Mr. Amb Kimonyo Sir, It Helps to be Prudent

I have known prudence as the characteristic of exercising sound judgement. As a Christian I have also known that as a virtue, prudence takes into account the four cardinal virtues; one of which is restraint or temperance.

Accordingly, prudence is often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge. In these cases, the virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place. Distinguishing when acts are courageous, as opposed to reckless or cowardly, for instance, is an act of prudence, and it is for this reason that it is classified as a cardinal virtue.

The great philosopher Plato identified prudence as one of the virtues associated with rulers and reason. He was right. To quote the famous line in Spiderman the movie; with great power comes great responsibility. It is therefore very important that people in positions of power act not only with reason but virtuously. When those we consider brilliant act in ways that may be regarded irresponsible, it becomes hard to even trust whether they actually stand for anything.

Reading James Kimonyo’s piece published on the Foreign Policy Journal website, September 11, I was left wondering whether we as a people from Rwanda have learnt anything from our history. Amb Kimonyo is regarded by some as one of Rwanda’s best and may be it is the reason President Paul Kagame chose him to represent Kigali’s interests in Washington.

But while he ought as a selected public servant, endeavour to work towards pleasing and advancing the interest of the man who gave him the job, it is extremely loutish of him to forget the wishes of those from whose taxes, his salary is drawn.

Countering a previous article by one Sherelle Jacobs, Amb Kimonyo makes one sweeping statement which as an ambassador and someone whose position really demands prudence, ought to have carefully considered before committing himself to.

He wrote “While we encourage open debate on Rwanda politics and policies, it is important to accurately capture the events unfolding in the country”.

Great observation given what has and continues to go on in Rwanda. Mr. Kimonyo is until then, a man of integrity. And since this particular sentence was the second of his piece, few would have doubted he would stagger away so soon.

He goes on to talk about the concluded elections, noting that to him, they were fair because they were highly watched by the international media – something he uses as proof that democracy is thriving in Rwanda. Really? Since when did democracy depend on coverage of elections or how much publicity an election received at any given time?

Amb Kimonyo is not happy that despite what he sees as progress in Rwanda, many critics still mistakenly think the elections were unfair. How, you might ask. Look at his his next paragraph and you will know why Mr. Kimonyo belongs to that school of thought yet to discover prudence.

“Many point to the case of Victorie Ingabire to support their accusations that the 2010 elections were not free.  Ingabire lived in the Netherlands until the 2010 elections were announced, when she moved to Rwanda to run for the position of president.  Upon arrival, Ingabire stood on the graves of Tutsis lost during the 1994 genocide and called upon Rwanda to remember the Hutus, a group who carried out the bulk of the killings—an act that insults the memory and recovery of the Rwandan people who have spent the last 16 years trying to move on from ethnic divisions,” writes Kimonyo.

He goes on to accuse her of working with the FDLR, “Ingabire has been implicated by the UN report to have been working with this group and actively funding them, which increases and intensifies the killing, rape and destruction in the region.  We cannot have someone who feeds such violence and hatred as the president of Rwanda.”

Wow…some awakening there! Kimonyo is simply implying that his government was right to bar Ms.Ingabire from contesting because among other reasons, she had lived out of the country for so long.

Even if it clear that Rwandan constitution which Amb Kimonyo is sworn to, does not prevent returnees from contesting, he thinks it is about time, this reasoning, was used against the most feared opposition politician in Rwanda. He completely ignores or chooses to neglect the fact that President Paul Kagame and most of those serving in Rwanda today, lived out of the country for twice the period Ms. Ingabire is said to have lived out. Kagame for instance was out of Rwanda for an incredible 30 years.

Amb Kimonyo, then goes on to make the most outrageous sweeping statement ever “.Upon arrival, Ingabire stood on the graves of Tutsis lost during the 1994 genocide and called upon Rwanda to remember the Hutus, a group who carried out the bulk of the killings…” Really? So Hutus are a group who carried out the bulk of the killings? Outrageous indeed! The Ambassador is implicitly stating that Hutus are a killer race, which obviously is worrying, especially since Mr. Kimonyo is the man representing the interest of Rwandans (majority of who are Hutu) in Washington.

