This is my third time attending court sessions in a case which has suffered
postponements twelve times and the lawyers of both parties are complaining
about the "unnecessary" case delay.
 |
| Gasabo Intermediate Court in Kigali. It took 2 years and over a dozen postponements to deliver ruling on a mistaken breast removal by two leading hospitals in Rwanda/ Faith Reporters |
By Kelly Rwamapera
Today is 11 March 2021 at 8 am.
I am standing in the parking yard near
the gloriously waving national flag, looking at the majestic facility of Gasabo
Intermediate Court at Rusororo as it shines serenely in the morning sunlight
beams dispelling the mist.
It is two years now since I started
coming here to cover the case of a woman seeking Rwf300 million ($300,000)
compensation for her lost breast, mistakenly removed for cancer she did not
have.
The case involves King Faisal Hospital
and Dr Lynette Kyokunda whose diagnosis wrongly concluded that the woman had
breast cancer and Rwanda Military Hospital depended on an eight-month-old
medical report from King Faisal Hospital to remove the woman's breast without
another medical examination.
This is my third time attending this
case which has suffered postponements twelve times and the lawyers of both
parties are complaining about the "unnecessary" case delay.
I ascend the white stairs into the
court’s waiting areas, passing many frustrated looks in hopes of getting
justice in this court. I proceed to closed courtrooms to identify where the
case will be heard from.
As usual, the woman’s case comes first
on the schedules written on pieces of paper on the metallic white doors
although it has lingered in the courtrooms for the last two years.
I sit near the courtroom door waiting
for the hearing time. Lawyers pass by me, their black gowns swinging in the
cold air going from door to door checking for where their cases will be heard
from.
A young woman and man in janitors'
clothing come hastily, one carrying the CPU and another the monitor trying not
to get entangled by the cables that sweep the ground.
They fugit on the door for about a
quarter a minute before they enter the courtroom up to the bench and leave the
computer there. The court clerk comes later to install the computer.
I don’t know whether the court doesn't
have enough computers so they have to share the few available or the computers
are not safe in the courtrooms so they have to keep them somewhere and return
them every morning.
Along with about seven people, many of
whom are lawyers, sit in the courtroom waiting as they joke about past
experiences in their profession.
Whenever I’m in a courtroom, I take
time to read what is written on the backrests of benches and walls.
If you like reading comments under a
news article, you should be able to know why I’m interested in reading what the
audience writes or scratch on the furniture or wall in a Rwandan courtroom.
In most village courts I’ve been to,
I've seen psalmic thanks such as “Thank you Lord”, “My enemies have been
defeated” and other words of contentment written or scratched everywhere in
response to the justice delivered in the court.
Here in Kigali courtrooms, you find
condemnation and blasphemy, especially against the country and authorities or
the judges in desperate and angry tones of the writers who exhibit their
defeated protest of a court's decision.
On the wall skirting, I see a
statement: “F**k Rwanda, it is so absurd”. The writer continues to condemn some
individuals: "you'll be held accountable”. Similar statements are all over
as in other courtrooms.
I have always wondered why court
authorities don’t have the courtrooms painted and furniture vanished regularly
to erase such statements.
The entering judge interrupts my
reading of the writings on the wall. We all rise as she sweeps with honour
through the audience to the bench with the court clerk.
I don’t know why there is no
introduction of the judges in the Rwanda courtrooms to make it more formal with
a greater sense of respect.
In some countries, I have known in East
Africa, a bailiff enters first and says: “All rise” and you all stand up and
the bailiff adds “This court is in session” then the judges come into the bench
and order the audience to “be seated”.
The court session
We’re over a dozen sparsely seated on
the church-like crimson benches unlike sometimes when hearings are held in one
of the small offices of this courthouse and attendants have to listen from near
the door in small corridors.
I have seen it twice here and at one
time I was intercepted by a court clerk who barred me from entering because the
room was already full.
Since this case started in 2019, it has
been handled by two different judges.
It beats my logic to see this case
involving two leading referral hospitals, one of the most prominent medics in
East Africa and with a compensation claim of up to Rwf300 million handled by a
single judge bench.
The first judge postponed it several
times until his scheduled transfer came and he left it on the docket.
This second judge one day left us in
the courtroom and went to meet the court’s president in his office, spent some
good minutes there and came back with a decision to punish the lawyer for
delaying the case.
It was my first time seeing a judge in
their capacity leaving the courtroom to consult others outside the courtroom
and come back with a decision. I think she violated her independence in the
case.
Today, we expected a ruling on the
objection submitted by the King Faisal Hospital lawyer but instead, the judge
takes time to read from her computer as she asks the lawyer some questions
about the experts’ report that had been answered in the previous session.
I get bored and return to the
commentary writings that dirty-marked the white wall skirting and the bench
backrests until the lawyer raises his voice in contention of the
“interrogation” from the judge:
“Your honour, I came here to contend
with my fellow lawyers, not this honourable court. Let the lawyers contend with
me on the matter” the lawyer said.
“We’re all not medical professionals”
another lawyer intervenes. “The experts’ report must be first decided on by
this honourable court. It's primary to know if the report is admissible or not
due to the objection submitted by one of us"
The judge gives a deaf hear after a
long argument on it, starts asking the lawyer of the victim:
“Of the two, King Faisal Hospital and
Kanombe (Rwanda) Military Hospital, who do you think should incur the
compensation and at what percentage if they are to share?” the judge asks.
I lean back and look at the honourable
judge in disbelief at her statement which sounds like a deliberation that the
victim has got the compensation before the court’s decision.
I don’t think the lawyer is the right
person to ask about the responsibility of each hospital in the case, I think
it’s supposed to be the medical experts to tell the court according to the
rules and ethics in the field.
The judge turns to the lawyers of all
parties about their position on the experts’ report who also refer the judge to
the arguments in the previous session, stressing that it’s important for the
court to decide on King Faisal Hospital’s objection to the experts’ report.
The hearing goes on in obscurity for five hours until the judge announces that the case would be decided on 9th April 2020.
Related stories
I think carpenters should do professionally do carpentry than involving themselves into others activities that need highly skilled labor to avoid such loopholes on human lives
ReplyDelete