Howard French Is Right On Rwanda's Paul Kagame.

Our ancestors were wise to note that "the truth crosses the fire without burning." The truth is slowly but surely catching up with Kagame who has built his political legitimacy on pure lies. His record is sinister as this latest gem by the Howard French, a Columbia professor and an-ex journalist with the New York Times shows. The piece has an equally befitting title: The Case Against Rwanda's President Paul Kagame.

I will quote a few of the indicative phrases but I urge you to read the piece for a more contextual understanding. You will not be disappointed. 

"Leading observers say the reevaluation of Kagame and his legacy is long overdue. Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian scholar whom many consider the world’s foremost expert on Rwanda, describes Kagame as “probably the worst war criminal in office today.”

"In an interview, Reyntjens told me that Kagame’s crimes rank with those perpetrated by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein or Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity."

" Theogene Rudasingwa, a Tutsi who was appointed Rwanda’s ambassador to Washington after serving as an officer in Kagame’s army, puts it bluntly: “If you differ strongly with Kagame and make your views known from the inside, you will be made to pay the price, and very often that price is your life.”

"Kagame tightly controls the country and its citizens through the Tutsi-
dominated Army and the Rwandan Patriotic Front, the country’s dominant political party. Throughout Rwanda—in every town and tiny village—the RPF is present, not unlike the Stasi in East Germany during the Cold War. While a town may have a Hutu mayor, under Kagame’s system government officeholders have little authority compared with the RPF representatives who work in parallel to them and often pull rank."

 “The RPF saturates every aspect of life in Rwanda,” said Susan Thomson, a longtime Rwanda expert at Colgate University. “They know everything: if you’ve been drinking, if you’ve had an affair, if you’ve paid your taxes.” Everything is reported on, Thomson says, and there is no appeal."

"Pointing to the origins of the war and its bloody aftermath, Scott Straus, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, said: “An honest analysis ... would show that the reasons for what happened were much more complicated than the idea that the Hutus hate the Tutsis and want to wipe them out.”

" For one thing, there is abundant evidence that Kagame’s forces in the early days carried out targeted executions of the Hutu elite, followed later by much larger extermination campaigns that killed tens of thousands of people."

"A year after the genocide had ended, blood was still being spilled, recalls Timothy Longman, then the country director for Human Rights Watch. “People would take me around and say, ‘There’s mass grave right over here,’ and you would ask, ‘From when?’ And they would say, ‘Just from a few weeks ago—not from the genocide,’” says Longman, who now directs the African Studies Center at Boston University."

" Furthermore, the report estimated that the RPA killed between 15,000 and 30,000 people in just four of its survey areas in the summer of 1994. Years later a key member of Gersony’s team told me that the real number of Hutus killed during this period was likely much higher, but that a low estimate had been published because of fears of a political backlash within the U.N. so soon after its failure to stop the larger-scale killing of Tutsis. “What we found was a well-organized military-style operation, with military command and control, and these were military-campaign-style mass murders,” the team member told me."

"(In one notorious incident in April 1995, the RPA attacked an internally displaced people’s camp in Kibeho using automatic weapons, grenades, and mortars. A team of Australian medics listed more than 4,000 dead when the RPA forced them to stop counting. France’s leading researcher on the region, Gérard Prunier, estimates that at least 20,000 more people from the camp “disappeared” after the massacre.)"

"The case of Victoire Ingabire, a politician from the opposition, was instructive. When she returned to Rwanda that year, having lived 16 years in exile, to prepare a run for president, her first stop was at the official genocide memorial. “We are here honoring at this memorial the Tutsi victims of the genocide. There are also Hutu who were victims of crimes against humanity and war crimes, not remembered or honored here,” she said in a prepared statement. “Hutu are also suffering. They are wondering when their time will come to remember their people. In order for us to get to that desirable reconciliation, we must be fair and compassionate towards every Rwandan’s suffering.”

"Ingabire was promptly arrested and accused of “genocide ideology.” During her trial, President Kagame publicly declared that she was guilty."

 "As early as 1997, the U.N. estimated that Rwandan forces had caused the deaths of 200,000 Hutus in Congo; Prunier, the French expert, has since estimated that the toll is closer to 300,000. According to the U.N. report, these deaths could not be attributed to the hazards of war or to collateral damage. “The majority of the victims were children, women, elderly people and the sick, who were often undernourished and posed no threat to the attacking forces.” The report concluded that the systematic and widespread attacks, “if proven before a competent court, could be characterized as crimes of genocide.”

"Two years ago, Kagame delivered a lecture in London on “The Challenges of Nation-Building in Africa: The Case of Rwanda.” When confronted with a U.N. report that was then making headlines with the suggestion that his forces had committed genocide in Congo, he dismissed such allegations as “baseless” and “absurd.” Clearly he was keener to talk about economic indicators and repeat the oft-told success story of his country."

"But even that is a truth with modification. Social inequality in Rwanda is high and rising, experts say. Despite an average annual growth rate of about 5 percent since 2005, poverty is soaring in the countryside, where few Western journalists report without official escort."

Presonal note: Perhaps this is one big contribution to Rwanda's democracy. Deconstructing the myth of Paul Kagame. 

Senator Robert Krueger: "The Kagame government not only takes lives. It also steals elections."

INTRODUCTION OF PAUL RUSESABAGINA

By:  Robert Krueger (formerly U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, U.S. Ambassador)

Brussels, Belgium – 15 December 2012

 

I am honored to be here today to speak about two things: The Rwanda that has been, and is now, in the murderous grip of Paul Kagame, and the Rwanda that can be if moral and civic leaders work together to form a genuine democracy with people like Paul Rusesabagina, a man who saves lives rather than destroys them.

 

The Paul whom I first met was Paul Kagame.  I arrived as U.S. Ambassador to Burundi in late June 1994, when neighboring Rwanda had killed almost 800,000 people in 90 days’ time - roughly one of every eight Rwandan citizens. 

 

Fortunately, the genocidairres that had begun the slaughter in April, 1994 were defeated.  But unfortunately, the revenging forces under Paul Kagame, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, began a new genocide, which the outside world has not wanted to acknowledge.  In 1994, 1000 Rwandans each day were fleeing their homeland to enter Burundi and live in UN refugee camps there. I visited those camps every week.  When I asked the Rwandan refugees when they would return home, they replied “When Kagame and the RPF stop killing us.” 

 

The first 1994 genocide was known throughout the world.  The second, revenging genocide that began under Kagame, was and is still largely ignored – because the outside world does not want to acknowledge that those who had won in July 1994 were no better than those who had lost.  To acknowledge it would mean that the UN and the outside world needed to do something about it. And instead, the world has preferred to pretend that the problem does not exist.

