Did Paul Kagame Kill President Habyarimana?

As has always been the case, October 1, 2011 was meant to be just another day on Rwanda’s official calendar. The day meant to commemorate that audacious attempt when up to 50 gallant soldiers who in 1990, from bases in Uganda, attacked Rwanda, to try and get back to their motherland – a country most had hastily been forced to leave at a very young age or never been to.

But as Kigali prepared to let the day pass with as less pomp as has been the case over the years (notice that under the current regime October 1, has been celebrated with less ado), Theogene Rudasingwa, – a former Chief of Staff to President Paul Kagame, dropped a bombshell. In a statement released on his Facebook page, Rudasingwa (who it must be remembered is a former Rwandan ambassador to the United States) claimed that President Kagame not only is responsible for the death of Juvenal Habyarimana as he (Kagame) was the overall operations commander of the RPA at the time of the former president’s death, but that he (Kagame), “told me that he was responsible for shooting down the plane” – the plane in question here being the Falcon 50 jet (Reg No 9XR-NN) belonging to the Government of Rwanda and in which Presidents; Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi were travelling.

A powerful and indeed extra-ordinary revelation if you ask me. But before we go any further, let’s try to make sense of this claim.

When news about the claim started pouring out all over the internet, I tried contacting a few big shots I know in Rwanda to see if they would speak to me over this. Some did respond in an angry manner telling me to mind my own business and forget Rwanda. Others were dismissive of the news but one of them stood out. I will not say who but I can confirm he is a very senior official.  He did mention something which made me realise that I still have so much to learn about the dealings in Rwanda.

(Mr.) “Rudasingwa”, my source said “should not be taken serious because he is another deluded fool who like most of you and your ilk suffers from political excitement, excessive amnesia or perhaps the lack of it. You lot can continue to yap and yap but the truth remains that in Rwanda, we continue to match on. If indeed he was told by the president how about you ask him why it has taken him all this time to bring this out? And trust me he won’t have any answers to this. He is just someone who for reasons only known to him, and in part due to his greed, corruption and dishonesty fell out with the regime, and will now do anything to bring down what Rwandese have laboured to build, for years”.

I know most of this was a very hushed reaction to a statement that will and must be rubbing Kigali the wrong way but we cannot deny the fact that therein lies some good question – and until its answer has been found, Mr. Rudasingwa’s claim shall remain questionable. Yes, I say questionable but let’s not forget that questionable does not necessarily mean incorrect.

There are perhaps so many questions that Mr. Rudasingwa’s revelation will raise but one does stand out: Why now? The story of who actually downed the Falcon 50 and by so doing ended the lives of two presidents, and all on board including three French nationals has been running for over 17 years now. It has become part of Rwanda’s history although under the present circumstances, few will be learning about it in school (refer to the suspension of the teaching of Rwandan history in Rwandan schools). When Abdul Ruzibiza, first claimed to be privy to the actual shooting down of the said plane, Kigali reacted furiously. This was in 2006 and Mr. Rudasingwa was well in a position where he could, as he has now, added his voice to the hoarse groans of Ruzibiza. Imagine the reaction this would have received then? Imagine the amount of legitimacy this would have given the Ruzibiza testimony had a former Rwandan Ambassador to the US, and Secretary General of the RPF come out in support of the then less known former army Captain?

If we are to assume that Mr. Rudasingwa is right and that indeed President Kagame did confide to him that he (Kagame) had ordered the shooting down of the Falcon 5o, what happens next? What happens to the “details and facts” as gathered on the subject in the famous Mucyo Commission which after about 18 months of deliberation, research and inquiries, “established” that the idea of bringing down the plane “was the work of Hutu extremists who calculated that killing their own leader would torpedo a power‐sharing agreement known as the Arusha Accords?”

What happens to the French and Spanish indictments on members of the RPF and RDF which were partly based on Ruzibiza’s testimony? What happens to the new and revisited friendship between Rwanda and France who having severed relations over the indictments have since claimed to have buried the hatchet and agreed to work together “normally”?