Unless Mr. Kimonyo comes out to publicly apologise and change this outrageous statement, on grounds of equal justice, he should be charged under our very own Genocide Ideology Law. If people have had to serve years for just questioning the events of 1994, then what of an official that has stood up to claim that Hutus are a group that carried out the bulk of the killings?

And to make matters worse, Mr. Kimonyo then argues that Rwanda could not have let Ms. Ingabire, a person who has been implicated by the UN as having links with the FDLR as president of the country. Well that is only viable if it were proven as true. Second, if by inference, Mr.Kimonyo is saying that the UN is a great organisation only when it pushes for information that  implicates perceived government enemies.

If the current UN report which has raised so much dust around the Great Lakes region was to point to the fact that Rwandan forces, besides committing crimes against humanity and possibly genocide, did also support some militias in the Congo – militias that for years wrecked the lives of innocent civilians there – can we trust Kimonyo to say exactly the same of his boss, who interestingly is now in serving in the position that Ms. Ingabire can not?

Like I said in the beginning, prudence is very important. Rwandans now need neither political spin nor humming subservience but strong minds. Minds that are not influenced by lies or the desire to exact revenge but the willngness to serve and develop in a manner that benefits not a few, but many. And Mr. Kimonyo, from what I just read, I am afraid you don’t seem to reflect this sort of mindset – in which case, I will pass you over to my little monsters…

Who wants Gen Nyamwasa dead?

Rwanda’s former Army Chief of Staff and Ambassador to India Lt. Gen Kayumba Nyamwasa survived an assassination plot on his life yesterday at his residence in Johannesburg but as the revered soldier recuperates in hospital, questions about this incident should be aimed in one direction – Kigali.

Some people will argue that South Africa is a very chaotic country with a high crime rate and that we should consider the possibility of this, having been a case of a robbery gone wrong. Well, to this notion, I say no. Believable as it may seem, such an argument can only hold water if you neglect the rhetoric in the form of accusations and allegations that have been coming out of Kigali.

Gen Nyamwasa it has to be said, is a big fish. He had his moment, spells when he was considered by the regime in Kigali, as a right hand man. He was at one point, Kagame’s blue eyed boy, and rightly so. A lawyer by profession, Gen Nyamwasa was successful at school as he was on the battlefield. Put bluntly, he is not just any other Rwandan soldier; he is an intelligent and learned Rwandan officer.

He gave his life, well, most of his adult life, serving and promoting the interests of a country he regarded as his own. His name even appears on a series of warrants that have been issued in relation to the collective activities of the people with whom he served. When there were wars that had to be fought, he fought them. Those he felt were useless, he flatly rejected. In his own words, he saw no reason of fighting useless wars. These were decisions that were largely based on his personal critique of the whole concept about wars for riches and wars with a cause. Strangely, his superiors resented him for choosing reason over lunacy leading to a combination of misunderstandings that eventually culminated in a massive fall out.

Fearing for his life, Gen Nyamwasa fled the country he had helped liberate to South Africa – the only country to offer him sanctuary. In South Africa, he was accused together with his comrade Col. Patrick Karegeya, Rwanda’s former intelligence chief, of terrorism. Kigali was even quick to accuse the two for being behind the grenade attacks that rocked Rwanda’s capital in April. Day after day, the state engineered missives and write ups in the government controlled newspaper The New Times alleging that the two had run away from corruption cases and accountability issues. Kagame himself went about telling whichever magazine or newspaper that was willing to listen, that the two were ‘flies who needed to be crashed’. First a demobilised soldier and then Jill Rutaremara, the army spokesman and later Job Jabiro went on record to trash Kayumba as a soldier responsible for his own downfall.

