Category Archives: BBC

Rwanda : Affaire du serment, quand le FPR se prévaut de sa propre turpitude !

Ceux qui se connaissent en droit sont familiers avec la locution « nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans » qui peut se traduire par « personne ne peut se prévaloir de sa propre turpitude ». Tout simplement, ceci veut dire que l’on ne peut utiliser en sa faveur une faute que l’on a commise. Prenons l’exemple de quelqu’un qui conduit en état d’ivresse, renverse un piéton, et tente de se dédouaner de son crime en disant que ce n’était pas sa faute, qu’il faut blâmer l’alcool qu’il avait ingéré ! Ou encore, cet homme accusé de malversation financière qui va se défendre en disant qu’il a toujours agi de la même manière, que personne ne s’est plaint, qu’il ne voit pas pourquoi ça lui arrive cette fois-ci ! Dans une manœuvre désespérée visant à défendre son serment et ses manières coercitives de rejoindre sa famille politique, le Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR) invoque sa propre turpitude.

Tout commence par la circulation d’une vidéo amateur qui montre une centaine de membres de la diaspora rwandaise établis sur le territoire londonien entrain de prêter serment d’allégeance au FPR, un exercice que tout nouveau membre de ce parti est appelé à faire. Jusque-là, tout a l’air normal. Qu’on fasse une promesse de rester fidèle à une cause, ce n’est que logique. Sauf que le serment est non seulement illogique et antidémocratique, mais aussi anticonstitutionnel.

Suivantes sont les paroles prononcées dans ce fameux serment :

« A cette étape indéniable que je franchis, Moi… (Nom et prénom) après avoir bien appris, bien compris et discerné l’assermenté du FPR, je prête serment en jurant

  • Avoir bien appris, compris et discerné le sens de mon engagement au parti avec les autres membres ; 
  • Sauvegarder et être gardien du parti en combattant contre tous les “ennemis du pays” partout où ils seraient et par tous les moyens ; 
  • Respecter sans discuter toutes les directives du parti FPR, actuelles et celles qui viendront ; 
  • Me préparer à être tué par crucifixion comme tout malfaiteur, si jamais je venais à transgresser une directive du parti, car j’aurais trahi tous les rwandais.”

La chaine britannique BBC ne manque d’interpeller l’opinion publique sur ce genre de pratique qui constitue une menace pour les Rwandais en dehors de leur pays.

Le régime de Kigali, éhonté, tente de se justifier. Dans une réaction de l’ambassade du Rwanda à Londres, Kigali adopte une stratégie plutôt de distraction avant de lancer :

« Le serment existe, presque inchangé, depuis la formation du FPR en 1987. Les tentatives des détracteurs de le présenter à tort comme quelque chose de sinistre sont pathétiques ».

Un serment anticonstitutionnel et antidémocratique 

  1. L’article 159 de la Constitution rwandaise telle que révisée à ce jour prévoit que la défense nationale est assurée par les forces de défense rwandaises (FRD). En jurant pour « combattre les ennemis du pays », les membres du FPR se prennent pour membres de l’armée nationale. C’est anticonstitutionnel.
  2. L’article 55 de la même Constitution donne droit à tout Rwandais d’adhérer à un parti politique de son choix ou de n’adhérer à aucun parti. Transgresser la directive du FPR revient à choisir ne plus faire partie de cette organisation, un droit constitutionnel. Que le FPR tue par crucifixion quelqu’un qui exerce son droit, c’est plus que pathétique. Rappelons qu’au Rwanda la peine de mort est abolie depuis le 25 juillet 2007. Et puis, en quoi trahir le FPR, un parti politique comme tous les autres, signifie trahir tous les Rwandais même ceux qui appartiennent à d’autres mouvements politiques ?
  3. Sauf dans des républiques bananières, dans quel autre pays du monde un parti politique contraindrait les citoyens de « respecter ‘sans discuter’ toutes les directives ‘actuelles’ et ‘celles qui viendront’ » sans savoir si, le moment venu, celles-ci répondront aux besoins ou satisferont les intérêts socioéconomiques et politiques, entre autres ?

Conclusion :

A vouloir justifier un serment aussi ignoble, antidémocratique et anticonstitutionnel dans un pays qui se targue d’être un état de droit sous prétexte que le serment existe et reste le même depuis 1987, le FPR mis en difficultés, n’a plus d’arguments et invoque sa propre turpitude. Franchement, ce mouvement est voué à disparaitre.  

Chaste GAHUNDE

BBC rejects complaint over controversial Rwanda genocide documentary

The BBC’s editorial complaints unit has rejected a complaint about a controversial documentary on Rwanda that questioned official accounts of the 1994 genocide.

The group of scholars, scientists, researchers, journalists and historians who made the complaint now plan to appeal to the BBC Trust over the decision.

Rwanda’s Untold Story, broadcast on 1 October 2014, sparked controversy by suggesting President Paul Kagame may have had a hand in the shooting-down of his predecessor’s plane, which triggered the mass killings.

It also quoted US researchers who suggested that many of the more than 800,000 Rwandans who died in the 1994 genocide may have been ethnic Hutus, and not Tutsis as the government maintains.

Kagame accused the BBC of “genocide denial” in the documentary, which he said had chosen to “tarnish Rwandans, dehumanise them”. The corporation emphatically rejected the claims.

UK urges Rwanda to lift BBC broadcasting ban

Last November, a group of 48 people, including former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross Cornelio Sommaruga, Bishop Ken Barham and investigative journalist and author Professor Linda Melvern, wrote to BBC director general Tony Hall to express concern over the documentary.

Their letter claimed the BBC had been “recklessly irresponsible” in airing the film, said it contained serious inaccuracies, and claimed part of its content promoted genocide denial.

The criticisms were rejected by Jim Gray, deputy head of current affairs, so last month they took their case to the BBC’s editorial complaints unit.

Their complaint claimed the documentary was in breach of BBC editorial guidelines, including its commitment to truth and accuracy, impartiality, serving the public interest and distinguishing opinion from fact.

It was backed by a 15-page document claiming the programme promoted denial of the genocide of the Tutsi, changed the meaning of events, and tried to reinterpret the facts and change reality.

The complainants accused the film of being misleading and biased, saying it had promised “evidence that challenges the accepted story of the Rwandan genocide” but had instead used discredited material produced by defence lawyers in the trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. They also criticised the BBC journalists for relying on unverified witness testimony in the programme.

Finally, they claimed there had been concerns among BBC staff about the film, and questioned whether, given its sensitivity, it should have been considered at a high level within the corporation.

The editorial complaints unit produced a detailed response to the allegations, but found the film had not breached BBC guidelines.

A BBC spokesperson confirmed: “The BBC’s editorial complaints unit has concluded that the documentary Rwanda’s Untold Story was not in breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.”

One of the complainants, Melvern, said in response: “The ECU determined no breaches in editorial guidelines took place and declared the programme justified for ‘good editorial reasons’, produced in a spirit of ‘journalistic inquiry’.

“None of our concerns was addressed. The ruling failed to provide answers to our questions. No evidence was forthcoming. The ECU wrote that judgments handed down at the ICTR had ‘little relevance’ when considering ‘other accounts’ of the genocide. The programme was simply presenting ‘dissenting views’, ‘alternative perspectives’, and ‘controversial theories’ about the genocide of the Tutsi claiming all the while that this would not mislead viewers.

“The BBC claims that the documentary did not damage the history of the genocide of the Tutsi – we maintain it did just that.”

Melvern said an appeal will be lodged with the BBC Trust next week.

A spokesperson for BBC News said: “Throughout the making of this programme, which we acknowledge raised extremely painful issues, our guiding principle was to respect the immense suffering of the Rwandan people and cover an immensely difficult subject in a measured way, not to downplay nor conceal events.”

Last month, the UK called on the Rwandan government to lift its ban on BBC radio broadcasts in the country’s most common language, which was imposed in the wake of the documentary.

A Foreign office spokesperson said the UK government “recognises the hurt caused in Rwanda by some parts of the documentary”, but it was “concerned” by the move to suspend the BBC’s FM broadcasts and hold an official investigation.

The inquiry, set up by the government-appointed Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Agency, urged its government to take criminal action against the BBC.