 

In August 1994 I met personally with Paul Kagame, the leader of the winning forces.  I told him to his face what Rwandan refugees who had fled to Burundi were telling me: that is, that they would not return to Rwanda until Kagame’s RPF stopped killing them.  He refused to take any responsibility for that second, vengeful genocide.  And the outside world continues to pretend that the genocide in Rwanda has ended.  It has not. In fact, it has spread to the Democratic Republic of Congo through M23 and other militia groups that Kagame sponsors. And Kagame’s dictatorship that began in 1994 has continued for 18 years until this day. 

 

The Kagame government not only takes lives.  It also steals elections.

 

Rwandan elections under Kagame’s dictatorship are fraudulent.  Political opponents are sometimes imprisoned, sometimes exiled, sometimes silenced, sometimes killed.  And terror among the population continues.

 

Some Western nations have, over time, observed the despotism and removed their financial aid from Rwanda.  Others have begun withdrawing some military and cultural support.  But the tyranny continues, with journalists imprisoned, political opponents sometimes disappearing, and the cold pall of terror permeating the entire populace.  Kagame and his party continue regularly to claim 90% of the vote from a frightened voting population.  But no president in a country with honest elections and a free press ever gets above 90%.  These are not honest elections.  There is neither freedom nor justice in Rwanda today. 

 

So let’s consider what Rwanda could be with civic and moral leadership from men and women who would rather save lives than destroy lives.

 

Without firing a shot, without raising a weapon, Paul Rusesabagina, as the world knows, saved 1,268 lives amidst a maelstrom of carnage and killing.  How?  With resourcefulness, patience, and abiding faith, he protected a small but significant island of people in an ocean of slaughter.  For his bravery and resourcefulness, his calm amidst the storm, he has received many honors worldwide – including the highest honor that can be given by my country, the United States of America, to any civilian of any country.  It is called, simply, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Paul Rusesabagina received it.  Paul Kagame did not.

 

Paul Rusesabagina preserved freedom, and life, for 1,268 people.  He has sought since that time to enlarge freedom for the entire people of his beloved nation.  He has sought, as well, to recapture from the world some respect for a nation that continues to be steeped in blood.  He will be working with the Party for Democracy in Rwanda (PDR) to challenge the existing tyranny.  Today he will call upon the PDR and other like-minded political parties and civic groups to establish a genuine democracy. The decision to announce this alliance on foreign soil is an act not of cowardice, but of prudence.  He has to announce in a country that allows free speech, not one that imprisons journalists and those who challenge tyranny.

 

It is not unusual, on Planet Earth, to find groups of people who have fled murderous tyranny in their homeland, in order, while in exile, to plant the roots for a new government at home.

 

Rwanda has given the world Paul Rusesabagina – a man who has risked – and by his outspokenness, continues to risk his life – in order to achieve a better life for all Rwandans.  The story of his heroism was so remarkable that it continues to be taught and discussed, and believed and wondered at to this day.  Hotel Rwanda, the movie that tells that story, is known everywhere, and Paul Rusesabagina is deservedly admired on every continent.

 

Paul Rusesabagina is not seeking to become famous.  He already is.

 

Paul Rusesabagina is not seeking to become wealthy.  He already lives well. 

 

He is not seeking revenge.  He loves his country and his countrymen.

 

He is seeking to serve – to serve all the people of his homeland.

 

After a lull in the fighting during the initial genocide in July of 1994, Paul returned to the home of his wife’s mother in Rwanda.  There, in a deep hole in the ground used to ferment Banana Beer, he found the decaying bodies of his wife’s mother, her sisters, children, and family.  He walked up the hillside, sat by himself, and quietly wept. 

 

But following his tears, he made a vow to do whatever he could to save his country from ever undergoing an experience like that again.  Paul is ready now to live up to that vow and to serve his country.  He seeks, with all Rwandans, to establish a genuine democracy, true freedom, and the promise of better life for all Rwandans.  A new country that saves lives, rather than destroys them. I hope you will all join together and work to achieve these sacred goals.

 

Ladies and gentlemen – I give you a true and noble Rwandan – your own Paul Rusesabagina.

Steve Hege Victim of Kagame Propaganda Machine for Daring to Speak Truth

Over the last decade, Rwanda has reacted with hostility against a number of UN reports accusing Paul Kagame's government of human rights abuses. In deed, some of the most damning reports such as the 1994 Gersony report (which accuse Kagame's RPF of massacres during the genocide) were suppressed and never saw the light.

The latest controversy hinges on the latest UN Group of Experts report, which accuses Rwanda of using proxy militias to destabilize Eastern Congo. In particular, the report spotlights M23, a PR reincarnation of the murderous and Rwanda-sponsored CNDP.

So far, the report has been well received by the international community with the United Kingdom, Rwanda's leading bilateral donor describing it as " credible and compelling". The news, which seems to have been completely unexpected by Kagame's loyalists (blame it on their arrogance and terrible advice from Tony Blair) has caused panic overdrive in Kigali.

It is in such a context that Kagame and his thugs have launched sustained attacks against the report's lead author, Steve Hege. However, the accusations fall short in the sense that they are geared towards character assassination instead of refuting the particulars of the report.

Among the most lazily repeated lies is that Hege is a "genocide denier and a revisionist". To be sure, such attacks are aimed at distracting attention from Rwanda's culpability. So most careful observers of Rwanda will not be deceived by this machination. However, for the sake of those unsuspecting members of the Kagame fan club (still buying into the Kagame myth), I will discuss the issue further.

In an op-ed posted by the East African Standard, one Albert Rudatsimburwa describes Hege as a an "ideological worrier" with a "high-stakes vendetta against Rwanda".  Predictably, the author does not bother to explain such a sensational title, which is not his objective. The main goal is to destroy Hege's reputation. The rest of the article does exactly that by suggesting that Hege is guilty of lending sympathy to genocidaires--those who participated in the Rwandan 1994 genocide.

For the last 18 years since the RPF took over, genocide-related crimes have been the custom, ready-made charges for anyone even remotely critical of Kagame. Once accused, the individuals have faced the heavy arm of the government or are been sidelined into oblivion. Think about it, who would have the audacity to associate with an individual accused of genocide? Unfortunately, this is the logic that Kagame and his ilk have and continue to milk.

In this case, the government has built its case around an article that Hege published in 2009 with the title "Understanding the FDLR in Congo: Key Facts on the Disarmament & Repatriation of Rwandan Rebels". Kagame's government accuses him of being sympathetic to Hutu extremists based on his expression that, "FDLR are better understood in relation to the massive revenge killings of Hutu refugees in the eastern Congo from 1996 to 1999". 

Often, what people tell you is just as important as what they disclose. In this case, Kagame's cheerleaders have failed to point to Hege's claims in the same article that Kagame's army massacred about 300,000 Hutu civilians in revenge attacks following the 1994 genocide against Tutsi.

So what exactly is controversial about Hege's claims (the full article here)? Can anyone detect a "plan to finish Tutsi people" in this writing as some fanatics continue to suggest? Nowhere!

