Judgement RPA 2887: Prosecutor and PC Bulaya against the accused Mulumeoderhwa
Matumuabiri
In his statement, made and registered at this Court's bureau on the 6 th August 2012, the
Prosecution, before the Court of First Instance of Bukavu, has appealed Judgement R.P.
13625 deeming it ill-advised, said Judgement having been duly pronounced by the Court of
First Instance of Bukavu on the 6th July 2012. Against the same Judgement, the accused
Mulumeoderhwa, acting through his counselor Advocate Justin NTWALI, holding special
powers of attorney granted for this purpose, has also appealed on the 24th October 2012;
In the terms of said Judgement, the above mentioned jurisdiction disqualified the offense of
rape of child awarded against the accused Mulumeoderhwa MATUMWABIRI Landry, in that
of indecent assault without sexual violence, sentenced him to six months in prison and
ordered him to pay the equivalent in FC of 500 USD in damages and interest to the victim
BULAYA BYABELE;
Justifying the admissibility of his appeal and reacting to the Prosecution's request to have it
declared inadmissible for being tardy, the accused maintained that his appeal is admissible
since the Judgement is contested, pronounced beyond the fixed date – in this regard the
Court has not informed him in time for him to appeal within the requisite ten days;
In this regard, the Court notes that the first Judge deliberated on the case on the 29 th May
2012 and took his decision on the 12th June 2012. However, this Court has not intervened
until the 3rd August 2012. In the absence of any evidence that the accused had knowledge of
the verdict after it had been pronounced, his appeal shall be declared admissible;
In the public hearing of the 6th December 2012 in which this case was investigated, argued
and taken into deliberation after the Prosecution's indictment, the accused was present
assisted by his lawyer Advocate Justin NTWALI, whereas the Prosecution was represented
by its lawyer Advocate Olivier MBASHA. The procedure taken is in conformity with the rules;
The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. On the 30th October 2011, the accused
was discovered by DIDIENNE in a construction site's house with the little girl KISANDA IDA,
an 8-year old, half-naked and with his pants down while the girl was naked. That was when
Didienne, also age 12, went screaming to inform Ida's mother. Reacting to Didienne's cries,
the accused took the little girl outside the house. Following Didienne's warning, the victim's
mother arrived, grabbed the accused and took him to her house. She invited other people to
question him about the act that he had just committed. While this was going on, someone
called the police of Kadutu's market. It is thus how the judicial procedure, whose decision is
now being appealed, began.
As the ground to appeal, the accused reproaches the contested decision an inadequate,
ambiguous and insufficient motivation. He bases this ground on the fact that the 1 st Judge
disqualified the rape for which he was indicted by the Prosecution regarding indecent assault
without any proof. He adds that the motivation is incomplete in that the first Judge did not find
in his decision's motives, the contradictions raised in the Prosecution's, the victim's and the
witnesses' statements, which should have led to his acquittal for reasonable doubt;