And why did Mr. Rudasingwa choose to release his statement on a day which as a former comrade in the Rwandan army and by all accounts a historical, meant to commemorate the first attempt by Rwandan refugees and exiles to go back to their motherland? Is he so gullible not to have realised what attention this was bound to cause?

And what of Kigali? Usually, they come up in arms against any statement, news story or sound bite that is critical or contrary to the idea of praising the country’s achievements over the years. This time however, some four days after the sensational claim, we are yet to hear even a word from Kigali. Could the silence be a result of having had enough or is it a sign of admission knowing who Mr. Rudasingwa is or has previously been? Is it that they feel Mr. Rudasingwa has become so unbelievable that few will take notice of what he has to say? Or are they having been startled by the bombshell, planning a more measured rebuttal? Could it be that their main men at Racepoint are on holiday and thus until one reports to duty, Kigali has chosen to stay silent? Or is it a case of self censorship as has become the norm in Rwandan media?

If it turns out that what took the Mucyo Commission 18 months and about 166 witnesses to establish could have been unearthed by a single phone call or email to one of Rwanda’s former Ambassador, does the government get to pay the tax payer back for having “wasted” state resources and money on an inquiry whose results might have been got rather cheaply with the right people being questioned?

It remains to be seen why Mr. Rudasingwa chose Facebook to announce what clearly remains an astonishing revelation if indeed it is true. Rwanda is an oral society. In Rwanda the word of mouth is what matters. There is every possibility that what remains in terms of proof that President Kagame did indeed confess to having ordered the shooting down of the Falcon 50 is just Rudasingwa’s word. While this is hardly any hard evidence will most likely be inadmissible in most court rooms (especially international tribunals where if anything the case against Kagame might go) it does leave the suggestion – and based on how Rwandan courts or public inquiries conduct their business – that Kagame might at some point in the future be brought to book in Rwanda. What happens then if as a former head of state he is found to have been responsible for the downing of the plane? Remember as an oral society, the inquiry, or trial if any will just like the Mucyo Commission have to be based on witness testimonies most of whom will be saying such things as “I was told”, “I saw”.

Remember too that there are people who claim that it was the shooting down of the plane which caused the genocide (Kigali calls these negationists or where it suits, genocide deniers). I call them liars. Whereas an argument can be made that the shooting down of the plane did spark the genocide just like the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand is said to have sparked World War I, in my opinion, one loses the plot by claiming that without the downing of the plane, the genocide would never have happened. No. From my discussions with a few Rwandans (depending on how extreme or pro a given ethnicity those you speak to may be) I have come to realise that the role of the plane in the Rwandan story remains very contentious and a point of departure to some as far as our country’s history is concerned.

This is why whoever has something to say about the plane, who shot the plane and what the plane shooting led to must do so with caution and most importantly with facts based on tangible evidence. I wrote some months ago about the Habyalimana death which continues to haunt Rwanda. I argued then that it is crucial that the truth is established once and for all. The truth regarding the events leading to the shooting down of the plane. When the Mucyo Commission report was published in August 2008, some in Rwanda hoped and believed that the report findings would put to rest what clearly has been a protracted saga/story. It didn’t. And part of the reason it did not is because it is only believable depending on which side of the story one wants to be. Given that Rwandans are people who over the years have decided to be on select sides while acknowledging in public that we are on the same side, this is and was never surprising.

This is why I think and believe that Mr. Rudasingwa, if anything must substantiate his claims. He must be willing to present himself to a credible judge, at a credible court and give his statement under oath – if he duly and clearly believes it. Then let justice follow its course. As it stands, his is another of those extra ordinary claims that we have come to regard as part of the Rwandan story. These days, it is even difficult to know which is which. Lt. Gen Kayumba Nyamwasa and Col. Patrick Karegeya escape and flee for dear life and the next thing we hear is that Kayumba used to be a thief who stole soldiers money and tractor spare parts, that Karegeya was untrustworthy and made a deal with Felicien Kabuga (Rwanda’s most wanted fugitive). Really? And we are told these by some leading public officials within the establishment in Kigali. Are we really to believe that Gen. Kayumba stole tractor spare parts and fertilizers? That Col Karegeya (under whose watch Rwanda had the best intelligence system in Africa) was a deceitful man – and that their (Karegeya and Kayumba’s ) story came to light after they had fled the current regime? My source did ask to ask Rudasingwa why he decided to come out this late. I probably should ask him why his government’s spin masters, only decided to come out on Col. Karegeya and Gen. Kayumba and by the way Maj. Rudasingwa, after the two had long left Kigali?