Important to note, this shameful attacks against Hege and his character demonstrate the severe restriction of free speech in Kagame's Rwanda. If the government can dare silence such a senior UN consultant, imagine what they do to ordinary citizens.

The hard reality is that Rwandan propaganda machine is trying to build fire where there is hardly any smoke.That Kagame's army killed thousands of Hutu civilians in revenge atrocities has since been verified by numerous reports (consider this UN report released in 2010). Instead of attacking the messenger, it would be much more honorable for Kagame to accept responsibility and ask Rwandans and Congolese people for forgiveness.

Otherwise, Kagame's operatives like Rudatsimburwa may be eloquent but they are no miracle workers. They might succeed in deceiving outsiders but Rwandans know better. It will take much more than smooth-talk and well guarded narratives to whitewash Kagame's criminal past. Not even his panel of advisers, which includes Chicago businessman Joe Ritchie, Rick Warren and mercenary journalist Andrew Mwenda can save him.

Ironically, only Rwandans, the very people whose relatives, friends and neighbors Kagame's army has massacred have the ability to save him.

In Africa Victory Against Aids a Must

Two issues feature prominently in the day to day conversations of ordinary Rwandans. The first is the trauma of war and the heart-wrenching loss of both material and human life. The second is the seemingly immutable fear associated with AIDS.

During last year's Word AIDS Day, I argued that the limited access to condoms use remains as one of the major impediments to the war against AIDS in Africa. To support this point, I alluded to a documentary by a Kenyan TV station, which showed the challenges that pastrolist communities face due to chronic shortages of condoms. Even when available in the market, condoms are often quite unaffordable for Africa's poor. Lastly, I argued that societal beliefs against condom use had to change or at least be challenged in order to curb the spread of AIDS.

One year later, the main question remains. Are we winning against AIDS?

While we have made some considerable progress in raising awareness on the disease, which is in deed commendable, the situation is still quite alarming. In Uganda, which for many years has been hitting the headlines as a success story in controlling the AIDS epidemic, the battle is being lost.

According to Uganda's National HIV indicator survey, there has been an increase in the rate of new infections primarily among women. Professor Vinand Nantulya argues that , if the situation is not checked, there will be 700,000 new infections for the next five years, which includes an estimated 25,000 infections among new born babies. This is truly alarming!

Fishing communities and commercial sex workers are identified as some of the most affected. It is also stated that the most vulnerable tend to lack access to HIV services.

I have lost a number of relative, close friends and neighbors due to this horrible disease. Yet, if one were to believe the rumors that makes rounds in my Kigali neighborhood, you would think that everyone is infected. The fear of AIDS is always palpable among the people I talk to. There is no doubt that AIDS is one of the most salient issues.

The fear has a positive aspect to it. There is the feeling that AIDS is a collective burden. This has in turn galvanized communal support for HIV patients. I know of several women groups ( mostly church goers) who prepare meals and deliver them to random HIV patients.This has also, almost ended, the stigma that AIDS carriers face.

However, there is still a reluctance to embrace condom use as a strategy to control new infections. I am constantly hearing young people being advised to "change their ways" and focus on abstinence as a solution. This is indisputably the ideal situation--but the reality tends work the other way. Young people are having sex--and at a very tender age. While this is fact that we may not like, it is a fact that we have to live with.

I used to be one of those abstinence only campaigners (myself, being a christian). With time, I have come to the realization that the strategy is ineffective and that, if we truly care about saving lives, we need to be a little bit more honest in the way we handle reality. Yes, handling out condoms to the youths might encourage promiscuity but this should not derail the overall goal of saving lives.

The other point to consider is that the poor are the obvious victims of AIDS. Aid agencies as well as governments need to boost HIV services among the poorest. And, yes, this should include condom provision too.

A few months ago, Jacob Zuma, the South African president suggested offering free condoms to pubescent pupils. While he got heavily criticized by folks who argue that condoms access will prompt the youths to have more sex, I believe he was up to something. One can only hope that such a bold stand by Zuma will open room for a more impassioned debate on this issue.

UK Terminates Rwanda Aid: Kagame you Reap what you Sow

UK has now announced the much anticipated decision to terminate $23m budgetary support to Rwanda. This comes in the midst of yet another report that leaves little doubt on Rwanda's destabilizing role in neighboring DRC.

Earlier on, there had been some push back spearheaded by Phil Clark, a SOAS, University of London lecturer. On Twitter, I had a rather interesting debate with him extending for about two days. 

Clark's main point is that cutting budgetary support to Rwanda would mostly hurt the poorest. He further suggests that Rwanda is one of the most effective aid users. The two points are hardly reassuring when one considers the humanitarian calamity that Rwanda's actions are causing--more than 500,000 have been displaced from their homes. But there are more reasons that cast doubt on his position.

First, the idea that Rwanda uses aid effectively merits serious scrutiny. Such a position does not augur well with the conduct of the Rwandan state--both internally and externally. For all intent and purpose, Rwanda is a brutal dictatorship, which disallows free expression and whose executive has personalized its institutions. This is why I've remained skeptical of reports by Transparency International suggesting zero corruption levels. Given the climate of terror, one would have to bear the courage of a lion to complain about the simplest forms of corruption. The consequences for speaking out tend to be dire.

Second, there is little evidence to suggest that aid to Rwanda reaches the very poorest. In fact, reality does tend to suggest otherwise. Much of the touted "economic miracle" seems to have benefited Kigali (the capital) at the expense of everywhere else. This is strategic for Kagame's PR purposes. Far from this facade; however, most of the country's villages remain chronically destitute. Journalists who praise Rwanda's capital for "clean streets" tend to forget that more than 93% of Rwandans are rural dwellers--the poorest among them forbidden from entering the capital.

In deed, Kigali may be the only capital in the world that is 100% free of homeless people. However, don't be deceived! This is hardly a a proof of social progress. Rather, it is a reminder of the lingering repression.

Terminating aid will certainly have a negative effects on the poor, but not for the reasons suggested by Clark. Rather, as a Rwandan colleague recently told me, the government will capitalize on extorting more money from an already impoverished population.

I've learned of numerous (and growing) cases where the government is forcing public servants to surrender a portion of their salary for the proposed sovereign fund. Those most affected by this scam are primary school level teachers whose current starting salary is a meager $50. 

It is also likely that taxes will hike to offset the rising cost of public spending--especially if the government continues to purchase arms for terrorist groups in the DRC.  

On a positive note, terminating aid will surely remind Kagame that it is not business as usual (despite what Tony Blair tells him). It is important for dictators, blinded by their oversize egos, to be reminded that the world will hold them accountable. Kagame has an opportunity to learn and perhaps change his criminal ways.

In the meantime, kudos to Britain for showing a dictator his place!

Congo's Blood Spilling into Rwanda?

