Thursday, November 27, 2014

You are here

The Ingabire Trial: Rwanda's Contempt of Court?

Opposition activist Ingabire has been denied a fair trial by expedient judges, improperly gathered evidence and a disregard for procedural justice.
Share |
The trial of Victoire Ingabire getting underway in the Kigali Supreme Court. Photograph by Graham Holliday.

Since her arrest in October 2010, the trial of Rwandan opposition figure Victoire Ingabire has been followed intently. Eighteen months into the proceedings, Ingabire is now awaiting a verdict on six counts relating to terrorism and genocide denial, and her case has come to symbolise the ongoing struggle over the legacy of the genocide and the future of judicial independence in Rwanda.

The partisan national press was declaring Ingabire a ‘divisionist’ even before the arrest, while international observers have been keen to expose the trial as a sham. But without direct access to documents presented to the court, this is not the place to assess Ingabire’s guilt or innocence. What we can assess here, however, are the judicial processes that govern the case and that will decide Ingabire’s fate. And examining these suggests that the prosecution has virtually guaranteed that regardless of whether an acquittal or a conviction is handed down, justice will have been denied to the defendant.

The case background

Ingabire, chair of the diaspora opposition group The United Democratic Forces (FDU-Inkingi), had been living in the Netherlands from 1993 until January 2010 when she returned to Rwanda to contest the national elections the following August.

Ingabire was first placed under house arrest in April, three months after giving a speech at the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre in which she questioned why Hutu victims of the genocide were forgotten while also insisting on the need for national reconciliation and justice for the many Tutsi who were murdered. She was eventually released on conditional bail and repeatedly interrogated over the summer. Meanwhile, the FDU’s petition for official status as a political party was rejected, effectively excluding the group from the polls.

Ingabire’s re-arrest in October was on suspicion of “threatening national security and public order” and of “buying and distributing arms and ammunitions to the terrorist organisation” the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a rebel group operating out of Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Also implicated in this “plot to destabilise the country” was Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of Mille Collines Hotel, whose heroic protection of refugees during the 1994 genocide were depicted in the film Hotel Rwanda.

In the end, the state decided to charge Ingabire alongside alleged co-conspirators Colonel Tharcisse Nditurende, Lieutenant Colonel Noel Habiyaremye, Lieutenant Jean Marie Vianney Karuta and Major Vital Uwumuremyi. As the hearings began in Kigali High Court, further charges were added relating to “genocide ideology” and “divisionism”.

“Fruit of the poisonous tree”

The first set of procedural troubles in the trial relate to the procurement and application of the prosecution’s evidence. Before Ingabire’s case began, her alleged co-conspirators appeared in court for a string of pre-trial confessions. All four pleaded guilty and asked for clemency.

Yet despite Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga’s claim that “there is not a single allegation they are making against her that is not supported with documentary evidence”, the facts of the case rely to an extraordinary extent on their respective stories.

Uwumuremyi’s testimony is of particular importance to the prosecution. He alone “explained” the “coded language” of the emails he allegedly exchanged with Ingabire, as well as the Western Union money transfers of $7,000 that (he claimed) she sent for the purchase of weapons. Thus, without the guilty plea of a confessed rebel politician, the phone records and money transfers do little to condemn Ingabire.

Moreover, at least two of the co-conspirators were produced for the trial through irregular means: namely, being arrested in Burundi, involuntarily repatriated, and incarcerated for seven months in extrajudicial detention. During this time, they were denied access to counsel and family, and subjected to frequent interrogations by Rwandan intelligence services. And the prosecution does not deny this story: queried about the matter, Prosecutor General Ngoga simply replied, “those are arguments meant to avoid [the] real substance of the case”.

In addition to the difficulties of producing evidence, the prosecution also seems to have ignored the rules governing its use. Most notably, papers collected at Ingabire’s home in the Netherlands were released to the Rwandan government by the Dutch Foreign Ministry after a protracted legal battle, and only with the guarantee that the 600-page portfolio would be used to prosecute the charge of terrorism.

Yet it is unclear to what extent this evidentiary dividing wall has been maintained; prosecutors, for example, claim that the Dutch documents prove involvement in the FDLR and therefore conspiracy against the government. Formal use of the files to prove these charges would be flatly illegal, but even informal consideration (for instance, influencing the court’s opinion of her character) is clearly prejudicial.

