The Ministry of Justice has suspended 15 court bailiffs over alleged malpractices. The suspension took effect on October 14.
The Ministry of Justice has suspended 15 court bailiffs over alleged malpractices. The suspension took effect on October 14.
Yesterday, Odette Yankulije, head of access to justice department in the ministry said the suspensions were necessary to protect citizens from unprofessional bailiffs.
It is the first time bailiffs are being suspended by the ministry ever since the association of professional court bailiffs was established in 2011
"The ministry found it necessary to protect the interests of the citizens by ensuring they have fair execution of court rulings. We also needed to show Rwandans that we are in a country that abides by laws,” said Yankulije.
The suspension is in line with article 44 of the organic law governing professional court bailiffs. It states that "for emergency purposes, the Minister for Justice, may in the interest of work, suspend a professional bailiff from his/her duties until the final decision is taken for the alleged faults against him/her.”
‘The suspended professional bailiffs had been in service long, enough and are not ignorant of the laws. Their suspensions were taken in accordance with the gravity of their offenses determined by the disciplinary committee,” she explained.
The suspended were identified as Sunday Andrew, Themistocles Munyangeyo, Nathanael Mugenzi, Cassius Kalihangabo, Elie Irakiza Ntagomwa, Clement Ngororunkunda, Manassé, Rucyahana Rubondo, Léon Semajambe, Regis Kayitare, Aimé NKundibirama, André Kazigaba, John Nsengiyumva, Jonas Rusunika, Crispin Ruganda, and Aristide Buregeya.
Malpractices allegedly committed by the implicated court bailiffs include executing verdicts of ghost cases or those that had not yet been concluded as well as bailiffs who deposited money from auctions into their own bank accounts instead of courts.
Other cases cited include not reporting executed verdicts, lack of known workplaces as provided by the law, holding auctions on a day different from the one advertised, poor documentation and archiving of auctioning minutes, selling the property at a price lower than its real value and keeping the balance of the auction.
editorial@newtimes.co.rw