TWO JOURNALISTS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL LIBEL

C O N F I D E N T I A L KIGALI 000114 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/12/2018 TAGS: PGOV PHUM RW SUBJECT: TWO JOURNALISTS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL LIBEL REF: KIGALI 79 Classified By: Ambassador Michael R. Arietti, reason 1.4 (B/D) ¶1. (U) On February 8, a Rwandan district court convicted two journalists, Charles Kabonero and Didas Gasana, of criminal libel. The judge imposed a one year suspended sentence, placed the two men on two year's probation, and required payment of a one million Rwandan franc fine (about USD 1800). Last summer, their publication Umuseso accused local business tycoon Tribert Rujugiro, closely associated with the ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front, of having tax problems in South Africa and breaking various laws there. Rujugiro began a civil action for libel, vigorously contesting the truth of the article's assertions, and was initially joined by the Prosecutor General's office. ¶2. (SBU) Subsequently, the Prosecutor General's office withdrew from the case, and private attorneys for Rujugiro proceeded alone. Prosecution staff occasionally monitored the proceedings without participating (note: Under Rwandan law, plaintiffs can independently pursue criminal libel proceedings). Three or four postponements occurred, usually due to the two defendants' pleas of illness or lack of preparedness by their counsel. Finally in late January the judge rejected a plea for another postponement by Gasana (Kabonero was not present in the courtroom),and heard the case. Neither man had legal counsel present at the one-day trial. The two journalists are now pursuing slightly different legal strategies: Gasana has appealed his conviction, while counsel for Kabonero is asking for a retrial. ¶3. (C) Pol/econ chief contacted Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga February 11, who confirmed his prosecutors' withdrawal from the case, and his offices lack of interest in any criminal charges or criminal penalties against the journalists. On separation of powers grounds, the Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional a criminal code provision allowing judges to charge additional criminal defendants in ongoing cases. Only executive branch prosecutors had authority under the constitution to investigate and charge criminal defendants, said the court (reftel). When asked of this recent case's applicability to a criminal libel conviction won by a private businessman, Ngoga said his legal staff would "study the case and its effect on the judge's ruling." ¶4. (C) Comment. Mission is not in a position to judge the merits of the libel action by the private businessman. We note that Rwandan journalists often publish accusations without much in the way of corroborating sources. However, whatever the accuracy of individual Umuseso articles, Kabonero and Gasana are two journalists who have forthrightly criticized the government on many occasions. The recent Supreme Court decision provides an opportunity to evaluate another constitutional question, and at the same time potentially eliminate private criminal libel actions. If judges cannot charge criminal defendants, against the wishes of a prosecutor, can private parties continue criminal cases once the prosecution withdraws from a case? This Mission has long suggested to the GOR that criminal libel actions of any sort are not in keeping with international norms -- we hope to see Rwandan courts in this case begin to end criminal libel. End comment. ARIETTI