SIMBIKANGWA Appeal trial. Monday 14th of November 2016. D12.

• Hearing of Mr. Gasana NDOBA, consultant.
• Hearing of Mr. Augustin IYAMUREMYE, Secretary-General of the SCR from 1992 to 1994.
• Interrogation of SIMBIKANGWA.
  

Hearing of Mr. Gasana NDOBA, consultant.

The witness begins by enumerating the various functions that justify his presence before the Assize Court. Mr. NDOBA has been working in the field of human rights since 1990. He did not personally know SIMBIKANGWA before the first trial in Paris in 2014, but he had heard about him as a coordinator of a Human Rights Committee in Belgium : he considers the accused as an “ideologue, a zealous propagandist”.

The witness engages in a text explanation : he studies Pascal SIMBIKANGWAs writings, which doesn’t please the defence. SIMBIKANGWA an ordinary citizen ? “Rather a member of a system who feels threatened by in place at the heart of the system.” The witness mentions the existence of a text that had already been discussed : it’s a document that was found in North Kivu concerning the reconquest of power by the Tutsi. This is an “ideological manipulation used to prepare the genocide and it’s own exculpation”. A forgery that the witness links with the Appeal to the Bahutu Consciousness.

According to the witness, SIMBIKANGWA is “an ideologist preoccupied with the dissemination of the Hutu ideology close to the most extremist circles.” He is also a “particularly cruel torturer”(case of two tortured journalists). In addition, SIMBIKANGWA is close to the RTLM, which diffuses ethnic hatred. The witness refers to the threats the accused allegedly made against Joseph KAVARUGANDA : the latter had wrote a letter to the President complaining about the accused’s behaviour. This letter, whose authenticity is challenged by the defence, will later be subject to long discussions. Mr. KAVARUGANDA, President of the Constitutional Court and the “Cour de Cassation”, will be assassinated on April the 7th 1994. A consequence of the accused threats ? That’s what KAVARUGANDA’s widow thinks.

The witness states that the accused is a major actor of the Tutsi genocide in his Kiyovu neighbourhood. He appears on a list distributed by the prosecution, under the n°139.

The President questions the witness. He wants to know who initiated the creation of a Human Rights Committee in Brussels in 1990. Several people are at the origin of this committee : Rwandans fleeing the war, Belgium citizens, Rwandans exiled for several years, elected officials, parliamentarians, students…

Mr. DE JORNA asked the witness about the issue of human rights after the power takeover in Kigali. Mr. NDOBA emphasises that the Committee in question had not created by the FPR and was never at it’s service : it is an independent committee. The 1991 Constitution, preceded by a ceasefire agreement under the aegis of Mobutu, coincides with the birth of two or three human rights associations. April 1992 saw the establishment of a multi-party government. If this new constitution gave wings to those hoping for change, one witnesses massive Human Rights violations (See the 1993 report by the International Committee). The genocide will be, as Mr DE JORNA said, the antimony of Human Rights. In 1999, the witness will be appointed as chairman of the National Commission for Human Rights in Rwanda, integrated to fundamental law. This commission will have a total freedom to maneuver.

It is at this point of the hearing that will be discussed the question of the 23rd of March 1994 letters’ authenticity, which Mr KAVARUGANDA will write to the President to denounce SIMBIKANGWAs threats. The President of the Court states the eight facts talked about in the letter. This letter not being signed (it’s a copy kept by it’s author and recuperated by his son), SIMBIKANGWA challenges it’s authenticity, despite what the 1995 President of the Constitutional Councils widow ways, and the coherence of a text that attest of the truth of the facts. Which the witness clarifies.

In 1992, the SCR is attached to the Prime Minister. SIMBIKANGWA lost his freedom of movement but continues his propaganda work. When the genocide started, the accused could operate freely.

Mr. DE JORNA then addresses the witnesses role during the various trials that took place in Belgium. The first takes place in Spring 2001 : it’s the trial of the “Butare four”. Mr. NDOABA is a part of the civil suit but is also part of the “Collectif des Parties Civiles” (an association similar the CPCR) that helps the claimants.

Concerning the eventual threats to investigate, the witness put things into perspective but clarifies the fact that that work could be dangerous… Even after the genocide, he could meet with some resistance but not with threats.

