The trial of Jean-Pierre Bemba grew out of a separate fact situation in the Central African Republic (CAR). Bemba was a powerful politician on the Congolese national stage, and was also the leader of an armed rebel force, a part of which had been sent across the border in a vain effort to halt a coup against the CAR President. Bemba’s men were accused of widespread crimes against civilians, including sexual crimes against both women and men. The trial tested a theory of criminal responsibility intended for remote commanders who fail to prevent or punish crimes on the ground. Although Bemba was convicted on this basis and sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment, two years later his convictions were overturned by a bold Appeals Chamber majority. At stake on appeal were fair trial concerns about the need for greater specificity in criminal charges, which led the divided appeals panel to debate the meaning of core legal principles. Looking back to earlier judicial controversies, reversals, dissents, and acquittals, the dialogue surrounding Bemba’s successful appeal identified key questions for future judges to ponder.

This chapter explains the rule against hearsay and its exceptions. First, it sets out what hearsay is and some of the common law cases that contributed to its development. It then explains how hearsay is defined under the Act. The chapter then proceeds to explain the various uses for which evidence may be adduced and the different exceptions available under the Act. It is important to note that facts in issue and facts relevant to facts in issue are critical to understanding the purposes behind tendering hearsay evidence.

Hearsay evidence relies not on direct witness testimony but on another witness’s statement about a ‘previous representation’. The rationale for developing the rule against hearsay at common law was that these out-of-court previous representations were usually made by a person whose evidence was not available to be tested. The main concern at common law was whether such evidence was reliable. The witness giving the hearsay evidence could be cross-examined as to what they perceived, but the credibility of the maker of the statement could not be tested.

The trial of Jean-Pierre Bemba grew out of a separate fact situation in the Central African Republic (CAR). Bemba was a powerful politician on the Congolese national stage, and was also the leader of an armed rebel force, a part of which had been sent across the border in a vain effort to halt a coup against the CAR President. Bemba’s men were accused of widespread crimes against civilians, including sexual crimes against both women and men. The trial tested a theory of criminal responsibility intended for remote commanders who fail to prevent or punish crimes on the ground. Although Bemba was convicted on this basis and sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment, two years later his convictions were overturned by a bold Appeals Chamber majority. At stake on appeal were fair trial concerns about the need for greater specificity in criminal charges, which led the divided appeals panel to debate the meaning of core legal principles. Looking back to earlier judicial controversies, reversals, dissents, and acquittals, the dialogue surrounding Bemba’s successful appeal identified key questions for future judges to ponder.