*Nigerian embassy protest appeal hearing of Mbolo Yufanyi Movuh in Berlin*
* Date: 26th of November 2014
* Time: 9 am
* District court Berlin Tiergarten, Wilsnacker Str. 4, Block 2/Room B219
*Mbolo is the only person sentenced in connection with the Nigerian embassy protest from October 15th 2012 – all other trials have been suspended!*
https://thevoiceforum.org/search/node/english%20mbolo%20embassy
Testimony of Mbolo Yufanyi Movuh on his last hearing in front of Berlin District Court in February 6th 2014:
October 15th 2012 was the very day, when the Nigerian Embassy was a stage of politics for refugee activists, who shortly before finalized their protest march of refugees from Würzburg to Berlin to re-peatedly and insistently scandalize the still ongoing corrupt and inhuman collaboration between the German and the Nigerian governments as to submit illegal and forceful deportation of Africans in a deeply colonial fashion. They had and still have to face extensive repressive actions against their justi-fied protest by means of direct excessive police brutality (including numerous arrests in and outside of the embassy) as well as serial threats of punishment against those, who had been arrested and further participants of the protest. The obvious intention behind this ‚regular‘ practice was and still is to dis-credit and criminalize the political content of our protest as well as to justify their unlawful police ac-tion and violent misconduct in arrears by claiming legal charges against those that have been brutalized purposefully.
Since 26th of September the district court of Berlin-Tiergarten was leading a criminal procedure against the activist Mbolo Yufanyi Movuh, for taking part in the protests against the criminal cooperation of the Nigerian embassy with the German state in the forced deportation of refugees – on 6.2.2014 the expected verdict was proclaimed. And there´s no end to the scandal – self justifying argumentation of the state attorney´s final speech and explanation of the verdict by the judge, completely with an ex-cursion into racist argumentation in the face of the pre-judged!
Judge Brinkmann was indicted for racist insult by the defendant, Mbolo Yufanyi. But in Germany there are no laws against racism, subsequently the state Attorney had to categorize the indictment only as an offense of insult under § 185 of the Criminal Code: defamation.
Confidence in the rule of law: "Absolutely superfluously"
Why does one have to defend himself so vehemently on such an obvious issue like self-defense against gratuitous force? For judge B. it remains incomprehensible up to the last court hearing. Stating right from the beginning “This time I was beaten. I will not wait until I am killed or until somebody else is killed”, Mbolo Yufanyi is sentenced to 50 Days’ rate. The Judge refuses to understand why he cannot accept that the law is an institution of the ruling class, undermined by institutional racism. Mbolo is demanding a confidence, a right to defend himself from the dangers that originates from these same racist police force and judicial system. A state attorney who “exposed” himself as a racist certainly does not help. Mbolo Yufanyi is appealing.
Minutes of the 9th hearing of the trial, closing arguments and sentencing:
The first day of the trial begins as expected with the rejection of an evidence application by the de-fendant – a video with testimonies from participants of the demonstration in front and inside the Nige-rian embassy reporting about racist abuses and violence on the part of the police forces. The attempt to portray the wider context of the act of “pulling the collar” of police officer Lamprecht who stood in the center of the accusations against Mr. Yufanyi. The rejection of this piece of evidence was expected because it was exactly this attempt which made the Judge and the prosecutor as well as the witnesses so uncomfortable and was felt to be so “unnecessary” on their part.
What was accepted with a - albeit cramped - smile during the trial, was brought to expression by the judge and the prosecution in their closing arguments and remarks in a way that has baffled me. Maybe it was too much to expect that they inform themselves about the current legal situation regarding racial profiling or even racial killings of police officers in duty that have been raised by the defense. But what actually surprised me was the way they chose to vehemently defend their ignorance.
The wider legal contexts, which were seen so redundantly by attorney and judge:
1. That the “pulling of a collar” of a policeman, that has just finished beating Mbolo Yufanyi and other demonstrators, was the Yufanyi‘s attempt to hold him in order to receive his service number for a later law suit.
2. That Yufanyi’s arrest and the way he was handled by the police were a direct result of the racism so common in the German police forces and in particular that of this police officer Lambrecht (a possibil-ity that was considered to be out of the question for the Judge and state attorney). The defense noted several times that racism in the rows of the police is a very common phenomenon and that racial pro-filing is a discriminative practice which is indeed illegal according to the German constitution and in-ternational law. But when police inspector Lambrecht was asked if he had ever practiced racial profil-ing, the discomfort reaction of the court and its rejecting to the question raised the impression in me (as a viewer) that the judge and prosecutor have never thought of it as even remotely
problematic.
3. The fact that the demonstration in front of the Nigerian Embassy was an act of political protest against the criminal activities of the Embassy in violation of international but also German laws, which was not only neglected by the German authorities but also encouraged by them.
4. That the actual task of the police is to secure the right to free assembly and political protest and not the other way around, as it was executed on that demonstration and many others to make the demonstra-tors insecure by beat them.