The question of “fake witnesses”, of a “school of lies” is asked. The witness : “I’ve heard this a lot. I have myself been a victim of these accusations : It’s fair game !” An allusion is made to PÉANs scandalous comments, according to which “the Tutsi are liars by nature and the Hutu are liars through contamination !” We also know of these “informer unions” that denounce the adversaries of the civil parties. (Editors note : The best representative of this is Mr Joseph MATATA, who made a fool of himself during the NGENZI/BARAHIRA trial.)

Mr. NDOBA mentions the existence of another theory : it would be impossible to know the truth… Rwanda is far…one still talks of tribal wars ! “Judgments prove that the truth can be established.” And he adds : “Generally, it’s the victims we accuse of lying”. The Gacaca were a “succour justice”, “there might have been drifts, but they generally contributed to unveil the truth.”

To the assessors question, the witness recognizes having read “La Guerre d’Octobre” before the genocide, a book addressed to intellectuals and who’s ideas converge with those of a document of the Rwandese army on the definition of the enemy, the Tutsi.

Mrs PHILIPPART questions the witness on the 1990 Committee for Human Rights’ action. Mr GILLET was sent to Rwanda in 1991, many testimonies were gathered that reported general violations of Human Rights. The war takes place in the North East but the repression takes place all over the country. And the witness mentions the 500 deaths in Kibilira (Editors note : Deaths attributed to the FPR by the Colonel ROBARDEY !)

The floor is given to the defense. Mr EPSTEIN strikes on the notion of “neutral expert”. An expert that was allegedly close to Rwanda can be considered as neutral ? One sees what he is trying to say. Those who participated in the first trial know what he is talking about.

The defense lawyers then speak of the document referred to by the witness, written in English for Amnesty International. Mr NDOBA has no objections to it being admitted to the debates. But that is not within his purview.

Then fuse false questions in bursts. “SIMBIKANGWA zealous ideologue ? Your sources ? Close to the RTLM, to Kangura ? You’re saying the opposite of what the judges have written : are you better informed than they are ?” The witness barely has time to answer : “My role as witness does not consist in confirming or disproving what the judges say. Besides, they did not hear me !”

“SIMBIKANGWA a man in the shadows who openly threatens KAVARUGANDA ? It’s contradictory ? How can a man from the shadows act in broad daylighy ?” NDOBA : “I have quoted testimonies gathered by lawyers whom I trust. Pascal SIMBIKANGWA is a torturer. And it happens that the light illuminates a man of the shadows !” And the lawyers returns to the “informer unions”, as if the previous explanations had not been enough ! And he refers to the CNLG document (National Commission for the Fight against Genocide) which has just published a list of 22 French personalities compromised in the genocide. (Editors note : In response to the reopening of the investigation into the attack on HABYARIMANA). No one appears to be aware of this list. (Editors note : Except on the civil parties bench). This list will be admitted to the documents of the record.

Mrs BOURGEOT intervened in turn and, faithful to her habits, asked questions to which an answer had already been given. She also happens to sometimes misunderstand ! She can’t help herself, mentioning the witnesses role in the “Collectif des Parties Civiles” in Belgium, to ask “Are you Alain GAUTHIERs equivalent ?” The witness : “I’m GASANA, Alain GAUTHIER is Alain GAUTHIER ! We share the same objectives : to advance justice.” And the lawyer added : “So you’re partial ?”, a question she asks twice. “I swore to tell the truth. I am not coming back on my oath. I testify objectively, impartially” the witness said. Mrs BOURGEOT is finally surprised that GATABAZIs assassins have not been identified ! Who can answer such a question ? So many victims await justice.

 

Hearing of Mr. Augustin IYAMUREMYE, Secretary-General of the SCR from 1992 to 1994.

The witness found SIMBIKANGWA at the SCR in 1992 when he was appointed secretary-general of this institution by the coalition government. This service had just passed under the Prime Ministers responsibility. Three sections constituted the SCR : external intelligence, emigration / immigration and internal intelligence. SIMBIKANGWA was head of the press division who described him as “a torturer”. The witness is surprised to find out he’s paraplegic !

The witness says to have quickly received a visit from the General Prosecutor, NKUBITO : the latter will reveal that one of his agents is on a list of Death Squads ! He will not know any more but he is worried about his services reputation if his agents behave badly.