Making things difficult

The second dimension of procedural injustice follows the general means by which the state has allegedly impeded Ingabire’s defence. Such problems appeared from the start: in the days following her re-arrest, FDU officials claimed that Ingabire was forced to wear handcuffs while in detention for at least two days without respite, a charge denied vehemently by the police.

Outside the courtroom, biased coverage of Ingabire’s trial signals the breakdown of judicial independence, especially in the pages of government-aligned dailies that dominate the national press. In one case, President Paul Kagame explicitly asserted Ingabire’s guilt. More directly, officially-sanctioned reporting often borders on defamation. Throughout her trial, media outlets have compared her to Osama bin LadenHamas, and the Nazis – the presumption of innocence notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the state has reportedly applied extra-constitutional pressure on Ingabire and her defence. Not only was Ingabire allegedly denied access to her legal team and FDU colleagues, but when she was allowed to see them, it was (party officials claimed) under prosecution surveillance. Her Rwandan defence lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, also reported that the state had failed to provide Ingabire’s team with all of the prosecution’s evidence, hindering adequate preparation of her defence.

This April, the defence also claimed intimidation of a key witness. Testifying that state intelligence services had manufactured Uwumuremyi’s story, Colonel Michel Habimana was allegedly improperly interrogated by police under the direction of the Prosecutor General. Already serving life in prison, Habimana was subjected to a cell search and had important documents relating to the case seized. Whilst prosecutors maintained that this transpired within the bounds of the law, they gave no reason for the intrusion.

“Fitting” the law

Most troubling, however, is the third category of procedural faults which contravene both Rwandan and international law. Such problems first arose in May 2011, when Ingabire asked for and was granted a postponement.

As a British lawyer (alongside Gashabana) was leading her defence team, Ingabire was granted one additional month to translate the 2,500 documents delivered by the prosecution from Kinyarwanda into English. The presiding judge refused the request of four months for further study, claiming it would unfairly delay the trial of the her co-accused. But Ingabire and her alleged conspirators face charges deserving of separate trials.

Firstly, the defendants were apprehended entirely independently of one another. Secondly, while the men are FDLR commanders accused of physical violence, Ingabire is a politician charged with only economically and rhetorically supporting their military campaigns. Thus, while falling under the broad aegis of ‘terrorism’, their alleged crimes are fundamentally different.

The government implicitly recognised this when it divided the six charges against Ingabire into two blocs, trying her for three of the charges (divisionism, genocide ideology, and inciting revolt) as an individual – but then extra-legally swapping evidence between the two sets of crimes. Collaborators’ testimony on monetary transactions, for example, has been smuggled into an entirely separate case on Ingabire’s alleged ‘divisionism’. And the possibility of having separate trials has been denied despite substantial objections against linking the cases.

In other instances, the prosecution has openly manipulated the law. During pre-trial formalities in September, Ingabire’s defence lodged two motions. The first was against the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for acts allegedly committed while Ingabire was resident in the Netherlands – this contention was dismissed the following week. 

Justice Rutazana decided that the relevant statute should be interpreted to grant the High Court jurisdiction over any crime, irrespective of where it was committed, as long as the offence in question constitutes an international crime such as terrorism or genocide denial. Though the law is radically out of sync with international standards for ‘universal jurisdiction’, Rutazana appears here to have followed the letter of the statute.

Troubles emerged, however, in the dismissal of the defence’s second motion – the contention that Ingabire’s prosecution under the 2008 ‘genocide ideology’ law amounted to retrospective application. All evidence provided dated from before 2007.  For instance, a book published in 2000 (to which Ingabire was connected) motivated the prosecution’s charges of divisionism and incitement to revolt, while statements she made in July and October of the same year formed the basis on which the genocide ideology charge was levied.

Ingabire asked for all such documentation relating to events before the law’s enactment be removed from her file, which the judge denied. The legal basis of Rutazana’s decision was flimsy: the case had simply gone too far to grant the request, he explained. At the time of this dismissal, the trial had not yet officially begun.

Finally, this April, the court rejected Ingabire’s petition for a partial suspension of the trial pending the ongoing revision of the ‘genocide ideology’ law. Justifying this move, the Supreme Court cited her failure to attach a copy of the statute. The case that could potentially imprison a leading opposition figure for life thus proceeded on the grounds that she had neglected to paperclip to the file a copy of a law to which, in any case, the justices have easy access.

