A lenient High Court handed a far less sentence to Paul Rusesabagina the founder and financer of terror group MRCD-FLN, despite overwhelming evidence proving his culpability. The same lenient jail term has been kept unchanged by the Court of Appeal. Following the first trial, on 20th September, 2021, the High Court’s Special Chamber for International Crimes and Cross-border Crimes sentenced Rusesabagina to 25 years in prison. Rusesabagina had been charged with 13 counts including the creation or entry into, of an illegal armed group, terrorism, engaging in terrorism for political gain, issuance of instructions in the act of terrorism, membership in a terrorist organization, conspiracy and incitement of terrorism, complicity in the crimes of murder, arson, theft and others. Prosecutors had sought for the maximum sentence, life in prison, which is what is prescribed in the law for the totality of these cases. When the High Court bench deliberated on the charges following a marathon trial, the man who celebrated the killing of innocent villagers in southwestern Rwanda, was given a much lenient sentence. Rusesabagina’s twenty co-accused, including the spokesperson of the MRCD-FLN rebel group Nsabimana Callixte alias Major Sankara, were also sentenced to terrorism-related charges. Sankara for his part got 20 years. However, by the time the sentence was passed, Rusesabagina had arrogantly pulled himself out of the trial, a tactic to divert attention away from the damning evidence – to the process itself. Undeterred, the High Court bench did its work. The prosecution lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal, protesting the very negligible sentence given to Rusesabagina. All the accused, except Rusesabagina, also appealed. The appeals court made its decision yesterday 4th April. Rusesabagina’s sentence was maintained, while that of Sankara was reduced from 20 years, down to 15 years. Where did Rusesabagina’s lenient sentence come from? Is it based in law? How come the High Court considered Rusesabagina side despite him dismissing its legitimacy? In making the verdict, the High Court bench said it considered Rusesabagina’s term because he had admitted to some of the main charges such as financing terrorism. Rusesabagina had also expressed remorse for some of the crimes. Rusesabagina admitted to sending up to $300,000 to the FLN. In addition, he said he had provided the rebels with 20,000 Euros, in addition to regular installments. Rusesabagina also admitted to holding fundraising meetings to raise money for his terror outfit. There was a YouTube video in which Rusesabagina takes responsibility for the FLN attacks, adding that the operations were planned to kill civilians in order to force government into negotiations. The video has since been deleted by his supporters, who have been cleaning the internet of such trail. There were message exchanges between Rusesabagina and his military commander Lt Gen Wilson Irategeka on 30th October 2018 and other dates, together with exiled former prime minister Faustin Twagiramungu where they discuss field operations. In one message, he tells Twagiramungu that he wouldn’t be available as he was busy mobilizing resources for “my boys” (abahungu banjye). From another message, Lt Gen Irategeka tells Rusesabagina in what seems to be expression of displeasure; “Twe turi gushaka kohereza abahinzi mu murima wowe ukohereza amafaranga aho tutazi koko, urashaka gucamo ibice abahinzi ukoresheje amafaranga?” (We are planning on sending farmers to the plantations yet you are sending money to unknown recipients, do you want to cause rifts among the farmer using money?) In some messages, Rusesabagina with his political and military men use terms such as “abahinzi” (farmers), “amasuka” (hoes), and “imbuto” (seeds). In court documents, Rusesabagina explained during interrogation that the code words referred to abahinzi were rebel troops, amasuka for guns, and imbuto for bullets. Court also had evidentiary trail of Rusesabagina’s wife Uwiragiye Thacienne sending money to Maj Sankara who was based in the Indian Islands of Comoros. She also sent money to different other countries for mobilisation. When presented with all these pieces of evidence, Rusesabagina admitted that indeed these were efforts to keep the rebel war effort going so that government had no option but negotiate. With all this multitude of evidence over his head, Rusesabagina is smart enough to have sensed he had no chance of convincing the High Court judges otherwise. Strategy? Change the narrative of the case, so that the evidence isn’t discussed. Rusesabagina had friends to help him do that on the outside, including the Clooney Foundation for Justice. Yesterday, the Foundation issued it’s report on the trial as it has been monitoring proceedings. Geoffrey Robertson QC, the report’s author who monitored the trial for the Foundation wrote – “This report is not concerned with Paul Rusesabagina’s guilt or innocence, but whether his trial was fair.” To Rusesabagina’s friends, the evidence of killings committed by his rebels is not the issue we should be discussing, but rather, whether he is eating Spanish Omelette or is he taking imported coffee, as a demonstration that he is happy and therefore can be tried. To them, the rebel attacks that killed a 13 years old girl and another 16 year boy , also leaving many lives shuttered, cannot be reason for his trial. But rather, the court should be reviewing whether he had sufficient time on the call with his wife. There was also an attempt at raising concern over how many meals Rusesabagina was getting, or whether he was receiving bottled water. While making the verdict, the High Court went an extra mile, which they didn’t have to, but are required by law, to look for elements in the evidence from both sides that help the defendant. The court did exactly that, find what would save Rusesabagina from going to jail for the rest of his life. Although I’m forced to accept the verdict since it’s a court decision, I don’t agree with it. Rusesabagina should have been given the ultimate sentence.
