Tag: Victoire Ingabire

Paul Kagame and the politics of prison in Rwanda

You have probably heard the news. A few weeks ago, President Paul Kagame sanctioned the release of 2,140 prisoners in an apparent act of kindness.

There has been no official communication as to the disaggregation but a cursory look at the story so far points to a multitude of petty thieves, innocent folk – who should never have been in prison in the first place, and of course, the often-cited two political prisoners in Ms Victoire Ingabire and Kizito Mihigo.

As expected, Rwanda insists that none of those released is a political prisoner. How can they be, they say! To Kagame and his government, these are wrongdoers who deserved to be in jail and were inside legally. In fact, as far as the government is concerned, the freed prisoners should count their blessings for being out. It followed a suggestion earlier by one of the released that they had not sought pardon. The other day, whilst presiding over the swearing ceremony of Rwanda’s newest Members of Parliament, Mr. Kagame warned the government would not hesitate to return to jail, anyone who is perceived to not be towing the line. “If you keep acting like that, you may find yourself back there,” he said. It would appear that unknown to most, their release came with some strict rules against speaking out on how and why they were released. Incredible!

To Kagame: “In Rwanda, it is not pressure we respond to, it is our own thoughts. Where this country came from, we have learned that we must refuse to be a submissive people.” Contradictory, right? In one sense, Mr Kagame appeared to be appealing to Rwandans to not be submissive whilst asking them to submit to him at the same time. Independent thought is great and it must be promoted he seemed to say, but not when it is questioning my actions.

There is of course a reason for this. Mr. Kagame and his government would have preferred the story to focus on him and his act of compassion. He did not expect the headlines to be dominated by the story that Rwanda had released thousands of prisoners including two political prisoners. More than twenty years on, Kagame still sees himself as the only hero worth of praise when it comes to anything Rwandan. After all, he is the president. Not only that, he is the man whose forces stopped the genocide as the entire world looked on complicit or unwilling to help. That the international media chose to lead with the political prisoners angle instead of his act of compassion infuriated him. He had to make himself clear. You may be free but you all remain free because I so wish. Either you tow the line or you will be back to jail.

In Kagame’s Rwanda, prison has become a powerful symbol of power. A hammer with which to settle scores, against enemies real or perceived. A tool for clipping the heads of those with grand ambitions, be it in politics or in business. Those who have dared to challenge Kagame have either found themselves in jail or threatened with a trip there. Those less fortunate have been murdered or disappeared. Of course, like any country, Rwanda has criminals and wrongdoers and given its most recent history, it has people who deserve to be in jail. It is however a matter of fact, that post-genocide Rwanda continues to excellently use prison as a political tool.

I was there on Friday 6 April 2007, when Pasteur Bizimungu, Rwanda’s first post-genocide president was released midway through his 15-year sentence for inciting ethnic hatred. As with, Ingabire and Kizito, his release was communicated to a section of the media before hand. Having turned up to see him released, we were hoping he would share his thoughts with us. But a frail and visibly shaken Bizimungu only had a few words to say ” I want to thank the president for the pardon he has given”. Before adding: “It has taken me by surprise”. With that, Mr Bizimungu who said he felt very tired, was whisked away in a waiting Landrover Defender to an unknown location in Kigali and we have not heard from him since. Incredible, right?

As with Bizimungu, Ingabire’s statement upon coming out of prison was quite similar: “I thank the president who gave me this liberation,” she said as she spoke to the press after leaving Mageragere Prison in Kigali. The haste was apparent as journalists prepared to ask further questions. Before she could be ushered away, she was allowed one more question to which she answered: “This is the beginning of the opening of political space in Rwanda, I hope so.” That second question and Ingabire’s subsequent answer are crucial. Crucial in the sense that they revealed exactly how she felt. She may have been hoping, but the fact that she was willing to say something political immediately after her release says a lot about the type of politician she is.

In 2007, I was fortunate to interview Ms Ingabire shortly after I fled Rwanda. At the time, she was still in the Netherlands preparing to travel to Rwanda. Like many, I thought this was a dangerous endeavour but she was adamant she would go. She came through as an intelligent young mother, well aware of the dangers but prepared nonetheless to make the trip for a cause she believed in. I have interviewed a few politicians in Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda and very few have shown the kind of charisma I saw in Ingabire. It remains to be seen whether Kagame will let Ingabire be. Unlike most African politicians, she is no career politician. She genuinely believes that Rwanda and Rwandans can do even better. While I am glad she is finally out of prison, I hope that Kagame can find a way of working with her as she definitely has a role to play in Rwanda’s political dispensation.

It would of course be disingenuous to dismiss the importance of a presidential pardon, especially in the context of Rwanda’s recent history. As president Kagame himself rightly said, “if we did not give clemency, how many people would still be in prison?”. Without such schemes, thousands of Rwandans will be languishing in jail. The prerogative to pardon has seen many people reunited with their loved ones, improved community relations, and is ultimately helping with the healing process. Mr. Kagame must now learn to accept that he does not have to be the hero every time. Neither does he have to hog the headlines. As president, he must find it within himself to let people be. Dissent is healthy as long as it is conducted within the confines of the law. He must resist the temptation of using prison and the threat of prison as instruments for submission. As a bonafide christian, he would do well learning from Jesus’s sermon on the mount: not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing. It is one thing extending a pardon, but the true measure of forgiveness is how the forgiving part gets on with the forgiven.