The accusations and attacks were relentless. It was clear what Kagame wanted. Get the two back to Rwanda, gag them as he has done to all the opposition and lock them up in some safe place where the only people to talk to would be fellow prisoners .

But when Gen Nyamwasa decided in May to put the record straight by writing a rejoinder in the same newspaper that Kagame had used to tarnish his (Nyamwasa) name, Kigali were caught pants down. The amount of detail and precision with which he delivered his well written piece in the Daily Monitor shook Kigali.

Kagame had fallen out with Kayumba yes, but there seemed to be something new in the general’s well written rejoinder that shook him to bits. The revelation that the Bombardier Global Express BD-700 jets – with a new price tag of $50-million each, acquired by Rwanda in 2003 and 2008 respectively were actually Kagame’s. Put into context, the revelation of such an out of touch spending by the head of state whose sound-bites had always been hummed around accountability and good governance made Kagame look like the thief in chief, especially given the fact that such luxury came at the expense of 60% Rwandese whom the UN says live in poverty.

The government of course tried to cover this up but the well kept secret had been leaked and Kayumba was seen by Kagame as the man who could sink the ship. So, what does the government do?

It will have to be proven for anyone to conclusively and without a shadow of a doubt place yesterday’s attempt on Gen Nyamwasa’s life on Kagame. What we can agree to however is the fact that if anyone wants Kayumba Nyamwasa dead, it is less likely the Johannesburg burglar but the smart politician from Kigali.

What Next?

Gen Nyamwasa is the lucky one. His story helps raise the spectre of the infamous list of people to be eliminated as leaked on the web by my friend Keith Harmon Snow. Just goes to show that no one, and I say no one, is safe. You obviously can not be sure unless you are absolutely clear. It is weird out there but we have to live in hope.

As Kagame becomes increasingly tense, Kigali’s list of enemies will continue to grow bigger and bigger. Anyone can be on this list. Anyone of us will or could be massacred at any point. The question is, do we give up in fear of assassinations to a rampant dictator whose job is to kill all his perceived enemies both real and imaginary? Or do we stand up to the challenge and say, well, you can kill us all but the spirit and hunger for freedom shall live on forever?

Remember my friends, at the end of every chess game, the King and Pawns get to sleep in the same bag.

Good luck to you all. As to the man in hospital, I wish you a quick recovery.

…over to you my little monsters.

Erlinder’s Arrest: A Blessing or Curse

Kigali will argue they have finally got their man but the arrest of Prof Peter Erlinder on Friday in Kigali has every potential to go down as a defining moment in the history of this tiny country, who many now know, enjoys tussling it out with the mightiest.

The American Professor of Law at William Mitchel College of Law in St Paul, Minnesota, a successful criminal lawyer and lead counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is now, as Kigali will want the world to know, in their hands – ready to face the long arm of the law for denying genocide – at least for now. Don’t be surprised if when the charge sheet is presented, it contains associating with terrorists and promoting divisionism. The three, according to prosecutors in Kigali, MUST go together; otherwise the case wouldn’t be TRULLY RWANDAN.

Having arrived in Rwanda on Sunday, May 23, to defend incarcerated opposition politician Victoire Umuhoza Ingabire – another member of the public whose charge sheet includes the three named charges, Erlinder who a Rwandan prosecution source described as ‘a big fish given his association with known genocidaires’ now has to get himself a lawyer and consider his defence for Ingabire impossible.

Already, the American Embassy has made it clear it won’t be commenting further on the case apart from confirming that Prof Erlinder has been arrested.

But what exactly are the politics here?

Before i go any further, it is perhaps imperative that we get to understand who Prof Erlinder is and how he fits into this amazing Rwandan cobweb. Erlinder is not only famous for being a successful and intelligent criminal lawyer, he was lead counsel in the famous Military I trial in Arusha where it was argued and established that there was “no planning or conspiracy on the part of the former government to commit the genocide”.