Method matters

Ingabire may well be guilty of some, if not all, the charges levied against her. It is possible that she directed FDU monies to the FDLR for the purpose of inciting violence against the state. It is also possible that she supports ‘divisionism’ and ‘genocide ideology’ as defined by Rwandan statute. Although her guilt appears unlikely to this author, it is a challenge that can at least be countenanced in Rwanda’s courts.

This legal battle, however, is constrained by a bevy of laws guaranteeing Ingabire a fair hearing. Article 19 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that “every person accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been conclusively proved in accordance with the law in a public and fair hearing”.

Additionally, Rwanda affirms its commitment to enforcing numerous international agreements such as the African (Banjul) Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights of 27 June 1981, which contains extensive provisions for due process.

It is clear from the foregoing analysis that none of these appear to have exerted any influence over the prosecution of this case. Evidence has been gathered and deployed improperly. Strong-arm tactics have repeatedly hindered Ingabire’s defence, while a government-controlled media has gleefully convicted her in the court of public opinion.

Most worryingly, however is that the presiding judges have adopted legal interpretations according to expedience in a number of instances. Substantial challenges to the prosecution of Ingabire’s case have been allowed to lapse, and the numerous safeguards for procedural justice have been violated in principle if not in statute. 

Awaiting a verdict

Ingabire’s verdict is slated for June 29. As she is now boycotting the trial entirely, she seems likely to receive life in prison.  Looking beyond this case, however, such violations of due process may lead the international community to row back on cooperation with the Rwandan judiciary. This is of growing concern for Western policymakers.

Prior to Ingabire’s trial, there had been numerous indications of growing trust in Rwanda’s legal system. In January, Canada deported Leon Mugesera, allegedly one of the genocide’s masterminds, for trial. The same month, the United States turned over Jean-Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka, reportedly a former interahamwe leader. Furthermore, April saw the first-ever transfer from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to the national courts, in the case of genocide suspect Jean Bosco Uwinkindi. As long as the West continues to willingly transfer such suspects to Rwanda, it will be complicit in gross miscarriages of justice. 

Rwandans are correct to assert the right of trying genocide suspects at home, and it is incontestable that justice depends on those responsible – particularly such unsavoury characters as Mugesera – being held to account. But even those most guilty of atrocities should receive fair trials. Procedural justice must be pursued with equal vigour as the outcomes of justice are currently.

Rwanda must ask herself whether commitments to individual human rights are worth sacrificing in support of Rwandan sovereignty and communal justice.

Think Africa Press welcomes inquiries regarding the republication of its articles. If you would like to republish this or any other article for re-print, syndication or educational purposes, please contact: editor@thinkafricapress.com

Share |

Comments

Hi Zach,  firstly, thank you for the interesting article. It is a good description of the case and makes some very valid point, concerning the Rwandan judicial system. However I think the conclusion of this article should be that the Rwandan judicial system needs more support from donors ( I think GTZ used to have a project with Ministry of Justice), than less, as a lot of the mistakes could as well come from unprofessionalism and inexperience.  Then, although you only mention it, I'd be very interested to hear what convinces you of her innocence, as I am based on some source I trust (one UN, another private) am convinced that she has in fact collaborated with the FDLR, and is a supporter of genocide ideology (apparently she has said some chocking things, off record). I hope we will be able to have this discussion on an objective bases and not go into the usual arguing which discussion about Rwanda so often produce...One last point, since when does FDLR operate in Burundi? This is the first time I am hearing that...Curt  