5. In addition, the tendency of the court to evaluate the testimonies of police inspectors as especially plausible on the grounds of their professional training without taking in to account that this same pro-fessionalization can also be misused by ways of agreeing testimonies in advance or simply lie.
All the above was portrayed to the detail in the defendant’s closing arguments; pointing to the numer-ous contradictions of the police witnesses: police officers Lamprecht, Degen, Kryschlak and so on. Yufanyi’s right to self-defense in light of the assault from officer Lamprecht. The fact that the ques-tioned “pulling of the collar” was indeed the only way to acquire the service number of the assaulting officer. That without this identification number no law suit could be placed. An additional video evi-dence was put forth in order to prove the above (the objection of the prosecutor was dismissed by the judge with the statement “oh, come on, we’ve seen so much already” and later this video exactly is used against the accused in her reasoning of judgment). The Judge acknowledges that in the video “someone, even Mr. Yufanyi, for all I care” could be heard asking for: “ihre Dienstnummer” (“your service number”).
Before the verdict, however, an additional witness was called to the stand: the lawyer Martina A., whose statements were also mentioned in the reasons for judgment. The interpretation of her testimony by the judge was surprising for the viewers, once again not in favor of the accused.
Her testimony in short:
“I was called in our office, at the time I was the only lawyer present (I did not personally answer the phone), and was asked to mediate between demonstrators and police taskforces in front of the Nige-rian embassy. I headed to the location together with my intern. Upon arrival I approached the officer in charge of the operation and offered to enter the embassy as to mediate. This offer was rejected. I then realized that the situation was heated on the side of that an arrest was executed. I once again ap-proached the officer in charge and asked what is being done to the people arrested? He then answered they are being brought in to custody in the detention facility. I had a short conversation with Mbolo Yufanyi (he reported to me he would like to press charges against some of the police man) when it came in to my knowledge that Mr. Sy would like to leave the demonstration. I escorted him and Mbolo (they were walking along side) shortly thereafter I felt a strong blow from the back and from there on my only goal was to bring my intern into safety. She was completely beside herself by the behavior of the police stating ‘he just beat you up!!!’ and shocked that I was beaten by a policeman, it was an en-tirely new and surprising situation for her that left a very strong impression on her. I did not press charges since in that moment I felt it was more important to protect my intern.”
Here the judge is nodding her head in compassion and understanding, without asking however, why a demonstration that is secured by a police force is considered a danger-zone, when the only danger are the police forces themselves. Or was it a cynical smile on the naivety of the young intern that thought she can attend a demonstration in the company of a lawyer safely... This will be left in the knowledge of the judge alone, unlike her words “this I can understand” and the witness is dismissed.
The closing arguments:
In his closing statement, Mbolo Yufanyi repeatedly pointed out to the difficulty of negotiating racism in a court consisting of “white” people only without discussing the power relations of this court and its monopoly on definitions of what a racist insult is all about. “I do not want to be called a ‘colored’ within this court” he portrayed his political struggle and intention to never accept such practices.
The lawyer of defense saw no criminal act, called on the right to free assembly and the above men-tioned right to self-defense against physical assault. Yufanyi made use of both these rights which is evident thanks to plenty of video material.
I would have loved to quote the closing statements of the state prosecutor verbatim, word for word, in order to show the entire world view of this man, if I only did not let it shock me so much to the point that some of the “impressive” phrases he used, escaped my grasp.
This is the approximated line of his argumentation:
“I cannot completely reject the criticism of the defense about the testimonies of the police officers. That did not go very well” he concedes at first. There was an “unlawful handling” of information when it comes to these testimonies. It was even apparent that some of the testimonies were falsified and matched to make them suit the charges - so if it was only to follow the testimonies of the police, no incriminating testimonies against Yufanyi could be presented. He also considered the report of officer Lamprecht about his shortness of breath as a result of the pulling of his collar as probably exaggerated and overly dramatic. Furthermore no evidence was established for an attempt to stop an arrest from taking place, which led him to drop this frivolous charge against him. In general he states, he finds the whole issue a bit exaggerated and dramatized. The prosecutor started his statement with the points relieving Yufanyi from guilt, but the rhetorical bow and his tone of voice already indicated that this ever so generous perception in return shall be irrelevant to the main concern of the trial. That meant the very generous conceptions of the given chain of events should be irrelevant to the main issue of the trial – namely the right to self-defense from an assault exerted by a police officer in duty. He then however started a tirade, a real tirade about his definition of racism – an issue that seems to have really touched him all along the course of the trial. The reasons for his cramped smiles, his moans and restless moves, his head shakes and heavy breathing could finally be revealed to find relief:
The state prosecutor