How many people must Rwanda lose? Bizimungu currently lives in a sorry state. As a former head of state, there is much he could be offering to support the development of this country. Freeing 2140 is fantastic, it would be even great if all political prisoners, currently serving time in Rwandan prisons across the country, were freed. Diane Rwigara, Adeline Rwigara, Théophile Ntirutwa, Léonille Gasengayire and others come to mind.

Over to you Mr President!

Victoire Ingabire And Why I Love Political Cases

Her supporters insist she is “Rwanda’s Aung San Suu Kyi”. Others know her as the “messiah who having returned to flee Rwandans from President Paul Kagame’s tyranny”, was arrested – first on tramped up charges, put under house arrest, provisionally released only to be arrested days later and charged with promoting ethnic divisionism, propagating genocide ideology and trivilaising the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis.

A very heavy charge sheet if you ask me but is it really? In case you missed it, this was on April 21, 2010. Some two years later, the prosecution is still looking for evidence. Never mind too that this is a case which first a prosecutor and later the president were both quoted saying that there was enough evidence to convict her on almost all the charges.

To her supporters and perhaps those who have been following the case closely, it was not surprising learning that Ms Ingabire’s case was adjourned yet again, today as her defence team asked for time to review some fresh evidence provided by prosecution. One can only assume that the new evidence reportedly obtained from the Netherlands by the prosecution was availed to the defence on the eleventh minute as a strategic move to catch them off guard for why else would the same people who not long ago (in the same case) complained of not being given enough time by the defence, fall in the same trap?

Some commentators have branded this a political trial. And you can not fail to see why. Between April 2010 and February 2012, this case has been itemised with numerous postponements. It has become a cat and mouse case. When prosecution has not requested time to solicit and submit new evidence, the defence has sought for time to examine and look at the freshly presented evidence. Such requests of course do take time and amidst this quandary, the defendant continues her incarceration.

Add to this the challenges which will come in the form of checks on procedure – issues  such as; does the High Court have jurisdiction to try the accused for acts or omissions amounting to genocide ideology given that the evidence against her is based on say comments made prior to the publication of Law N° 18/2008 of 23 July 2008 in the Official Gazette on 15 October 2008? Does the same Court have jurisdiction to try the accused for any act or omission which the Prosecutor suggests amounts to complicity in terrorist acts done prior to the publication of Law N° 45/2008 of 9 September 2008 in the Official Gazette on 6 April 2009? Or even still, can she be tried for acts done outside Rwanda?

And assuming a solution to all this is finally found, what happens to the literature that has been written or said about this case be it from political commentators, newsletters, blogs and sometimes political party websites?

While it is easy to explain or understand the reasons behind the protracted nature of this case, it remains in the government’s interest to quickly bring this case to trial. The more it drags on, the more the interest (both local and international). Not only will this put the Rwandan judiciary on the spot, it will also require that the prosecutor be sure he has what it takes. This of course means he must be willing to allow for the defence to examine and where witnesses are provided, agree to their cross examination.

And given the nature of this case, never mind the trajectory it has been taking since Ingabire first appeared in court, all eyes will be wide open. Alas to whoever bungles. No one said this was easy. I might be apolitical but like in that other Mc Donald advert “I am loving this”.

…over to you little monsters!

Is Rwanda Losing What It Has Gained Since 1994?

By Eleneus Akanga (reposted)

The script most of the world has about Rwanda is of a nation on the verge of losing what it has gained since 1994. Not surprising. Sixteen years ago, Rwanda, many will agree looked a complete write off. The mess that was the genocide had left the country on its bare minimum, with no clean water, no hospitals, no justice system or infrastructure and a people who saw themselves as either victims or perpetrators.

So much needed fixing. The marauding Interahamwe had been defeated, the killings halted and a new government promised so much in terms of development and getting the country back on track. At the centre of all this, a certain Maj. Gen Paul Kagame, was pulling the strings. After successfully leading the force that took over Kigali, he embarked on forming an inclusive government, with the aim of uniting Rwandans. Not to credit him for trying or at least for the economic progress that Rwanda has witnessed during this period, would be unfair.

There is going to be the argument about the time spent in power. People can rightly argue that he has had so much time to do what he has done, and that with as much aid that Rwanda has received during his tenure, any fit-for-purpose human being would have performed.

This may be true but you still would have needed someone with character. While President Kagame has the character, has had the luck, agility and steady fastness, he truly is no saint. So often, he has been discovered as wanting in statesmanship, democracy and ability to engage perceived enemies.

Mr. Kagame is from the school of thought who consider dissent as being irrational, uncalled for, and therefore, something which must be fought. To Kagame, leaders are meant to be respected and any divergent views must be expressed directly through stipulated channels (in most cases, composed of his most trusted lieutenants) and on which he has ultimate control. In doing so, he has centralised power, creating or promoting a circle of top trusted friends, who many see as the inner circle, that is out to make or break Rwanda. Remember, this is a government, which accused their predecessors of promoting the infamous “Akazu” a top circle grouping of Juvenile Habyalimana’s trusted cadres, believed to have executed the genocide.

So, when Hilary Clinton, says that “We really don’t want to see Rwanda undermine its own remarkable progress by beginning to move away from a lot of the very positive actions that undergirded its development so effectively,” she has a point.

Culture of Silence

Rwanda’s problem has been and continues to be the inexplicable silence embraced by her citizens who despite having mixed feelings about what is going on inside their country choose to either pretend that everything is right, or keep numb about all. Silence in Rwanda, is a virtue. Anything said, risks being misinterpreted for the bad and after years of experience, Rwandans have learnt to gag themselves, or control their speech. It is a culture not only of silence but self censorship as well.