Earlier this month, Prof Erlinder was again among a group of attorneys who sought to serve President Paul Kagame for wrongful death in a $350 million dollar suit filed in Oklahoma. As a long time critic of the regime in Kigali, Prof Erlinder was always in Kagame’s black book and it was not a surprise when his name appeared alongside those of people considered evil and worth eliminating by the Rwandan regime as leaked on the internet by Keith Harmon Snow.

Even with the US declaring itself yesterday and choosing to lay-bear the fears inside Rwanda in a scathing report published on the internet Thursday May 27, Kigali today decided enough was enough and moved in on the Professor.

Why is the question?

From the day Victoire Ingabire was arrested, Erlinder made it clear he was prepared to be part of her defence team. His interest was publicised and Rwanda knew then, that Erlinder was on his way. Sources within Rwanda’s prosecution have told me that fearing Erlinder’s interest in the case and his expression of willingness to defend Ingabire, the government started circulating stories in the local and regional press aimed at scaring away the America. Newspaper reports hinted at the possibility of an immediate arrest on arrival for previously denying the genocide ever took place.

But the more Erlinder was threatened, the more he made certain his desire to travel and represent Ingabire. And since much of the evidence in the case against Ingabire is circumstantial and some of it from coerced testimonies, Rwanda feared a smart counsel of Erlinder’s stature would quash it, thereby making a successful prosecution impossible. Such, would of course exonerate her from all the charges, allowing her to register her party FDU-Inkingi in time for the presidential elections in August.

Bring in Plan B

As the government worked around the clock for a way to prevent an embarrassment, Prof Erlinder arrived in Kigali. He was never arrested because technically the leaked list threat was never official – and thus not enough to effect an arrest – especially since the government had been denying knowledge of it. So, Erlinder was left to enter the country and instead another tactic devised. Working with the Bar Association of Rwanda, the government decided this time to delay in the hope of refusing Erlinder permission to practice.

Again, a newspaper campaign was mounted against his visit with emphasis on the fact that he had no legal right to practice in the country despite his interest in defending Ingabire. However, as a law professor and a counsel who had worked at the ICTR in neighbouring Tanzania, this move was destined to fall through. It is then that “on orders from above,” police was instructed to arrest him.

Curse or Blessing

In arresting Prof Erlinder, the Rwandan government may have overlooked one simple fact – the obvious case of the arrest having two sides. Erlinder’s arrest can only be either a blessing or curse for Rwanda.

A source told me today that part of the reason they arrested him was because they hoped the arrest of such a high profile figure would send a signal to all the “genocide deniers” and regime critics that no one will be tolerated and if it means fighting it out in court, the government is prepared “to arrest and shame”.

As stupid as this argument is, it disregards the fact that Prof Erlinder while a “big fish” is no ordinary tilapia or tuna! If the fish paradigm is to be followed, Prof Erlinder might indeed be a whale that will rock the boat and turn the tables up for what has never been heard or seen.

Kigali should know this, especially because the establishment knows and understand the truth. Incarcerating Erlinder will of course arouse more publicity to Kigali to add to the one already aimed at Rwanda over Ingabire’s arrest or the recent bombs and chaos in the run up to the August elections.

Some one will have obviously overlooked this and advised President Paul Kagame to sanction the arrest. Usually, this is what happens in Rwanda when anger overrides sane reasoning.  We have seen this with the head of state kicking off and throwing tantrums in the middles of state addresses or speeches to ambassadors accredited to the country or in a recent example, going against the tenets of justice by attempting contempt of court as in what happened in his last interview to Daily Monitor a week ago.

With a president so gaffe prone that he forgets where he has to put a comma and goes until the last full stop, a case involving Erlinder or one in which he has to take the stand is the last thing Kigali needs.

Sometimes, you get your man or your fish but when the fishing stick it too weak to pull the fish up from the sea, it might be better to just ignore, me thinks

…..now over to you my little monsters!