Around 3 AM, I woke up to unusual calls from Rwanda. "The FDLR has attacked and Gisenyi is evacuating" the callers said.

A few minutes later, I logged into my Twitter account to seeking more verification on this disturbing brief. In this day and age, if news is not on Twitter then it might not exist. Indeed, I noticed that a number of Twitter accounts had already started circulating it. What seemed strange is that most of these Twitter accounts seemed to be the usual suspects whose work is to regurgitate Rwanda's official propaganda. A simple search using the #FDLR hashtag will reveal them!

However, several western journalists seemed to have bought the story--at least initially. In fact, Philip Gourevitch might have been the first to break the story. Why him and why did the Rwandan Defense operatives contact him that fast? These are the many puzzling questions. Below is a screenshot from his timeline some nine hours ago.

At this point, I have no doubt that shots were fired around Rwanda-Kibumba border. It is also true, as my sources allege, that several Rwandans fled the areas of Bugeshi. The villagers also continue to claim that the FDLR are the main attackers. But is there truth to this?

FDLR is a rebel group in eastern Congo whose fighting elements include some of the brutes who participated in the Rwandan genocide.  However, according to Amnesty International, the majority of its fighters are said to be too young to have participated in the genocide. In other words, it is one among many rebel groups in the region whose strategy seldom match their said objectives.

In the past few years, as the latest UN expert report notes, the fighting capacity of the FDLR has been drastically reduced to the point that it posses no real security threat to Rwanda. Its fighters located in Walikale--about 135km west of Goma, are considering fleeing fleeing further away from Rwanda into Maniema or Oriental provinces. Their immediate concern, the report argues, is to " protect their dependents".

So why would FDLR attack Rwanda at this time? Is it even logistically feasible?

Without scrutiny, the fog of war tends to allow many rumors to pass as truth. However, just a little brain exercise would show that this FDLR attacks were actually stage managed by Rwanda. There are several reasons behind my conclusion.

First, the attackers (Rwanda says close to 200 of them) are said to have originated from Kibumba. The entire territory from Rutshuru to Goma is under the direct control of the Rwandan aided M23 rebel group. Moreover, since the M23 rebellion started, journalists have noted that Rwanda reinforced deployments along its border with DRC. It would be suicidal and strategically stupid for 200 rebels to risk entering the Rwandan territory.

And even if they did, what would be the goal of sending in 200 troops to face the super equipped Rwandan army? Rwandan government sources claim that the "enemy was quickly liquidated?" Hardly unpredictable. The rest of the rebels are said to have taken to the heels.

Everything does read like a well choreographed script. An enemy attacks Rwanda to prove to the international community that Rwanda has genuine security interests in DRC. This, they hope, will spin international opinion to their favor. But can anyone fall for such an amateurism ploy?

Second, why would the FDLR attack at this time? Any observer knows that FDLR hasn't launched any attacks on Rwandan territory for the last ten years. The reason is, in part, because they lack the capacity to do that. They also seem to believe that fighting against Rwanda would cause so much of their kins (red: Hutu) to die. Hence, their strategy has been to stay in the DRC forests where we are told they deal primarily in the sell of Marijuana.

Third, the FDLR does not have a good working relationship with Joseph Kabila's government. They believe Kabila betrayed them by allowing Rwandan special forces to come in hunting for them. Moreover, the Congolese army has been launching attacks against them for several years now. Why would they agree to cooperate with Kabila? Who cooperates with someone who wants them dead? This seems very unlikely.

In short, Rwanda is trying to resurrect an old script that has, in the past, worked in their favor. The world tends to see the conflict as a battle between good and evil. The Hutu forces, having participated in genocide, are irredeemably evil. This is the script that has legitimized Kagame's tyranny in Rwanda even to the embarrassment of his western allies. Residents of this region haven't forgotten though. We know that this is an excuse that Kagame has used to interfere in the Congo were he has left with a huge loot of minerals, leaving behind a long trail of blood.

The script is getting tired and old.  To many people are suffering in the process. The world must not allow Kagame to joke with our conscience.

UN Accuse Bishop John Rucyahana of Supporting Murder in Congo

Are you a member of the Anglican Mission in America? Are you aware of Bishop John Rucyahana of Rwanda? Have you donated to one of his many causes? If so, there is a reason you should be worried.

It is very rare that a bishop gets mentioned by an important United Nation report for funding a murderous rebel group. But this is Rwanda where there is a long history of the church being used to serve sinister political agendas.    

Rucyahana has similarly failed to live up to expectations and has betrayed the powerless—the very people he ought to support.

Thus, while this might come to you as a surprise, to many Rwandans it is not. The history of the church in Rwanda is mired with the blood of the innocent. In 1994, the Hutu church leaders joined hands with the government to terminate a section of the Rwandan society. History continues to repeat.

For all the reconciliation talk, Dr. Philip Cantrell's work has shown that Rucyahana and the leadership of the Anglican church of Rwanda have continued to move toward an extremist Tutsi ideology—which believes that full control of all state power is necessary for their survival. In the process, the church has been relegated to an instrument for Tutsi power propaganda. 

However, Rucyahana is accused of much more. The latest UN report categorically identifies the bishop as one of the financiers of M23, a notorious Rwanda-backed Tutsi rebel that is blamed for much of the havoc in Eastern Congo. Rucyahana is also identified as a top leader in the Rwandan ruling party.

For more than a decade now, Rwanda’s ruling regime has participated in the open plunder of the Congo leaving behind a trail of innocent blood. About 5 million people have died in the process and its eastern region—close to Rwandan borders has never fully recovered. The suffering has been even more devastating for children and women—the region has been called the rape capital of the world!

So how does such a respected bishop who is supposed to be enjoying a quiet retirement at home with his grandchildren get involved in such carnage? This is a question that is difficult to answer and would require a serious analysis of human nature. It is difficult to understand the motivations that lead people into such blatant evil. 

To be fair, Rucyahana boasts a number of impressive accomplishments as well. For instance, he has built the Sonrise Academy, which is one of the leading educational towers in Rwanda. It is also through him that Rwanda has attracted a lot of direct investments—some of which has no doubt benefited the people. 

Most significantly, Rucyahana has been the link between mega-church leader Rick Warren and the Rwandan government. Pastor Warren, on his part, has promised to make Rwanda the first “purpose-driven” nation.

It is not clear whether Warren fully understands what he got himself into or whether some of his money has been channeled to support M23

What we know for sure is that Warren continues to be an active supporter of the Rwandan dictator, Paul Kagame, having conferred to him his annual International Medal of Peace. Of course, the story cannot get any more cynical! Warren also has a Rwandan passport, which was given to him some two years ago. 

Regardless of what path the members of the Anglican mission in America will take, it is imperative for them to become aware of what kind of people they are supporting in Rwanda. They should also try to get informed on the escalating humanitarian situation in the Congo where the M23 is reportedly conducting a revenge slaughter against local leaders who refused to support them.