Mr IYAMUREMYE describes the accused as “an independent person, who provided no report, went out whenever he wanted. I took away his service car. I could not obtain his transfer because the president had to sign it off !” He adds “Nothing could be done against him. He was no longer an official like all the others ! He was known to have connections with HABYARIMANA.”

The president wants to know SIMBIKANGWAs exact role. “His attributions were clear. He had to evaluate the impact of the press and radios on the population. He did not have to worry about censorship, just make notes for his secretary general. He exceeded his powers.” Had the accused been over-zealous ? “In the state of war, certain officials though the war was not against the RPF but against the Tutsi. Some considered themselves saviors. There were occult powers : ministers had agents who did what they wanted. The presidents relatives, the Akazu, pulled the strings.” Even if the intelligence service was under the Prime Ministers authority, he was serving the whole country.

“Were there opponents files with ethnic indications, when you arrived ?” asks the president of the court. “In October 1990, thousands of Tutsi were arrested and detained at the Nyamirambo stadium (Editors note : Mr ROBARDEY had claimed that the vast majority were Hutu !). The SCR participated in filing the Tutsi. The witness was told haw interrogations, tortures were conducted. Without forgetting corruption. SIMBIKANGWA kept his ties with HABYARIMANA, “it was common knowledge”. He was from the same region as him, a relative to SAGATWA. “He was feared”. The witness will have to clarify that someone was appointed in his place, that he was no longer head of division. As for the informants, they were necessary but had to be watched. “They are paid according to the exploitable information they provide.”

SIMBIKANGWA and the caricatures in Rwanda Rushya ? They are obviously related to his behavior. “I was even embarrassed that the Prime Minister kept such an agent !” It’s clear he was protected. The Death Squads ? “A nebula whose results one could see” (corpses) (Editors note : A reverse reasoning compared to ROBARDEY, for whom “no corpse, no Squads!”)

The witness continued “If we were neutral, we were RPF for the accused who was an irreducible”. And he gives as an example the incident that took place during the maying of the first stone of the Kibungo hospital. The witness had to cut the singers microphones to avoid clashes. SIMBIKANGWA will send him a letter stating that he was working for the Inyenzi, for the enemy. This letter will be read by the president of the court.

When questioned about the caricatures blooming in the press with the multiparty system, the witness states that “eroticism is a lesser evil compared to hatred. Our role was not to strike the journalists, nor to seize the newspaper. The caricatures were meant to smear the Prime Minister.“ As for the Criminology Service, which was under the control of the gendarmerie, it had no link to the SCR. Was there a palpable risk of genocide in 1992 ? The witness said that when he was GITARAMAs prefect, there had been ethnic killings : Kibilira and Bugesera. He had managed to keep his prefecture apart.

Time will then be devoted to the witness’s agenda during the genocide. Returning from Gisenyi to find his children, he spent the rest of the time in hiding. The witness will make a confession : the fact that SINDIKUBWABO, the president of the genocidal government, was his father in law, will be a national and personal tragedy for him ! The CDR had refused the Arusha Agreement, as well as the Hutu Power party of various parties. The Akazu, the Zero Network, Death Squads, Amasasu ? “These are things hard to verify. But there were bodies in Kigali before 1994.”

The witness heard about the “Indomptable IKINANI” but he had not read it. No more than the other books of the accused. But “everyone knew he was an irreducible partisan of the President for whom he had a filial affection”.

Mrs PHILIPPART asks the witness about the geographical situation of the SCR, asks him to give more information on the “small rooms” the witness talked about.

It’s Mr HERVELIN-SERRE’s turn to question the witness. “No doubt ? SIMBIKANGWA is close to the president ?” Mr. IYAMUREMYE confirms “He wasn’t just a simple agent, he was feared, powerful. The function he had on paper was not related to what he was doing.” Was the witness aware of a weapons distribution before the genocide ? Yes but he cannot specify the type of weapons. He had a confirmation that Interahamwe had training in the Akagera park. They were not Burundi refugees ! The dismantling of the SCR dates back to 1992. It was a matter of removing one of HABYARIMANAs manipulation weapons. Previously, the head of the SCR was more powerful than the Prosecutor and was in the service of the President alone. The witness presents the accused as a propagandist for the subscription to the RTLM.