While silence insulates some of the prevalent anger from some members of society at say such things as governance issues, imbalance in power, lack of political space or a not very fair policy, some say, on unity and reconciliation, it encourages pretence. In Rwanda today, there are people who believe that the government should have borrowed a leaf from South Africa’s handling of apartheid, when dealing with genocide and its effects. But because such rhetoric risks being interpreted as a way of inciting public anger, a possible crime under the genocide ideology law, many choose to stay silent and instead moan about it to friends and relatives under closed doors. The government then, gets the feeling that the policy is working when in actual fact, it is the silence and the fear of persecution or being wrongly misinterpreted, which are keeping argument, at bay.

Normally, when members of the public are so afraid to speak out, the onus falls on the media to express people’s views. But the media in Rwanda remains dysfunctional. Weeks after a critical journalist was shot under circumstances that we may never establish, another, Saidati Mukakibibi, has been arrested for comparing Kagame to Hitler. The state maintains her writings would have incited public disorder and promoted divisionism. I asked a government minister if Kagame has become so incomparable that trying to find a comparison amounts to a criminal offence. On top of insisting that I don’t quote him, the minister believes “the police should not have over reacted to someone’s personal opinion although the president deserves respect”. Hitler, the minister added, “can not be the best comparison you can have”.

If Hitler is worse a comparison, then who is, I asked?  He hung up before answering. My chat with the minister goes to explain what many struggle to see with Rwandan politics. In Rwanda, you either, dance to the melody of “Kagame is Lord”, “the best we ever had” and keep your bread, or challenge his views and risk being done for either corruption, genocide or immorality. If a minister finds it hard speaking to journalists, even when he is giving a plain statement, imagine how it must feel being a local and standing out to challenge the establishment, inside Rwanda?

Is there hope?

A friend of mine asked me this particular question the other day on Facebook. While I believe in hope being abundant, I know it takes some convincing to tell people it is there when you have pregnant mothers being imprisoned for attending peaceful demonstrations, opposition party members like Bernard Ntaganda, the founder president of PS-Imberakuri being denied their constitutional right to bail and some opposition party activists simply disappearing, as in the case Andrew Kagwa Rwisereka of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

The future looks not so clear and I am sure there are so many Rwandans out there, who would love to see Clinton, demand freedoms from Rwanda’s iron man, instead of meandering around diplomatic language and deploring the fact that Rwanda is in danger of losing what it has gained since 1994.

America, just like other Western countries should rethink their relationship with Mr. Kagame, not for his sake but that of democracy and Rwandans.  Like Timothy Kalyegira put it the other day, for all the fine wine, decorations and music at a wedding party, it is resolving differences, balancing needs and compromises that are the core of a marriage.

Over to you my little monsters…

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…

Rwandans; Is Kagame willing to give power to You?

By Eleneus Akanga

The planning had been as meticulous as the voting that preceded this event. Having successfully come through as winner of the predictable presidential election on August 9, this was a day Kagame and his supporters knew was coming. And boy, did they plan.

After all, Kigali is known for its pristine and tidy streets, so most of their job was already cut. A few decorations here and there and everything would be in motion. People were asked to turn up in numbers and business in the city, especially near the national stadium came to a standstill. If you did not make it to the stadium due to heavy security or venue capacity limits, you had no reason not to stay at home and watch it on national television. Giant screens were erected around for those that would claim they did not have televisions at home.

Somewhere across town, the cult figure that is Paul Kagame prepared to cut his cake and serve it, as dignitaries from far and near, ensconced themselves in comfy seats, waiting to witness history. Oh yes, history! History because not long, someone would stand in their midst, take his oath and become the first ever head of state to assume a second seven year term in office. To put this in context, that is 2 years short of 3 presidential terms in any of his neighbouring countries and 2 years short of a possible 4 American Presidents, assuming each served only one term, or 2 if each served the legally accepted 2 terms.

This was a day that had come right on the heels of mounting pressure on Kigali. Pressure – resulting from heavy criticism of a regime and government that the guest of honour understands as being on the right path. If there was going to ever be an opportunity for President Kagame to put one past his critics or for Kigali to express how confused and angry it is at those who continue to question its style of leadership, his overall judgement, or his role in the politics of the region, this was it.

And he took the invite it with open arms. “It is difficult for us to comprehend those who want to give us lessons on inclusion, tolerance and human rights. We reject all their accusations. Self-proclaimed critics of Rwanda may say what they want, but they will neither dictate the direction we take as a nation, nor will they make a dent in our quest for self determination,” he roared.

With his face grimacing in what some will have viewed as fear as opposed to his cowboy seriousness, the one time member of Africa’s new brood of leaders continued:

“These external actors turn around and promote the dangerous ideas of those who have fallen out with the system; ignoring the choices of the majority of our people … it is evidence of hypocrisy and a patronizing attitude towards our entire continent”.

For all his greatness and his one time grand vision for the country, President Kagame remains a peculiar character. For reasons well known to him, he views critics as self styled. He has never understood or blatantly chooses to ignore that critics are what any one needs to be perfect. He has this feeling that for some weird reason or a deliberate sort of raison d’être, certain people hate him and his people. And he can’t stand these critics leave alone the thought of getting lessons from them.

As someone who is understood to have brought an end to the genocide (some contest this), Kagame would rather he earned maximum praise. He sees Rwanda as his brain child, a nation which needs him so badly, that without him, it would extinguish away in flames. He also sees the world, as gradually ganging up against him by siding with or lending a few ears to his critics. And for this he wants a fight.