“I see no evidence of a racist motive on the part of the police. There were no indications given for it in the course of the trial. It was more the presumed collective racism insinuated by the defense that is out of touch with reality.” In an undertone of cynism he continued “Some of the points raised were even new for me: how someone feels insulted by the word ‘colored’? It was 10 years ago that this word came into practice since other names were considered offensive. The defendant’s questions about pa-trols in Görlitzer Park have to be labeled ‘grotesque’. Officer Lamprecht even had a hard time in order to defend himself from being labeled racist.” By thinking of which other criteria could be used in order to conduct these controls and actions he concluded “Than I also must come out: I am a racist” as he would have acted just the same way. He went on: “It can also not be the mission of the court to con-duct researches into the social political interrelations (e.g. on why asylum seekers have no other possi-bility than to sell drugs) and this can also not be the task of the police as well”. He concluded: “Both sides of the story are exaggerating. This case is actually a small issue that does not really justify the whole theater of a trial in the given extent. Luckily, we have enough video materials at hand so one could see the ‘pulling of the collar’ very clearly. The criminal charge of restating officers in executive duty is hereby proven without any doubt!” This “legal” argumentation cannot be excused by any con-textual or ideological explanation by branding “the occupation of the embassy as an unlawful act for which there was also no moral implication of overriding importance that could legitimate this kind of criminal behavior – the penal boundaries have to be respected in this case.” He proceeded from there: “It might even have been possible as well that Mbolo Yufanyi really wanted to receive the service number of officer Lamprecht, but this still does not render the fact inoperable that officer Lamprecht was on duty, nor can this fact justify any act of self-defense to take place. The executive task of sepa-rating the different demonstrating groups was disturbed. It is only natural that in such cases it will come to clashes with shoving and hitting to and fro. The executives are ordered to use the mildest means possible but they also need to be effective – they need to have a leeway of appropriate force!”. He then projected into Mbolo thoughts: “From the accused point of view it should have been avoided. It might even be that he sincerely thought he is doing the right thing, that the police was unlawful, even that he was animated by the idea that the police is racist per se and that he is holding a moral high ground…”. This way the state attorney tried to level moral grounds, to adjust or explain but more than anything to diffuse the accusations of racism with an almost fatherly concern to the moral reasoning of the defendant and the listeners in court. But he actually justified and legitimated institutional racism itself by turning the words and putting discrimination in a “justified” context.
The state prosecutor pleaded for a 60 days’ rate. “The sentenced fine should be put at the lower range since the accused has no criminal record and he could not feel any ‘criminal energy’ coming from the accused. He more than likely acted out of idealistic motives.”
It now would need a logical and brilliant judge to question the world view of this prosecutor as he is still a representative of state executives after all.
But the opposite was the case: the judge joked about the objection of the defendant with a provocative, false and illogic argumentation. This was no court in front of which I should demand and defend my rights in this “so called” democratic state of law!
The grounds for the sentence:
Judge Brinkmann is mentioning again that the extent of this trial was not justified: “…how many were they? 8 or 9” days of hearing?” Then: “I am not impressed by the polemics of the defense” the judge opened her statements into her evaluation and made a short remark that she felt permitted to after such a long trial. She wandered about – just like the state attorney – that it should an insult to call someone a “colored”. From there she even went further: “I have asked a colored friend of mine about how she wants to be called and whether it would be an insult for her to be categorized like this? This friend then laughed and said: ‘how else should you call me then?’” Mbolo Yufanyi’s politically educated sensibility seemed to have little stands in comparison to the alleged absent friend of the judge. Yufanyi left the courtroom consequently on this occasion. The judge continued with the remark “I will have to verify how is that to be avenged when the accused leaves the court without being dismissed (and further in reply to a private consideration about the book of Max Frisch “Language of the ruling Class”) I wouldn’t know which other name could be used.”
The fact was not up for debate that it happened to be the case that a policeman used a stigma by radio as the details of an arrested while holding the identity card in his hand. Alongside the full name, ad-dress and age he gave this additional “information” – an act which is discriminatory according to the constitution. Her “argument” was “proven” thanks to an absent friend of the judge that allegedly doesn’t have anything against it. What would be considered a failure in a 10th grade debate class, a flawed chain of reasoning, here in front of the court in Moabit, Berlin it was enough to ridicule a deci-sive element of the defendant. She, the judge “…is having enough that everything is considered racism. The whole story is a result of hot headed minds” and then added to this: “I see it as a completely use-less trial”. The collusive testimonies of officer Lamprecht and others were nevertheless a blow to her faith: “That they sit together and watch the videos cannot work at all. On the one side just as much as the other there was just too much weight put on the chains of events and the material evidence.” None-theless it was proven “…that in the course of the police executive measures Mbolo Yufanyi recieved a hit from officer Lamprecht. The video that was added to evidence just now showed once again how chaotic the whole situation was, how confusing for the policeman and how hard it was for them to estimate the situation – an unbelievable mess. The testimony of Martina A. did not prove that the hit could have been avoided or that it really did come from behind. It is not clear from her testimony whether the hit she received did happen at the same time as the situation described by Mr. Yufanyi. In addition, his performance today again, that he wants to have all the rights without being ready to re-spect the obligations cannot work out!”
Still the sentenced fine should be put at the lower range: 50 days’ rate…