Since the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has been swimming in very difficult, treachery waters and has been trying to redefine itself internally and externally. Some of those waters are judicial. There have been persistent claims of lack of judicial independence, indictments against some of the country’s senior officials by foreign judges in France and Spain, accusations of the government limited trial of officials suspected of embezzling state funds, conditions under which former President Pasteur Bizimungu was released
and whether he can talk to the media, and recent confidence the international community has shown in the country’s judiciary such that the ICTR and countries such as Canada, USA, and other are sending genocide suspects to face trial in the country. In order to get a feel of the government’s take on these and other judicial issues, The Chronicles’ Magnus Mazimpaka, Jean de la Croix TABARO and Idrissa Byiringiro spoke to the Minister of Justice, Tharcisse Karugarama who doubles as the country’s Attorney General. Below are excerpts.
Why are Spanish and French judges’ indictments worrying you? Do they worry you anyway?
It is trash like any trash, dead air. But it does have impact on us for some people who accept trash or they don’t know it is trash. That dead trash to some people is real. But to simplify this; the background of the case, the document has three very important contents. First, it completely denies genocide. Actually it alludes that people who were being killed are the Hutus not the Tutsis. Second, the content of that is exactly the introduction of the FDRL political manifesto. It is the protocol manifesto of FDRL that he has introduced and the testimonies of the genocide deniers in Arusha and elsewhere is what forms introduction to that file alleging that the victims were Hutus and not Tutsis. Three, the French cannot believe in this government; they believe this is the most careless organization. RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) to them was not set up as a protocol organization, but a terrorist group meant to wipe out all the Hutus in the country, take power by force, create a Tutsi -Hima empire in the Great Lakes region, loot the resources in the Congo and use them to create the empire. That cannot be a criminal file.
One time a Spanish priest was killed in Byumba in 1992. In the first allegation the judge says the priest was killed by RPF. They say that there is a nun who says she saw some soldiers who spoke English. She says that these forty soldiers she saw down at the valley in Byumba who spoke English must have been the ones who killed the priest, but in a town that was fully controlled by Habyarimana’s forces and by this time everyone should remember that it was a time RPF was at the border. Second, there is a priest who died in Mugina, southern Rwanda, in the present Muhanga, in 1997. This priest was robbed and people were taken into custody, charged and one of them was found guilty, getting a life sentence from the Supreme Court. They allege that the forty people are the ones who killed this priest. It is not practical that these forty people always moved together to go and kill. Another allegation is that, in 1998 the same forty people killed people in Ruhengeri. Still here they are generalizing the case to include all that were in the leadership of the RPF in 2005; these are called blanket allegations because they don’t say that so and so killed people here. In Southern Kivu of Congo in 1999/2000, they say the same forty people killed missionaries, because it is alleged that RPF at that time was controlling certain parts of the Congo. But you cannot have these same forty people together throughout the years killing people. These were leaders who were often in different places, some in Umutara, and others in Congo, Kigali and elsewhere in the country.
How can the Spanish government allow this to happen?
No, it is not the Spanish government accusing people.
Who is it then?
A fellow called Joan Carlos. He is a Spanish priest and other Catholic priests who were running this country before 1994. This country was run by the church during that time. Carlos and his colleagues in this network were very impressed by the extremist elements in Rwanda. But later they were uprooted from this country. In one of the UN Reports on Rwanda, Carlos is an advisor with the FDRL and has been involved in massive recruitment for the force together with mobilizing funds to support the organization. These guys get money in Spain as an NGO that is aimed at supporting women in the Congo and other disabled groups, which money they channel to FDRL. This is why institutions like Interpol refused to carry out the proceedings suggested by this judge.
You say the case is trash. Are the military officers accused now free to travel anywhere?
This is what I said that it has an impact on us. Here is a false accusation for international criminal cases. People everywhere start to earmark you and you cannot travel freely. But before people should accept a judgment, it is important the judge’s competence is evaluated.
What has the government of Rwanda done about the issue? Can’t our judiciary file a report or case to clarify matters?
What I have been saying is what we have told to the Spanish government.
And what did they say?
That is a matter in court and as government; they cannot be involved in a court matter.
Is there any other option?
This is the problem. It is like fighting with air. This file is a blanket accusation and we don’t see a way of defending ourselves against it. Warrants have been issued, and people are wanted. This file was just posted on the internet but the internet is not a court.
Does it mean that the government of Rwanda has no way out of this?
