AFRICANEWS

Rwanda

The appeal of former Rwandan Prime minister Jean Kambanda

Human rights

When Jean Kambanda pleaded guilty to six counts of genocide in May 1998, he was hailed as being 'courageous' and having made a landmark decision. Moreover, his guilt plea was a major achievement by the Tribunal for Rwanda.

The main reason was that in as much as he [having been the highest authority in Rwanda in 1994] had admitted that there was indeed a genocide and that he had been part of it, he had vindicated the need for an International court on Rwanda.

Four months after pleading guilty, Jean Kambanda received the harshest sentence the court can ever impose on someone who has pleaded guilty- he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

During the sentencing, Judge Laity Kama, the presiding judge of the chamber, noted that Kambanda's guilty plea and "substantial co-operation" with investigators had been taken into account. However, he added that his post as Prime Minister and the role he played in the genocide prevented a lighter sentence. Further the court noted:

"Jean Kambanda has not provided any explanation for his voluntary participation in the genocide nor has he expressed contrition, regret or sympathy for the victims in Rwanda even when given the opportunity to do so. . ." Kama said, referring to Kambanda's refusal to speak during the pre-sentencing hearing.

Up until the sentencing, Kambanda had collaborated with the Prosecution, bringing in vital evidence incriminating his colleagues in government at the time. The Prosecutor of Tribunal, Madame Carla Del Ponte, described Kambanda's behaviour in months following the sentence. " He stopped co-operating with the prosecution.. he would not see the investigators.. he would not even co-operate with national jurisdictions.. he was visited by the Belgian Judge from the rogatoire commission, he refused to see them."

Kambanda seemed a bitter man. This was evident even a week after the sentence. On September 11,1998 Kambanda wrote a bitter, five-page letter to the court registry accusing his lawyer of working against him.

"Without going as far as putting into question my voluntary and conscious decision to tell the truth [..] regardless of the consequences to myself, permit me to cast doubt over certain practices surrounding my trial and the illusion that some people seem to entertain of having found the sacrificial lamb which will erase the responsibilities of others in the extermination of the Rwandan people."

Jean Kambanda decided to appeal his conviction. He now sought to have his guilt plea revoked so that he is allowed to stand trial. He said that neither his lawyer nor the court had understood his intention in collaborating with the Prosecution and giving statements. "My objective was not to plead guilty but to tell the truth," Kambanda said. This thinking would come up two years later, when the Appeal chamber decided to sit in Arusha between 27 and 28 June this year to hear his arguments.

The former Prime Minister appeared before the court on the first day in a dark blue suit and spent most of the day in the witness dock, trying to explain to the court why they should overturn his plea.

He argued that an injustice had been done, not in relation to his sentence, but that in the fact that the judges accepted in guilt plea in the first place. He argued that they should have investigated further to find out if the plea had been truly voluntary, informed and with no conditions. But it was not going to be that easy for Kambanda to undo his own condemnation especially given the detailed documents that he had signed stating that the plea was fully informed of the consequences, equivocal, and voluntary.

Jean Kambanda told the court that he had signed the plea agreement under coercive circumstances and that it should therefore be disregarded. He alleges that his lawyer at the time, Cameroonian Michael Inglis, did not advise him properly or would never have signed the document. Further, Kambanda contended that Inglis had been a family friend to the Deputy Prosecutor, Bernard Muna for over 30 years. He noted that Inglis was assigned as his lawyer circumstances that were 'too much of a coincidence' and accused him of having 'worked for the prosecution'.

Kambanda complained that he was denied the lawyer of his own choice, Belgian lawyer Johan Scheers, on the basis that he was being sanctioned for professional misconduct, while, he added, ' such misconduct never existed'.

He noted that despite numerous letters to the Registry of the Tribunal, seeking to have Scheers assigned and despite the assurance from the prosecution that he would indeed get Scheers, he was finally informed that this would never happen. Furthering this argument, the lawyer for Kambanda, Tjarda Eduard van der Spoel had told the court that the assignment of Michael Inglis instead of the lawyer Kambanda requested Johan Scheers had been detrimental to Kambanda's ability to make the right decisions. He said that Inglis had been efficient in the disposition of his duties and could not have provided Kambanda with correct information about the consequences of making a guilty plea.

Responding to the allegations Prosecution representatives Norman Farrell and Morris Anyah told the court that Kambanda's right to counsel had not been violated in any way.