Its report said: “The documentary made a litany of claims and assertions that are problematic in a number of ways and which we consider to violate Rwandan law, the BBC’s own ethical guidelines and limitations to press freedom.

“We also find the documentary to be minimising and denying genocide, contravening domestic and international laws.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “We are extremely disappointed by the findings of this commission. While we do not yet know the full implications for the BBC in Rwanda, we stand by our right to produce the independent journalism which has made us the world’s most trusted news source … We strongly reject any suggestion that any part of this documentary constitutes genocide denial.”

Source: The Guardian

“Criminals” in Rwanda: Kagame Contemplates Indicting the BBC for “Genocide Denial” Peter Erlinder, Victoire Ingabire, and the BBC

carte_rwanda

Peter Erlinder, Victoire Ingabire, and the BBC are all criminals in Rwanda.

President Paul Kagame has accused all three of genocide denial and his Chief Prosecutor may even indict the BBC.

Transcript:

KPFA Weekend News Anchor David Rosenberg: Rwanda’s Chief Prosecutor, Martin Ngoga, and a special Rwandan commission are now investigating the BBC for the crime of – quote unquote – “genocide denial.” Ngoga investigated and indicted US attorney Peter Erlinder after his arrest in Rwanda in May 2010, and Rwandan political prisoner Victoire Ingabire after her arrest in October 2010, also for the crime of so-called “genocide denial.” The BBC, however, is not in prison in Rwanda, as Peter Erlinder was and as Victoire Ingabire remains. KPFA’s Ann Garrison spoke to Peter Erlinder.

KPFA/Ann Garrison: Peter Erlinder, could you explain why you were in prison in Rwanda, in 2010?

T-shirt worn by a Rwandan protesting in Paris, while Peter Erlinder was in jail, 2010

Peter Erlinder: I went to Rwanda to consult with Victoire Ingabire, who was a presidential candidate at that time, who had been charged with genocide denial because she had asked why the Hutu victims weren’t remembered on the memorials to genocide victims. And I found myself charged with genocide denial because of stories and commentary that I had written in the international press and because of statements that I made about the acquittal of the Hutu leaders of the Habyarimana government, who had been acquitted of planning and conspiracy to commit genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

KPFA: And you were in prison for how long before the international campaign secured your release?

Erlinder: I was in prison for approximately a month.

KPFA: OK, now I’m going to play a clip including Victoire Ingabire’s voice, from the BBC documentary “Rwanda: The Untold Story”:

BBC: Rwanda’s institutions have been used by Paul Kagame to stifle dissent. Hutu opposition leader Victoire Ingabire returned from exile in 2010 to stand against the president in the last election.

Victoire Ingabire: There is no justice in Rwanda. There is no democracy in Rwanda. People are afraid to say what they think. We have to talk about what happened in Rwanda in 1994.

BBC: Ingabire never made it to the polls. She asked why there were no memorials to the Hutus who died.  She got eight years in prison, for genocide ideology. [Raised to 15 years on appeal.]

KPFA: Now Peter, Rwanda has already banned the BBC’s native Kinyarwanda language broadcast, as it did in 2009, after again, accusing it of genocide denial.

Erlinder: And what I might say about that is that, of course, what that means is that Kinyarwanda speakers cannot hear the debate about the BBC broadcast. So it really doesn’t hurt the BBC, but it does prevent the Rwandan people from hearing the debate about the documentary.

KPFA: And, if Rwandan Chief Prosecutor Ngoga indicts the BBC and/or its producers, they would be unable to do any more on-the ground reporting in Rwanda without risking arrest.

Erlinder: It would cut off the flow of information to the Rwandan people about their own government completely.

KPFA: That was Peter Erlinder on the Rwandan government’s decision to investigate and possibly indict the BBC for “genocide denial.”

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca

Rwanda vs BBC: Kagame yiyambaje umudepite w’ igisahiranda kugira ngo BBC ibe yanengwa.

paul_kagame170px-EricJoyce_cropped

Paul Kagame yaba yaremereye Eric Joyce agatubutse.

Ku itariki ya 6 Ugushyingo 2014, umudepite w’indakoreka (indiscipliné) yasabye inteko ishinga amategeko y’Ubwongereza gusuzumana ubushishozi impamvu yatumye BBC ihitisha film documentaire yise “Rwanda: Untold story”. Ako kanya ibinyamakuru byo mu Rwanda byahise bisamira hejuru icyo cyifuzo, maze byemeza ko inteko yamaze kwamagana BBC ndetse igashyigikira itsinda ry’abashakashatsi riyobowe na Linda Melvern ryavuze ko iyo film ipfobya genocide yakorewe abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994.

Nyamara uko ibyifuzo(motions) bigezwa mu nteko n’uko bitorerwa ni ibintu bitandukanye. Buri mudepite ashobora gusaba ko inteko iganira ku kintu iki n’iki ndetse ikagifataho ibyemezo. Ibi bishobora no gukorwa n’itsinda ry’abaturage bishyize hamwe bagashyira umukono ku nyandiko ibisaba. Ariko ntibivuga ko ibyifuzo byose bisabwe byemerwa n’inteko, ahubwo binyuzwa mu matora. Guhita rero umuntu avuga ngo BBC yanenzwe ni ukwihuta cyane. Muri iyi nyandiko ndagerageza gusesengura impamvu zaba zarateye Depite Eric Joyce gusaba ko BBC yakwamaganwa kandi nyamara igihugu cye cyemera uburenganzira n’ubwigenge bw’itangazamakuru.

Birazwi ko kuva FPR yafata ubutegetsi mu Rwanda yakoresheje imbaraga zose cyane cyane iz’ifaranga n’ikinyoma kugira ngo yigarurire imitima y’abantu banyuranye bababajwe n’amateka y’ U Rwanda. Ni muri urwo rwego FPR yakorewe ubuvugizi n’abantu batandukanye b’abanyamerika nka Pasitoro Rick Warren, umunyemari Bill Gates, n’abongereza nka Tony Blair wigeze kuba minisitiri w’intebe w’Ubwongereza n’abandi batandukanye. Uyu mudepite Eric Stuart Joyce na we yaje yiyongera kuri abo.

Eric Stuart Joyce ni muntu ki?

Uyu mugabo w’imyaka 54 yavuye mu gisirikare cy’Ubwongereza mu mwaka wa 1999 afite ipeti rya Major. Mu mwaka wa 2000 kugeza muri 2005 uyu mugabo yabaye depite w’ishyaka Labour party. Kuva mu mwaka wa 2005 ni umudepite w’agace Falkirk. Nyuma yaje kwirukanwa muri iri shyaka kubera imyitwarire mibi cyane yakunze kumuranga kugeza n’ubu ikaba yaramukurikiranye. Turabibona mu kanya.

Depite Joyce kandi yakunze kuregwa icyaha cyo gukoresha nabi umutungo wa leta. Urugero mu mwaka wa 2005-2006, uyu mugabo yasabaga ko inteko imwishyurira  ama pound 174.811 ni ukuvuga miliyoni 190 y’amanyarwanda kandi agera kuri 62% ( hafi miliyoni 120) akaba ngo yari ayo guhemba abakozi b’ibiro bye. Icyo gihe yarahiye ko azagabanya uburyo akoresha amafaranga ya rubanda. Mu mwaka w’inteko wa 2006-2007 yari ku mwanya wa 11 mu gukoresha amafranga menshi cyane. Ariko mu mwaka w’inteko wa 2007-2008 noneho yongeye kuzamura cyane asaba amapound 187,334 ni ukuvuga arenga miliyoni 200 z’amanyarwanda. Muri uwo mwaka yatangaje inteko ubwo yaguraga ibishushanyo (oil paintings) bitatu ku ma pound 180 ni ukuvuga hafi ibihumbi 200 by’amanyarwanda. Bamubajije ibisobanuro, yavuze ko ayo mashusho ari meza.  Mu mwaka wa 2009 yarezwe kutishyura imisoro amaze kugurisha inzu ye I Londres. Mu gihe ibinyamakuru byamubazaga uko azabyitwaramo, yaravuze ngo azicara akore imipango!