For those who have previously read Animal Farm, you will recall that at the end of the day, long after the animals had taken over the stewardship of Manor Farm from MAN, most could not believe the tyranny of some PIGS. They looked from pig to man, from man to pig and from pig to man again – it was impossible to tell which was which. There will be some Rwandans and peace loving people out there today who quite frankly must too be looking and looking and until some of the questions I raise above have been answered, they will continue to find it impossible to tell which is which.

Over to you my little monsters…

Big Spending Rwanda Imports, Exports and Re-Imports Executive Jets While on Aid Drip

It seems like a story that wont just go away. Impoverished Rwanda may have splurged on two expensive jets as a means to cut the cost of transporting President Paul Kagame to and from his numerous trips around the world but as Rwandese and indeed the world grapples with the news of how big a hole the jets drilled and continue to drill in the state treasury, news that one of the jets – Global Express ZS-ESA – was exported and then re-imported into South Africa adds a few questions to an already swollen questionnaire.

Details on a South African Civil Aviation Authority document show that on January 6, 2011, Repli Investment No 29 (PTY) Ltd, the South African registered company (co owned by Paul Nyirubutama, Paul Manasseh Nshuti and Sekoko Hatari) and to which ownership of the controversial jets has since been attributed, exported the Bombardier Aerospace BD700-1A10, only to re-import it 20 days later. Such obviously would seem to have been a very costly exercise given that it will have attracted duties from the revenue office as well as value added tax.

Efforts to try and get the details from the South Africa Revenue office were unsuccessful although they did return one email saying “they do not discuss individual transactions”. Whatever the case, the amount will have been sizeable given that South Africa charges an average of 20% as duty with VAT at 14%.

Rwanda and indeed Repli refuses to confirm how much was exactly paid for each of the two executive jets although estimates going by the market rate have put the cost of each at approximately $50 million. It would appear that up to $14 million worth of VAT alone might have been paid on one jet when it was exported and then re-imported.

A source in Kigali confirmed that indeed there had been a re-importation because “first somehow, someone believed that the delivered jet was not up to the agreed standard but also because there was a disagreement as to its interior design. A bit bizzare for a jet to be returned at such an expense but as this very source added, “the trouble was that there was a certain standard was needed and there was obviously someone who wasn’t particularly happy with the delivery. Plus remember these were jets which meant not only to transport the head of state but some notable VVIPs. Those incharge wanted the best value for the money”.

Value for the money indeed. And who can fault them. Considering that most private jets cost between $6 – 50 million, at 50, the Bombardier is among the best there is. If only the payment had not been drawn from state coffers. In a March 7, 2010 letter to the South African Times, Jean Paul Nyirubutama, the Counsellor in the High Commission of Rwanda, denied the jets were owned by the Rwandan government (or indeed President Kagame as many believe). Nyirubutama insisted “investments towards the ownership of the aircraft were made by private Rwandan interests and not by the government”. Very questionable indeed if you consider that three of the assumed owners had until then remained unknown businessmen in Rwanda. A friend of mine laughed one time when I told him that a group of three Rwandan businessmen were behind the purchase of the jets.

Apart from Sekoko Hatari, the other two have been and remain public servants. Many remember them as having and still being not as established to secure millions of dollars to purchase the executive jets “and that is even if it involved obtaining a loan,” one source added. “Tell me where would a man like Nshuti get the collateral to stake for any bank to give him or his business partners over 5 million dollars leave alone 100 million. I will not be fooled into believing this hogwash. It is a lie and the real owner must be having a laugh as these pawns take the heat. It is crazy, it is crazy Akanga.”