Mr. CROSSON DU CORMIER asks the witness why he refuses to state his “ethnicity”. “I am Rwandan,” replies Mr. IYAMUREMYE. It is possible that Augustin NDUWAYEZU recruited January AFRICA. The witness states that he never defended SIMBIKANGWA in the case which opposed him to January AFRICA. The accused claims the contrary! “He always says the opposite of what he said before!” And he continues: “In this case, we will go round in circles. The witness has a hard time saying what he thinks. I never disrespected him. I did not have a lawyer, I asked him to help me.”

Once again, Mr EPSTEIN can not help telling the General Attorney that he is talking nonsense ! The president intervened. He doesn’t want the discussion between the two men to continue.

Mrs BOURGEOT enters the arena and claims the right to ask a question to the General Attorney whom she accuses of not telling the truth when the latter affirms that the sentencing of Janvier AFRICA to two years of prison would be reported in an interview . The information is taken from a biography. Follows a lively dialogue. “Did a prosecutor come to you and tell you that he wanted information about SIMBIKANGWA?” “Yes, the General Prosecutor.” “You never talked about it?” “I thought I did !” “Where is Innocent BIGEGA ?” “Do not know.” “You cut the president’s microphone when laying the first stone at a hospital?” Once again, the lawyer misunderstood or did not listen. “The caricatures on SIMBIKANGWA, he wasn’t the author?” “Author of caricatures of him?” “Your letter to SIMBIKANGWA was read. And that of the accused? “” I did not find it. It was even meaner than mine! “

Mr EPSTEIN’s turn. Question on Radio Muhabura, radio of the RPF. The witness states that he does not recall hearing hate speech on this radio. The weapons distribution did not concern the RPF, he does not know of a RPF list of people to be eliminated. To the lawyer who is surprised that the witness did not read SIMBIKANGWA: “He was not a Nobel Prize in literature. Nothing attracted my interest in reading it! “On the other hand, the accused was indeed a close relation of HABYARIMANA, it was of common knowledge. Last question that the lawyer will ask twice and for which he will have the same answer: “Do you consider ROBARDEY as a privileged witness?” “I do not know him!”

We’ll leave it at that. It is time to move on to the questions the president wishes to ask the accused.

 

Interrogation of SIMBIKANGWA.

Mr. SIMBIKANGWA is invited to react to the last witness, Mr. IYAMUREMYE. The accused sarts of : “This is an accusation against France. Since 2008, MITTERRAND has been accused of having been a part in the genocide. We know that MITTERRAND and CASTRO destroyed apartheid (sic) “. (Editors note : Which would make one smile if the subject was not so serious, but sometimes the accused’s mental health can be doubted!)

The President DE JORNA stops him, of course, and brings him back to the subject. The accused continued, as if he had not heard the call to order: “I do not ask for any favor. The only thing I ask is to punish what is wrong and recognize innocence. Let France be France !! “He ends up coming back to the subject. “IYAMUREMYE sends me away when he arrives. It is not an ethnic but a political problem. He fired me to bring someone from the South. IYAMUREMYE was not interested in what the RPF was doing. He did not give a single name of a dead person … The Akazu, an invention. He did not say anything concrete. The witness? He’s a veterinarian, he has no experience in intelligence. He did not understand the service! “(Editors note : That’s said !)

The President, reading a statement to the investigators: “You summarized everything in one sentence:” Augustine IYAMUREMYE says anything to buy himself a place! “, a quote he will correct following the protest of Mr EPSTEIN: “It is to buy his life in a pure and hard dictatorship!” Meanwhile, the accused continued: ” I do not take him for a fool. He did not have time to learn and he placed new ones who knew nothing. “

The President reminded the accused of the words of the witness: “You were a problem in your work! You go out whenever you want… ” The accused who had somewhat calmed down, at least for a time: ” Everything he says is not false. But there are mysteries in this affair. Where can I find money to fund alternative services? I tried for two months with my own money. And then I stopped! “

The President asks the accused to answer by yes or no, which he obviously does not know how to do. “The journalists are prosecuted because they did not support HABYARIMANA?” The accused replied: “The French investigators are doing smart work. They showed that I have no connection with Kangura. Even Sam GODI defends me. “

“And the caricatures about you, how do you explain them? The soldier in the wheelchair is that you or not?” There is again floods of inaudible, rather incomprehensible words.