Curt, thank you for your comments. On the matter of aid, two notes: I was more concerned with explicit judicial cooperation, ie transferring suspects and evidence -- not technical or monetary assistance within the Rwandan court system. The problems addressed here don't necessarily rule out aid, and you may be right that there's room for donors to help build technical capability. But second, to address your suggestion more directly, I think that we cannot assume the problem is incompetence or inexperience: Rwanda has many excellent jurists, and in many instances the courts function as efficiently as anywhere else on the continent. And in any case, from what I gather (interviews, readings, public statements, etc), many Rwandans would prefer if we donor countries just stayed out of their national justice system. On Ingabire's innocence: at this moment, I simply do not know if she is innocent or guilty. It's quite possible that she is in fact guilty; I do think she appears innocent, but this is just my opinion from afar. The primary reason for my position (there are others, but for brevity's sake) is that a lot of the statements attributed to her are actually gathered from evidence such as the 2000 book I reference above, to which her connection is really tenuous: the volume was published by a political organization which she served as a board member. Other statements are exaggerated and taken out of context. In her infamous KGC speech, she didn't (to my knowledge) suggest the 'double genocide' theory, but instead noted that many moderate Hutu were victims of the genocide (a factually correct statement) and that there were many Hutu victims of RPA incursions into the eastern DRC in the following decade (more controversial, but many scholars estimate that there were 30,000 thus killed, many of them children). But in the trial and in the media, this has been distorted into her saying things like Hutu were the real victims of the genocide. So while she may well have elsewhere claimed that the genocide never happened or something similar, it would be odd for the prosecution's entire evidentiary body to be based on such books and statements which do little to prove her 'genocide ideology'. Finally, as for the FDLR in Burundi, I don't know about the circumstances that led to the men being arrested there - though I've heard, informally, that such groups go back and forth between the DRC and Rwanda by way of Burundi to avoid apprehension. In either case, the prosecution has been public about the details of their arrests. Thanks again, Zach

Thank you Zack for the well-written and well-reseached article. 1thing on ingabire speech (the part where she talks about the hutu victims): I think Ingabire mentioned not only the 'moderate' hutu victims of the genocide (killed by extremist hutu/ interahamwe) but she also mantioned those killed by the rpf during the 100days of the genocide in the erea it controlled as mentioned in this HRW plea to the UN tribunal (http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/12/rwanda-tribunal-should-pursue-justice-rpf-crimes )and in the documentary THE KILLING FIELDS of Belgian tv station VRT (http://web.me.com/bernarddesgagne/Rwanda/Massacres_du_FPR.html ) and those killed inside Rwanda just after the genocide like in Kibeho 1995 as Paul Jordan an Austrarian eyewitness accounts (http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/peacekeeping/anecdotes/kibeho.html)what happened in drc in 1996 -1997 is a possible genocide according to the UN http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/10/01/dr-congo-un-report-exposes-grave-crimes

  Thank you for your article. You demonstrated clearly the state of the current Rwandan judicial system in which is embedded states impeding, unlawful use of evidences, various procedural faults which contravene both Rwanda and international law etc,...Free and fair justice, human rights and respect of rule of law are the fundamental pillars of everlasting peace, reconciliations and harmony between people.  Countries and international justice systems that are deporting Rwandan suspects to face the justice system you are describing  are willingly or unwillingly (depending on information they have) conspiring in abusing human rights of Rwandans and in denying free and fair justice that Rwandans victims of genocide, crimes against humanity desperately need and deserve.Rwandan government should clean-up it judicial system before it is entrusted with cases from abroad or entrusted to deliver free and fair justice for cases current going into its courts.To achieve that Rwanda should first become a democratic state in which leaders are accountable to their people and people can participate freely in electing their leaders guided by rule of law.Before that step is undertaken and achieved, pray for the people of Rwanda because physiological, mental and physical suffering as result of lack of fundamental of freedom is one of the most horrible experience in any population life. 

While I respect your views, I wish to express dismay with the way you simplify very complex issues concerning the genocide. You seem to sound like Ingabire's poisonous rants are entirely her right to free speech. Zach if you were Rwandan and spoke Kinyarwanda had to see your mum being raped, your 2-week brother being pounded on the floor and many of the horrific things that happened in this country, you would not be speaking the way you do. The comments Ingabire made tend to lose the original power when in your language or French. But if you heard them in Kinyarwanda, they were meant to appeal to ethnic sentiments. Do you know what Ingabire means when she says "abanyarwanda benshi barakennye"? (Majority of Rwandans are poor). To you, this sounds like a mere assertion, but what it means and who it was targeting is ethnic in nature! When you read Leon Mugesera's speech in English or French, its only a speech that will not attract the slightest applause. Read it in Kinyarwanda you will not imagine a normal human being can get that evil. The language is terrifying. The tone is incendiary. It is understandable that you were simply trying to report on a very complex case, but it hurts so much that you minimise the issues before the court like its a case of thief! When I read literature like yours, I tend to get convinced with the way the govt of Rwanda is acting. I would suggest you find better things to spend you time doing than wasting it on covering the Ingabire who laughs at all the pain we have gone through and actually wants a new round of something similar. 

