A civil case seeking compensation for Genocide against the Tutsi survivors over the estate of Félicien Kabuga is set to be heard in November by Gasabo Intermediate Court, bringing renewed focus on the fate of assets linked to the late genocide suspect and whether they can be used to compensate victims. IBUKA, the umbrella organisation representing Genocide survivors, says the case was initiated before Kabuga’s death. His family is now expected to participate in the proceedings instead of Kabuga himself. Kabuga, who was accused of financing the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, died in France while his case was before the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). The Mechanism subsequently terminated the criminal proceedings because of his death, leaving no criminal conviction against him. However, his death did not automatically settle questions surrounding property and funds allegedly linked to his activities. Some assets have been frozen in foreign jurisdictions, including France, Belgium, Kenya and Switzerland, according to publicly available information. ALSO READ: Félicien Kabuga: A life of greed, genocide and impunity The question is whether such assets can be confiscated or used to compensate survivors without a criminal conviction. Richard Gisagara, a France-based lawyer who represented civil parties in Kabuga’s case, said the answer depends on the laws of the countries where the assets are located. He explained that three legal processes must be distinguished; those are seizure, confiscation, and civil recovery. Gisagara said that seizure is a temporary measure intended to prevent property from being moved, hidden, or disposed of while legal proceedings are ongoing. Confiscation, by contrast, involves permanently taking property following a legal determination that it is connected to criminal activity. While confiscation often follows a criminal conviction, some jurisdictions allow it without one. Following Kabuga’s death and the termination of his criminal proceedings, any further seizure would generally need to be pursued through the relevant national jurisdiction, Gisagara said. ALSO READ: Timeline of Félicien Kabuga's unresolved Genocide case “This means that the fate of Kabuga’s properties cannot be determined by one rule applicable worldwide,” he said, adding that the outcome would depend on the laws of individual countries. Civil recovery offers another possible avenue. Gisagara said survivors could potentially seek compensation from Kabuga’s estate, subject to the laws and procedures of the jurisdictions concerned. “The civil obligation rests with the heirs up to the value of the estate,” he explained. However, survivors or their representatives would need to establish a legal basis for their claims and demonstrate the connection between particular assets and the alleged criminal activities. Evidence that money was used to finance weapons, logistics, or other activities connected to the Genocide could be relevant. Gisagara also cautioned that the rights of heirs must be respected. Heirs may be responsible for legitimate debts and civil obligations only within the value of the estate they inherit, subject to applicable law. “A global seizure of the estate without demonstration of the link with the crime would be questionable,” he said, stressing the importance of evidence and due process. Alphonse Muleefu, a researcher and legal expert, said the country where each asset is located or registered is generally the starting point for determining what legal action can be taken. For property in Rwanda, authorities would operate within their own jurisdiction. Recovering assets held abroad, however, could be more complicated, particularly where there is no court order or sufficient legal basis for confiscation. Muleefu said survivors could still pursue civil claims, and evidence collected during the Mechanism’s investigations could potentially support their cases if properly examined. “Survivors can certainly file civil claims,” he said, describing the process as complicated but worth attempting in the interests of justice. How could survivors benefit? Even if assets were recovered, they would not automatically be transferred to survivors. A legal decision would first need to establish the basis for confiscation or recovery, followed by a mechanism determining how the funds should be distributed. Gisagara noted that the International Criminal Court has a Trust Fund for Victims, but the IRMCT has no equivalent fund through which Kabuga’s assets could automatically be channeled to survivors. Any arrangement to direct recovered funds towards survivors would therefore require an appropriate legal mechanism under national law or another established reparation framework. For IBUKA, the issue goes beyond the ownership of property. The organisation argues that funds linked to criminal activities should not simply return to Kabuga’s family and has called for greater transparency and international cooperation in tracing and handling his estate. It also wants Rwanda and foreign jurisdictions to work together to establish the location and value of frozen assets and explore lawful ways of directing recovered funds towards survivors. Such resources could potentially support healthcare, housing, education and other assistance for survivors, although this would depend on the legal outcome and the mechanism established for distributing the funds.
