that he was not given the right to call his wife whom he identifies as Amina Muhangi, to testify despite naming her as his witness. 93. The Respondent State disputes this allegation and submits that the same argument was dismissed by the Court of Appeal as the appellant was recorded as saying that he would give his testimony under oath and that he had neither a witness to call nor an exhibit to tender. The Respondent State further avers that the issue of denial of a right to have a witness for the defence is an afterthought which contradicts what happened at the trial court. *** 94. Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter provides that: Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice. 95. This Court has held that the right to defence as set out in Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter is a key component of the right to a fair trial and reflects the potential of a judicial process to offer the parties the opportunity to express their claims and submit their evidence.34 This Court has further held in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda, that an essential aspect of the right to defence includes the right to call witnesses in one’s defence.35 96. The Court notes, from the record, that there is nothing to show that the Applicant made any request for the summoning of the defence witnesses and that the courts refused to grant it. On the contrary, despite indicating that his wife could verify his alibi, the Applicant never showed any intention to have her in court as a witness. As a matter of fact, the Applicant is on record indicating that he would not call any witness. 34 35 Ajavon v. Benin (judgment), supra, § 141. Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (merits) (24 November 2017) 2 AfCLR 165, § 93. 23