The Kagame we saw today is the Kagame we saw some 3 years ago in front of dignitaries at then Hotel Intercontinental, chastising and directly telling off dignitaries most notably the French ambassador to Rwanda at the time for his country’s decision to prosecute some of his men. Now, fighting for fellow countrymen is a sign of solidarity, but this fight has got to be both reasonable and appropriate. President Kagame needs to know that sometimes, over reaction, can come through either as a sign of guilt or weakness.

While I understand his anger and his desire to put his point across, I am not overly convinced that he has to use his swearing in ceremony to moralize his beatitudes.  Anyone would be angry. Everyone human would be so angry if after years of innocence, their army as well as their person suddenly stood accused of crimes against humanity – especially by an organisation they themselves accuse of folding its arms against them when they needed help. Angry rhetoric is no solution. While it may help send a clear message to your accuser to expect a tough fight, like I said before, it risks creating the impression that the noisemaker is wary of something.

Mr. President, everyone remembers how easily you swept through the election, winning 93 percent of the vote. We know too that according to you, dependency on aid and not the lack of democracy is Africa’s major problem. Is it not fair that after all these years in power, you should return power to the people as provided for in the constitution, decentralise power and provide for free speech and press freedom. And that way, “we the people” can have a proper debate on the way forward for this wonderful nation that you so easily are tilting towards a dictatorship?

To Be or Not to Be; Is the story changing in Rwanda?

By Eleneus Akanga

Some things, you just can’t buy. You either have them in abundance or they are scarce and rare. Their abundance often scams recipients into comfort zones where everything is assumed constant until that time when supply becomes skewed.

Then, we start reacting differently. Some people blame their handlers while others choose to place all the blame on others. Yes, others because it is easier to blame someone else than take full responsibility ourselves.

Most Rwandese of my age have grown up to the story that 16 years ago, their countrymen took to the streets and villages killing fellow countrymen on a scale never witnessed anywhere in the world. In what we have known as the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Rwanda is said to have lost close to 1,000,000 people, mostly Tutsis and moderate Hutus when the Interahamwe militia went on rampage. And that it was the Rwandese Patriotic Army under current president Paul Kagame who brought this sad chapter to an end by taking over Kigali in July 1994.

President Paul Kagame has built his reputation on this very fact and his government has been systematic as they have been consistent, in pressing forward this version of the story. With ending the genocide under his belt, President Kagame has seen his image soar and has rightfully won a host of accolades for his overall performance as Rwanda’s head of state.

Many around the world including former US president Bill Clinton were not shy to refer to him as one of the best leaders Africa has seen. He was on all accounts, a man of great integrity, so highly regarded across the globe that 8 months ago, any criticism of his style of leadership or version of events –as happened in 1994 – was bound to be viewed as nothing but a disgruntled rant from naysayers.

Just last month, President Kagame’s government came under heavy criticism for stifling free speech when it suspended two local newspapers Umuvugizi and Umuseso in the run-up to presidential elections. Then as the world opened their eyes up for the apparent lack of democracy in a country that had a couple of months earlier suspended and refused a visa to a Human Rights Watch researcher for a discrepancy in visa documents, Rwanda refused to register the country’s only genuine opposition parties in FDU-Inkingi and Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

The coincidental shooting of Jean Leonard Rugambage the Umuvugizi editor whose publication happened at the time to be investigating the suspected assassination of Lt. Gen Kayumba Nyamwasa, a former army Chief of Staff in a foreign country and the murder of Andrew Kagwa Rwisereka, the vice chairman of the Greens did not help matters. Kigali and Kagame came under the spotlight.

But as bad press (or the truth) depending on how you look at it continued to come in, Kagame and his men tirelessly worked on his re-election. He pulled crowds each day on campaign rallies and as expected won comfortably with over 93 percent of the vote, giving him another seven year term.

For some time, the Rwandan story as told by the RPF and Kagame has stood unchallenged as we know it. Those who have dared question the official story have either been charged under the genocide law for negationism and genocide denial as with Victoire Ingabire, Bernard Ntaganda and a host of opposition party supporters arrested during a demonstration. American law Prof. Peter Erlinder had to endure a spell in a Kigali jail for expressing his opinions on what he thinks the Rwandan story should be.

But if the events in Rwanda in the run up to, during and after the elections have not provided the current government with something to really think about, the revelation that the national army may have committed crimes tantamount to genocide against Hutus in Congo will surely give everyone in government something to help argue.

A leaked report from the UN high commissioner for human rights says that after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Tutsi-led Rwandan troops and their rebel allies killed tens of thousands of members of the Hutu ethnic group inside the Congo.

If this is true, it brings into fore a hitherto untold version of the Rwandan story. It would appear that a government whose image has been created on bringing an end to the Rwandan genocide is the same government whose forces committed yet another.

According to the leaked report, “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 goes on to say the crimes committed by Rwandan forces amount to “crimes against humanity, war crimes, or even genocide.”

It is the heaviest ever statement ever written against the Rwandan government. We all remember how Kigali reacted three years ago when French Judge Jean Louis Bruguire issued arrest warrants for members of the Rwandan government; we remember too how the same government reacted when a Spanish judge accused Kagame and his men of atrocities. To think that Rwanda will let this go without a proper fight is akin to forgetting so easily, for if there is anything Kagame is so afraid of at this moment in time, it is a damning report showing or even suggesting complicity in an atrocity he has so effectively used against his enemies both real and purported.

Honey Moon Over?