Mu mwaka wa 2012 Depite Joyce yarezwe kandi yemera icyaha cyo kugirana ubucuti n’umwana w’umukobwa ufite imyaka 17 wigeze kumukorera mu kwiyamamaza mu mwaka wa 2010. Ibi byarakaje abandi badepite bo muri Labour party cyane cyane uwitwa Johann Lamont watangaje ko atewe ishozi n’uyu mugabo Joyce wakoresheje umwanya afite agakora amahano ndengakamere. Ibi byatumye Joyce avuga ko mu matora ateganyijwe mu mwaka utaha wa 2015 azatanga imihoho.

Uretse ibi kandi uyu mugabo avugwaho n’ubusinzi. Urugero ni aho ku itariki ya 18 Ugushyingo umwaka wa 2010 Depite Eric Joyce yafashwe agafungwa  ndetse akemera icyaha mu rukiko nyuma yo kwanga ko abapolisi bamupima kuko yari atwaye imodoka yasinze. Icyo gihe baramurekuye ariko atanga amande y’ama pound 400 ndetse afatirwa igihano cyo kudatwara imodoka mu gihe cy’umwaka wose. Icyo gihe yahise yegura ku mwanya wo guhagararira Ireland ya ruguru nka “shadow minister”( minisitiri wa opposition) ndetse asaba imbabazi kubera iyi myitwarire.

Nyuma yaho nibwo ku itariki ya 22 Gashyantare 2012 ku isaha ya yine na 50 z’ijoro yongeye gufungwa aregwa cyo gukubita abadepite Stuart Andrew na  Phil Wilson washakaga kumubuza kurwana. Ubwo yahise yadukira Luke Mackenzie na Ben Maney bari bashatse gukomakoma. Abandi bahuye n’umwaku muri ako kavuyo ni Alec Shelbrooke na Kackie Doyle-Price mu gihe bashakaga gukiza. Bukeye bwaho ni bwo yirukanywe mu ishyaka Labour Party aregwa ibyaha bitatu byo guhohotera abandi maze afungurwa atanze ingwate . Ku itariki ya 9 Werurwe uwo  mwaka hongeweho ikindi cyaha maze asabirwa gufungwa cyangwa agatanga amande y’ibihumbi bitatu by’ama paound(miliyoni eshatu n’ibihumbi 300 y’amanyarwanda) n’impozamarira zingana n’amapound 1400( miliyoni n’ibihumbi 540 y’amanyarwanda) kubo yakubise. Yemeye gutanga aya mafaranga kugira ngo adafungwa. Ku itariki ya 12 Werurwe 2012 yasabwe gutanga ibisobanuro mu nteko maze asaba imbabazi avuga ko yamaze kwegura mu ishyaka Labour Party ariko ko yifuza ko bamureka akarangiza manda ye ntazongere kwiyamamaza mu matora yo muri 2015.

Ntibyaciriye aho kuko uyu mugabo urusha ibyaha ingurube yongeye kugaruka mu rukiko kuwa 4 Nyakanga 2012 aregwa guca akagozi  (electronic tag) bari baramuziritse ku kaguru mu rwego rw’igihano. Icyo gihe yahanishijwe ama pound 600 (ibihumbi 656 by’amanyarwanda) y’amande.

Hatarashira umwaka ku itariki ya 14 Werurwe 2013, Joyce yongeye gufatwa aregwa kongera kurwana mu kabari k’inteko ishinga amategeko. Kubera ko bwari bubaye ubwa kabiri, Joyce yahawe igihano cyo kutongera kugura ibinyobwa bisindisha mu tubari umunani tw’inteko ishinga amategeko. Icyo gihe yaregwaga n’ikindi cyaha cyo gukomeretsa ariko atanga amande baramurekura.

Ku itariki ya 19 Werurwe 2013 Joyce yatutse ashaka no kurwana n’abapolisi bo ku kibuga cy’indege cya Edinburgh biturutse kuri telephone mobile ye yari yabuze.  Ku itariki ya 21 Werurwe 2014 nanone  Sebyago Joyce yarezwe kandi yemera icyaha cyo guhungabanya umutekano maze bamuca ama pound 1500( Miliyoni n’ibihumbi 642 y’amanyarwanda) ndetse n’andi 150 (ibihumbi 164 y’amanyarwanda).

Uyu mugabo Eric Joyce yatangiye kwinjira mu bibazo byo karere k’ibiyaga bigari ubwo yinjiraga mu ishyirahamwe ry’abadepite b’abongereza, abantu benshi babona nk’ibisahiranda byari bigamije kurya mu mafaranga aturuka mu mabuye y’agaciro aturuka muri Congo. Iryo shyirahamwe ryatangijwe na Oona King maze aryita  The All Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Region of Africa. Ubu rigizwe n’abadepite barenga 200 baturuka mu nteko ishinga amategeko y ‘Ubwongereza imitwe yombi bakaba bita ku bibazo bireba akarere. Iri shyirahamwe rikura amafaranga mu mpano z’ama ONG ndetse n’abantu ku giti cyabo. Eric Joyce yigeze kuyobora iri shyirahamwe ndetse mu mwaka wa 2008 yayoboye uruzinduko rw’abadepite rwabereye mu Burasirazuba bwa Congo. Bikekwa ko ari muri iki gihe yatangiye gusogongera ku buryohe bwa diyama ndetse na ruswa y’abanyagitugu bo ku karere.

Umwanzuro:

Birashoboka ko uyu mugabo nyuma yo kugira ibibazo by’uruhuri ndetse agatakarizwa icyizere mu nteko no muri sosiyete y’igihugu cye, yaba yemeye gufata ikiraka abandi bose bari baranze. Ibi biragaragazwa n’uko yasinye iyi motion wenyine. Ibiri amambu kandi FPR ntijya itinya gutanga ibiraka nk’iki. Eric Joyce rero uri mu bibazo bikomeye by’ubukene yiyemeje gutanga motion mu nteko  ngo BBC nifatirwe ibyemezo! Aragira ngo arangize manda ye akuyemo agatubutse azajya ashukisha abana b’abakobwa ndetse akabasha kwigurira agatama maze agahondagura abenegihugu. Harahagazwe. Burya koko nta murozi wabuze umukarabya, ariko uyu mukarabya we ndabona asa n’umurozi nyirizina. Cyakora uyu murimo ubanza utazamuhira! Qui vivra verra.

Chaste Gahunde

Prof Charles Kambanda lambasts claims by Melvern et al. over BBC’s “Rwanda: untold story”

Charles Kambanda

Professor Charles Kambanda would love to take on Ms. Melvern et al. in an open debate over issues raised on the documentary “RWANDA: UNTOLD STORY”.

October, 15th, 2014

RE: MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY:

Introduction:

I am writing to you as a Rwandan researcher, human rights defender and an Officer of Court in New York State; I am bound by the Constitutional Oath of Office. I taught at the National University and other institutions of higher learning in Rwanda for over a decade after the 1994 massacres. I am writing from my firsthand and lived experience of the unfortunate Hutu/Tutsi conflict. I am a Rwandan who was born to a Rwandan refugee family in Uganda. I supported RPF before, during and after the 1990 war. Like many other Rwandans, I lost countless family relations to the massacres in Rwanda. I am a Rwandan scholar – based in the United States of America – who is interested in sustainable peace and co-existence between and/or among the diverse people of Rwanda. I belong to no Rwandan political party. It is my submission that no side to the insane Tutsi vs. Hutu conflict is exclusively for victims or perpetrators of the senseless crimes that have characterized these two, generally, hostile groups. Both sides to the armed conflict committed horrible massacres before, during and after the 1994 massacres.

Accept my heartfelt gratitude and respect for the BBC team that prepared the famous Rwanda’s Untold Story documentary. The BBC team that worked on this documentary did a tremendous job documenting the background and the intricate web of the crimes both sides allegedly committed during, before and after the 1994 horrific massacres. What your team did is investigative journalism; Descartes (the great French philosopher) called it the Methodical doubt. In the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ says “the Truth will set us free”. The producer of the documentary dug deep into the truth which different parties to the Rwandan conflict do not want the world to know because that truth will set people free. The BBC, as an institution, deserves credit for the great film. It is my submission that Ms. Melvern and her group’s “rebuttal” of the BBC documentary should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

A. Inquiry into the causes, manner, perpetrators and victims of the long and bloody Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict in Burundi and Rwanda before, during and after the 1994 massacres in Rwanda is not a closed chapter as Ms. Melvern’s missive appears to suggest.