In this interconnected world, there is no reason for lending blind support to any criminal regardless of their credentials. Indeed, Rucyahana's accomplishments mean nothing if the murder of millions of people is the price to pay. 

Lastly, it is important, when helping, to keep in mind of how our aid will affect people. In this sad but yet to be finished episode, your money might be causing murder, pillaging and rape of the Congolese nation.  

Gender and Politics: Rwanda has reached a level of sophistication unparalleled in Africa

On Sunday 4^th November 2012, Gladys Campuhijsen wrote on her blog Collect moments…Not things an article with this title: Women to rule Rwanda.

This is objectively a bold statement for those who know how Rwandan politics work under the Rwandan Patriotic Front regime.

In her post the author highlights incontestable facts about the plight of Rwandan women during and after the genocide of 1994.


On a positive note she however indicates:
“…nowadays (or actually since 2008) Women rule Rwanda! Rwanda is the first country in the world where women outnumber men in the parliament.”

She explains that her article was triggered by what she read in One World magazine where it is said that Rwanda was the only country in the world where more than half of the government consists of women.

The same day Gladys published her post on her blog, she also twitted:
“Women are ruling Rwanda. What can we learn? Coming from a horrible history, these women are making a difference.”

Are they really? I was not even aware that she had written an article in the same tone.

I twitted back asking her:
“Are you referring to that % of Rwandan women parliamentarians? They don’t rule, but they rub stamp Paul Kagame’s decisions.”

Gladys replied:
“Yes, sure. It’s just impressive and modern, looking at other western countries. Am I wrong?”

On one side, this appears a striking example of RPF’s power of deception.

In her writing, Gladys fell in the net placed by the Rwandan government’s intended objective of fooling the ignorant public, because as One World magazine [and probably many other media] did and carry on doing on that specific subject, she too started showing her amazement about the enviable situation of women in Rwanda.

Evidently, in Gladys’ understanding, when she writes or reads the concept of parliament, she only has in mind western references for such institution, whereas in many developing countries, especially in Rwanda, it is only the name that such structure comes close to its western counterpart.

Members of the Rwandan parliament are affiliated in one way or another to the regime and pledge allegiance to work together with the president’s ruling party for citizens’ interests.

On the other side, Gladys’ understanding of the meaning of the Rwandan women majority in parliament demonstrates the shrewdness of the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s regime.

It makes western democracies not looking even up to Rwandan standards because they cannot have as many women in parliament as it does, this despite the opposing picture of the real situation on the ground.

Gladys had asked if she was wrong in her understanding.

I twitted saying:
“Yes you are right on the good looking [and modern picture] aspect. But nothing more. It’s a facade of empowerment which is very misleading.”

I added:
“Sorry. You are wrong. Women in the Rwandan parliament are there to fool the world about Rwandan [women] empowerment in the country.”

Gladys challenged me to write an article about my strong view against hers on the issue. She promised to publish it.

I found her demand initially difficult to respond to. I agreed with her that I would write something.
But I needed some help. I knew that what I was saying was empirically right but where to get the facts to back it up was the question.

I resorted to asking friends on facebook.

Luckily one of them replied and sent me an article that had been written in French with this title, “Le genre et la politique à la FPR: De l’hypocrisie sadique.” I had only to translate the text in English.

What do we learn from this story about Rwanda being promoted by RPF as the champion in the world in terms of number of women in parliament?

One significant single lesson is that the Rwandan Patriotic Front of President Paul Kagame has been deceiving the international community and persists in doing so.

The Rwandan regime wants to portray itself as a democracy, even more democratic than traditional western ones, because it can boost having a majority of women in its parliament.

But most of us know well how the Rwandan president’s rule has been the most ruthless dictatorial and criminal political leadership Africa has ever seen.

Let’s imagine these Rwandan parliamentarian women with a fraction of decision-making in national policies. Would they for example authorise their government to wage wars persistently in the Democratic Republic of Congo knowing well that women and children are the ones who become mainly the victims?

It’s Philip Gourevitch who wrote in the New York Times on January 8^th, 2010 that Rwanda had reached a level of sophistication never seen on the African continent.
At the time, the journalist/ writer was referring to the confection of the Mutsinzi report by the RPF regime, about the assassination of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana.

The NYT journalist explains:
“… the report on Habyarimana’s plane is the latest in a yearlong string of diplomatic and political moves that show the new Rwandan government achieving a level of sophistication, skill, and effectiveness in commanding international respect that has rarely, if ever, been seen before in Africa. “

And such sophistication, or call it deceit, is widely applied in all Rwandan policies that govern the country. That is what those who are familiar with Paul Kagame’s ways of ruling call his style, a leadership by deception.

The latest to confirm the entire point of this article is that as I was preparing to share it on facebook,

Congolese activist Kambale Musavuli had indicated this about the ongoing crisis in Eastern Congo.
“Rwanda has closed its border from Congo to Rwanda but is opened from Rwanda to Congo. Rwanda says it does not recognise M23 government.”
What a despicable shrewdness!

UN Security Council Unanimously Condemns Seizure of Goma by M23 Rebels.

On Tuesday November 20, 2012 night The United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution condemning Rwandan Government backed Congolese M23 rebels after they seized the border town of Goma. The UN Security Council also tasked the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon of investigating the external support the rebels have received, especially the alleged tactical, equipment and troops support from the Rwandan Defense Forces.

The vote, planned at 5:30 PM New York time, was initially pushed to Wednesday November 21, 2012, upon the request of one permanent member of the UN Security council to follow the 24 hour internal guidelines.

However, given the gravity of the situation, the representative of the country gave the approval for a vote and the resolution passed late at the night, with 15-0.

Meanwhile, UN Security members expressed disappointment and disbelief, when they learned that the 17,000 troops-strong MONUSCO was unable to stop the rebels’s advance. Both French Ambassador at the UN Gerard Araud and France Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius wondered how Monusco’s role can be justified and whether its mandate should not be reviewed.

On its side, MONUSCO is blaming the congolese FARDC for fleeing the advance of the rebels, abandoning their positions, and leaving MONUSCO to fight the rebels. Sources close to MONUSCO told AfroAmerica Network that MONUSCO chose not to fight after the flight of FARDC, because: “MONUSCO is not the army of the Congolese and if the Congolese cannot defend their country, it is their problem.”

Nevertheless, there is a growing concern within the UN Security council regarding the billions of dollars spent on MONUSCO, which is incapable of protecting the city and the civilians.

The seizure of the town of Goma has increased pressure on the UN Security council to impose stricter sanctions of M23 commanders and eventually on Rwandan top military leaders. The UN Security Council is also pushing the UN Secretary General to appoint a UN envoy. (see our article:UN Security Council to Tackle Rwandan Government Support to M23 Rebels 


©2012 AfroAmerica Network.

