Court dismisses appeal over Kagame tenure

FAUSTINE KAPAMA

Rwandan president, Paul Kagame

THE African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has dismissed an application for interim measures filed by Rwandan General Kayumba Nyamwasa and six others against move for amendment of constitution of Rwanda, extending office tenure of President Paul Kagame.

The court composed of Justices Sylvain Ore, President, Ben Kioko, Vice-President and Gerald Niyungeko, El Hadji Guisse, Rafaa Ben Achour, Solomon Bossa, Angelo Matusse and Ntyam Mengue, as members, ruled that the object of the request has been overtaken by events.

They declared in their ruling dated March 24, 2017, “The court declines to grant the interim measures since the object of the request has been overtaken by events. The application for interim measures is therefore no longer relevant and is consequently dismissed.” In the application, Gen. Nyamwasa and his co- applicants had sought for orders to stop the referendum on amendment of Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

But, the court noted that such referendum was held on December 17, 2015, thus defeating the purpose of any interim measures.

Other applicants in the matter were Kennedy Gihana, Bamporiki Seif, Frank Ntwali, Safari Stanley, Etienne Mutabazi and Epimaque Ntamushobora. They were opposing the exercise by Rwanda to amend the Constitution to allow the President to seek election to serve for a third term.

The applicants had alleged that Article 101 of the Constitution of Republic of Rwanda provided that the President shall serve for only two terms. They had alleged that the campaign for the amendment of the Article was conducted against a climate of fear.

According to the applicants, any challenges to the amendments of the constitution would likely not succeed as the judiciary of Rwanda was not independent, particularly since some judicial officers are also members of the Republic of Rwanda’s ruling party.

They had contended further that the planned constitutional amendment was in contravention of Article 6 (d) of the Treaty of the East African Community, which sets out the fundamental principles of the East African Community, including recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights.

In its response, the Republic of Rwanda, as respondent, had prayed to the court to declare the application as frivolous, vexatious, tendentious, politically motivated, an abuse of court process and an attempt to compromise the integrity of the court.

The respondent further sought for dismissal of the application and declares that criminal convicts’ still eluding justice cannot have locus standi before the court and that the court has no jurisdiction to hear and deal with the application on grounds that it is defective and bad in law.

Furthermore, the respondent had raised objections on the request for interim measures, contending that the application does not indicate what would remain for the court to decide after issuing such interim measures.

In conclusion, the respondent had stated that there are no people’s lives in danger or serious massive violations of human rights as required under Article 27 (2) of the Protocol to justify a request for interim measures.