Rwanda: Government Denies Visa to Rights Researcher in Crackdown on Dissent

(New York, April 23, 2010) – The Rwandan government’s decision to deny a work visa to Human Rights Watch’s representative in Kigali demonstrates a pattern of increasing restrictions on free expression in Rwanda in advance of August’s presidential elections, Human Rights Watch said today.  Human Rights Watch will appeal the decision and continue working on human rights issues in Rwanda.

“In the last few weeks, we have seen repeated intimidation, harassment, and obstruction of opposition parties, journalists, and civil society in Rwanda,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The Rwandan government is doing everything it can to silence critical voices and independent reporting before the elections.”

On April 23, 2010, officials from the Directorate General of Immigration informed Carina Tertsakian, Human Rights Watch’s senior researcher on Rwanda, that she would not be granted a work visa. They alleged that there were anomalies in her visa application, specifically signatures and dates on the documents she had submitted.

Staff at Human Rights Watch’s headquarters in New York had attested in writing to the authenticity of all the documents and signatures, but the immigration officials described their explanations as “unsatisfactory.” However, they had not made any attempt to contact Human Rights Watch’s headquarters or the individuals whose signatures they had queried.

The immigration officials refused to put their decision in writing. They told Tertsakian that as a British national, she could not exceed her 90-day legal stay in the country, which expires on April 24.

Gagnon was in Kigali the week of April 19 to try to meet Rwandan officials about this matter. Kenneth Roth, executive director at Human Rights Watch, sent a private letter to President Paul Kagame setting out in detail concerns at the handling of Tertsakian’s visa application and reiterating that all the documents submitted in the original and second application were authentic. Rwandan immigration officials did not respond to Gagnon’s requests for a meeting.

Human Rights Watch has been working on Rwanda since before the 1994 genocide. However, in the past two years, the Rwandan government has increasingly obstructed the work of the organization. In September and December 2008, it twice blocked the entry of the late Alison Des Forges, a renowned Rwanda expert and Human Rights Watch’s senior advisor on the Great Lakes region. In the last few weeks, Rwandan government rhetoric against human rights organizations has increased, with senior officials singling out Human Rights Watch for particularly fierce public criticism. There has also been an increase in articles hostile to Human Rights Watch in pro-government media.

Background

Rejection of work visa application

Carina Tertsakian, a British national, arrived in Rwanda on January 25, 2010, and was initially granted a work visa. On March 3, immigration officials questioned her on the paperwork relating to her visa application, pointing to a mistaken date and alleging differences in her colleagues’ signatures on the documents. They confiscated her passport. The following day, they summoned her again with a new set of questions, relating, once again, to dates and signatures.

On March 8, Tertsakian was formally summoned by the police Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to appear the following day. The police told her that she was suspected of using forged documents and questioned her on the same points as those raised by the immigration officials. By then, Human Rights Watch had submitted two letters from its headquarters, confirming that all the documents were authentic. The officials did not appear to take these letters into account.

On March 10, immigration officials returned Tertsakian’s passport, but had cancelled her work visa. The immigration officials refused to provide a written explanation for this cancellation; they told her she could submit a second visa application.

On March 16, Tertsakian submitted a second application, with a notarized affidavit from Human Rights Watch’s Legal Director attesting to the veracity and authenticity of all the documents. More than a month passed before there was any response to the second application – the usual turnaround time is three days. Rwandan immigration officials communicated their visa denial to Tertsakian on April 23, the day before her legal stay in Rwanda was due to expire.

Crackdown on freedom of expression

These developments take place against a backdrop of increasing intolerance of dissent and criticism in the run-up to presidential elections in August.

Members of opposition parties have been harassed, threatened, and intimidated. Two of the new opposition parties – the FDU-Inkingi and the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda – have been prevented from registering and have been repeatedly obstructed by the authorities. Meetings of the Democratic Green Party and the PS-Imberakuri (a third opposition party) have been disrupted several times, sometimes violently. The PS-Imberakuri eventually managed to register, but has since been hijacked by “dissident members” widely believed to have been manipulated by the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) to silence the party’s president, Bernard Ntaganda.  Ntaganda himself was summoned before the Senate at the end of 2009 on accusations of “genocide ideology.” He has not been charged, but in April 2010, members of the Senate’s political commission expressed their view that these accusations were well-founded.

