Green Party Supreme Court arguments marred by inconsistencies

A petition hearing filed by the Democratic Green Party before the Supreme Court seeking to stop ongoing constulations over public demand to amend the Constitution took a new twist, yesterday, when state attorneys accused the petitioner of lack of direction. The Green Party argues that the government has breached the Constitution, but through their lawyer Antoinette Mukamusoni, the petitioners made a U-turn and said they wanted the court to interpret the Constitution on presidential term limits. Green Party filed the case early June, calling for the Supreme Court to put a stop to the demands to amend Article 101 of the Constitution, which determines the terms of Office of the President. More than 3.7 million citizens (about 60 per cent of the registered voters) have petitioned Parliament to consider revising Constitution to allow President Paul Kagame seek re-election when his term of office expires in 2017. On receiving the petitions, Parliament voted in favour and has been engaged in countrywide consultations that will see MPs scour all the 416 sectors of the country to register public views before taking a decision on whether to call for a referendum to decide on the public demand. During the hearing, presided over by Chief Justice Sam Rugege, state lawyers challenged the plaintiff’s case, saying one cannot sue for an infraction that has not yet been committed. They also questioned the legality of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, saying this was the preserve of Parliament or the Bar Association, and that the case can only be brought to Supreme Court by either of the two organs in case they cannot get a remedy. “The plaintiff is suing the state on grounds that they have already endorsed the amendment of Article 101 and the referendum. However, we all know that nothing of the sort has happened. Legislators are still examining wishes of citizens but no one can know for sure what the next step will be,” said Aimable Marara, one of the state attorneys. The Green Party, whose president Frank Habineza was also in the dock, says that they petitioned the Supreme Court because they were not certain about getting a fair hearing from the Chamber of Deputies because “they are part of state which is being sued.” According to Marara, the plaintiff is not sure about the justice they are seeking because they didn’t go through proper channels and are also suing the wrong party. Friend of Court Meanwhile, earlier in the day, the bench, which was made up of a quorum of nine judges, had ruled to disregard a brief filed by a Friend of Court (Amicus Curiae) in the case on grounds that it lacked impartiality and experience to bring any meaningful value to the case. Through its managing director Thierry Kevin Gatete, the Centre for Human Rights failed to argue beyond reasonable doubt how their input will help both sides. The judges also raised questions about Gatete’s impartiality after he stated that he was also doing pro-bono work for Green Party. After a brief deliberation, the judges held that there was no new information or expertise that the ‘Amis Curiae’ was bringing to the case, after Gatete admitted that he had no legal publications or even research work done on constitutionalism in Rwanda. Following the submissions by both Green Party and the state, Prof. Rugege announced that a decision on the procedural matters raised by the parties would be announced on September 9, regardless of whether or not the case will proceed in substance. editorial@newtimes.co.rw

News

Green Party Supreme Court arguments marred by inconsistencies