Rwandan Lawyers disagree with Dr. Kambanda’s take on Rusesabagina
Following the publication of an audio message that has gone viral on social media in which Dr. Charles Kambanda indignantly argued against Mr. Rusesabagina’s arrest, lawyers in Kigali had this to say regarding the same:
“Dr. Kambanda’s legal conclusion Re: Rusesabagina is biased and sentimental. It is a resentment driven opinion based on speculation rather than a legal conclusion.
His argument that Rusesabagina’s ” illegal kidnapping ” does not stand because Dubai, Rusesabagina’s s point of departure, stated that he left legally. Abduction is the action of FORCIBLY taking someone away AGAINST their will, and arguing kidnapping also does not stand since it would ignore the fact that there was an international mandate against Rusesabagina and that there was no use of force in his repatriation. Kidnapping is the UNLAWFUL restraint of a person’s liberty BY FORCE OR SHOW OF FORCE so as to send the victim to another country…
Dr. Kambanda further argues that Rusesabagina cannot be responsible for the acts of his commanders minimizing his involvement as a mere case of ” joint enterprise ” which would be difficult to apply to the Rusesabagina case considering the evidence against him in Rwanda’s custody.
If Rusesabagina was not a soldier what is he when he declares war on the government of Rwanda? “
“America, the country that introduced extraordinary rendition to the world cannot lecture Rwanda about this case. When Osama Bin Laden declared war on the USA, the government declared war on him, he became a wanted man dead or alive. When he was killed, President Obama said, justice had been served. This is a living precedent that would be relied on by a lawyer who believes in the common law. Again which treatment would the US give to the successor of Bin laden, Alzawahiri? Or Abubaker Baghdad, the ISIS chief? Or a person who claims responsibility of attacking and killing people on the streets of London or any other EU “civilized” nations?”
“If hypocrisy and hatred of Kagame are not the motivations behind Kambanda’s outrage in defense of an alleged humanitarian who funded civilian killing and vehicle burning thugs, then his shortsightedness forfeits his legal credibility!”
“The point our learned friend should be emphasizing here should be due process. Will Rusesabagina, a self-proclaimed armed wing leader have his day in court, and will he have a fair trial?”
Inyenyeri News Group
1. I welcome your opinion over what I said. Unfortunately, no lawyer is called “Kigali lawyers”. You risk that “Kigali lawyers”, as used in your piece, represents an empty class. Kindly name the lawyer(s) you call “Kigali lawyers”, so we can engage real people.
2. Whether or not Rusesabagina was kidnapped is not determined by what the UAE said. Kidnap is a matter of law, not a matter of what government says. I stated the elements of the crime (Kidnapp / abduction) and concluded that Rusesabagina was kidnapped. On the contrary, your “Kigali lawyers” say that because the UAE does not say Rusesabagina was kidnapped, therefore, Rusesabagina was not kidnapped. Your “Kigali lawyers’ “argument has a name; fallacy.
3. I stated the possible prosecution theories, as a matter of law, if Rusesabagina is to be prosecuted for the crimes that were allegedly committed by FLN fughters, assuming FLN exists and they committed those crimes. I argued that whether you apply command responsibility theory or Joint Crininal Enterprise (JCE), no reasonable prosecutor would proceed with Rusesabagina’s case and, of course, no reasonable court would convict Rusesabagina. Your “Kigali lawyers” should state the applicable prosecution theory or they have no legal counterargument.
4. You had better distinguish International terrorism from the political crime called “terrorism”. It requires a higher degree of madness to compare Rusesabagina to Bin Laden. FLN are Rwandans fighting for their constitutional rights, against a well documented tyranny. The government of Rwanda is on record saying that (i) FLN does not exist outside some Rwandans’ mind and (ii) FLN never caused any damage anywhere in Rwanda. This case falls well in the category of crimes called political crimes. I guess your “Kigali lawyers” know this. Was Kagame a terrorist when he was fighting then government of Rwanda? The answer is “YES”, for then government, right? I guess your “Kigali lawyers” can apply this line of reasoning, to the instant case, if they want to appreciate why the so-called “terrorism” charge against Rusesabagina is called a political crime, at law.
Good luck