The 1994 massacres occurred within the context of a bloody ethnic civil war between the Hutu (a Hutu dominated government) and Tutsi (Tutsi dominated rebels). There are well documented ethnic based massacres between the Hutu and Tutsi before and after the 1994 massacres. The well documented Tutsi/Hutu massacres include:

(i) The 1993 Burundian massacres where the Tutsi butchered the Hutu.

(ii) The Gersony, UNCHR sponsored report which detailed the insane massacred RPF /A perpetrated against the Hutu under the then Tutsi rebels held territory.

(iii) RPF/A (predominantly Tutsi) slaughter of internally displaced Hutu refugees camp.

(iv) Some Tutsi and some Hutu militia on-slaughter of the Tutsi and the Hutu during the 1994 massacres.

(v) RPF/A slaughter of the Hutu in Congo (both native DRC Hutu and Rwandan Hutu refugees as documented by the UN Mapping Report).

Investigating the similarities and differences between these reoccurring insane massacres between the Hutu and Tutsi without favor is, in my opinion, not only necessary but also a noble cause. The documentary does exactly that. Apparently, any objective inquiry into these crimes is what Ms. Melvern and her group of journalists and researchers call “[using] current events to either negate or to diminish the genocide… to promote genocide denial”. All the above well documented crimes, committed by the same people against the same people in different places and time, create an unequivocal need for social research. Social research is a continuum. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern and her group appear to suggest that their research finding on these complex social political phenomena in the Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict is conclusive.

B. Ms. Melvern and her team resort to name calling instead of addressing the substantive issues the interviewees, individually, and the entire documentary raised. In most instances, Ms. Melvern and her group do not substantiate their generalized attacks on the individual interviewees, the BBC and the documentary producers

Ms. Melvern and her group characterize the BBC documentary as “old claims […] similar material using similar language [that is] part of an on-going Hutu power campaign of genocide denial”. This is an absurd approach especially for social science researchers and journalists for various reasons:

(i) The BBC documentary, as the title of the documentary suggests, was intended to interview different people with rarely mentioned personal experience of what happened in Rwanda during, before and after the 1994 massacres. Such statements must be as old as the events the statements describe if those statements are proper representation of what happened. Therefore, whether those statements are “old claims” is a tautology. How would statements explaining what happened 20 or so years ago be “brand-new” statements for every BBC viewer of the program?

(ii) Ms. Melvern and her group deliberately apply “Hutu power”, term with no known definition to confuse their readers. What’s Hutu power? What is the composition of Hutu power? Where is Hutu power? Research methodology and formal logic prohibit use of unknown and undefined terms for any purpose, especially while addressing critical social problems.

Ms. Melvern and her group of journalists and researchers claim that “the parts of the film which concern the 1994 genocide, far from providing BBC viewers with an ‘Untold Story’ as the title promises, are old claims”. This is a serious allegation against the BBC “on behalf of BBC viewers”. This allegation implies that Ms. Melvern and her group met “BBC viewers” and Ms. Melvern and her group are authorized agents of the “BBC viewers” to complain to the BBC on behalf of what Ms. Melvern calls the BBC viewers. Is Ms. Melvern or any individual signatory to their letter the “BBC viewers” and so the signatory are complaining to the BBC for having viewed “old claims”? Are these researchers who signed the letter presenting their perception of the BBC documentary as “old claims”? Is Ms. Melvern presenting “some” or “all” BBC viewers’ perception of documentary? Did Ms. Melvern and the researchers who signed the letter purposively fail to distribute their term “BBC viewers” properly? Is Ms. Melvern unfamiliar with the rules on distribution of terms? Why didn’t they distribute their term “BBC viewers” so that the readers know, with substantial certainty, the scope of the “BBC viewers” these researchers are referring to?

Ms. Melvern and her group argue that “at the heart of this [Hutu power] campaign are convicted génocidaires, some of their defen[s]e lawyers from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and their supporters and collaborators … like the programme … The BBC programme Rwanda’s Untold Story recycles their arguments and provides them with another platform to create doubt and confusion about what really happened”. This is absurd ad hominem because:

(i) A reasonable person would not confuse the person, ideas and research, of defense counsel with the client’s real or alleged crimes. Ms. Melvern and her fellow researchers appear to impute the ICTR “convicted genocidaire” some ICTR defense counsels.

(ii) Carl Del Ponte, the former ICTR prosecutor, Michael Hourigan who was an investigator and prosecutor at ICTR, among others scholars wrote widely about the ICTR’s cover up of the RPA/F crimes during the 1994 massacres.

(iii) Ms. Melvern and her group know or they should know for sure, that the BBC documentary producer did not interview any ICTR convict. How do the distinguished researchers, who signed the letter, relate the BBC documentary interviewees’ testimony with ICTR “convicted genocidaires”?

(iv) Courtesy and common sense requires Ms. Melvern and her group to explain how the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” exercised undue influence and pressure over the documentary interviewees. Is it rational that the ICTR “convicted genocidaires”, as Ms. Melvern and the group put it, would influence a significant number of society as to form what Ms. Melvern appears to call a global campaign of supporters and collaborators to create doubts and confusion about what happened?

(v) The documentary producer interviewed Rwandans and other nationals. Some of the interviewees are Tutsi and former RPF/A members. How did the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” recruit these Tutsi 1990/1994 war opponents into supporters and collaborators? Aren’t Ms. Melvern and her group oversimplifying very complex issues under cover over of their deliberate ad hominem?

(vi) The documentary features prominent non-Rwandan scholars and legal practitioners. Ms. Melvern and her group conveniently dismiss all these prominent professionals’ views under a terribly sweeping statement “all of those professionals are supporters and collaborators of the ICTR convicted genocidaire”. Ordinarily, social researchers and journalists avoid sweeping statements. How do the “convicted genocidaire” influence a cross section of people – including prominent professionals like lawyers and academics the documentary producers interviewed?

C. What Ms. Melvern and her group calls the three lies of the documentary are real controversies among Rwandans and social science researchers. These contentious issues are proper subject matter for social research and investigative journalism.

Ms. Melvern and her group cite what they call lies in the BBC Documentary as “[…] lie about the true nature of the Hutu Power militia […] an attempt to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered in the genocide, […] an effort to place the blame for shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994 on the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)”. Each of the three accusations, which Ms. Melvern and her group call “BBC Documentary lies”, deserves thorough analysis for validity and truth.

1. On the true nature of the Hutu power militia

Ms. Melvern and her groups argue that “the BBC documentary allows a witness to claim that ‘only ten percent of the Interahamwe (militia) were killers. In fact, the majority of Hutu Power militia forces – estimated to have been 30,000 strong – were trained specifically to kill Tutsi at speed, and indoctrinated in a racist ideology, part of genocide planning. There is eyewitness testimony by several militia leaders who cooperated with the ICTR”.

First, it is absurd to discredit the entire documentary or issue therein because “one of the interviewees made a mistake in [his] quantitative estimation” of the internahamwe who allegedly perpetrated the massacres. Interestingly, Ms Melvern protests the BBC interviewee’s estimation of the number of the Interahamwe by introducing her own estimation about the number of the internahamwe. Why does Ms. Melvern want her readers to believe her estimates, not the BBC interviewee’s estimations of the interahamwe numbers? Second, Ms. Melvern and her group miss on some important facts about the militia, including the internahame, some of who committed the horrible massacres.

(i) It is wrong to think that all interahamwe were Hutu. Some interahamwe were Tutsi. Referring to all interahamwe as Hutu militia is a misstatement of fact. The interahamwe boss in charge of recruitment and politics – Robert Kajuga – was Tutis and so were a significant number of the interahamwe

(ii) When Rwanda embraced multiparty politics in 1991, each political party had its own “Youth Wing to animate party meetings, organize and mobilize for the party. MRND (the then ruling party’s Youth Wing was called Interahamwe. PSD (another political party) had Abakombozi as its Youth Wing. MDR’s Youth Wing was called Inkuba. PL’s Youth Wing was called Jeunes liberaux. As the war and party politics progressed, each Rwandan community -including political parties and their youth wings – developed “radical groups”.

(iii) There is overwhelming evidence that some members of each political youth wing/militia participated in the 1994 massacres and that each political party militia was hostile against others. Reducing these militia groups to “Hutu militia” is distortion of facts.