Rwanda has long claimed it attacked Hutu camps in eastern Congo to pursue those responsible for the killings of over 800,000 Tutsis in the Rwandan genocide. But the report marks the first time the UN has accused Rwandan forces of deliberately attacking the tens of thousands of Hutu civilians who also had fled. For some time, Rwanda has received good coverage and good press from most western countries partly because Kagame was seen as a good chap to work with. Secondly the guilt of forsaking Rwanda in 1994 when she needed the international community’s help has curtailed the West’s moral ability to criticise the guy who is known largely for stopping the genocide.

No wonder Kigali was quick to dismiss the report. The country has threatened too, to withdraw any of its servicemen from UN peacekeeping missions if the report is published. Why threaten if you know you have nothing to do with what is alleged in the report? Either way, withdrawing troops would serve as testament that Rwanda is doing the right thing; there obviously would be no moral right for a country whose forces are genocide perpetrators to then go ahead keeping peace. Maintaining deployed troops in their designated locations will also bring into question whether accused troops should really continue in positions where they are paid for by an organisation in whose report they stand accused of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Way Out

I was speaking to one of the officials in Kigali yesterday and he seemed to agree that this is a very damning report. He however contends that it might help bring to into line, the possibility if there ever was, of the ruling RPF (majority of which are Tutsis) to sit down with Hutu representatives for an open debate that will seek to establish what actually happened.

He did not want to add any more voices to this assertion just like he asked me not to even think of quoting him. But even with such an open debate, the atrocities committed in Congo if proven to be true and linked to the Rwandan forces would call not only for open debates but successful convictions at the Hague.

I have even had my old friends in Kigali trash the report and instead heap the blame on the UN for in the first place; failing to pass UN Resolution 1706 that would have seen the organisation send more troops to Rwanda. It is one of those very old classic colonial thoughts where we Africans tend to easily refuse to accept responsibility and instead shift the blame to others. For, the question is not why the UN failed to send more troops but whether as a nation whose people had lived together and spoke the same language, we should have been involved in the kind of savagery that we found ourselves into before, during and now, after the genocide?

Over to you my little monsters…

Should We Run and Hide now That Kagame is President?

By Eleneus Akanga

There are those who believe the presidential election in Rwanda was nothing else but an illegitimate consecration of President Paul Kagame. There even are some who did refer to the election as a “selection with no choice given” and have refused to accept it as valid.

So are those who feel that the reported massive turn out on election day and the subsquent total number of votes cast in favour of Kagame, is testament that Rwandans still love the former rebel leader.

Whatever the belief, there is one fact that stands out. Kagame is now Rwanda’s president and will at least legally or illegally remain so till 2017. It is a fact that the two sets of protagonists have got to contend with. How and whether they should, is a different matter, alltogether.

If there is anything Africa’s strongmen have managed to effectively do,hang on to power is that thing. From Uganda to Libya, Chad, Sudan and Egypt, Africa has had it’s fair share of authoritarians or longest serving presidents if you may. Trouble is, as in the case of Kagame, those in question have laid claim to the fact they were democratically voted back into power. Even where it has neccessitated tampering or ammending the constituions for them to get to the ballot paper, the result in those cases has passed as legitimate because such is democracy as understood in authoritarian countries.

Kagame has said previously that this should and will be his last term as head of state and for purposes of objectivity, he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Writing in the FT last week (August 19) he maintained that “competitive democracy requires sustained social cohesion”. His argument was pitched on the very note his leadership has defended its vice-like grip on political pruralism for years – the one that 16 years they have had is too short a time for competitive politics.

“Many also fail to understand that it was precisely a system of pluralistic politics that played a major role in the genocide, as newly formed parties with shared extremist ideology outperformed the former one-party state in mobilising the population to commit mass murder,” he argued.

To Kagame, pruralistic politics breed divisionism and chaos and should thus,be avoided. While he may be true, his assertion brings into fore a few observations. One, that for 16 years Kagame has failed, despite his economic prowess, to promote genuine unity among Rwandans and fears the message of forgiveness and reconciliation is yet to be accepted after all these years. Two, that he now looks increasingly even more authoritarian compared to his predecessor as far as political space is concerned. And three, which probably is more worrying, that his country’s much touted and publicized peaceful co-existence between victims and perpetrators, is just a bubble waiting to explode.

While it is important to work toward ensuring that what happened in 1994 does not happen ever again, success on this matter wont come from the duration granted for wounds to heal but a genuine and well thought arrangement where both sides take to an open and clear debate about what actually happened.

Some people will argue that Kagame has done his best and continues to, and therefore with enough time, will deliver. Well to this group of thinkers, I say hold it. Everyone knows that Kagame has consistently avoided such politics as the politics of open debate. His crackdown on independent media, his continued fall out with those who oppose and question his repressive style of leadership notwithstanding, his government’s decision this year not to register the only credible opposition parties and the incarceration of Victoire Ingabire – the only politician to ever call for an open debate about the country’s history, went to show just how unprepared Kagame is for this sort of debate. The question then becomes not one of can he, but rather that of for how long.

The Rwandan story under Kagame is destined to that sad fact where even after 100 years, the same wounds that have taken 16 years to heal might still be very raw and well visible, if the current policy is maintained. And that to me would not be progress. It is what happens when you know the truth but instead choose the slightly easier option because the truth hurts or you feel the time is not ripe. Some scholars have even suggested that Rwanda’s issues would quite easily be sorted by embracing the model taken by South Africa after apartheid – a notion that Kagame appears to be totally opposed to probably because it dictates that the two sides get to open up and confess to their atrocities. And when one side has been pleading complete innocence for 16 years, you get the idea of why such a move can only succeed without the incumbent.

