Prosecution to line 70 witnesses against Rwigaras

On 16 October 2017 at 04:08

Nyarugenge Intermediate Court today resumed pre-trial hearing of Diane Shimimana Rwigara, Anne Uwamahoro Rwigara and their mother Adeline Mukangemanyi Rwigara’s case where the trio is accused of inciting insurrection.

The defense team started by protesting that the Nyarugenge court should not be in charge of handling the hearing and trial, urging that the case should be taken to Kacyiru Primary Court.

The court however ruled that Nyarugenge Intermediate Court shall be able to handle the case.

When prosecution was asked to provide audio recorded evidence supporting allegations against the trio as entered on the charge sheet and file, they instead asked that one part of the hearing should be held in-camera to protect people who provided the testimonies.

Prosecution said that they have twenty audio recordings as evidence against the accused, eight of which, if aired in the open, could affect security of the people in question.

Prosecution also said that audio recordings have names mentioned, some of who are still under investigations and their revelation can obstruct further investigations and that they have testimonies from 70 witnesses but whose names, they said, they could not reveal for security purposes.

One of the defence lawyers, Gatera Gashabana said that he was worried of audio recordings which his clients were not asked about during investigations or before prosecution.

He said that audios were not legally taken and therefore to qualify before court, but the presiding judge said that qualification of the recordings is another case that could be handled on its own merit.

Gashabana welcomed the act of listening to all the audio recordings in-camera as the allegations are based on the said audios.

Defence lawyer Pierre Celestin Buhuru reminded that they were denied audios in different times for them to prepare defence, he said that nothing they can be supporting on their clients since they will have hear audios only in court.

He also insisted that all audios should go in-camera so that they will not be surprised during the hearing.

The presiding judge admitted that hearing for some audios can go in-camera but denied to mention names of testimony givers.