rwandan regime, who will do nothing but give the trial a semblance of respectability.

Edwards: “Now that any potential witnesses for the defence are limited, we don’t expect the judges will call other witnesses. I think the trial will be over in a few weeks.”

He’s sombre about the outcome: “We have always tried to be realistic. We have nothing that indicates the judges might give her another sentence prosecution asked for. So she will probably get a lifetime sentence. What I really hope for is that they let her go so she can join her family in the Netherlands. But I don’t think that’s a realistic hope.”