All we need to do is to find a key of how we can enter a legal process, but at this point, no one can fight the air. We have to find a way; this case was not brought against the government of Rwanda but against individuals who have no way of getting themselves before the court to defend themselves unless they are arrested. The first option would be getting one of the accused in custody and let them go before the court so we can defend the case of others. The other thing would be to persuade the judge to review the case by himself. Another way is through getting an influential person to remove the judge and have him replaced with someone else not influenced by these negative forces we talked about.
Many international organizations attack Rwanda over its laws especially those concerning genocide, how has that impacted on the judicial system?
In this world everyone can say what they want, but in this field of law we only speak with evidence. I believe that our legal structures are some of the best not in the region but in the world.
Our laws are being made after genocide, while we are being ranked every year in the World Banks’ Doing Business Reform where we have made good strides. After we joined the East African Community; our laws on criminal cases, commerce and trade, are being made, putting in place the best practices. But there are some people who say false things against this government; they say you cannot have fair judgment, ‘go there and you will be killed’. Millions of cases have been heard but none of those charged have ever been tortured - people are just making what we call empty noises. We have made a satisfying development and the world is starting to recognize it. Start with the decision on Mugesera’s case in Canada. These fellows made false claims; “we cannot get fair judgment, we shall be killed” and many others, but hundreds of people have been tried here and the international community sees the reports. Look at the ICTR, now they are planning to transfer Fulgence Karishema here. What do they say about us? It means the conditions here are fair enough to try these people within the required legal standards.
Local people say that actually you treat these fugitives better than they deserve?
We are only doing what the law says. But yes, the laws here are favorable to some people. That is why one might think we are treating them well. But although fugitive, they are ours and deserve a fair and transparent trial. I can talk of Finland. They have been here for sometime observing and studying our judicial system and their report says the system here is good enough to try anyone. They reported that courts in Rwanda are putting in place all human rights procedures. I think people are getting to know that Rwanda is doing well and those saying otherwise are just blindfolded. From North America, Finland, Canada, Sweden, the UK and others, the international community has now gained confidence in the system here.
Critics say no one can win a case here; that the government would do whatever it takes to make them lose
But all you need to do in a court is defend yourself with evidence. If someone committed a crime, why should they think of winning in court? Have you ever heard Mugesera deny what he said, if he goes to court he can probably say “I am sorry for what I said”, but he cannot win the case because he said these words that are being used against him. Has he ever denied having said them? By the way, how many people have Gacaca courts acquitted? Very many! Do you want to bring somebody who is 100% guilty, and the court says he or she is innocent to show people you can win a case in Rwanda?
What creates the difference in understanding, yet according to international pollsters, local people show confidence in the judiciary and the leadership?
First thing is who is saying this? The fact that local people believe and can defend that the system here is good, it cannot stop genocide deniers, like Mugesera and his family plus all others from making noise. They will fill the internet with their ideology. But the courts are more credible to speak of the system here; it is the ICTR and other international courts in the US, UK, Canada and elsewhere who have said the system is fair and transparent and of course this matters more than empty noises made by the fugitives and their followers.
On a ten point basis, how would you rank Rwanda’s judicial system?
Our judiciary might not be doing everything well, but if you look at performance standards, we are the best in East Africa and most likely on the entire continent. For example, in 2003 when reforms were completed, the judiciary was totally given its independence from politics. That is when all these structures you see were established; the Supreme Court, High Court, prison services, all these had earlier been under the Ministry of Justice and thus politically controlled. Now, for example, the courts now have an independent budget, appoint its own judges and the ministry no longer has anything to do with it judiciary and neither on the prosecution. Before the reforms, the judiciary was handling around 5000 cases annually but today, even when the number was reduced by more than a third, they are handling more than 50000 cases a year. What the reforms aimed at was to capacitate autonomies; have a few judges but who could handle larger tasks. Then in 2003 only three per cent of the judges were law degree holders but as we speak the judges are all law degree holders and their salaries have increased over ten times what they were earning. This has ensured a corrupt free judiciary.
What is the status of the whole judiciary system? Is it modern, sophisticated enough?
Our judiciary is one of the best in the world and even those who hate us have said it; “your laws are very good but maybe you don’t apply them”. And then application is another case but for the laws, we have the best and the system itself is doing great. They say applying them is an issue. Which examples do they bring? Ingabire and some other case in Gacaca; they have two cases always. But if you compare those two cases with the load of the others that have been handled you could say 98% perfect judgment. Everywhere people do not get everything right, but our system is doing great but I acknowledge that we are still a young system. We need to improve the quality of judges and thus the judgments they make, of prosecutors and that of the infant structure in which they operate. It is important to recognize that we are still backward in the system and we have not even achieved a quarter of our target. But we are on the right track, not yet to our destination. Wrong doers are there in the system and they will always be there but all we need is to make a structure that can screen these people out easily before they can corrupt it; monitoring and evaluation of the system.