And it is worse. You have to feel for the real opposition in Rwanda when an under pressure president after getting the hint that the world has began to understand how he really conducts his business and will soon be demanding real answers to the pertinent questions, suddenly speaks about forming some sort of coalition government. (I will write in detail about this in my next piece).

Kagame is a very tactical guy. In his heart, he knows the truth. He knows forinstance that his style of leadership is one he would have struggled to stomach himself had he been in the opposition’s shoes. He knows that his government has made and continues to make it extremely tough for free speech to succeed in Rwanda. He knows that what he refers to as his opposition is not but just a group of strategists and RPF sympathisers who for the sake of keeping their jobs have agreed to play opposition when in actual sense, they are subsets of the ruling political party. But he does not give a damn like he said before. To calm the nerves of the international community, he will open up or pretend to be opening up for power sharing but only share with his own. Notice too, that Rwanda has theoretically embraced some sort of a coalition government ever since the country formed the Forum for Political Parties in 2002. So why make a fuss about it now? Because it diverts the attention.

To those unaware of his true character, such a move will be seen as a clear indication that he is an inclusive president intent on sharing power. Share power? Remember this is a gentleman who in the early 90s refused a power sharing agreement with then president and instead went ahead with war. But this cannot be used against him really as people do change – may be he has changed! It however remains to be seen if Kagame can really be trusted, which raises the question, is he really going to step down come 2017?

As for those who do not subscribe to his principles and style of leadership, the times are getting harder. Just yesterday, I read that Lt. Col Rugigana Ngabo, has been arrested on charges of “destabilisation”. Despite the Rwandan army confirming the arrest, Col Ngabo’s wife seems to have no idea as to the whereabouts of her husband or where he is being detained. And when you consider that the colonel is brother to exiled former army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa, you get the picture of what Gen Nyamwasa said in his first interview to Voice of America about Rwandan officials living in fear, so much that comrades and friends alike are no longer associating with one another for fear of being labelled “the bad guys”. Now that Kagame is president again, when he surely should have been sitting home looking after his cattle and reading books about his role in the Rwandan history, should we run and hide?

…over to you my little monsters.

Rwandan Election: Doubts About the Poster Boy

Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame, long the darling of western donors, is widely expected to win August’s presidential polls, the second since the 1994 genocide. But is his success down to pure popularity, or because of an apparent crackdown on voices of dissent?

Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame, long the darling of western donors, is widely expected to win August’s presidential polls, the second since the 1994 genocide. But is his success down to pure popularity, or because of an apparent crackdown on voices of dissent?

Paul Kagame stands at a podium in an open-air stadium in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, where terrified thousands sought refuge from the men with the machetes as the killing started exactly sixteen years earlier.

It is Genocide Memorial Day, April 7, 2010, and the president is talking about turning grief to strength and determination. So far he has spoken mostly in Kinyarwandan, his nation’s language, but without warning he switches to English.

What he says next is clearly directed at the suited dignitaries representing the world’s diplomatic missions, the donors who together pump roughly $700million into his country annually, or a little less than half its budget.

‘Political space, freedom of expression, press freedom, who are these giving anyone here lessons, honestly?’ Kagame asks, softly, seemingly genuinely puzzled, as applause breaks out behind him. ‘These Rwandans…are as free, as happy, as proud of themselves like they have never been.’

On the surface, Kagame is a poster boy for the west’s aid policies, an African leader who stamps on corruption, who uses international help to educate children, treat the sick, repair roads and boost business.

Former United States President Bill Clinton last year recognised his ‘public service’ with a Clinton Global Citizen Award. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is an unpaid and enthusiastic advisor to his government. Blair’s successor, David Cameron and senior members of the British Conservative party have for the last four years spent part of their summer recess building schools across Rwanda, and cosying up to its President.

So, why, at an event charged with the memories of sixteen years ago, is Kagame appearing to bite the hands that help feed his people? The reason is another date, August 9, when Rwandans vote in only their second democratic presidential election since the genocide.

UGLY EVENTS

In the lead-up to polling, a series of ugly events has focused the international spotlight on Kagame in a way that has never happened before. He suspended two popular independent newspapers, Umuseso and Umuvugizi, described by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists as ‘the only critical media voices left in the country’.

A week later, Victoire Ingabire, head of the opposition Unitied Democratic Forces, returned from exile in Holland and was promptly arrested and charged with denying the genocide, among other indictments. She has been bailed, but is under house arrest. Her American lawyer, Peter Erlinder, was arrested too, also accused of genocide denial, and only released on medical grounds after three weeks.

A second presidential hopeful, Bernard Ntaganda, is in prison awaiting trial on four charges, including terrorism. A Human Rights Watch researcher was expelled from the country over alleged visa irregularities.

Only three opposition parties have been allowed to nominate presidential candidates. They are accused of at best being strategically soft on Kagame’s ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front, at worst, being its proxies. ‘There is nothing we can do, we have supporters, we are ready to contest the election, but we cannot because we cannot register,’ said Frank Habineza, leader of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

Most seriously, a reporter from one of the banned newspapers, Jean-Leonard Rugambage, was shot dead outside his house on the evening of June 24.

Earlier in the day, a story he had written appeared online, alleging Rwandan security force involvement in the apparent assassination attempt of a disaffected army general – and former ally of Kagame’s – in South Africa.General Kayumba Nyamwasa, who reportedly fled Rwanda earlier this year afraid for his life, is expected to survive his injuries.

Two other army generals have been arrested in Rwanda, one for corruption, another for immoral conduct. Both were accused of links to a series of mysterious grenade attacks which killed one person and risk frightening-off tourists, who supply the largest share of the country’s foreign exchange earnings.

