Mr Lubanga raised two main issues in his ‘Clarification’ document of 3 April 2007.

First, he contended that the Division of Victims and Counsel Unit of the Registry had prematurely informed the Chambers and all the participants of the appointment of Ms. Mabille as Counsel for the Defence. This information precipitated the Pre-Trial Chamber to render a decision reactivating the suspended time-limits previously given to the Defence and ordering the Defence to respond to the Prosecutor’s Request for leave to appeal by 5 April 2007 and further prompted the Prosecutor to file the ‘Prosecution’s submission in anticipation of a Status Conference.’ He described the action of the Registry as ‘premature’ because Ms. Mabille had not yet formally indicated her willingness to represent Mr. Lubanga and no power of attorney was filed by Ms. Mabille attesting to her appointment as per rule 22(1) of the Rules of Evidence and Procedure.[1]

Secondly, Mr. Lubanga alleged that a lack of resources and a conflicted relationship between the Registry and the former Defence Counsel ‘seriously disadvantaged’ his defence and may have also affected the decision of the incumbent Counsel relative to her accepting the new role as Counsel for the Defence. In his application for a stay of proceedings pending the effective appointment of Counsel, Mr. Lubanga was careful to indicate that he was expressing no desire to represent himself or to call the entire legal system into question.

<back
<back to weeklist