Then is projected this famous caricature where we see a soldier in a wheelchair holding a journalist with reins. For long minutes, SIMBIKANGWA refused to translate the bubbles. He will eventually resolve himself but still only translating half, pretending not to understand the journalists words. The latter, held on a leash, askes: “What will NKUNDABAGENZI (the Minister of Information) do for me?” Answer of the soldier in a wheelchair: “I am the law!” (Editors note : It wasn’t very complicated to translate these words! In the absence of sworn interpreter, he was the only one able to do so.)

SIMBIKANGWA reads a comment about him and says in substance: “Here is the impotent SIMBIKANGWA who defecates in his chair and who urinates…” (sentence to be specified later). “And this Journal, Umurava, would be from me?” The President is astonished at such hatred. “They had it in for the president,” said the accused. “We want to take him down … Get out of there so I can get in … Saying something good about the President, it’s a crime!” Then, scrutinizing the room: “Is there a Tutsi here ?” And seeing Mrs. GAUTHIER: “Maybe Dafroza!” And he continues: “An Inyenzi is a Hutu or a Tutsi! From the age of 12 I was marked by the events in Burundi.” And he alludes to his dismissal from school because he would have been mistaken for a Tutsi. “With HABYARIMANA, it was the pacification of the hearts, the amnesty for all the Tutsi who begin to reach positions of power. HABYARIMANA had this vision. He wanted to do everything to make Hutu and Tutsi get along. I have always pushed the President towards moderation, good!”

President. “How do you explain that KAVARUGANDA, in his letter to the President, depicts you as someone who threatens, who is worrying.” The accused once again lost his way: “This letter, you got it from the French judicial police which does not tamper with evidence? “

Mr. DE JORNA: “Madam Kavaruganda is making fakes? She got this document from her son! “

“I am lucky to be in DESCARTES’s country,” continues the accused. “The origin of this document does not concern me. I do not know if she’s lying. If she is not lying, that’s because I did it! In war, there is an important word: disinformation. How is it that there was no report on these threats when there were guards around him, people from UNAMIR? It’s extraordinary!” The president proposes to read the letter because the accused is wrong. The remarks he was accused of, he held them in the presence of agents, and not directly in the presence of the President of the Conseil Constitionnel!

The president then asks a question: “Is it a fake?” SIMBIKANGWA’s answer, who knows about it: “It’s not fake, it’ s too fake!” And he reminds us that the Defense lawyer at the ICTR says like him. It’s vain to try and explain to him that it is the interpretation of a lawyer, he doesn’t want to hear it! The accused added: “This is the propaganda of those who were against HABYARIMANA and who were going to assassinate him.”

“Mrs. KAVARUGANDA would be manipulative?” asks the president. “The devil is a bad advisor when you’re in trouble. Those who counseled her are the devil.”

Mrs. AKKORI pointed out that the authenticity of this letter was challenged by the defense at the ICTR but was accepted.

Mrs BOURGEOT is back and remarked that we have created false numbers of Umurava and that it is disinformation. She continues: “We may soon accuse you of having killed Agathe” (the Prime Minister). This is the caricature of Agathe with a man of the Church ? She asks.

To her client: “Are they trying to attribute to you KAVARUNGAs assassination ?” “Like GATABAZI,” the accused continued, “because he is from the South. GAPIYISI, it is said that it is SIMBIKANGWA! Even SINDIKUBWABO is considered a member of the Death Squads. I was for RWIGEMA (Editors note : Leader of the RPF at the beginning of the war, he will be killed on the front and replaced by Paul KAGAME.) I was for the classical war, not for the guerrillas. I was afraid for the Tutsi population! “

“Does it surprise you that the head of the SCR doesn’t know anything about the RPF?” “He doesn’t want to say it. There is a Rwandan problem. It is surprising! “Replied the accused. “Mr. IYAMUREMYE was spying on you?” “I don’t think so! IYAMUREMYE is unable to tell the truth. He is not a free man.”

It is already late. Mr. President suspended the hearing which will be resumed tomorrow at 9.30.

Alain GAUTHIER, Chairman of the CPCR

(translated by Leah TSHABALALA)