Lawyers weigh in to defend MP
Politician faces claims of NZ work for genocide-accused
The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide.
The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders.
In an unusual move, the Law Society has spoken out standing by the MP, saying it is wrong to identify a lawyer with their client’s actions.
Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the United Nations for the Rwanda Tribunal.
She worked for defence and prosecution teams for the trials of two men accused of involvement in genocide.
At The Hague, she worked on the defence of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity. She also worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.
Last night she changed the wording of her profile page on the Green Party website, after criticisms that it implied she had prosecuted — and not defended — world leaders for abusing their power.
Former Labour staffer Phil Quin, who spent three years working in Rwanda, said Ghahraman also defended the extradition from NZ of a “very senior Hutu” accused of crimes against humanity. The man, who denies the accusations, was granted refugee status and citizenship in NZ.
I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any lawyer or moral human being would opt to engage in the defence of these people. Phil Quin, former Labour staffer
“When he was found . . . and ordered to be extradited to face his accusers, who was the defence lawyer that opposed his extradition?” Quin asked Newstalk ZB’s Leighton Smith.
“I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any lawyer or moral human being would opt to engage in the defence of these people.”
Ghahraman confirmed on Newshub’s AM Show she had worked for a Rwandan refugee in an extradition case, but was reluctant to talk in detail, citing suppression orders. “We were trying to get a fair process.”
Quin said he was outraged by Ghahraman’s moral judgment, rather than the abstract legal principles of every defendant deserving a fair trial.
He said he had received hundreds of Twitter responses from “disgusted” Rwandans reacting to a photo of a beaming Ghahraman with Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.
The convenor of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, Steve Bonnar, QC, said defence lawyers often had no choice about who to act for.
“The personal attributes of the prospective client and the merits of the matter upon which the lawyer is consulted are not considered good cause for refusing to accept instructions,” he said.
“The defence lawyer is required to put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction, regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to the client’s guilt or innocence.”
Ghahraman has rejected suggestions she was misleading about her work, and says it is nothing to be ashamed of. She has said the work, whether for the defence or the prosecution, is important in establishing the rule of law and the UN human rights model.