And you do not have to go far to see some sense in what this source was trying to say. Conducting big time business in Rwanda is as easy as conducting business in Italy. But whereas in the latter you have to have the blessing of Silvio, in the former, you must be willing to sacrifice for Kagame. It is that simple.

Many have been in this position before. Those who have successfully conducted big business in Kigali are the ones who have allowed the ruling party (read RPF under Tristar) to be part of their businesses. Either that or there is no business. Of course the government insists there is more to doing business in Rwanda than just knowing the right people – or being close to the main man – and in fact Rwanda has on two occasions posted some good scores with the World Bank business index for the favourable place to invest (thanks to the extensive PR courtesy of Racepoint et al). It has been projected and sold as the place where it takes less time to start up a business than it takes to secure a meeting with a high ranking minister.

What those details never tell you though is that in reality the opposite is true. Rwanda is also a place where it takes probably the exact same time to have your business crippled or plan squeezed. Local entrepreneurs will attest to this. Ask any government official why there still is only one  television station in the country 17 years after the genocide. The answer is a typical one – “remember the role of the media in our history?”. They will never tell you that on three occasions the government has been approached by sane investors (clearly different from the crazy Hasan Ngezes of yesteryear) and on three occasions the truth has been that the demands in terms of shares to the ruling party have been astronomically anti-business leave alone media independence.

But before I meander into the beatitudes of the incredible business climate that is Rwanda, I wonder if any of the many defenders of the regime in Kigali will at least come clean here once and for all on how much the two jets are costing us as a nation and whether there is a system in place to ensure that whatever was spent to satisfy the demands of our dear head of state. Some will say there is need for concern given that even with the jets story and furore it caused last year, monsieur PK has a year later chosen again to spend like a Saudi Prince, and again from our coffers, spending an imperious $20,000 a nigh suite in one of New York’s finest hotels. Will someone at least remind him that some of his people are struggling to raise enough for the brilliant Mituele, or even buy uniforms for their sons and daughters to attend his much publicised UPE schools, deep down in the village.

Hands Off Please, President Kagame is a Magnate

I live in London, in a modest one bedroom flat. Each month, I painfully transfer £620.75p to my landlord so he can let me stay. I have never stopped telling myself that this is a lot of money. A lot indeed considering that for the same amount, I could get a five bedroom detached and gated house, with a big garden, a swimming pool and a tennis court in one of the plush neighbourhoods back home. The good news is that I am paying this from my own account.

For now, I will whine and whinge but I must continue to work my socks off if I am to remain resident in my present address. I am also energized by the belief that as a student, life will get easier once I am done with my studies. Then, I so hope, to start earning more, and possibly buy myself a house.

But why all this rent and bills nonsense? You see as a Rwandan student who has been struggling all year around with my tuition, accommodation and food, I was shocked to learn that just this week my president travelled to the US for a UN meeting and spent £12,000 a night on a hotel room. It might have begun as a rumour but the thought of a man who in August 2010 was voted into power by an electorate 60 percent of which according to UNDP live in poverty (and 42 percent in absolute poverty) splashing out on luxury while on a foreign mission is yet to sink in.

When news first broke that President Kagame ( who many still praise for using aid money so effectively and being a down to earth head of state) was living in an expensive presidential suite at the luxurious Mandarin Oriental, those with a highly bent inclination to the regime in Kigali rejected the news as “utter tabloid gossip”. I remained sceptical but was never surprised. With African heads of state, anything is possible and one should never rule out anything unless they are absolutely sure.

Now that the hitherto rumour has been confirmed to be indeed the truth, I await the Rwandan government explanation as to the reasons behind this reckless expenditure. Four times I have tried to get in touch with those in the know in Kigali and no one wants to speak. Not even my most trusted source. An email to an old trusted general yesterday over the matter elicited a response akin to the kind you would expect from a chicken thief who’s been caught red handed drinking from the neighbour’s alcohol pot. “Hands off please”.