(iv) There is proof of, and the type of war RPA/F was engaged in against the then government dictate that, RPA/F cadres infiltrated all political parties’ militia as early as 1991. Probably, some of these RPA/F infiltrators engaged in the 1994 massacres.

(v) There is sufficient evidence that by the time of the 1994 massacres, all political parties of that time, including RPF, had some ‘radicalized’ members and militia. Therefore, simplifying the phenomenon of who killed who during such circumstance, like Ms. Melvern appears to suggest, is inconsistent with qualitative research approach.

2. Ms. Melvern and her group’s argument on Rwanda’s population statistics before the 1994 massacres is false and invalid. Ms. Melvern and her group use inadmissible evidence to support their argument

Ms. Melvern and her group argue that “the programme [the BBC documentary] attempts to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered, a typical tactic of genocide deniers. The false figures cited are provided by two US academics who worked for a team of lawyers defending the génocidaires at the ICTR. They even claim that in 1994 more Hutu than Tutsi were murdered – an absurd suggestion and contrary to all the widely available research [reports]”.

Inconsistent statistics argument:

Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that the entire post-independence Rwandan population census reports indicated the ethnic and religious affiliation of each Rwandan. The last population census before the 1994 massacres took place in 1991. The 1991 Rwanda population census indicate that the total population was 6.2 million people; 14% Tutsi, 84% Hutu and 1% Twa and others. No post-independence Rwandan population census report had bigger figures than the 1991 population census report. However, after the 1994 massacres, the total number of the people butchered is put at 1.3 million people – in any case, well above 1 million people were brutality butchered. The number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres stood at around 350,000 people. The proper equation, for purposes of determining the number of the Tutsi who died during the1994 massacres should be: 14% of the total population – (minus) the total number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres.

For unknown reasons, Ms. Melvern wants her audience to rely on reports and/or stories, made/told after the 1994 massacres, to ascertain the country’s population’s statistics before 1994. The only proper authority when in issue is the population statistic of a country, is that country’s population census. How does the world end up with over one million Tutsi dead and about 350,000 Tutsi survivors yet the Tutsi were only 14% of a population of 6.2 million people? Even if all the 14% Tutsi had been killed, it was impossible to have the over 1 million human skulls “Tutsi victims” that are paraded in genocide memorial centers. Is it possible that the Hutu set out to exterminate the Tutsi but they ended up killing themselves more than they killed their “target”, the Tutsi? Seeking for answers to such clear statistical inconsistences is called “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern and his fellow researchers’ world. Ms. Melvern and her group are determined to push all these inconsistences down their readers’ throat because “some reports say so”. This, in my considered view, is undermining human intelligibility.

Ms. Melvern and her group should inquire, from the government of Rwanda, about the 2004/2005 household-to-household nationwide survey of the Tutsi who died during the massacres. Why did the government of Rwanda and donors invest so much money in a survey whose findings were never made public? Who had interest in not publishing that survey? Wouldn’t have made a good argument for Kagame, who has paraded human skulls for tourists throughout the country, to show a breakdown of village by village Tutsi who died during the massacres? Interestingly, every apart of Rwanda has skulls of the 1994 massacres victims. However, by April 1994 when the massacres started, RPF had significant territory under their control. How did the “Hutu” penetrate RPA/F held territory to massacre the “Tutsi”? Why there isn’t any District in Rwanda without the 1994 massacres victim skulls yet a significant chunk of Rwandan territory was under RPF control? Inquiring into these and other critical questions is what Ms. Melvern calls “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern’s world. Ridiculous

3. Ms. Melvern and her group twist facts about shooting down the plane of the then Hutu president, which is widely believed to have triggered the 1994 massacres

Ms. Melvern and her group claim that the BBC film “argues that the shooting down of the plane on April 6, 1994 was perpetrated by the RPF. This same story was promoted by Hutu Power extremists within a few hours of the president’s assassination and promoted ever since by génocidaires and a few ICTR defense lawyers. The film pays no heed to a detailed expert report published in January 2012 by a French magistrate Judge Marc Trévidic. This contains evidence from French experts, including crash investigators, who proved scientifically that the missiles that shot down the plane came from the confines of the government-run barracks in Kanombe on the airport’s perimeter – one of the most fortified places in the country, and where it would have been impossible for the RPF, armed with a missile, to penetrate”. This argument is a deliberate set of twisted facts and lies that the journalists and researchers cannot have appended their signature to naked lies if their motive had been justice, fairness and good faith rebuttal of the BBC documentary. The following are the nasty twisted facts and lies in Ms. Melvern’s argument “shooting down the president’s plane”:

(i) Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane is the legal and proximate cause of the 1994 massacres in Rwanda. Shooting down of the plane has been investigated by two distinct and separate courts; the French and Spanish courts. Both courts indicted and issued arrest warrants for Kagame and his top RPF commanders for their alleged criminal responsibility for shooting down the plane. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern appears to argue that the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” and some of the ICTR defense attorneys “influenced” both the French and Spanish court to indict and issue arrest warrants for Kagame and his former bush war top commanders. Really!

(ii) Ms. Melvern and her group do not inform their readers that the ICTR former prosecutor carried out thorough investigations into Kagame and his then rebel leaders’ role in the massacres. The ICTR prosecutor was ready to prosecute Kagame and his fighters who allegedly committed crimes under the ICTR jurisdiction; war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Shooting down the plane was part of the charges against Kagame and his then rebel fighters. Instead of accepting to face justice at the ICTR, Kagame rushed to President Bush for “rescue”. President Bush ordered the then ICTR prosecutor – Carl Del Ponte – to desist prosecuting Kagame and his former rebel fighters because Kagame is a USA ‘ally’. The prosecutor chose to resign than compromising our professional ethnics because selective justice is not justice. These facts are well documented.

(iii) The French court indicted, and/or issued arrest warrants for, Kagame and his top rebel commanders for the shooting down of the plane. Ms. Melvern and her friends know or should know that a court decision is not overturned by a mere report of experts. A court decision is overturned by another superior court’s decision in form of an appeal or the same court’s review of its decision. Ms. Melvern knows or should know that the French Court indictments and/or arrest warrants for Kagame and his alleged partners-in-crime are on file. It is absurd that Ms. Melvern and her group seek to abuse the purpose and character of expert reports the way they use Judge Marc Trévidic report in their argument. In any case, the French Court has not pronounced itself on the experts’ report Ms. Melvern and her group uses for their argument. This is academic dishonesty of the highest order.

(iv) Ms. Melvern and her group appear to ignore the fact that the BBC documentary features some of Kagame’s former top rebel commanders who testify that Kagame ordered the shooting of the plane. These former top rebel commanders’ testimony is admissible evidence in courts of law; it is an “admission”. Some of the former RPA/F top leaders who testified in the documentary are Tutsi and they incriminate themselves. Linda and her fellow researchers should have analyzed these central facts before dismissing the BBC Documentary as “lies”. It is true these former rebels’ testimony may be subject to impeachment for bias. However, since we are not in court yet – and it is court’s exclusive powers to conclude on whether or not a witness is biased against the accused – Ms. Melvern and her group cannot sweep these former RPA/F top leaders’ testimony under the carpet. In any case, Melvern and a significant number of the signatories to the letter can also be impeached for bias in favor of Kagame because of their constant, sometimes bordering with insanity, defense for Kagame at all costs, including telling lies for that purpose. Whatever the case, the BBC is not reasonably expected to go into the intricate law of evidence on impeachment of witnesses’ rules before selecting their interviewees.

D. Ms. Melvern and her group are determined to present evidence of “planning genocide” to BBC yet; the ICTR prosecutor needed, but failed to get, sufficient evidence to prove “planning” the 1994 massacres with intent to destroy the Tutsi in whole or part.

Ms. Melvern and her group give an impression that they have, and are presenting, evidence of “ genocide planning” yet in the famous Military 1 and Military 11 which prosecuted all the top military and national security officials found that all that evidence did not prove “ planning” genocide. The ICTR indictments of all the accused in Military 1 and Military 11 alleged that the accused had pre-made lists of the Tutsi to be killed, the accused had a well laid strategy to exterminate the Tutsi and that the accused had trained and distributed militia to perpetrate the Tutsi genocide. There was no evidence at the ICTR to prove these allegations and court acquitted all the accused on genocide account. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern recycles these allegations, which the ICTR examined and found baseless, for her argument to attack the BBC documentary. If Ms. Melvern had the evidence she claims to prove that the Hutu “planned” the genocide, why didn’t Ms. Melvern take her evidence to the ICTR in the Military 1 and Military 11 which examined ‘planning’ the genocide allegation?

