Herman Manirareba is ready for round-2 of the court battle challenging Kibeho Apparitions
Herman Manirareba, a concerned citizen that acted on behalf of Rwandans to drag the Catholic Church to court contesting the Kibeho Apparitions lost round-one but told KTPress, “the battle continues”.
“The judge dodged facts I submitted. I am revising my document and will appeal within 20 days,” Manirareba told KT Press on Friday, adding that the judge told him he was free to appeal within 30 days.
Manirareba has for the past ten years been preparing ground to wrestle the Catholic Church against the Apparitions to Kibeho College girls.
In the case RC00468/2017/TGI/NYGE filed at Nyarugenge Intermediate Court, Manirareba accuses the Catholic Church of claiming and approving of Kibeho apparitions were of biblical Virgin Mary. But he believes it was Nyirarumaga, Queen Mother of King Ruganzu II Ndoli, who appeared to the girls to announce bad times ahead.
Before court kicked out this case, it ruled that Manirareba had misinterpreted articles of the constitution on which he based to file this case.
While filing this case, Manirareba cited Article 36 of the Constitution that institutes the right to activities promoting national culture. It provides that every Rwandan has the right to activities that promote National Culture and the duty to promote it.
He also based on Article 47 the provides for safeguards and promotion of national values based on culture traditions and practices as long as they do not conflict with human rights, public order and good morals. The State also has the duty to preserve the national cultural heritage.
The court however found out that Manirareba misinterpreted these articles of the constitution since it is determined in the Article 47 that it is the duty of the State to safeguard and promote national values.
According to the presiding judge “this Article does not give powers to individuals to protect national values, and Manirareba was not authorised to represent the State.”
However, Manirareba told KT Press that the ruling by the presiding judge was passed in error.
“I will mainly base the appeal on Article 36, which I believe the judge interpreted wrongly.”
The Nyarugenge Intermediate court also dismissed Manirareba’s case on another count that he did not have the right to file the case on behalf of Rwandans yet there was no evidence that he had been delegated to act on their behalf.
“Neither did Rwandans delegate Manirareba to file the case on their behalf nor did the State,” the judge said explaining the basis on which the case was rejected.
Manirareba had submitted to court a lengthy 48 page-document containing testimonies and facts vis-à-vis the case.