The news that the president of a begging state managed to sleep in a hotel which even the British PM (even though the UK might have afforded) thought expensive, will continue to astonish the world but as we await an inquiry into the Mandarin Oriental spree (accountability) questions must be asked as to whether our leaders are worth what they claim to stand for.

There is more to President Kagame than just the tough talking strict disciplinarian he has been portrayed as. While his peers in East Africa were being ostracised for spending fortunes on extravagant presidential motorcades and SUVs, Kagame’s admirers pointed to his well managed small convoy (usually consisting of his car, two land cruisers carrying his body guards and a third vehicle clearing traffic). However, the same man who on the face of it appears to be modest and down to earth, not so interested in a pomp lifestyle akin to most heads of states in Africa, was discovered to have spent more than 100 million dollars purchasing two executive jets – which he continues to use to ferry him for all his trips to and from Europe and the Americas.

No one denies the fact that presidents must and ought to be protected. In the case of Rwanda where the position of the president reigns supreme, and given the country’s history, one might understand the need to ensure that the head of state stays safe and well. And if the protection can be only achieved through hiring and residing in a safe hotel, then so be it. But such protection must be within a certain context, reasonable and some will say, necessary. If President Kagame had for example been visiting Kabul or Mogadishu where as we know security concerns are high one might understand the need to hire or reside at an expensive hotel. But this was the US. Many will say, one of the safest countries in the world. American authorities including the FBI and CIA will have known in advance that dignitaries from all over the world were coming to stay so you can rest assured their security was granted.

It will have been safe to stay in any of the good hotels around, just like some other heads of state or prime ministers did and  not necessarily the most expensive there was. A more modest hotel room of say £3000 would have done just fine. While it still would have been four months worth of my rent and enough to cater for a year’s Universal Primary Education tuition for 3000 Rwandan children, it would have been reasonable.

But does it really matter if a sitting head of state from a poor developing country decides to splash out on a trip out of his land? Should we really care that President Kagame while on a trip to the US suddenly decides to literally “sleep and eat like a queen or King”?

Some have argued that the president may have been outrageous with his hotel bill but we should not forget the fact that he was also in the US to solicit some business and investment for Rwanda. Indeed one outrageous argument was advanced just yesterday that the US trip followed the French trip from which Kagame raised close to 3o million Euros in investments and grants to Rwanda. The idea being that with all this money raised, £12,000 on a room should not be seen as a bad move. I wont say this sort of reasoning is stupid because it is.

As an offender, Kagame is entitled to a defence but this sort of defence is utterly out of order. First it negates the fact that this is not about where Kagame stayed but how much he paid to stay there and whether this was the best option possible. Secondly, it assumes that the money raised was for Kagame and therfore he had authority over it forgetting the fact that the aid advanced or grants given were forwarded to Rwanda as a State not its head of state.

I am not sure the government will want to get to the bottom of this but I wish those in charge could. If it was to turn out for example that PK footed the £12,000 – a night hotel bill from his own pocket, then like myself and my rent, he can sit down and hope for the same next time or even better if he works hard and earns more. Otherwise events in New York have only helped heap more scorn and ridicule to an exposed dancer whose moves people were already beginning to doubt. Someone had better call Racepoint. Over to you my little monsters…

Of Rwanda and the coveted image

By Eleneus Akanga

Writing August 3, in The Guardian, another of UK’s newspapers I regard highly, Robert Booth exposes yet another of those rambling defences that the regime in Kigali now considers part of the lingua-franca. One, of a nation which under President Paul Kagame has managed to develop, foster unity and completely re-invent itself 16 years after it was torn apart by the genocide.

Rwanda under Kagame continues to fascinate. You have a leader, who has managed to silence all opposition, crack down heavily on free press and dissent despite ushering in a period of economic progress and prosperity (at least for some) but he never gets any criticism from leading nations like the US or the UK.

Well, if you have been wondering why Kigali gets away with accusations of state terror, violation of human rights, suspected journalist killings, sham elections or serious concerns about the level of political freedom, here is the answer. According to The Guardian, a London PR firm Racepoint , hired by our dear head of state himself, is in control.