Ms. Melvern and her team, fallaciously, argue that “Jane Corbin, who presented the programme, even tries to raise doubts about whether or not the RPF stopped the genocide. The authority on this subject is Lt.-General Roméo Dallaire … Dallaire is categorical. ‘The genocide was stopped because the RPF won and stopped it’”. Ms. Melvern and her group ignore that the then very powerful and one of the top RPA/F commander, General Nyamwasa Kayumba said that “Kagame’s concern was not to stop the genocide. Kagame’s intention was to take power”. Without efforts to reconcile these critical and diverse positions by different actors, Ms. Melvern makes very disturbing conclusion, “RPF stopped genocide because Gen. Romeo Dakkaire said it”. Is that academic honesty as she claims she is?

Ms. Melvern and her group agree that the BBC documentary lasted for less than an hour. The film features some scholars and people with firsthand information about what happened. What Ms. Melvern and the group blames the BBC documentary for is that the BBC documentary producer did not feature the group’s favorite scholars, practitioners including Dallaire, Philippe Gaillard and Dr. James Orbinski. In my considered view, Ms. Melvern and her group are probably mistaken about how investigative journalism and social research operates. The purpose of the film was to bring to light the “Untold story” about the massacres in Rwanda. It follows that the “popular account of events” was not the subject matter of the documentary. What value would the BBC add to its diverse viewers if the BBC was to avoid controversial social issues for “popular” views? It is impossible to interview everybody for one single research project.

E. The 1994 massacres cannot be detached from Rwanda’s social political culture. A researcher that seeks to close investigations and/or research into the culture that gave birth to the 1994 horrible massacres is probably naive

The 1994 Rwandan massacres were a logical sequence of a complex unresolved social and political dynamics. At the core of this insane conflict is each side’s failure to perceive the other side as a legitimate group with equal rights. In this conflict, the “other group” has no legitimate history, story and existence. Each group’s heroes are the other group’s evil men. Vengeance, dehumanizing the ‘other group’ and exterminating “our” enemy is spontaneous characteristic of an ordinary Hutu or Tutsi. “Secrets and lies” in “our” group against the “other” group are the major features of the Hutu vs Tutsi troubled co-existence. Settling for one group or side’s narrative, without critical thinking and reexamination of these two groups’ co-existence history and crimes, is settling on a appallingly slippery cliff.

Unfortunately, the current government of Rwanda and its complex network of lobbyists consider any critical reflection on RPA/F role in the horrific crimes “genocide denial”. This undesirable Government of Rwanda position is clear in its draconic laws, including “genocide revisionism laws”. Kigali government, its lobbyists and, surprisingly, some academics are inclined to refer to the BBC documentary – a very critical inquiry into the different events during, before and after the 1994 massacres – as “genocide denial”.

Conclusion

What happened during, before and after the 1994 massacres is extremely complex that any social researcher who claims to have perfect and conclusive knowledge of the 1994 Rwandan massacres, like Ms. Melvern and fellow researchers claim, must be treated with the contempt they deserve. “Genocide denial” should not become a social-political tool to suppress critical thinking, human intelligibility and human freedoms.

The BBC has a choice to make. Remain critical and investigative or become a morale booster for those who hold power and lose the trust and confidence of the ordinary people who are yarning for justice and fairness. The Hutu/Tutsi conflict has caused way too many horrible massacres in Burundi, Rwanda and DRC. The victor vs. Vanquished narrative, like Ms. Melvern and her group appear to suggest, should be discarded. For BBC’s credibility and very long history of service, a critical approach to the Hutu/Tutsi conflict is the only sustainable and value adding way to go.

I would be happy to take on Ms. Melvern and her group in an open debate over all the issues they raised in their letter.

Dr Charles Kambanda, PhD

“Mu gatendo ngiye gukora, muzambere ba mudahunga” Kagame Paul

Mu ijambo yavuze amaze kwakira indahiro z’abayobozi bashya ba sena y’u Rwanda, Perezida Kagame yatunguye benshi bari basanzwe bamuziho amakare n’ubukaka. Mu ijwi ryuzuye ikiniga, umukuru w’igihugu yahamagariye abari bamaze kurahira kwirinda guharanira inyungu zabo bwite, ahubwo bagaharanira inyungu rusange z’u Rwanda n’abenegihugu. Avuye kuri ibi, yahise atandukira maze arihambura ( se défouler), agaragaza umujinya afitiye abanyamakuru ndetse n’ubuyobozi bw’ikigo cy’itangazamakuru cy’Ubwongereza BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) kubera sinema kimaze iminsi gihitishije igaragaza ubwicanyi Kagame yagizemo uruhare rukomeye, ndetse akaba ariwe watanze itegeko ryo kurasa indege ya Habyarimana.

Ubusanzwe ibyavuzwe muri iyo sinema nta gishya kirimo, kuko si ubwa mbere byari  bishyizwe ahagaragara, kandi harimo n’amagambo Kagame we ubwe yivugiye abyemera. Ubusesenguzi buragaragaza ko igiteye ubwoba Kagame  ari uko noneho Ubwongereza na bwo bwemeye ko Kagame ari umwicanyi. Ibi simbitindaho ahubwo mu ngingo enye(3) reka turebere hamwe uko Kagame yiteguye guhangana n’ikizakurikiraho nk’uko yabibwiye abamwumvaga. Izo ngingo ni izi:

  1. Muzabe ba Mudahunga
  2. Isi yose irimo akavuyo
  3. Ndangije amagambo, ngiye gukora “agatendo”(real things).

Umuntu yitegereje izi ngingo yasanga zidakurikiranye neza, sinzi niba umukuru w’igihugu cyacu yarabigize nkana, ariko icy’ingenzi ni uko ubutumwa bwe yabuhitishije bwose uko bungana. Iyo aza kuba umuhanga mu kuvuga yashoboraga gutangira ati : “Ubwo basigaye bemera ko turi abicanyi….  kandi (1) isi yose ikaba irimo akavuyo (2)njye ndangije iby’amagambo ngiye gukora agatendo (3)kandi ndabasaba ngo muzambe hafi muzabe ba Mudahunga”. Uko bimeze kose reka tuzikurikiranye uko Kagame yabikoze, ni ukubaha uburenganzira bwe.

  1. Muzabe ba Mudahunga

Ibi yabihereye aho yinubiraga ko ngo abahawe ijambo muri iriya sinema ari abantu bahunze igihugu. Avuga ko nta yindi nyungu yo guhunga uretse guhabwa ijambo kuri BBC. Aha Kagame arashaka kubeshya ko uhunze wese ahabwa ijambo kuri BBC cyangwa andi ma radiyo atandukanye, nyamara yamaze imyaka 30 mu buhungiro nta jambo yahawe. Yarinze gutegereza ko intambara y’Inkotanyi itangizwa kugira ngo ahabwe ijambo.

Kagame azi uko BBC yamukoreye publicité mu gihe na nyuma y’intambara, akaba rero ubu azi neza ko ubwo abandi nabo bahawe ijambo, we bishobora kumugwa nabi. Gusaba rero abamwumvaga kudahunga ni ukugira ngo na bo BBC itazabaha urubuga maze bakamushyira hanze. Ikindi arabashuka kugira ngo mu gihe atangije agatendo (yari atarakavuga) bazamugwe inyuma ngo barimo kurwanira inyungu z’u Rwanda.

Ariko na none Kagame si umuswa. Asaba aba bantu kudahunga ni uko yari azi icyo avuga. Aha reka twibukiranye ibintu bitera ubuhunzi twese tuzi. Umuntu uhunga ni uko aba abona ariho hasigaye amakiriro ye. Wahunga intambara cyangwa se umutekano mukeya, wahunga ubukene, ni uko aba ariyo chance usigaranye yo gukiza amagara yawe. Ibyo aribyo byose aba basenateri, abaministiri n’abadepite yabwiraga bose ama konti yabo aruzuye, nta bukene bafite. Ni ukuvuga ko ikindi bashobora guhunga ari intambara cyangwa se umutekano mukeya. Mu yandi magambo Kagame aratwereka ko igiye kuba intambara irimo gutegurwa akaba asaba aba bantu kuzamugwa inyuma.