The vice-president of the opposition Democratic Green Party of Rwanda was found dead near his abandoned car on July 15, in what authorities said was a robbery. But his Green party colleagues immediately voiced suspicions that this too was a political killing. Kagame’s government has angrily denied any involvement in the deaths or shootings.

WESTERN WORRIES

‘It is strange. Why, if he has all this support, will he not allow opposition and then trounce them at the polls,’ asked a Kigali-based European diplomat. ‘Clearly all this other stuff is not the kind of press we were expecting out of Rwanda in the run-up to the elections.’

Certainly not, agreed US President Barack Obama’s point-man for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson. In testimony to the US House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, he said: ‘The political environment ahead of the election has been riddled
by a series of worrying actions taken by the Government of Rwanda, which appear to be attempts to restrict the freedom of expression.’

Carson’s comments came as something of a pleasant surprise to those frustrated at a lack of international pressure on a leader who, they felt, was being allowed to run his nation like a dictatorship.

‘Carson’s statement was significant, and encouraging,’ said Carina Tertsakian, the Human Rights Watch staffer whose Rwanda visa was cancelled. ‘Sadly so far we have seen very little will on the part of western donors to deal with this issue, we’ve seen nothing like that coming out of the UK, for example, which is by far the biggest European donor and main supporter of the Rwandan government. We hope for more [international pressure], but we’re not seeing it yet.’

But this is exactly the kind of attention that irritates Kagame that prompted his puzzled statements on Genocide Memorial Day. Much of the concern, from human rights organisations and media freedom advocates, centres on the accusation that the government uses the charge of denying the genocide as a political tool to silence critics.

Britain’s new coalition government has said it is watching the run-up to Rwanda’s election closely. Speaking to The World Today during a visit to Nairobi, Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, said Britain was Rwanda’s ‘good, but candid, friend’ and that he had raised concerns publicly and privately with the government in Kigali.

‘There are real issues about ethnicity in a country which saw over eight hundred thousand people murdered principally by machete and single shot in ninety days,’ he said.

‘You have an incredible legacy to balance between the desire of the survivors for revenge and the rights of the Hutu people to live in peace. I think we in the west should be respectful of that very difficult situation in arriving at conclusions about how the Rwandans handle it.

‘I’m not saying that the restriction on political space should go unchallenged, far from it. But I think that they are entitled to be cut quite a lot of slack in addressing ethnic issues which have the power to be deeply destabilising in a country with Rwanda’s history.’

From holding an iron grip on a generally supportive military, the same army which he led from exile into Rwanda to stop the genocide sixteen years ago, Kagame is now facing dissent among some senior officers.

There are accusations that political patronage is spread too thin. Or that control of privatised state assets is being passed to too small an inner circle.

But critics claim, discuss this and the strong arm of the state will find you. Further, they question the long term sustainability of what is, in essence, the world’s first real experiment in post-genocide state reconstruction.

Kagame’s unspoken theory is that if people are richer, they are less likely to fight because they will have far more to lose.

But that is not proven, and what if another seven years of firmly keeping the lid on dissent means that, come the next election, the pot is boiling and ready to explode?

‘It shouldn’t be us raising these issues, but as a Rwandan, what can you do’, asks Tertsakian. ‘As soon as you say anything, you are arrested and accused of genocide ideology, or threatened with it, or forced into exile.’

That is to entirely miss the point, counter Kagame’s supporters. ‘For Rwandans, guarding against genocide ideology is a matter of core national security,’ said Andrew Wallis, an advisor to Kagame’s government and author of Silent Accomplice: The Untold Story of France’s Role in the Rwandan Genocide.

‘Kagame feels that if you have a western-type full freedom of expression, that will allow revisionism, genocide denial, and that can lead to genocide itself. It’s still too soon since 1994. The feeling is, give the guy a break.’

BEST FOR BUSINESS

And Kagame’s record – human rights concerns aside – is impressive. A country utterly on its knees sixteen years ago, where neighbours had turned on neighbours, teachers on pupils, churchmen on congregations, is now among Africa’smost successful.

Since Kagame was first democratically elected – privately saying his models for how to run his country were South Korea and Singapore -economic growth has averaged above eight percent, and this year the World Bank named it as the world’s best business reformer.

Kigali aims to become a regional hub for conferencing and the service industry. Broadband internet cables are snaking up and down the hills.

Primary schooling is now free, extra teachers are being hired, new universities planned. Subsistence farmers – still eighty percent of the eleven million population – are advised on modern techniques and organic fertilisers.

Rwanda became only the second non-Anglophone country – after Mozambique – to join the Commonwealth last year, and Kagame has come to something of a rapprochement with the French, whom he long accused of favouring the Hutu genocidaires before and during 1994’s horrors.

Both moves are aimed at broadening Rwanda’s business partnerships. Beijing is being courted, but is unlikely to be as big a player as elsewhere in Africa because Rwanda has few minerals.

So, it is clear that Kagame will win re-election this year. For many Rwanda-watchers, the more fascinating contest will be the next presidential polls, in 2017. The president is unlikely to stand again, but as yet there is no clue as to his successor.

‘The question is whether Rwanda is ready for a Western-style democracy, and the answer at this point probably is no,’ said Wallis. ‘He has been called many things, but one is for sure: Kagame is a man of immense vision, and that vision is being impressively implemented. Why must outsiders keep pushing their theories of how to run a country onto Rwanda?’

