Retired Brig-Gen Frank Rusagara, has argued in court that the testimonies provided against him are incorrect and should not be the basis for his imprisonment on treason charges.

Rusagara appeared before the military high court on Friday in Kigali alongside co-accused Col Tom Byabagamba, former head of the Presidential Guard Unit and Sergeant (Rtd) François Kabayiza.

READ: Trial of former Kagame guard resumes

The prosecution collected testimonies from serving and former military officers, who accuse Rusagara of labelling Rwanda a “police state and banana republic.”

Those who testified are: Col. Jill Rutaremara, currently the director of Rwanda Peace Academy, who previously served as the military spokesperson; David Kabuye, an ex-Rwandan military officer who is currently facing 15 years imprisonment for “spreading false news,” with intent to stir hate and revolt against the Kigali government; Former army colonels Kamili Karege and John Bosco Mulisa, who in 2009 were both suspended and relieved of their duties by the army; and Capt George Kayitare.

“In their statements, the witnesses say that they had begun to distance themselves from the defendant when they realised that he was trying to sell his hate ideologies against the country’s leadership,” the prosecution led by Capt Faustin Nzakamwita, presented.

“It was obvious that he was trying to recruit senior officers for the Rwanda National Congress rebel group which we all know is against the established government.”

Rwanda National Congress is a political group established by exiled officials opposed to President Paul Kagame.

The exiled officials include Gen Kayumba Nyamwasa, Theogene Rudasingwa and Gerald Gahima. Patrick Karegeya, who was murdered in January last year, was in this group.

According to the prosecution, Rusagara committed the crimes between 2013 and 2014 during conversations he held with his accusers in their meet-ups at two places – Nyarutarama Tennis Club and Car Wash — a Kigali bar and restaurant.

However, Rusagara’s lawyer, Pierre Celestin Buhuru, asked if the court had verified the authenticity of the testimonies, considering the “graveness of the accusations.”

“Where is the evidence for all those claims? There is a need to offer something more. We are against the procedure of today’s session,” he said.
 Defence lawyers have previously argued with the military judges in a bid to separate the trials of their clients, and even challenged the competence of the court, but the court has on all occasions ruled against them.
Judge Maj Bernard Hategekimana, adjourned the trial to Monday December 14.