When I wrote the other day about the gutter that is The New Times, a few people wondered why I was so dismissive of my own national newspaper, some even reminding me that I mustn’t trash TNT so much as it is where I began my career. Well, they were right, why trash an organisation that gave you a chance. While it would be humane for me not to bin The New Times for the opportunity it gave me, it would be suicidal on my part as a journalist to knowingly not tell the truth. By questioning why Rwanda spends millions on adverts in foreign papers or why Kagame always chooses foreign media when giving interviews instead of our own newspapers, I was only trying to point to the fact that The New Times is not taken seriously even by the people it serves. And if Paul Kagame, the man who and whose government The New Times has pampered since 1998 does not think it is worth giving an interview, why not say the truth?

But this is not the point today. Publicity is good.  Make no mistake; Rwanda needed some great publicity after what happened in 1994. I know of people in Europe who still know of Rwanda from the movie Hotel Rwanda. And so often, I have had to explain that the genocide ended some 17 years ago. Good publicity has helped revamp our tourism industry which, it has to be said, remains our highest foreign exchange earner to-date.

But if this publicity is going to come at the expense of the truth about the country’s democratic path, facts about free speech and press freedom or the exact truthful experiences of the local Rwandan, I rather we don’t get it. There is coming to London to look for a good PR firm to help you get recognised and known world wide, this I agree with, but when such trips, are made with the sole aim of striking deals aimed at promoting spin and lies about the real experiences in Rwanda from the Rwandans up and down the country who wish they could have some bread on the table and are not sure what tomorrow holds, then it becomes highly questionable that the taxpayer should foot the bill.

President Kagame is free to become a dictator if he chooses to but he must not forget that Rwandans reserve the right to demand he explains why he is leading the country dangerously to the brink with his reclusive and iron-fisted approach to leadership.  And if he or those working for him have no moral authority to explain this to the masses choosing instead to employ the services of spin masters in London and at ludicrously high prices, then that is betrayal.

It is clear who Kagame wants to hear his music. Like one of the PR moguls put it in Robert Booth’s piece, “If you are managing a client’s reputation, whether individual, company or country, it is the Anglo-Saxon media that matters and particularly the London-based media,” said Ivo Gabara. And you would not have to search far to see why Rwanda is keen at spending so much in London for image rights.

Rwanda received £70 million from the UK last year and as Kagame prepares to assume another seven-year term on Tuesday August 10, he can look forward to another cool £56 million from London this year. And if Racepoint is there to help advance a spin that will blind London and Washington from seeing that this is a gentleman whose government refused opposition candidates to register, has successfully outlawed dissent, banned independent media from operating in the country, persecuted critical journalists and above all spent an astonishing $100 million on two executive jets when 60 percent of the locals are classed by the UN as living below the poverty line, why not pay millions of this free money to those who help you gain it?

There is probably not much the West can do given the power of Paul Kagame’s public relations machinery ironically financed wholly by their (West) free money. But besides reading and following the choreographed stories in these London or Washington publications planted by the lobbyists at Racepoint and others like it, the West might want to borrow a leaf from researchers and Rwandese themselves who at least know what is going on.

And like Susan Thomson pointed out, there are three things that donors (development partners as Kagame calls them) can do to encourage him to create a more open and peaceful culture after his re-election on Monday.

“First is to question the government’s ability to manage Rwanda’s natural resources its people and its land.

“Second is to encourage open dialogue and a culture of constructive criticism and debate about government policies amongst the political class.

“Third is to encourage Kagame to engage the diverse political views of the Rwandan Diaspora”.

From me, it is congratulations President elect Paul Kagame on your second term as Rwanda’s head of state. You may have won confortably but surely events in this year’s campaign will have proved to you that freedom is not divisible. The tighter you control the tenets of democracy, the more it is going to be harder to loosen it once that time you so keenly talk about comes. Silence is a bad thing, and just because people are silent does not mean they are contented.

Over to you my little monsters…