Her supporters insist she is “Rwanda’s Aung San Suu Kyi”. Others know her as the “messiah who having returned to flee Rwandans from President Paul Kagame’s tyranny”, was arrested – first on tramped up charges, put under house arrest, provisionally released only to be arrested days later and charged with promoting ethnic divisionism, propagating genocide ideology and trivilaising the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis.
A very heavy charge sheet if you ask me but is it really? In case you missed it, this was on April 21, 2010. Some two years later, the prosecution is still looking for evidence. Never mind too that this is a case which first a prosecutor and later the president were both quoted saying that there was enough evidence to convict her on almost all the charges.
To her supporters and perhaps those who have been following the case closely, it was not surprising learning that Ms Ingabire’s case was adjourned yet again, today as her defence team asked for time to review some fresh evidence provided by prosecution. One can only assume that the new evidence reportedly obtained from the Netherlands by the prosecution was availed to the defence on the eleventh minute as a strategic move to catch them off guard for why else would the same people who not long ago (in the same case) complained of not being given enough time by the defence, fall in the same trap?
Some commentators have branded this a political trial. And you can not fail to see why. Between April 2010 and February 2012, this case has been itemised with numerous postponements. It has become a cat and mouse case. When prosecution has not requested time to solicit and submit new evidence, the defence has sought for time to examine and look at the freshly presented evidence. Such requests of course do take time and amidst this quandary, the defendant continues her incarceration.
Add to this the challenges which will come in the form of checks on procedure – issues such as; does the High Court have jurisdiction to try the accused for acts or omissions amounting to genocide ideology given that the evidence against her is based on say comments made prior to the publication of Law N° 18/2008 of 23 July 2008 in the Official Gazette on 15 October 2008? Does the same Court have jurisdiction to try the accused for any act or omission which the Prosecutor suggests amounts to complicity in terrorist acts done prior to the publication of Law N° 45/2008 of 9 September 2008 in the Official Gazette on 6 April 2009? Or even still, can she be tried for acts done outside Rwanda?
And assuming a solution to all this is finally found, what happens to the literature that has been written or said about this case be it from political commentators, newsletters, blogs and sometimes political party websites?
While it is easy to explain or understand the reasons behind the protracted nature of this case, it remains in the government’s interest to quickly bring this case to trial. The more it drags on, the more the interest (both local and international). Not only will this put the Rwandan judiciary on the spot, it will also require that the prosecutor be sure he has what it takes. This of course means he must be willing to allow for the defence to examine and where witnesses are provided, agree to their cross examination.
And given the nature of this case, never mind the trajectory it has been taking since Ingabire first appeared in court, all eyes will be wide open. Alas to whoever bungles. No one said this was easy. I might be apolitical but like in that other Mc Donald advert “I am loving this”.
…over to you little monsters!