Denying Senator Bob Brown Entry Sign of Withering Regime

Amid a mountain of evidence that Paul Kagame is arming proxies in Eastern DRC, and silencing dissidents at home, his regime is getting increasingly desperate--and perhaps even more fragile.

This is not difficult to see. For the last 17 years after the genocide, Rwanda has benefited immensely from the international community's good will. This has helped fasten the reconstruction process and created somewhat of an economic miracle.

At the same time, the international community has been rather reluctant to criticize Kagame's regime owing to its failure to stop the 1994 genocide.

Mr. Kagame, praised by the pentagon as brilliant military strategist, has taken advantage of the West's silence to amass fortune by destabilizing the Congo, a region greatly endowed with mineral wealth. While Rwanda looks stable on the surface, the human rights record has continued to take a nose-dive.

So blatant are Kagame's crimes that it is becoming difficult for the West to continue paying a blind eye. As the West awakens from its slumber, Kagame and his PR team are having nightmares.

Here is an example. I joined Twitter about two years ago. Back then, supporters of Kagame's regime were scant and hardly visible. Their work was mostly to sing praises to the regime hoping this would create a positive international image. Today, there exist numerous pro-Kagame accounts that repudiate and attack anyone who posts anything that is even minutely critical of their "great leader".

But is it really possible to silence the truth? Is it possible to exchange the truth for a lie? Recent events in the region give us a clear answer. I hope Kagame's supporters are reading this.

In the past one year or so, a number of international reports have emerged that illuminate the challenges that members of the opposition have been voicing. The first (and perhaps the most significant) is the 2010 Mapping report that accuses Kagame's ruling military of revenge genocide in the DRC. It is believed that Kagame's regime killed probably up to 250,000 Hutu refugees between 1996-7. This is a very crucial finding for at least two reasons. The first being that victims of these atrocities deserve some sort of justice. The second being that, Kagame is exposed for what he is--a cynical murder.

The key question is, of course, whether Kagame will continue to play the victim card and even use it to repress any indigenous form of protest. The answer is that he probably will--habits die hard. However, his whining will most likely be ignored.

This is beginning to happen. Yesterday, Belgium announced that it is terminating all forms of military support to Rwanda. Belgium's foreign minister stated via Twitter that, "We will not train soldiers who could contribute to the destabilisation [of the Congo]". Other countries, including the United States, have suspended or terminated aid.

Pro-Kagame media continues to whine that this is a sign of betrayal. A post by Kagame's speech writer, seems to take an anti-western stance. There is little doubt on my part that such a direction will be difficult for Kagame's loyalist. Imagine playing the usually Iranian anti-west card with an economy almost entirely dependent on foreign aid!

One hypothesis is that Kagame and his handlers are completely in shock having never imagined the West would ever be tough on them. This is plausible. Hence it may explain the anti-West chest thumping. Personality-based regimes are probably weakest when the leader is weakened.

Just a few years ago when Kagame was still the darling of the West, it would have been unthinkable that he would deny a western dignitary entrance to Rwanda. Denying entrance to Bob Brown, the former Green Party leader and an Australian senator, is yet another sign of the confusion resulting from the self-destructive downward spiral.

To the relief of Rwandans the beauty of dictatorships is their tendency to self-destruct!

Mutabazi Sadic: an 18 years old Rwandan Mohamed Bouazzizi

Thursday 10/5/12, Nelson Gatsimbanyi from Umusingi and based in UK reported on his facebook pages that Mutabazi Sadic, a young Rwandan, lit himself with petrol following harassment by the Local Defense Forces in the region of Gisenyi.

This is how Nelson explains the incident:
‘Yesterday [Wednesday 9/5/12] kigalitoday published a story about Mutabazi Sadic in Rubavu district who lit himself on fire after Inkeragutabara [Rwandan Local Defense Forces] took his g-nuts. It was his business, hoping to get money and work for gaining a driving license. His body was burned 80% and he was denied transfer to CHUK because he didn’t have health insurance. After a few minutes, Urugwiro [President Paul Kagame’s statehouse] made a call to kigalitoday ordering them to remove the story which was written by Umulisa Pascaline.



The story and the way it has been handled so far are signs of a Rwandan authoritarian regime which harasses its people consistently in their daily life. Without an independent press anyone can see that these incidents can never come to light in the public. And unfortunately they are very frequent. For example, in this same week which coincides with Sadiki case, and in the same region of the country, there are reports of high levels of intimidation and harassment of citizens who cannot afford to pay the obligatory contribution to Paul Kagame political party, RPF. Those who cannot pay the monthly contribution of FRW 200 are beaten up and imprisoned.

The strength of oppressors lies generally in the fear they plant into the lives of the oppressed. Once the latter realize that they don’t gain anything by being permanently under the spell of fear, the end of the oppressor is close. In Rwanda, there have been thousands of unreported Mohamed Bouazzizi simili cases, for the only reason that there is no independent press to bring them in the open. Those are the martyrs of the Rwandan nation who have been adding their share of the contribution of others towards the needed change.

Maybe this time, Rwandans have reached that tipping point where their survival as individuals, either on a personal or collective levels, demands from them to react to what has been happening to them and does not seem to have any end as long as Paul Kagame will rule their country.

 This above report is by Ambrose Nizeyimana who blogs at "The Rising Continent".

Uniting the Rwandan Opposition: Father Habimana and Gen. Nyamwasa (part one)

Away from home, exiled Rwandans have not abandoned politics.  They have remained defiant, vocal and critical much to the annoyance of the ruling regime. In fact, while Kagame has almost managed to keep a tight lid on internal dissidents, he faces mounting protests on every international trip he makes. 

 The voices of Rwandans abroad produce nothing but a nightmare for the autocratic regime. Not surprisingly, Kagame has tried to send death squads abroad, as the British intelligence recently unveiled, to “silence” the opposition. This time, he was caught pants down. 

Kagame, the self-proclaimed liberator of Tutsis (in Rwanda and in the DRC) has consistently been ranked by Reporters without Borders among the top five “press predators” for the past three consecutive years.  He tolerates zero opposing views, while denying the existence of any opposition. Typical of dictator’s rhetoric, he uses the claim that everyone loves him.

As I write this post, BBC reports that a young man, Mutabazi Sadiki, has self-immolated in Gisenyi out of frustration with the regime’s policies. He was a local peanut vendor. The government has reacted by blaming it on drugs. Does this remind you of another deranged dictator?

Cables from the US embassy in Kigali reveal that the police state in Rwanda is precariously unsustainable.  As it is right now, Rwanda is a melting volcano waiting to erupt.  As such Rwandans must think outside the box and create an effective opposition that will clear this impasse. Given the deep divisions among Rwandans, this will take a lot of patience, compromise and accommodation. 