Victoire Ingabire, leader of the FDU-Inkingi, has been questioned by the police on six occasions since February 2010 (she returned to Rwanda in January 2010 after many years in exile), effectively paralyzing her party’s activities. In March, police stopped her at the airport and prevented her from travelling. On April 21, she was arrested and charged with “genocide ideology,” “divisionism,” and collaboration with terrorist groups, including the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda  (Forces démocratiques pour la libération du Rwanda – FDLR), an armed group active in the Democratic Republic of Congo, composed in part of individuals who took part in the 1994 genocide. Ingabire was released on bail on April 22, but is not allowed to leave the country or to go outside the capital, Kigali. There has been an unrelenting public campaign against her in the pro-government media, relating primarily to public statements in which she criticized the government and called for justice for killings of Hutu by the RPF.

Journalists have also faced numerous problems in the course of their work. The two independent newspapers, Umuseso and Umuvugizi, have been sued for defamation, a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment. Both cases are currently at the appeal stage. On April 13, the Media High Council, a government-aligned body responsible for regulating the media, suspended the two newspapers for six months. Umuseso and Umuvugizi are among the few independent media left in Rwanda; both have published articles critical of the government.

More broadly, Human Rights Watch says many ordinary Rwandans feel unable to express their opinions openly. Those who voice criticism of the government or its policies risk being labelled opponents, accused of being in league with opposition parties or with people who allegedly want to topple the government, or accused of “genocide ideology” – a vaguely defined criminal offense which carries penalties of 10 to 25 years’ imprisonment.

After years of intimidation of civil society activists, there are very few independent human rights organizations left in Rwanda. Those who are still trying to document human rights abuses are facing constant threats and obstacles. For example, in the run-up to the 2008 parliamentary elections, the League for Human Rights in the Great Lakes Region (Ligue des droits de la personne dans la région des Grands Lacs – LDGL) was prevented from deploying its full election observer mission and was attacked by the National Electoral Commission before its report even came out. Members of the human rights organization LIPRODHOR have also faced serious threats over several years, causing many of their key members to leave the country for their own safety, and leaving the organization significantly weakened.

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Rwanda, please visit:

http://www.hrw.org/africa/rwanda

For more information, please contact:

In New York, Georgette Gagnon (English): +1-917-535-0375 (mobile)

In Washington DC, Jon Elliott: (English, French): +1-202-612-4348; or +1-917-379-0713 (mobile)

Paul Kagame: The monster out of a “hero”

NICK WADHAMS – NAIROBI (Time)

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda is often lauded around the world for pulling his country out of the mire of genocide 16 years ago. But Rwandan opposition leaders, diplomats and rights activists fear Kagame is now cracking down on his opponents ahead of national elections in August. They cite two prominent examples: Charles Kabonero, a Rwandan newspaper editor, sits in exile in Uganda, doing internships with civil society groups; and Victoire Ingabire, an opposition politician, sits in a different sort of exile, unable to leave Rwanda’s capital Kigali, until a trial against her ends.

The banning of Kabonero’s Umuseso newspaper earlier this month and Ingabire’s arrest on Wednesday were only the most recent in a series of actions — including a military shakeup, arrests and the decision by many ambassadors, opposition leaders and rights activists to go into exile — that have western diplomats and regional experts worried that Kagame may be purging supposed enemies and cutting out potential threats before the vote.

“Things are not good,” Kabonero, whose Umuseso was shut down for six months on April 13, tells TIME. “We are seeing a situation where the government is doing everything it can to instill fear, and to make sure that the opposition doesn’t have the opportunity to access the public.”

Rwanda has come an incredibly long way since the genocide, which saw Hutus slaughter 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in just three months. But opposition figures say they believe Kagame is now preying on fears of another genocide to crush the opposition. He won 95% of the vote in 2003 elections that were seen as flawed.