Anyah argued that an accused person who had declared himself to be indigent [not able to pay the fees of a lawyer] had no absolute right over who the court assigned as counsel, although the court tried to bear such requests in mind. He added that Scheers had been ordered off another case [Prosecutor against Jean Paul Akayesu] after a trial chamber found his conduct not to be appropriate. Johan Scheers failed to appear in court saying that he had not been paid his dues by the registry. Anyah said that following his refusal to appear, the court ordered him struck off the list of available lawyers and could therefore not have then been assigned to Kambanda

Elaborating on this, Farrell noted that even if Kambanda had not been given a lawyer of choice he had not shown how this was connected to his plea. In short, he could always have decided not to go ahead with the plea.

But Kambanda says that he could not do so. " I wanted to get out of my situation.. to get out of Dodoma [ where he was being detained].. to see the light.. I was very very lonely and without any remedy," Kambanda said. He told the court that the only way he saw of getting out of his 'oppressive' condition was to sign a document he did not believe in.

"They were documents made by the prosecution for the prosecution.. they never reflected my will," Kambanda said.

His reasoning was however not so apparent to the Farrell," You could have said ' I do not want to sign', to which Kambanda responded, "perhaps if I had had a good lawyer, he would have advised that. "I signed an agreement which I did not believe in, and which I still do not believe in, in the hope that I would later have a good lawyer [...] who would be able to explain everything to me," Kambanda said.

The President of the chamber, Judge Claude Jorda felt constrained to question Jean Kambanda's argument further. He told Kambanda that it made no sense to say that he had signed a plea agreement acquiescing to genocide, knowing that it meant imprisonment merely because of not having a lawyer, or not having any response on the matter from the Registry.

" I am astonished, Judge Claude Jorda told Kambanda. " There was another alternative.. You could have chosen to go to trial." Judge Jorda said.

" Did it ever occur to you to tell the trial chamber that you were not comfortable with the plea agreement? Judge Mohammed Shahabuddeen from Guyana asked Kambanda.

In response, Kambanda told the court that he felt the circumstances then did not allow him to speak freely.

Judge Shahabuddeen went further to quote from the transcripts of the date that Kambanda pleaded guilty with specific reference to his answer to a question from the presiding judge on whether his guilt plea was voluntary and informed.

" You said.. 'In making this plea I decided consciously, and voluntarily no one forced me to do so,' do you remember saying this"? Judge Shahabuddeen asked.

" Yes" Kambanda said.

The Prosecutor, Madame Del Ponte, urged the judges to uphold the conviction and sentence, Jean Kambanda. She said that Kambanda appears only to have changed his mind about his plea when the life sentence was imposed upon him and noted that the reasons that Kambanda had given the court could not have compelled him to plead guilty.

Quoting Kambanda's statement in court, she said he had once more admitted 'political responsibility' over what happened in his country during this leadership.

Kambanda had told the court that while he felt politically responsible for what happened, " I did not feel and I do not feel guilty still."

The Prosecutor said that this was tantamount to a second admission of guilt and while Kambanda said he was 'politically responsible' and not criminally responsible, it was only the adjective that had changed.

"Kambanda pleaded guilty a second time, he admitted his political responsibility in the genocide. He confirmed the statements he made to the prosecution... and it is those declarations which form the basis of his indictment," Madame Del Ponte said.

Madame Del Ponte said that even supposing 'that everything he [Kambanda] said is true, [Referring to his allegations that he was not properly defended, that he was manipulated by the prosecution and had no other options] still, it is incomprehensible that, during his appearances in court he said nothing."

Informed persons at the Tribunal say that Jean Kambanda's guilty plea was not whole hearted or and was carefully calculated to lead to a reduction in sentence. They say that following the life sentence judgement he feels he has nothing to lose by going to trial. However, others feel that Jean Kambanda's lawyer at the time failed to cater sufficiently for his client's rights. As for whether or not the Appeal Chamber will believe Kambanda, one can only wait and see.

| CONTENTS | AFRICANEWS HOMEPAGE |

AFRICANEWS - Koinonia Media Centre, P.O. Box 21255, Nairobi, Kenya
tel: +254.2.576175 (voice) Fax:- +254.2.577892 (fax-modem)
AFRICANEWS on line is by Koinonia Media Centre