[South Africa’s attempt to flex its foreign policy muscle by capturing the AU’s top post may be thwarted by nations resentful of its already dominant role on the continent.]
BURUNDI :
Burundi : les partis politiques doivent se conformer à la nouvelle loi avant le 10 mars
Par RFI/ dimanche 29 janvier 2012
Depuis plusieurs mois, le gouvernement de Pierre Nkurunziza procède à une série de réformes pour limiter le nombre de partis politiques au Burundi et surtout, contrôler l'influence des leaders exilés. La date limite, fixée par le ministère de l'Intérieur, pour se conformer aux nouvelles exigences, a été fixée au 10 mars 2012.
La nouvelle loi sur les partis politiques au Burundi prévoit 20 membres fondateurs par province au lieu de 6 auparavant. Le ministre burundais de l’Intérieur Edouard Nduwimana demande à tous les partis même à ceux qui sont agréés depuis plusieurs décennies de s’y conformer d’ici le 10 mars 2012. Une autre exigence qui passe très mal, celle faite aux présidents des partis politique de prouver qu’ils vivent au Burundi, en produisant une attestation de résidence.
Edouard Nduwimana confirme : « La loi demande à ce que le représentant d’un parti politique soit résident au Burundi. Au niveau du ministère de l’Intérieur, nous demandons à ce que la loi soit respectée. »
Depuis la réception de cette correspondance, la tension est montée d’un cran au sein de l’opposition burundaise qui crie à la chasse aux sorcières. Le président de l’Alliance démocratique pour le changement, ADC, Léonce Ngendakumana dénonce : « le pouvoir CNDD‐FDD [Conseil national pour la défense de la démocratie-Forces de défense de la démocratie, au pouvoir, NDLR] qui veut en découdre avec l’idée des partis politiques qui sont analysés. Ni moins ni plus, c'est ça ! » D’où la décision de croiser à nouveau le fer avec le gouvernement burundais : « Nous n’allons pas nous conformer à une loi qui contient des dispositions qui violent la Constitution de manière flagrante »
Mais le ministre burundais de l’Intérieur, Edouard Nduwimana, prévient : « Ceux qui vont refuser de se conformer à la loi, le ministère va lui aussi refuser de prendre acte de toutes les mesures que prendront ces partis politiques »
Qui va l’emporter dans ce énième bras de fer engagé entre pouvoir et opposition au Burundi en proie aux violences ?
En avril 2011, l'Assemblée nationale du Burundi avait adopté la loi sur la résidence obligatoire d'un dirigeant de parti. A l'époque, il avait été annoncé qu'un parti devait réunir au moins 1 700 membres fondateurs provenant des 17 provinces.
RWANDA :
Rwanda journalists jailed for genocide denial launch supreme court appeal
Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent /guardian.co.uk/Sunday 29 January 2012
Agnès Uwimana and Saïdati Mukakibibi are being supported by an international team of lawyers and human rights groups
Two Rwandan journalists imprisoned for insulting President Paul Kagame and denying genocide will appear before the country's supreme court on Monday to argue for their freedom. The fates of Agnès Uwimana and Saïdati Mukakibibi, who are supported by an international team of lawyers and British human rights groups, have become test cases for free speech in the central African state. The ban on denial of the country's 1994 genocide, which claimed as many as 800,000 lives, is being exploited as a legal weapon to silence political opponents, it is alleged. Rwanda insists the law is no different from those in Europe outlawing denial of the Holocaust.
The two women will be represented at the supreme court in the capital, Kigali, by John Jones, a London barrister who specialises in war crimes trials. He has previously appeared at the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, in neighbouring Tanzania.
Rwanda, formerly a German and Belgian colony, has been a member of the Commonwealth since 2009. Concerns highlighted by human rights groups before its accession included harassment of journalists and the extent of political freedoms.
Under Rwanda's constitution, "revisionism, negationism and trivialisation of genocide are punishable by the law". Critics say the legislation is too vague and is used against those who suggest that both ethnic Hutus and Tutsis suffered equally in the genocide, contradicting the state's official version of events.
In 2010, an American law professor, Peter Erlinder, who had appeared at the Arusha tribunal, was imprisoned in Rwanda because his comments allegedly minimised the country's genocide.
