follows proceedings of kangaroo court. File photo)
***
The Kigali daily New Times reporter Edwin Musoni writes today that
Judge Alice Rulisa, who's presiding the kangaroo court of Rwandan
opposition leader Victoria Ingabire, stayed Friday the verdict her
court was about to deliver on the case.
Ingabire is in all likelihood facing a life sentence on several
trumped-charges of "terrorism and genocide denial."
(The death penalty is fortunately banned in Rwanda.)
Ingabire, who has been boycotting the kangaroo court, wasn't in court
during Friday proceedings.
Reading her ruling on the continuance of the verdict action, Judge
Alice Rulisa stated:
"The Court realized that Ingabire petitioned the Supreme Court
challenging the genocide ideology
law, and her lawyer requested for stay of the ruling, pending the
Supreme Court decision."
Ingabire, writes Musoni, has challenged articles 4 and 9 of "the law
against genocide ideology saying they contradict articles 33 and 34 of
the consitution that guarantee freedom of expression."
(Source: www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15109&a=58070)
Let's first dash all hopes for the Rwandan opposition Pasionaria:
Ingabire will be found guilty as charged on all counts.
To be sure, she made the stupid move of moving back to Rwanda, the
Africa's North Korea counterpart, from her Dutch exile.
She only has herself to blame for her stupidity.
Secondly, for the life of me, I don't understand why her counsel chose
to challenge Article 4 and Article 9 of the "Law No. 18/2008 of
23/07/2008 relating to the punishment of the crime of Genocide
Ideology."
This doesn't make any sense strategy-wise.
I therefore surmise that reporter Edwin Musoni misheard that part of
the proceedings attributing to the defense counsel the challenge of
Articles 4 and 9.
For both of those articles come under "Chapter 2" pertaining to the
hefty "Penalties" for the crime of Genocide Ideology.
While Article 4 is about penalties for adults, Article 9 deals with
penalties for kids "under twelve years (12)" found guilty under that
law.
I therefore surmise that Ingabire's defense is challenging the
catch-all chameleon definitions and descriptions of "crime of Genocide
Ideology" in Article 2 and Article 3 under Chapter 2 dealing with the
"General Provisions" of Law No. 18/2008.
Below is the full text of Articles 2 and 3:
"Article 2: Definition of 'genocide ideology'
"The genocide ideology is an aggregate of thoughts characterized by
conduct, speeches, documents and other acts aiming at exterminating or
inciting others to exterminate
people basing on ethnic group, origin, nationality, region, color,
physical appearance, sex, language, religion or political opinion,
committed in normal
periods or during war.
"Article 3: Characteristics of the crime of genocide ideology
"The crime of genocide ideology is characterized in any behaviour
manifested by facts aimed at
deshumanizing [sic] a person or a group of persons with the same
characteristics in the following
manner:
"1° threatening, intimidating, degrading through diffamatory speeches,
documents or actions
which aim at propounding wickedness or inciting hatred;
"2° marginalising, laughing at one's misfortune, defaming, mocking,
boasting, despising, degrading createing confusion aiming at negating
the genocide which occurred, stiring up ill
feelings, taking revenge, altering testimony or evidence for the
genocide which occurred;
"3° killing, planning to kill or attempting to kill someone for
purposes of furthering genocide
ideology."
(Source: www.amategeko.net/display_rubrique.php?ActDo=ShowArt&Information_ID=2396&Parent_ID=30701065&type=public&Langue_ID=An&rubID=30701071#30701071)
***
PHOTO CREDITS: newtimes.co.rw
0 comments:
Post a Comment