Focus Media (Kigali)
8 July 2009
(Page 2 of 2)
In short I left no stone unturned to make sure I got the right information.
With all due respect Mr. President, whatever information you have on this case, Mutsindashyaka and Nyinawagaga's involvement in depriving Kamiri Batsinda of his plot is downright fishy. No, it stinks. It stinks to the high heavens.
One who knows this case may ask why I am so sure since it is almost impossible to determine where the truth is what with the tangled mess of administrative letters and letters of appeal and copies of checks purporting to have been made in payment for the plot, and letters disputing this, and letters disputing that...and Batsinda saying this and Nyinawagaga and Bizimana saying that, to the point you may become totally confused.
Well in such cases you begin with the simplest questions. In the case of Batsinda's plot there are some truly elemental questions with the most elemental answers.
For example who is Augustin Bizimana? A relative of Butera's? No. Butera does not even know the man. A big time investor? Not unless you count going to jail on suspicion of doing shoddy work on public tenders (see our page 1 story) as being an investor. Did Batsinda want to sell his plot? Not unless he is lying. He is categorical: he did not want to sell his plot to Bizimana and does not want to. And even now when the plot has been taken over by Bizimana he has hired a lawyer to try to get his property back.
From these primary questions we can move a little bit higher up and consult the law. Are there circumstances in which someone can be made to sell their land against their wishes? Yes. The state can expropriate land in the public interest - to build a road for instance, or put up a hospital, a school, a factory and any other development of a nature to be beneficial to the general public.
Can an individual force another to sell him his plot? It can be done, through state, or local authority.
If the individual desiring to buy a plot convinces, say a district administration, that he or she is an investor going to set up a school, a hospital, a factory, a development that will benefit many people AND THAT IS NOT EASILY FOUND IN THE AREA, the administration may take on the project as its own, get in touch with the owner of the plot and make him sell the plot to the investor at the going market rate.
Now listen to Nyinawagaga: she says her district expropriated the plot to enable Augustin Bizimana so that he would set up inyubako nziza zibereye umujyi (setting up a building that is in line with what should be in the city). She doesn't talk about any investment of benefit to the public. This is the same lady who a few breaths back had been telling me Batsinda actually is a liar and the house and plot don't even belong to him but to Kasine (the sister in law of the late Butera?)
You just get the feeling these people are just casting around, looking for official ways to rob the old man.
Also, let us think for a moment about that "order of demolishing form" that Mutsindashyaka wrote Batsinda in 2004. In the form Mutsindashyaka makes not a single mention of an investor. All he says is that Batsinda has no authority to build his "kiosk"; that Batsinda has no fiche cadastral; that Batsinda has built on a plot reserved for government usage; that the "kiosk" is built over Electrogaz or Rwandatel equipment; that he has constructed the house without an approved plan etc etc. Now this document of Mutsindashyaka's is breathtakingly dishonest; it is so dishonest one can only look at it and shake his head in despair. These are the people running our affairs?
The tone of the document is such that one would think Batsinda was only then building a house on the plot. But as the Autorisation de Batir indicates, the house was constructed in 1982. Why then does Mutsindashyaka want to give the impression in 2004 that Batsinda is building a house? So that he can say nothing was on the plot in the first place? But he contradicts himself when he says there is a "kiosk" on the plot - and here the choice of language is consistent with someone fishing around for justifications to do something wrong. There was a house on the plot, photographs of which are available and you can only call it a kiosk to make the case for razing it more convincing. And the claim that it was built over Electrogaz and Rwandatel equipment? This is the most cockamamie justification to demolish a house in Kigali; everyone knows the city was built haphazardly, helter skelter with all sorts of village improvisations along the way. If you want to demolish something because it is built over Rwandatel equipment why not begin with half Kigali?
Those are the small dishonesties. The big one is this: Mutsindashyaka's demolition form refers to Batsinda's plot as plot no. 10184, yet all the legal documents for the plot refer to it as plot no. 1348. Now get an earful of this, plot no. 10184 is the adjacent plot and guess who is its owner? Augustin Bizimana, that is who. There are some other baturage whose plots were expropriated for the benefit of Bizimana. Unfortunately for Mutsindashyaka and Nyinawagaga, Batsinda knows his rights and he wasn't giving up his plot without a fight.
But back to Mutsindashyaka's demolition form, why did he call plot no. 1348 plot no. 10184? Was it so it would make it even harder for Batsinda to claim the plot was his after the house on it was demolished (which Nyinawagaga finally succeeded to do in August 2008)? In any case Mutsindashyaka's "order of demolishing form" ruse did not work and none other than the Police, when the bulldozer first came in 2004 to raze the house, stepped in and stopped it.
Now we are told Batsinda had to sell his plot to make way for someone putting up better buildings.
And none other than the Ombudsman Tito Rutaremara endorses this, recommending in a report he wrote to President Kagame - submitted on 18 Nov 2008, a copy of which we have - that Batsinda should give up the plot to Augustin Bizimana who has all the rights to do as he says he would on plot no. 10184.
We cannot go into the details of the Ombudsman's report; we can only summarize it: it purports to be a breakdown of the disputes between Batsinda and Kigali City Council and Gasabo District to the point where Rutaremara seems to unwittingly mislead (we say seems because we aren't sure whether Rutaremara himself wasn't misled) the President, that there was proper expropriation work on the plot and so city authorities had the authority to forcefully move Batsinda, demolish the plot, hand it to Bizimana and order Batsinda to go to KCC to collect his payment.
The simple question to ask here is whether Mr. Rutaremara has read the expropriation law, and if he has whether he asked what the nature of the project Bizimana wants to put on the plot is.
I asked Bizimana what he is going to build and he said it is an etage, a normal commercial building. He said it would have some shops on the ground floor and it would also contain office space for rent. So in what way is that going to be of benefit to the public? After all Remera is full of shops and other etages with office space; what makes Bizimana's special? No one has made that clear.
No, this case is stinky, and the closer one comes to it the stinkier it becomes.
In one paragraph of the Ombudsman's report it states that Augustin Bizimana on 24 June 2004 wrote to the Kigali City administration asking for the plot and he got it the following day, on 25 June 2004. Now this is truly breathtaking. Bizimana applies for and gets a plot within one day, a plot with too many unresolved disputes.
Everyone knows when you try to get a plot in Kigali and have it within a year you must congratulate the bureaucrats for having displayed unusual efficiency in their work. If you get it in six months, consider that to be a minor miracle. In 3 months? Unheard of. In one day?
Something possibly criminal was going on between Mutsindashyaka and Bizimana his jailbird sidekick? Go figure.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 Focus Media. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
