Another day and another alleged Rwandan war criminal defended by Golriz Gharhaman

Phil Quin asked on Twitter:

Well, a search of published judgments shows that yes, indeed, Golriz Gharhaman was involved in the defence of an alleged Rwandan war criminal who was seeking to have his deportation order overturned.? ?

A Rwandan living in New Zealand, and?suspected of being involved in genocide in the 1990s, is trying to secure confidentiality for witnesses in his defence.

The man, who cannot be identified, denies?the allegations, and says his immigration?approval?should not be cancelled.

So far there has been no attempt to extradite or deport him, but he has been told his?status is being reconsidered.

The Court of Appeal in Wellington was told on Thursday that, as part of that reconsideration, he wants New Zealand?authorities to see the 35 witness statements he has.

However, nearly 20 of those are from?witnesses who gave statements only on condition they not be shown?to Rwandan authorities, the man’s lawyer, Grant Illingworth, QC, said.

The man wants an undertaking?from New Zealand immigration authorities?that it will not disclose the confidential statements.

The court has reserved its decision on how the statements should be treated.

Isn’t it amazing that she only seems to defend those accused of war crimes in Rwanda, and never works for the victims. This time it was in NZ.

There are two judgments regarding this suspected war criminal. The first is the High Court judgment where the ratbag was seeking to get all the information of those witnesses who support him seen and withheld from Rwandan authorities who are seeking to prosecute him. He lost that and then appealed and lost that too.

It appears though that there may well be another suspected war criminal she defended in NZ. The NZ Law Society wrote about Ghahraman on November 7 2017, just a few weeks ago.

She has also been acting for two Rwandans living in New Zealand who are being sought for extradition. The allegations relate to the brutal tribal war in 1994.

?Things are very different in Rwanda now, it?s a very repressive military dictatorship, so genocide accusations especially against political dissidents are very common and that is happening around the world, and that may well be what is happening here.?

So, it appears she is on the side of Hutu criminals, and has not a care or a thought for the victims of their violence. In this case, She has acted, in contrast to her previous claims about protecting human rights and holding the powerful to account, she was trying to prevent this accused war criminal being extradited to face charges levelled in the tribunal. She was actively defending an alleged war criminal, in NZ, to prevent him actually being held to account.

It seems her ethics around human rights are rather elastic. Phil Quin notes the elasticity:

When will the Greens stop defending this woman, who is at best economical with the truth, at worst a lying defender of war criminals.

What the Greens don’t understand is that their circle jerk of virtue signalling tweeters don’t represent reality. Voters don’t think like lawyers, much less like so-called human rights lawyers. They think that these bastards should have been strung up not given a fair trial, and they really hate the lawyers, especially gobby attention seeking lawyers.

I think it is time she went.


-NZ Law Society, Fairfax, research by Sally