The journalists' case may influence relations between Rwanda and the UK. British courts have recently refused to deport those wanted by Kigali. The country's legal processes are under international scrutiny.
Uwimana, who was sentenced to 17 years, and Mukakibibi, who received seven years, are both widows with children. They remain in jail pending the appeal. Their articles, in papers with small circulations, made allegations of corruption among officials and criticised the president ahead of the 2010 elections. They were convicted last year of insulting Kagame, endangering national security, inciting divisionism and denying the genocide.
"The genocide denial charge stems from a passage where the journalist mentioned that … Rwandans killed each other," explained Nani Jansen, legal officer of the London-based organisation Media Legal Defence Initiative. "This contradicts the official version of events, which is that there was a one-sided genocide.
"Even more absurdly, the court did not take into account that in the same article, the journalist accused Kagame of not doing enough to punish genocidaires – clearly indicating that she does not deny the genocide." Jansen has flown out to Kigali to help represent the two writers.
Among the British civil rights groups that have made submissions to the court supporting the appeal is Article 19, the anti-censorship organisation. It said the conviction "violates international human rights standards on freedom of expression".
John Jones, who has been temporarily admitted to the bar in Kigali for the case, said: "It is being said that the laws on genocide denial are being abused quite a lot … to silence political opposition. The United Nations and civil rights bodies have criticised [the law]. In court we will be saying that the laws have to be interpreted narrowly and proper importance has to be given to freedom of expression, which is a central attribute of a healthy democracy.
"Rwandans are coming out of this extraordinary period in their history. Some people have compared it to being like the Jewish people being in charge of Germany after the war. They don't want [outsiders] to dictate how they should run their country. That can be seen as offensive. These ladies should be acquitted and anyway the sentences are way too harsh."
He said 17 years was "ludicrous – armed robbers and rapists normally receive such sentences".
"Sweden has recently agreed to extradite people to Kigali, so the world is beginning to say that you can trust Rwanda. So it is all the more important for justice to be done properly," Jones said.
Kagame has been quoted in an interview with a Ugandan newspaper as saying that he accepts that the 17-year sentence is harsh and "reflects badly on the country".
Rwanda's high commission in London said: "The hearing will be open and transparent. Both Uwimana and Mukakibibi are represented by a competent team of local and international lawyers and attorneys. We are confident they will receive a free and fair trial.
"The law against genocide denial and incitement of violence and hatred … was adopted in the face of growing denial and trivialisation of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. The law penalises denial of the genocide and incitement of violence and hate at a time when Rwanda is rebuilding national unity, reconciliation and tolerance in order to help Rwandan society heal after the tragic genocide.
"The law was developed in accordance with international best practices and is no different from similar laws that have been adopted by some European countries in response to Holocaust and genocide denial. Application and interpretation of the law has always been a matter for the Rwandan competent courts of law." ENDS
Politcal pulse: Is Rwanda doing better than Uganda?
Sunday, 29 January 2012 / Written by David Tash Lumu & Sulaiman Kakaire /www.observer.ug
You can’t compare the two, says Museveni
The leaders of Uganda and Rwanda might be exchanging medals and hosting each other in an open expression of new found love, but the rivalry between Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame is far from extinguished. Kagame was in Uganda last week to, among other things, attend the 26th NRM anniversary celebrations. A former army officer in the Ugandan army (NRA), he was awarded the Excellent Order of the Pearl of Africa Grand Master medal during the event held in Kapchorwa on Thursday.
Earlier, during the just- concluded NRM retreat at Kyankwanzi, President Museveni didn’t take kindly to one presenter’s view that Kigali was doing much better than Kampala socially and economically. Prof Augustus Nuwagaba, who was guest speaker at the retreat, opened a can of worms when he said that Rwanda’s was one of the few successful African revolutions that Uganda needs to emulate. Sources have told The Observer that Nuwagaba had earlier stated in his presentation that about 13% of Uganda’s budget is lost through corruption.
He added that as a result of graft, the public barely finds reason to speak well of the NRM regime. Museveni had listened quite attentively until Nuwagaba cited Rwanda amongst the successful revolutionary countries that Uganda ought to emulate, a statement that appeared to rattle the President.