They point to the “genocide ideology” law that is meant to keep people from fanning ethnic hatred, but which critics say has been used to stifle dissent.

Kagame is a conundrum to western diplomats, who say that despite his flaws, Rwanda’s president has fought to control corruption and has expanded the economy. “This is a country that has a vision, this is a country that has made miraculous progress since 1994,” said a western official in Rwanda, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press. “On the other hand, there’s the issue of democracy. And there it gets a lot more complicated.”

Kagame’s attitude toward dissent was thrust into the spotlight when Victoire Ingabire, leader of the opposition United Democratic Forces, was arrested Wednesday, after returning to the country in January. She was charged with associating with a terrorist group and propagating “genocide ideology” for comments she made at a genocide memorial event in which she said Hutu victims of the genocide must also not be forgotten. Ingabire said she is innocent and simply wants to start a dialogue that has been stifled for years. The government and some western officials, speaking to TIME anonymously, fear she is essentially using ethnicity to win support among fellow Hutus. Her party has not been allowed to register and it seems unlikely so far that she will be allowed to run for the presidency.

“What we say is that the government will use the genocide for political ends,” Ingabire tells TIME by phone from Rwanda. “If we say ‘Hutus were also victims,’ for the government, this is genocide ideology. There was a genocide but there were also other crimes in Rwanda, there were crimes against humanity, and we have to remember all the victims of this tragedy.”

Similar accusations of stirring hatred and inciting violence were leveled against the two newspapers that were banned earlier this month. Kabonero’s Umuseso and another opposition newspaper Umuvugizi had been critical of the government in the past. The Media High Council, a nominally independent body, said they had insulted Kagame, incited insubordination among the police and army, and stirred fear. The council’s executive secretary, Patrice Mulama, says that in Rwanda — where pro-Hutu radio played such a huge role in fanning the genocide — the media must be especially careful not to provoke tension.

“We didn’t do this because we wanted to suppress media freedom but we did it because freedom comes with responsibility,” Mulama tells TIME. “We want to ensure that there is media freedom but that the people who practice journalism do it responsibly. There is no freedom that can be accepted if it infringes on the rights of the others or where it endangers the safety of citizens and incites the public to violence.”

The latest sign of the crackdown came late Friday. That was when the New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch announced that the Rwandan government had denied a work permit to its new researcher there, Carina Tertsakian. She was on a three-month visa that expires Saturday. According to Human Rights Watch, the government said there were “anomalies” in Tertsakian’s application, a claim the group denies. It claims that the decision is part of a government strategy of targeting individuals rather than risking international condemnation by kicking out the rights watchdog itself.

“It’s a blow for Human Rights Watch and is part of a broader pattern of what’s going on Rwanda,” says Georgette Gagnon, Africa Director at Human Rights Watch. “The Government has chosen to go after an individual because they think it is easier than going after the organization and is less likely to draw attention from the international community. Human Rights Watch will appeal the decision and will continue working on human rights in Rwanda.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1984315,00.html#ixzz0m3Q2YXNU

10 year jail terms for British MPs who stole from taxpayer

It began as a simple story of some unscrupulous Honourable Members of Parliament flaunting rules to partake what they werent legally or at least morally entitled to but the Westminster MP Expenses Scandal story is now headed for a very big hit.

Today, with the Metropolitan Police Service delivering four main files of evidence relating to parliamentary expenses to the Crown Prosecution Service, it looks pretty certain  like it wont be long since we see a conviction.

Now we know, that a team of detectives has been assessing and investigating cases for five months since the Telegraph’s Expenses Files investigation disclosed widespread abuse of parliamentary allowances and up to four MPs and peers could face jail terms of up to 10 years.

The four have not been named by Scotland Yard. Kier Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is expected to decide whether to prosecute the politicians within a month.