Julius, post-conflict justice is a notoriously complex issue, made all the more fraught by the fact that Rwanda's 'conflict' was genocide. There are no universally right answers as to how countries should pursue justice following such atrocities, and policymakers, politicians, and academics - whether Rwandan or Western - are working entirely on the fly in designing programs to aid this process. Thus the various successes and failures of gacaca, national courts, ICTR, and other jurisdictions abroad. But even with such problems in mind, Rwanda has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to procedural justice, namely, the right to a free trial, protections from political/state interference, presumption of innocence, etc. -- even in genocide-related casesr. By Rwandan statute, no matter who the defendant is or what crimes he or she has allegedly committed, the state must adhere to these principles of impartiality and due process. To not do so, as in this case, is to compromise individual freedoms in the - quite worthy! - quest for communal justice. Perhaps more importantly, this over-zealous pursuit of justice will compromise reconciliation. Ultimately, peace and stability may be lost.

Julius, fear mongering or scaremongering is a well known/used tactic in Rwanda. and it is extensively used against all political opponents of kagame espacially on ingabire (without success) since her arrival in 2010. use of fear to influance domestic and international opinions doesn't work anymore. what is left is repression. you are telling lies about Ingabire speech (and you know that). you know very well that Ingabire's speech and Mugesera's  are in no single way comparable. the only thing ingabire and mugesera have in common is that they are both hutu's. it is a fact that the majority of rwandans are poor or not? can  kagame say " abanyarwanda benshi barakenye"? will he be lying. I dont think so! so Kagame can say it (rightfully) but Ingabire can't...! They are both politicians when are you going to get it! of course 1 is a genaral the other one a simple civilian - this is a good read for you:Which part of Victoire Ingabire’s speech is evidence of divisionism? http://www.theproxylake.com/2011/10/ingabire-divisionist-speech/.

Alain, this discourse is drifting staight to the usual shouting and name calling, discussion about policts in Rwanda always produce, well outside of Rwanda and on the internet I'd should say. That is why I belive that the current political system is actually for the best of the country (maybe not all individuals, but that is often their fault (e.g. Ingabire...)), as long as there is no opposition which distances itself from all aftereffects of the genocide, I don't think it has anything good to contribute to the political discourse in Rwanda. Julius, while I understand what you are saying, but cannot comprehend your pain in the slightest way, please try to understand that a case so obvious as the one against Ingabire should follow the highest guidelines. The woman will get what she deserves but irrugelations of the case do not exactly make it stronger! Afterall, these mistakes and the misconduct make me really doubt the Rwandan juidical system. How difficult can it be to prove her crimes? Also as Zach correctly said her connection to the book is rather vague, there should be plenty of other proof, for her relations with the FDLR. Knowing, that some of the things I have said a quite controversial, please keep this dicussion objective anyway! Thanks, Jason

Brother Julius,You seem to be from the far right where extremist Tutsis belongs. we can not heal the nation if we continue to call what is right wrong and wrong what is right! Ingabire is the Mother of Democracy to many Rwandans. Tell me any single person who ever opposed Paul Kagame and his regime and never be killed or thrown in prison if they were lucky. You know well there is no such a thing as justice in Rwanda. There is one Man who is everything. Paul Kagame is justice and is every institution in Rwanda. The country has become Paul Kagame and Paul Kagame has become the country. I am a Tutsi, but as I opposed extremists Hutus I will never condone extremists Tutsis because you all lead to disaster like the one we experrienced in 1994. Please va ibuzimu ujye ibuntu.

Zach you have done a great research about Ingabire's case. She is a political prisoner and her case is politically motivated. Paul Kagame said that there is a wall of laws, which he would use to get rid of Victoire Ingabire. Paul Kagame is the most intolerant tyrant on the African continent and none ever opposed him and not be killed or be thrown in prison. Some people in the west portray Kagame as a visionary leader while he is an intolerant tyrant who killes and arrest anyone who pronounce words such as freedom and democracy in Rwanda. Victoire is in jail because she dared to express the second oppinion in the country where the only one Man speaks.