  1. Isi yose irimo akavuyo

Kagame avuga ko isi yose yuzuyemo ibibazo by’intambara z’iterabwoba n’ibindi bibazo. Byashoboka ko yaba ashaka kunyura mu rihumye amahanga arangariye ahandi maze agakora agatendo ke. Byakunze kugaragara ko iyo abantu barangaye Kagame ahita akora ikintu gikomeye. Muzakurikirane neza muzasanga buri gihe yagiye yohereza ingabo muri Congo amahanga yabaga ahugiye muri Burasirazuba bwo hagati mu bibazo bihahora. Kugira ngo asasire icyifuzo cye, aravuga ati iyo chaos iri ahantu hose ntibazavuga ko ari twe twayiteje. Ni nk’aho yavuze ati hano naho haramutse habaye chaos nta gitangaza cyaba kirimo. Aravuga rwose yeruye ko u Rwanda na rwo rugomba kubamo chaos. Uyu mugabo Imana imuturinde!

  1. Ndangije amagambo, ngiye gukora “agatendo”

Ibi abivuze yabitekerejeho kuko amaze iminsi arunda ingabo ku mupaka w’u Burundi n’u Rwanda. Abinyujije mu binyamakuru bivugira leta kandi, yatangiye gushinja u Burundi ko mu gihe ingabo zabwo zavaga muri Congo zazamukanye na FDLR. Ibi bikaba aribyo aheraho ashaka kwishora mu ntambara kandi biragaragara ko ariyo izamuhitana cyane cyane ko nk’uko abyivugira imbaraga asigaranye ari nkeya.

Aha hanyibukije ya mvugo y’abakurambere igira iti “amagambo ashize ivuga”.  Koko rero Kagame amagambo yamushiranye, ariko si n’amagambo gusa ahubwo n’ibitekerezo byashize. Arabigaragaza aho avuga ko ngo atumva ukuntu abantu bamufashije kubaka ikintu (jenoside) ari na bo baza kugisenya. Koko rero Abongereza ndetse na benshi mu bahoze muri FPR batanga ubuhamya, bubatse FPR ndetse bayitera inkunga nyuma ya genocide. Raporo za mbere zashinjaga FPR na Kagame ni Abongereza (bafatanyije n’Abanyamerika ) bahitaga bazisisibiranya bakoresheje iturufu ya genocide y’abatutsi nyamara bari bazi neza ko Kagame abifitemo uruhare.

Mu buhamya bwa Carla Del Ponte, yemeza ko yashatse gufata abantu bo muri FPR , Koffi Annan akamubwira ko ari politiki kandi ko bashakaga ko u Rwanda rubanza rukisana. Kuba Kagame atumva uyu mukino rero bishobora gutuma afata n’ibyemezo byo kumuhitana. Iyo ntambara se yo ashaka gushora, inganda zo mu Rwanda zikora amasasu angahe? Uwamufatira embargo ntiyongere kubona amasasu rahira ko igihuru kitabyara igihunyira!?

Umwanzuro:

Iyo witegereje uburyo u Rwanda ruyobowe, ukareba uko abaturage babayeho n’umujinya bamaze kugira, ukongera ukareba akazi gakomeye amashyaka atavuga rumwe na Kagame akomeje gukora, nta shiti uhita ubona ko ibintu bigiye guhinduka mu Rwanda. The wind of change is blowing. Perezida Kagame nk’umuntu ubikurikiranira hafi, nawe azi uko ikibazo kimeze. Abanyarwanda ndabasaba gukurikira kandi bakamenya gusoma ibimenyetso by’ibihe. Akenshi iyo ingoma itangiye kurindimuka biragaragara ariko kumenya igihe ihombokera (ku ngoma ntibavuga guhomboka bavuga kubyara) bikunze gutungurana.

Gusa ntidukwiye kugira ubwoba, kuko na Karinga bavugaga ko nisezererwa nta mubyeyi uzongera kubyara, inka zitazongera konsa, imvura itazongera kugwa, isake ntizizabika,…. Nyamara yasimbuwe n’ibendera U Rwanda rurushahp gutera imbere. Kagame ashoze intamabara, imuhitane wenyine, dukomeze twubake Igihugu. Ikiniga afite kiramucira amarenga. Ariko na none muzirikane ko n’ubwo karinga yagiye abantu bagahumeka, imvugo ngo Habyarimana navaho impundu zizavuga yo ntiyigeze isohora. Ni ukubyitondamo.

Chaste Gahunde

Rwanda: Kagame yaba agiye kwiyahura?!

1781914_676140859114667_617787618_n

Iyi photo yahinduwe n’umuntu wemeza ko yabonekewe abona Kagame afatwa kubera ibyaha bya genocide aregwa.

Birakwiye gusesengura neza ijambo ridasanzwe Perezida Paul Kagame yavuze ejo taliki ya 14 Ukwakira 2014 ubwo yarahizaga mubyara we Bernard Makuza  usimbuye  Yohani Damaseni Ntawukuriryayo ku mwanya w’umuyobozi wa Sena.

Muri rusange, ryari ijambo rirerire cyane kuko ryamaze iminota 56 yose ! Ikintu cy’ingenzi cyariranze ni uko rya jwi ry’amakari Kagame  asanganywe ryari ryaguyemo imbeho, ejo rwose ryari ribuzemo imbaraga ku buryo yavugaga nk’umuntu wongorera, nk’unaniwe cyane cyangwa se umurwayi usohotse ibitaro ! Izo ntege nke na we ubwe yaziyumvagamo kuko hari aho yivugiye ngo” N’ubwo umubiri wananirwa umutima wo ntunanirwa”. Gusa aha yaribeshye  cyane kuko twese tuzi neza ko umutima utananirwa gusa ahubwo ugeze n’aho uhagarara burundu, iyo uruhijwe birenze imbaraga zawo . Aritondere uwe rero !

Maze gutega amatwi iri jambo nasanze mu by’ukuri ritari rijyanye neza n’ibirori byahimbazwaga ahubwo ryari rigenewe gufasha Kagame gusohora hanze (speaking out ) uruvangitarane rw’ ibyiyumviro by’ubwoba, uburakari n’agahinda, biremereye umutima we muri iyi minsi . Kandi impamvu y’uko kuremererwa Kagame yarayivuze ndetse ayitindaho cyane : ni Sinema yo mu bwoko bwa Documentaire yitwa “Rwanda: Untold story” yakozwe n’Abongeleza, yerekanwa incuro nyinshi kuri Televisiyo yabo yitwa BBC 2, irebwa n’amahanga menshi.  None rero ikibazo ni iki : Icyababaje kandi kikarakaza Kagame bigeze aho ni iki mu by’ukuri ?

Muri iri sesengura turibanda ku ngingo ebyiri gusa: Ikibabaje Kagame(I) n’Icyo ateganya gukora (II).

I. “UBU NITWE BICANYI….”

Uwansaba kuvuga mu magambo atatu gusa ubutumwa bwose Kagame yatambukije mu ijambo rye ryamaze iminota 56, sinazuyaza, nasubira muri aya magambo ya Kagame: “UBU NITWE BICANYI….”. Mbega ukuntu yishimiraga kubyita abandi  Banyarwanda harimo n’abarengana! None we bamuvuze uko ari, ngo Rusizi nticyambutswe!

Kagame arababaye

1.Icyababaje Kagame kurusha ibindi ni uko iriya sinema yerekana neza ko Abongereza batahwemye kumushyigikira kuva yatangira intambara zarimbuye Abanyarwanda  batagira ingano bamaze kubona ko badashobora gukomeza kwibeshya no kubeshya isi mu gushyigikira umutegetsi bazi neza ko ari umwicanyi kabuhariwe !