‘Give him another seven years to bequeath a country where everyone’s too busy making money to risk anything like 1994, and then, perhaps, that will be time for true multipartyism. It’s far from sure, though.’

Mike Pflanz, Correspondent, East, West and Central Africa, Daily Telergaph, in Nairobi

Is the West treading a dangerous path on Rwanda?

By Eleneus Akanga

First was the arrival in Rwanda and subsequent incarceration of Victoire Ingabire, a Rwandan, who until January 16, 2010, was exiled in Holland. While she was lucky to escape immediate detention on arrival at Kanombe International Airport, the establishment’s decision to ground her was meant to be a stern reminder to all, that Rwanda is simply not ready to talk about its genocide in a manner different from that towed by the ruling regime.

By speaking out on the lack of indicators of Hutu victims of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, at the genocide memorial centre in Kigali, Ms. Ingabire thought, such would open up a genuine debate on the country’s history.  A debate, that would examine what exactly happened in Rwanda, pre and post genocide, and give Rwandans (victims, perpetrators and neutrals) a chance to objectively discuss the real issues that have continued to make true reconciliation in Rwanda impossible. Her argument was swiftly regarded as very divisive, her talk very controversial. She was to later be accused of working with the FDLR (remnants of the Hutu extremists based in Congo), charged with collaborating with terrorists, downplaying genocide and divisionism.

As Ms. Ingabire tried to clear her name, news came in of yet another bad story for Kigali. Lt. Gen Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, former Army Chief of Staff and until then, Ambassador to India, had fled the country. He was to later be accused of throwing bombs in Kigali (even when the police spokesman had suggested the grenade attacks were the work of the FDLR) and his diplomatic immunity was withdrawn.

Almost immediately, President Kagame made a series of high profile changes in the military. While many saw this as progression of fear and a possible link to rumours of a coup detat in Rwanda, the government rubbished the claims as baseless, arguing instead, that the reshuffle was normal.

Meanwhile, Rwanda mounted a ferocious war of words with Gen. Nyamwasa accusing him of corruption, terrorism, incompetence (even when the government is on record to have awarded Nyamwasa for excellence and hardwork). To observers, Gen. Nyamwasa’s break up with President Kagame had been so acrimonious that when the general survived a shooting in South Africa, many suspected Kigali had a hand.

As we tried to get to the real facts in the Nyamwasa shooting case, Jean Leonard Rugambage, the acting editor of Umuvugizi, a local language publication, was killed on his way home from work. The circumstances surrounding his death were as deplorable as they were very suspicious. This was a journalist, whose publication had published a story that day, which seemed to suggest complicity on the side of the Rwandan security services, in Gen. Nyamwasa’s shooting.  Even with two suspects now in custody over his death and one having confessed, there are many who still suspect Rugambage’s death as having been an assassination.

As the nation and the media world mourned the death of a brave and vocal journalist whose work they had grown to like, Agnes Uwimana, another editor with the local weekly, Umurabyo was arrested on charges of genocide denial and inciting violence. Ms Uwimana who had served a year in prison for defamation and inciting ethnic division was followed yet by another journalist Saidati Mukakibibi for comparing Kagame to Hitler.

And just yesterday, the body of Andre Kagwa Rwisereka, the vice president of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, was found murdered near his car, after being reported to have gone missing. Mr. Rwisereka would have died a happy man if the ruling government had not persistently refused the registration of his political party, despite numerous attempts by party members to fulfil everything required of them to register. His case is likely to raise more questions than answers. The government has linked his death to a robbery, an argument the Rwanda Greens, have flatly rejected calling instead for an independent and thorough investigation.

It is worth noting that these sad events have happened in between the closure or suspension as the government would want it called, of the two most popular and independent newspapers in Rwanda. Umuseso and Umuvugizi, which would have tried to report  at least with some success , the events in Rwanda right now were slapped with a six months suspension by the High Council of the Press in April this year for violating the media law and inciting public order.

It would appear that any dissenting opinion, business or project, which endeavours to critically question or suggest a different view to that universally acceptable by those in power in Rwanda is either charged with inciting violence or put out of the public domain. And it matters less how this silencing is done. In some cases, those in question have been lucky that the silencing act has come in form of putting them out of business. To some, silence has been promoted through ending their lives by people who choose to put the law in their own hands – people the government tells us are thieves or thugs avenging their departed.

Very sad too, that despite these saddening developments in Rwanda, the closest we have come to a demand for proper accountability from the regime in Kigali by those the world looks up to in cases of democracy (US, UK, France, Belgium or the West as they are collectively known) is a muted and thinly veiled remark from US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton that Rwanda risks losing what it has gained over the years. Even the UN has been silent despite numerous calls from Reporters Without Borders and Committee to Protect Journalists on the plight of democracy, political space and press freedom in Rwanda.

At least Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero decided not to go ahead with a meeting today with Mr. Kagame today in Madrid.

You would think that after what happened in Rwanda sixteen years ago, any hints of possible mayhem would be adhered to with some consideration. President Kagame will definitely win another 7 year-term as expected, and even more so after effectively banning any credible opposition by selectively choosing who registers and who does not. He will argue there are laws to be followed for party registration, and rightly so, but who can deny that these rules have been made to make it extremely difficult for any credible opposition party to register?

Is it fair that the European Union should agree to send election observers to Rwanda for an election whose result is already known?  It is such failure to act that promotes and encourages African leaders to flout democratic principles. It is this failure to act on potential hints of broken societies or increasingly repressive governments, that has helped breed strong dictators. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, questions will be asked as to whether the West did not actually abet oppression in some of our countries.

Over to you my little monsters…