Let us divert you a little bit. What was the condition under which former President Pasteur Bizimungu was pardoned? He cannot speak to the media, for example.
All I can say is the conditions he was given are good but if they need to be reviewed, that can be welcome too. I think he can talk, and anybody can talk but it depends on what they are talking and on matters of conditions, it could be better to talk to him. And I can add that he was never given a life sentence. Whichever the conditions, they cannot legally exist beyond his period of sentence which I think was a small period of time that is almost complete.
What is he entitled to as a former President, regardless of his criminal record?
Someone who was a head of state is not like anyone on the street. He must be protected from anyone who might harm him and in which case the government of Rwanda would then be held accountable. But concerning not talking to the media, maybe he doesn’t want to get involved in politics and thinks going to the media might not be a good idea to him. No one knows what he thinks but all I know is that everyone can talk and he too can talk to whoever he wishes but taking into consideration the conditions of his release too.
And how is the diplomatic relationship between Rwanda and France doing?
The relationship is doing great indeed.
Really? But Rwanda rejected the French Ambassador (designate), does that show a strained relationship?
Before any country sends an ambassador to another, it is obliged to first of all ask the country in question to approve of the person to be sent. It is a normal diplomatic system. They first ask for a accord from that particular country concerning the appointed person. It is a common thing for a country to disapprove of an ambassador and according to diplomatic laws, it is a right diplomatic decision and no explanations are ever given to back up the country’s decision. There is no need to put the country on the defensive.
There is a lot of stolen government money that has not been recovered from convicted individuals. As Attorney General, when and how is this money going to be recovered?
First, suspects should have been charged fully and found guilty of embezzlement with no chance of appeal. Some of the cases are still in court. For suspects to be held accountable and followed up to return state funds, they should have been proven guilty after their last appeal. Before this you cannot do anything. As we speak, the penal code is being reformed, especially concerning this particular issue.
In simple terms, the system of recovering government funds is poor. We need to create a proper recovery system of government revenues which should be within the national revenue authority. But the current system is still too poor to handle recovery of funds.
As minister of justice, what can you celebrate as a success under your tenure?
I am not in a celebrating mode. The contribution I have made is a small piece fitting in the whole contributed by everyone in this country. But if there is anything Rwandans are celebrating I would automatically be part, but nothing so personal. Rwandans in general and who I am a part of have lots to celebrate like the good leadership, the security of this country, the economic and infrastructural development, all these Rwandans need to celebrate.
What kind of legacy do you want to leave?
While the state gave me the opportunity to serve the country I did my best though my best might not necessarily be the best for the country, I am happy to have had a chance to contribute. When I leave I will say I tried my best and that while I served, the country made progress in all sectors including the justice sector in which I served. I made the country proud among others and that I made my humble contribution to make Rwanda a better place to live. But, the collective gratitude would always be to all Rwandese for their contribution particularly Rwanda’s leadership. I think we have had well coordinated activities. Leadership is like a bicycle, it requires that everyone make their contribution and if this gets good coordination, then the bicycle can move and that is what has happened to Rwanda.
What did you do before joining politics?
I have been involved in a lot of things. First, I worked as a prosecutor both here and outside Rwanda in Uganda. I also worked in the High and Supreme Court as a judge and I also was the chairman of the Law Reform Commission. I worked with UNHCR for about four years and with UNICEF for about another seven years before I came to Rwanda. And I also worked for a number of civil society organizations before I joined government. I also worked with CNN for over six months as a reporter and after coming here I helped make a genocide movie, Rwanda Cries Justice. I have done lots of small things but I prefer to focus on what I am doing now rather than on what I did in the past. Before I came to Rwanda I had been working for more than 17 years.
Who can you say Mr. Karugarama is?
I am a lawyer by profession. I graduated way back in 1979. I am 58 years old.
source: http://the-chronicles.net/index.php/politics/532-pasteur-bizimungu-is-free-to-talk-to-the-media-karugarama-.html
The Democratic Forces of the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) have always advocated for a highly inclusive inter–Rwandan dialogue as the only way of both definitively and permanently solving the Rwandan problem. It was within this perspective that in 2005, FDLR in its declaration, unilaterally both engaged itself and decided to suspend its respective offensives against Rwanda; which engagements it had been honouring since then up to very recently.