There are souls out there who will be extremely worried. From the Commons to the Lords and back to Lords, this is a mess that has shaken British politics and made the taxpayer more angry. Many struggling taxpayers in the country want the full force of the law to come crashing upon these chappies-who despite being the architects of some of the rules-have maliciously bent them so often, usually to satisfy their egos and blatant thuggery.

From phantom mortgages, duck houses, virtual and existing second homes to useless stationery, judgement day promises to be one that our honourable members of parliament will remember accused or convicted.

Telegraph sources claim the most serious suspected frauds are considered to be those of Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor who both claimed thousands of pounds for “phantom” mortgages they had paid off.

Mr Morley, the former agriculture minister, claimed more than £16,000 for a mortgage that did not exist and also admitted claiming £20,000 for mortgage capital repayments in contravention of the rules. Mr Chaytor admitted an “unforgivable error” in “accounting procedures” when claiming almost £13,000 in interest for a mortgage that he had paid off.

Police have also investigated why the Bury North MP also claimed almost £5,000 in office allowances to pay his daughter, Sarah, under an assumed name.

While all these investigations raise doubts over the transparency of the whole expenses system, they cast a shadow over the trustworthiness of the same shamed MPs as to whether they ought to have been honourable members in the first place.

When you have peers in the House of Lords going for every penny that can be salvaged using the highest available means of swindling, there is little you can do as a taxpayer. That’s why everyone will be rejoicing at the news. For 2 years now, i have duly paid my taxes as a law abiding citizen and i deserve no right to see them swindled by a big bellied lady or gentleman who owns 10,000 more than i do and earns more than i hope to make in 3 years.

But who are the likely four? No one really knows and until the police files have been made public or names disclosed, we can only speculate.

 

 

Lord Hanningfield, the Conservative peer who is also leader of Essex County Council, claimed £100,000 over seven years for staying in London despite living 46 miles from the capital. He has been investigated over whether he was returning to his home in Essex while claiming “overnight allowances’’.

Lord Clarke, a former Labour Party chairman, admitted his “terrible error” in a newspaper interview after claiming up to £18,000 a year for overnight subsistence when he often stayed with friends in London or returned home to St Albans, Herts.

Baroness Uddin allegedly claimed £100,000 in allowances by registering as her main home a property in Maidstone, Kent, that was apparently barely occupied.

Any lessons to Africa? For another day!!!

Rooney highest paid player in the world?

So it turns out that United are prepared to give Wayne Rooney, £170000 a week to kill off any interest from sunny Barcelona. But does the move make him football’s highest paid player?

News of the World reports!

Me thinks footballers are paid far too much and these wages are out of this world. To many, am a hater and one who doesn’t want to accept the idea that footballing talent is rare and so MUST be rewarded handsomely. But hang on a second, is £45,000 ugly?

WAYNE ROONEY will become the highest-paid player in Premier League history and the face of Manchester United for the next decade.

United chiefs will offer him an astonishing £170,000-a-week contract when negotiations open next February.

And that will include a £45,000-a-week image rights deal to become Old Trafford’s poster boy.

United have become increasingly aware of temptations from Spain for Rooney with Barcelona having put him top of their wanted list for the summer.

Rooney knows of Barca’s interest and is intrigued by the prospect of lining up alongside the likes of Lionel Messi but still retains a huge loyalty to United.

The Old Trafford hierarchy plan to reward that loyalty with the most lucrative contract in the club’s history.

Considerable work has already been done on the deal behind the scenes but no talks can take place until January when the ban on Rooney’s agent, Paul Stretford is lifted.

The deal will include a a major image rights element which overshadows United’s previous highest agreement with Cristiano Ronaldo.

Ronaldo had an image rights agreement with the club, but that was affected when he launched his CR7 range.

Rooney, who is already contracted to United’s shirt sponsor Nike, will be far easier to tie up.

There is an eagerness at United to seal an agreement before the World Cup where Rooney seems certain to emerge as one of the stars of the tournament – prompting an even greater demand from the biggest clubs around the world.