“This man talks a lot. I have not been putting much attention on his work. His paper is well researched on some issues. However, my view is that this paper is biased. You cannot compare Rwanda to Uganda,” Museveni argued.
Rwanda’s economic gains since the genocide in 1994 have often received plaudits from economists and sections of Ugandan media. President Kagame is also praised for transforming Kigali into one of the cleanest, organised and fastest growing African cities. However, critics in Rwanda, Uganda and elsewhere maintain that while Rwanda has registered some successes, these are often exaggerated. The critics point out, for instance, that there’s nothing to write home about a few kilometres outside the sprawling capital of the tiny East African country. Critics further attribute the “distortion” to Kigali’s capable public relations machine.
Indeed, Nuwagaba had said in his paper that Rwanda ranks ahead of Uganda in terms of organisation, service delivery and effective governance. But an unimpressed Museveni said Nuwagaba ought to have done research on Uganda’s own sound institutions such as the UPDF and Uganda Revenue Authority. Sources have told us that Museveni, perhaps mindful that Kagame would be visiting Uganda in a couple of days, tried to tone down his critique of Nuwagaba’s presentation, saying the professor is naïve and does not comprehend the difference between the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) and the National Resistance Army (NRA).
“When RPF came to power, it dissolved the entire civil service and created a new one; but for us here we inherited the rotten civil service. So, in Rwanda it is purely RPF. Here we mixed with other people from past regimes, who we didn’t know,” the President argued.
Museveni challenged Nuwagaba to also highlight the good deeds of the NRM government the next time he is invited to make such a presentation. According to our sources, to demonstrate to the MPs that Nuwagaba’s assessment was flawed, Museveni invited the Prime Minister, Amama Mbabazi, to explain how the new performance-based contracts in public service are going to work. Mbabazi told the lawmakers that by June this year, all civil servants will be working on contract, with their performance subjected to periodical review.
President Museveni had earlier warned MPs against subversive intent in their proclaimed fight against corruption.
Citing the oil bribery allegations against Mbabazi, Sam Kutesa and Hilary Onek, Museveni said he would deal with politicians who use fighting corruption as a ruse to destroy his party. Museveni also cited an individual he mentioned only by his first name – Simpson – of the US embassy, who he said is one of the elements assisting politicians with a subversive agenda within the NRM. The said Simpson is accused of peddling forged oil documents on the basis of which Parliament acted following a special session in October to demand the stepping aside of the three ministers.
The Observer has also learnt that during the retreat, Kinkizi East MP, Dr Chris Baryomunsi, accused his Kanungu rival Mbabazi of fronting his protégé, Saverino Twinobusingye, to challenge the legality of Parliament’s resolutions after the oil debate in the Constitutional Court.
“Tell Saverino not to proceed or to withdraw the Constitutional Court petition. We know that you are behind Saverino. He was your political assistant,” Baryomunsi told Mbabazi. It is not clear what Mbabazi said in reply.
dtlumu@observer.ugThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Mugesera deportation buoys Rwanda justice system
By GAAKI KIGAMBO / www.theeastafrican.co.ke/Posted Sunday, January 29 2012
The deportation of Leon Mugesera from Canada to Rwanda on Tuesday, January 24, and the expected transfer to Kigali of Pastor Jean Uwinkindi from the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, are a vote of confidence for the Rwandan judicial system, long seen as being incapable of conducting fair and impartial trials of people suspected of participating in and masterminding the 1994 genocide.
The two handovers, coming on the back of French Judge Marc Trévidic’s report exonerating the ruling RPF of complicity in the assassination of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, are expected to be followed by fresh demands from Kigali for countries like France, Canada, and Belgium, where known genocide suspects live freely, to extradite them to Kigali.
“Each case is dealt with on its own merit, as a general rule. However, the recent trend where we have won deportation from the US and Canada and also extraditions from European countries and a referral from ICTR means it is no longer necessary to continue prosecuting Rwandan fugitives abroad.
This transitional arrangement, which we have supported for years, must now cease and bring cases home to Rwanda,” Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga told The EastAfrican.
When Trévidic, and his colleague Nathalie Poux released their report early this month, Rwanda’s Foreign Minister, Louise Mushikiwabo, stated that Rwanda would concentrate on nation building and let France bring the suspects to justice.
But, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Tharcisse Karugarama told The EastAfrican Rwanda will never stop pursuing justice against genocide suspects.
“We made an appeal to all countries where genocide fugitives live that they should be extradited to Rwanda.
This principle is shared by all countries we requested co-operation from,” Mr Karugarama said. “If they can’t extradite them, let them try them in their own countries,” he added.
Mugesera’s deportation, said Mr Karugarama, “is a strong message to genocide fugitives that they won’t live in comfort forever. The long arm of the law will get them eventually.”
Mugesera’s hate speech
Mugesera, a former professor at the National University of Rwanda and vice president of the ruling MRND party, is accused of having called for the extermination of the Tutsis one and half years before the genocide.
Speaking in Kabaya, Gisenyi, in 1992, Mugesera is alleged to have said, in reference to the first massacres of Tutsis in 1959, “The mistake we made in 1959 was to let you live,” adding, in a speech parts of which can be found on online video sharing site YouTube, “I am telling you… that your home is in Ethiopia, that we will send you by the Nyabarongo River so you can get there quickly.” Nyabarongo is part of the headwaters of the Nile.
His speech embarrassed the government of the time and marked him for arrest, forcing him to flee to Canada, where he acquired residence in Québec in 1993.
Yet no sooner had Mugesera settled down in his new country than its Citizenship and Immigration Department initiated deportation proceedings against him, acting on his hate speech and a warrant for his arrest issued by the Rwandan government. For the next 16 years, Mugesera fought in court in vain to have his deportation rescinded.
RDC CONGO:
RDC/Législatives – Vers une recomposition du paysage politique congolais
Publié par La Rédaction /direct.cd/ le 30 janvier 2012
Avec la pléthore de ses députés élus, l’Union pour la démocratie et le progrès social (UDPS) d’Étienne Tshisekedi est en passe de devenir le premier parti politique de l’opposition au détriment du Mouvement pour la libération du Congo (MLC) en nette dégringolade. Un constat s’impose, d’emblée, à la suite de la publication des résultats provisoires des élections législatives du 28 novembre 2011. C’est que le Parti du peuple pour la reconstruction et la démocratie (PPRD) vient de consolider son avance en obtenant, à lui seul, 58 des 432 sièges pour lesquels les résultats ont été annoncés par circonscription électorale.
Les candidats du parti présidentiel se retrouvent un peu partout et ont glané des voix jusque dans des circonscriptions où on les attendait le moins. Venant en ordre utile avec 34 sièges, l’UDPS s’est, au contraire, distinguée dans les deux Kasaï où ses candidats ont réalisé le plein de voix. Une performance à saluer pour ce parti de l’opposition après avoir boycotté les élections de 2006. Avec une trentaine de députés déjà élus, l’UDPS est en passe de devenir le premier parti de l’opposition, détrônant ainsi le MLC de Jean Pierre Bemba qui a fondu de deux tiers et le Parti lumumbiste unifié.
C’est dire que le poste de Premier ministre, jusque-là détenu par le parti d’Antoine Gizenga, pourra changer de camp en prévision d’une recomposition des alliances qui se profile à l’horizon en vue de la constitution de la prochaine majorité parlementaire. Là-dessus, les choses ne paraissent pas aussi simples, avertissent les analystes. Il appert, à ce stade, qu’aucun parti politique ayant pignon sur rue n’a pu réussir à obtenir une majorité absolue de sièges au terme de la première livraison des résultats. Ce qui, en clair, ouvre inévitablement la voie aux alliances aux fins d’offrir à la République une nouvelle majorité parlementaire.
Toutefois, eu égard aux scores réalisés par le PPRD et ses alliés, sans oublier ses autres partenaires tels que le MSR, l’ARC, CCU et tant d’autres, tout concourt à dire que le formateur du prochain gouvernement sera issu du camp présidentiel.
L’opposition restée cloitrée dans ses divisions internes avec des tendances diamétralement opposées, quant à la manière de décrypter la donne politique, aura du mal à mener à bien cette tâche, prédisent les analystes. Avec une majorité parlementaire acquise à sa cause, il est évident que Joseph Kabila aura les coudées franches pour mener à bien sa politique de reconstruction et de modernisation du pays.
Alain Diasso
——————————————————————————————
Lire suite du document : bur30012012.doc