This campaign has already begun. Victoire Ingabire’s FDU, a mostly Hutu led political party, has formed an alliance with RNC, made up of Tutsi dissidents.  The alliance is still budding and faces the almost insurmountable challenge of removing the Rwandan dictator. However, this alliance represents the future of Rwanda. 

That said, there are legitimate concerns raised by supporters of both sides. Rudasingwa, Tutsi, and former secretary of Kagame’s cabinet, argues that the Hutu opposition must be willing to accept and condemn the past government’s role in the 1994 genocide.  On the other hand, FDU supporters would like the RPF (Rudasingwa was also the party’s Secretary General), to be held accountable. This has been Ingabire’s consistent message, landing her jail time where she faces a possible life sentence. 

At the same time, any viable coalition must be built on some form of consensus. And the consensus that "Kagame is the main obstacle" while crucial, is in my view not enough. While the RNC’s demand is much easier to honor (after all most Hutus who participated in 1994 genocide have faced prosecution) it is much harder to speak of RPF crimes. 

I think one main problem is how the Rwandan story has been framed. The RPF has painted itself as a group of holy worriers driving out the genocidaire demons. Because they are in power, this mainstream view has gone unchallenged.  However, there are countless of reports that point to the contrary. 

On their part, the RNC has tried to cast the entire blame on Kagame. For everything wrong, “Kagame is to blame”. This is hardly plausible and points to the shallowness of their commitment to genuine reconciliation. 

However, the RNC is hardly monolithic in their views. Rudasingwa, has openly apologized for RPF’s past crimes.  He supports individual accountability for alleged RPF where possible and necessary.

But by far the most heated debate on this matter has been between Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa and father Thomas Nahimana, a Rwandan priest who is also the founder of the leading Kinyarwanda blog Le Prophete. The next part of this blog will discuss their view points and how to reconcile them.

William Penn University Shouldn't Award Kagame an Honorary Doctorate

Update 5/2/12: Word has it that the letters and calls from the last couple of days has gotten the school's attention, but we got 10 more days to stop this. Keep pointing out to them what human rights groups are noting. Kagame and the RPF are responsible for massive human rights abuses that they have not been held accountable for; that they are attacking political opponents; that they are clamping down on media. Point out how cynical and hypocritical it is to award a genocidal mass-murderring dictator with a doctorate for his so-called "contributions" to humanity.

• • •

On May 12, 2012, Rwanda's dictator, General Paul Kagame, will be delivering a commencement speech at William Penn University. According to the school,

William Penn University President Dr. Ann Fields announced today that His Excellency Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda, will present the commencement address on Saturday, May 12, 2012 to a graduating class of 370 students and receive an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters, for his contributions to the humanities or human welfare.

These "contributions" are explained as him supposedly being "recognized as a world leader for his role in human interest issues," and being "known for empowering young people and women, as evident by the high percentage of women serving on the Rwandan Parliament (56%)."

This is grotesquely cynical.

Paul Kagame is a genocidal mass-murderer who makes Joseph Kony look like an angel. He has the blood of millions of Rwandans and Congolese on his hands. When he and his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) invaded Rwanda in 1990 he kicked off a bloody war that saw thousands killed, and hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed from their land. Between October 1990 and April 1994 he continued to violate ceasefire agreements and carry out terrorist attacks. Finally in April of 1994 he assassinated Rwanda's President Habyarimana and conducted a massive invasion which overthrew the government in a one hundred day-orgy of genocidal slaughter and mayhem. But it didn't end there. As hundreds of thousands of Rwandans fled his terror campaign to neighboring countries he followed after them, hunted them down, and killed them—often by the thousands, and right in view of UN peace keepers. According to the Herald Sun:

By early 1995, the displaced persons' camp at Kibeho was the biggest in Rwanda, sprawling for 9sq km and containing 80,000 to 100,000 people.

The 32 Australian soldiers and medical officers arrived there as part of the UN peacekeeping force on April 18, 1995.

There were daily random killings by the Rwandan soldiers, but the slaughter exploded out of control soon after 10am on April 22. The Australians had a grandstand view of the nightmare from the Zambian compound.

The RPA soldiers murdered women and children right up to the UN wire. Bodies were everywhere. For the Diggers behind the wire, the next few hours were agonising.

For the refugees, there was nowhere to run.

As the Australians collected the wounded from among the piles of dead, the crisis began to escalate as panic-stricken Hutus overran the Zambian compound, driven forward by machete-and rifle wielding militia.

Hundreds were killed in the crush and the Australians were forced to repel at bayonet point the terrified victims they were supposed to be protecting, pushing them back into the RPA killing zone.

The RPA went wild and cut loose with another hail of fire on the panicking crowd.

It is even being reported by allAfrica.com that, "Thousands of Rwandan refugees living in Uganda remain unwilling to return home, citing a fear of persecution."

Human Rights Watch recently released a report that stated, "The Rwandan government, whose troops are accused of some of the most serious crimes" in the Congo wars. They also sent a letter to the ICTR requesting the RPF be prosecuted for their well-established crimes. The letter states, "We strongly believe that your mandate as Chief Prosecutor will not be fulfilled until you prosecute alleged RPF crimes."

Paul Kagame squashes any and all dissent, and there is no better example of him not empowering women than his kangaroo trial of Victoire Ingabire, a brave mother who came out of exile to be a political opponent to Kagame only to be quickly imprisoned. Amnesty International put out a really informing video last summer on the plight of Ingabire, and the grim realities of Kagame's Rwanda.

Even Human Rights Watch has requested that, "Rwandan authorities should immediately stop intimidating human rights defenders and allow them to work freely."

HRW has also recently released a report which notes Rwanda's "attacks on government opponents," their "clampdown on independent media," their "obstructions to the work of human rights organizations," and more. And in the last week HRW noted that they have "documented other cases [other than Bernard Ntaganda, an opposition leader) in which laws and charges such as endangering state security and inciting public disobedience have been used to prosecute and intimidate government critics."

Quite simply, Paul Kagame is the Hitler of Africa, and allowing him to give a commencement speech to college graduates under the bogus claim that he has made "contributions to the humanities or human welfare" is very disturbing.

Suggested Action: If you are here in the States and are close to the school please consider organizing some actions to stop this. A protest is already being planned in case the speech happens.

Otherwise please call and write to the school and request Kagame's speech to be canceled. Be polite and be clear.

Steve Noah, the school's Vice President of Advancement who is behind this, can be reached at: 641-673-1048

Or call Amber Lake, director of Marketing : 641-673-1078.

You can also send an email to her and others:

To: fieldsa@wmpenn.edu

CC: lakea@wmpenn.edu, noahs@wmpenn.edu, ottossonj@wmpenn.edu, stahlen@wmpenn.edu, taylors@wmpenn.edu, piercej@wmpenn.edu, collinsm@wmpenn.edu, oskynews@oskyherald.com, news2@oskyherald.com, debve@oskyherald.com

Sample letter:

To Whom it May Concern,

I am calling on William Penn University to do the right thing, and cancel General Kagame's "doctorate" and commencement speech scheduled for this month.

