The High Court, yesterday, nullified the recent election of the leadership of Rwanda Bar Association (RBA) on grounds that the electoral process was characterised with malpractices.
The High Court, yesterday, nullified the recent election of the leadership of Rwanda Bar Association (RBA) on grounds that the electoral process was characterised with malpractices.
This follows a lawsuit by a senior member of the lawyers’ body, Richard Mugisha, calling for the cancellation of the elections in which Jean Marie Vianney Nduwamungu had been pronounced winner.
Nduwamungu, who had already assumed office, had been elected to replace Athanase Rutabingwa.
Delivering the judgment, High Court President Charles Kaliwabo held that the irregularities in the elections could not be ignored, noting that the credibility of the process is not determined by the number of votes in contention, but its transparency.
At the initial hearing, court heard from the plaintiff, who was represented by Moise Nkundabarashi, that 595 votes were cast, yet only 561 members had registered to vote.
On this, the bench of three judges declared that the 34 votes in contention is a big number to be ignored.
On the point raised by defence that the plaintiff had ulterior motives in filing the case, court ruled that he had no interest because he was not a candidate and he petitioned court over malpractices that even the association concedes happened.
The case was filed against the Bar and Athanase Rutabingwa, the outgoing president of the association, which currently has a membership of over 1,000 practitioners.
Subsequently, Rutabingwa was asked to not be part of the organisation of the second election on grounds that he was part of the case.
During this transitional period, court appointed Anita Mugeni as the interim chairperson with immediate effect until elections are held in three months time.
Mugeni was appointed based on her seniority in the council of advocates which oversees the daily activities of the Bar Association.
But court also declined to award damages on grounds that the plaintiff had issues with the voting process and not the bar itself.
The court also ruled that the case cannot be appealed against.
editorial@newtimes.co.rw