Per the school's website we are told that General Kagame has contributed to "the humanities" and "human welfare," but that is simply not true, and worse: it is very offensive, especially to his victims.

Human rights organizations have documented his crimes since 1990, but particularly during the 1994 genocide and his invasion and occupation of Democratic Republic of Congo—where millions have been killed, tortured and displaced. And they have called on the ICTR to prosecute these RPF crimes.

These same human rights groups—e.g. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—have also documented the brutal realities of living in Rwanda today where political opposition is not tolerated, fraudulent elections occur, and the media is silenced.

Considering the well-established fact that General Paul Kagame is a genocidal, mass-murdering dictator who is oppressing his own people and destabilizing the region, I beg the school to please cancel Kagame's "doctorate" and speech. It would be a disgrace to the school, and would be very offensive to truth and justice.

Thank you,
[Your Name]

The Courageous Lady Revealing Kagame's Brutal Rule

Victoire Ingabire, the selfless pro-democracy defender is burning in the flames of Kagame's kangaroo court. In fact, it is not a court in any dignified sense of the word: Kagame is the judge, jury and executioner.

Equally damning is how such blatant and arrogant disregard for the rule of law has so far managed to escape international condemnation. Besides a few footnote-long reports by the international media, no leader has come to this woman's rescue. The fact that she is fighting for democracy in a country that is usually characterized by political hooliganism, has been taken for granted. Even feminists are deafeningly silent.

To some extent, Ingabire's trial shows how difficult it is to oppose a dictator who enjoys the backing of the west. It is a tenuous undertaking as recent events in the Middle East have shown us.

For the last seventeen years, Kagame has enjoyed almost unconditional support from sections of the west--especially, Britain and the United States. This support has been consistent, despite documented crimes against humanity and credible accusations of genocide implicating him and his government.  The most clear-cut case being that Kagame has invaded the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) more than three times, leaving behind a death toll of five million.

Still, even if Britain and the United States continue this cynical and Machiavellian game, for those of us crying for freedom, there can be no retreat. This is the path that Ingabire has charted, and many are following in her footsteps. From my conversation with the Rwandan youth, I can say for a fact that the quench for freedom and democracy has never been so palpable. The resolve is now more pronounced than ever. A peaceful Tsunami-like movement is in the making.

Back to Ingabire's trial. Ingabire, 44, returned to Rwanda some two years to exercise her democratic right to contest in the 2010 presidential elections. Despite the obvious risks she faced, she believed that 16 years after the genocide Rwanda had matured for democratic reform. Barely four months into her stay, she was thrown into jail, which preemptively barred her from contesting the presidency. This, in a convenient, calculated and self-serving manner, left Kagame to run unopposed.

Now, two years into her detention, a list of indelible facts have revealed the case she faces is not more than a poorly organized form of political witch-hunt. Just to name a few examples: she was held in prison despite the fact that the prosecution had not commenced investigations into the alleged crimes. In fact, the case was, on various occasions postponed to allow the prosecution to gather evidence. Despite this major weakness, she was never allowed bail.

Some of the procedural violations by the prosecution in this case were clear contraventions of the Rwandan la. For instance, Article 59 of the penal code states that, "persons against whom the prosecution has evidence to suspect that they were involved in the commission of an offense cannot be heard as witnesses”. Contrary to this law, the prosecution continues to rely on "evidence" from the co-accused.

Other violations are just so basic and defy common sense. Ingabire is accused of genocide denial based on speeches delivered before the promulgation of the law in 2008. In fact, the law itself has been subject of serious critique by human right organization who regard it as grave affront on free speech.

Anyone interested in the genocide denial laws and the conflict with free speech should read Amnesty International's review of this law in a report titled “Safer to Stay Silent: The Chilling Effect of Rwanda’s law on “Genocide Ideology” and “sectarianism”. The same report considers the question of whether Ingabire's speech, upon her arrival in Rwanda constituted an act of genocide denial. Amnesty International finds no compelling reason to believe so.

More recently, the prosecution manipulated and intimidated Ingabire's defense witness. The witness is, Lt. Col. Michel Habimana, alias Edmond Ngarambe, the former spokesperson of the FDLR rebel group, which Ingabire is accused of collaborating with. Even at the risk of torture, he denies having worked with Ingabire in any capacity. When the government prevented Ngarambe from testifying, for Ingabire, this was the last straw.

But why should the government decide who testifies in court and who doesn't?

As I write, Ingabire's case has made the valiant decision to disconnect herself from the trial. She will no longer attend any more court sessions. The reason is simple but principled and compelling. If a trial is a sham, and marred by continuous violations, why would anyone pretend that it is just? Going to court, and assuming that everything is normal, would have helped render to the kangaroo court the sort of legitimacy that it fails to honor.This is exactly what Kagame was hoping for. In a way, he has lost.

Ingabire's trial has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Rwandan judicial system is under the complete machination of the executive. It is a system, which is used to punish critics and reward loyalists. There is no justice being dispensed. Ironically, western backers continue to pour money into this cartel of organized crime masquerading as a court in the hope for reforms. Well, we now know that the purported reforms are phony. Our appeal to the international community is that its now time to turn the spigot off! No more easy aid money and cheap loans for the dictator.

This is why. Ingabire has persistently appealed for the executive to "leave the court to do their work". Kagame has reacted arrogantly by taking every occasion to make comments that are bound to influence the court. For instance, on CNN last year, he said with much force that "Ingabire must be taught a lesson". Is it any wonder then that the judiciary is taking such insane measures to appease him?

If Ingabire wanted to overthrow the government by force; if she truly wanted to support an armed rebellion, she would not have gone to Rwanda unarmed.  This is quite a no-brainier. As explained by her British attorney, in an interview with the California-based journalist, Annie Garrison, her returning to Rwanda is an act of courage and selflessness. Ingabire did so because she believes in a united Rwanda, where everyone is held equal before the law.

Contrary to the cheap propaganda being peddled around, Ingabire does not care about Hutu or Tutsi. This, I know for a fact having met her on several occasions. She dreams of a world where all Rwandans can live in peace and harmony. This is why she has called for truth and reconciliation in Rwanda, something that does not exist.

If Ingabire is such an extremist, as the Rwandan government claims, why would she form a coalition with several Tutsi-led parties?  The charge that every Hutu is an extremist is just an excuse for maintaining a pro-Kagame Tutsi hegemony. It is just as dangerous and dehumanizing as the claim that every Tutsis was an Inyenzi collaborators. Ingabire's only crime, in this case, is believing that all people, whether Hutu, Tutsi or Twa, have equal moral worth.

I support her cause in seeking to unite Rwandans and believe that history will soon absolve her!

N.B RNW has more on the testimony by Colonel Habimana and how the Rwandan government interfered with it. Link here