2.Kagame ababajwe n’uko Abongereza bateye intambwe yo gutangira  kumushinja ku mugaragaro ko ari we Nyirabayazana w’ibyago byagwiriye u Rwanda, ubwo yahanuraga  indege y’uwahoze ari umukuru w’u Rwanda Yuvenali Habyarimana, mu ijoro ry’iya 6 rishyira iya 7 mata 1994, icyo gikorwa cy’iterabwoba kikaba ari cyo cyabaye imbarutso ya jenoside yarimbuye Abanyarwanda basaga miliyoni, Abatutsi n’Abahutu. Ndetse iyo Sinema yo ijya kure ikerekana ko mu by’ukuri  gukomeza gushyira imbere Abatutsi bishwe bonyine birimo ikinyoma n’ubushinyaguzi kuko imibare itangwa n’u Rwanda ubwarwo igaragaza ko Abahutu bo mu Rwanda ari bo bagize umubare munini w’abarimbuwe bityo amateka y’u Rwanda akaba yirengagiza nkana kubavuga no kubibuka !

3. Kagame ababajwe n’uko  amahanga aha ijambo (Freedom of speech) abantu we ngo abona nta gaciro na busa bafite (Completely discredited). Mu mutwe we yumvaga ari we (Le Maître de l’univers) ugena abantu bafite agaciro n’abatagafite, intungane n’abanyabyaha ! Ubwo bubasha kandi akaba yishukaga ko abufite ku Rwanda no ku bindi bihugu. Kandi ni mu gihe, mu myaka isaga 20 amahanga yakomeje kumufata bajeyi, none atangiye kwibonera ko ibihugu by’ibihangange  birambiwe kandi byiyemeje kurambika hasi  “politiki ya ciraha nikubite”yateteshaga umwicanyi ruharwa Paul Kagame.

4. Kagame ababajwe no gutahura bitinze ko nta rundi rukundo ba Mpatsibihugu bari bamufitiye, ko yagizwe igikoresho cy’inyugu zabo gusa , ko mu by’ukuri we nta kandi GACIRO bamuhaga katari ako kubabera igikoresho, bityo babona amaze guhindana( Infrequantable) bakaba biyemeje kumuta bakifatira undi wakwita ku nyungu zabo kumurusha .

Kagame afite ubwoba

5.  Kagame  atewe ubwoba no gutahura ko atigeze yita na rimwe ku nyungu nyakuri z’Abanyarwanda none atangiye kuraga mubyara we Makuza ibyamunaniye: Ngo ntimuzahugire muguharanira inyungu zanyu musuzugura iza rubanda !

6. Kagame afite ubwoba bw’uko politiki ye yo guhindura umutwe wa FDLR ba Nyirurutwerunini (Bouc-emissaire) itazongera gushyigikirwa nk’uko abyifuza, bo yahoraga agerekaho ibyaha byose byakozwe mu Rwanda n’akaga kose Abanyarwanda barimo ubungubu, bikamufasha kurangaza amahanga no kwigaragaza nk’intungane n’umucunguzi w’Abatutsi bo ku isi yose!

7. Kagame afite ubwoba ko amateka y’u Rwanda agiye kuvugwa uko ari bityo uruhare rwe mu marorerwa yarimbuye abanyarwanda n’Abanyekongo batagira ingano  rurekere aho guhishwa ahubwo ruvugirwe ku kabonabose.

8. Kagame afite ubwoba bwo kwitwa umwicanyi bityo abari bamukingiye ikibaba bakaba bagiye kumukuraho amaboko burundu, ahasigaye imbwa zikamurya !

9.Kagame afite ubwoba bw’uko agiye gukurwa ku butegetsi maze Inkiko mpuzamahanga zikamufata, zikamuryoza ibyaha byose yakoze zitababarira .

Kagame afite umujinya

10. Kagame afite umujinya  ko ishema yaterwaga no kwita Umuyobozi “UDASANZWE”(Visionary Leader) rirangiriye aho, ahubwo akaba atangiye gucuncumuka agana ikuzimu (Descente aux enfers), kuko agiye kuba iciro ry’imigani, yerekanwe nk’umutegetsi w’UMUBISHA warushije abandi gukomeretsa no kwivugana abanyagihugu benshi, kuva isi yaremwa !

11. Kagame afite umujinya ndetse n’ ipfunwe ryo kuzasubira kuvugira kuri BBC, hahandi yahoraga ajya kwigamba ubumanzi bw’ubutekinikano: Aho yambariye inkindi azagira ubutwari bwo kwemera kuhambarira incocero?

12. Kagame afite umujinya mwinshi w’uko abo bafatanyije gusahura ibyiza by’igihugu n’iby’abaturanyi bamwigaritse akaba agiye kubibazwa wenyine, aka ya nteruro yo  muri Bibiriyango “abo nagaburiye umugati wanjye nibo banteye ishoti”!

13. Kagame afite umujinya ko mu batangabuhamya bamushinja harimo abavandimwe bahoze mu Gatsiko ke nyuma bakaza kwitandukanya n’ubugizi bwa nabi bwe.  Koko rero yagerageje kubatesha agaciro mu maso y’abanyarwanda n’abanyamahanga, abacira imanza zo kubacisha umutwe, agerageza kubatsinda ishyanga ngo ntihasigare n’iyonka……none ababajwe n’uko bakiriho kandi bakaba batamworoheye . Aricuza impamvu basubiranyemo, none bikaba biri mu bimukozeho….

II. KAGAME ARATEGANYA KWIYAHURA NO KOREKA U RWANDA

Kubera ko Kagame atiteguye “kwemera ibyaha bye ngo tuzarebe uko yagabanyirizwa ibihano”,mu ijambo rye ry’ejo yagerageje gushushanyiriza Abanyarwanda igikorwa cya nyuma cy’ubutwari yiteguye gukora : KWIYAHURA ariko ntagende wenyine.

Ongera utege amatwi uko Kagame yashoje ijambo rye : “From here ,I think, It is a time to go and do  a real thing  “, “Guhera  ubu , ndabamenyesha ko ngiye gukora “Agatendo” katazibagirana”. Ako gatendo ni akahe ? Aho si  “Apocalypse”  nk’iyo twiboneye n’amaso yacu muri 1994 ?

Mu by’ukuri, mu kwishuka ko agifite ibanga ryo kwikura mu kimwaro , Paul Kagame agiye gushoza indi intambara y’amasasu, gusa icyo atazi ni uko izaba ariyo ya nyuma kuko ari nayo izamuhitana. Ibimenyetso byose birerekana ko Kagame agiye gutera Kongo n’Uburundi icyarimwe. Gusa hari ibintu bitatu asa n’uwirengagiza nkana. Icya mbere ni uko  yibeshya ku ngufu z’Uburundi muri iki gihe kandi n’iyo turebye amateka tukaba dusanga  basekuru na basekuruza be b’indwanyi cyane batarigeze bigarurira Uburundi na rimwe. Icyakabiri ni uko asa n’utangiye kwibagirwa ukuntu umutwe we w’iterabwoba yari yarahaye izina rya M 23 wayobewe ikiwukubise, ugashwanyaguzwa nk’amakoma y’insina, izuba riva ! Icya gatatu ni uko inzangano  zikarishye yikururiye mu karere no mu mahanga ya kure zishobora kumubyarira amazi nk’ibisusa, nko mu kanya ko guhumbya ijisho!  Intamenya ntibwira umugenzi koko. Nagende rwiza, abagira iyo bajya baragenda. Mbabajwe n’abana b’inzirakarengane bagiye kongera gutikizwa bashorwa mu ntambara zitagize icyo zimariye u Rwanda n’Abanyarwanda. Njyewe Padiri Thomas Nahimana, ndamutse ndi mu ngabo za Kagame, iyi yo sinayirwana kandi sinakwibuza gushishikariza n’abandi kugenza nkanjye: twareka Kagame akayishoramo na Cyomoro we, bonyine!

UMWANZURO

Nyamara hari ukundi byagenda…! Haracyari akadirishya k’uko Kagame yakiza ubugingo bwe n’ubw’umuryango we, akarokora n’ubw’Abanyarwanda benshi . Nacishe make, aduhamagare, twicare TUGANIRE nta buhendanyi.

Mu gihe amahanga yizeraga atagishoboye kumucira akari urutega, Abanyarwanda nitwe twenyine ahari twamupfa agasoni, ngo n’ibyaye ikiboze irakirigata ! Umuti w’ikibazo Abanyarwanda ubwabo barawifitiye, bifitemo ubushobozi bwo gutera umugongo ibyahise, bakitangira kurema  igihugu cy’AMAHORO  arambye kandi asangiwe basonzeye .

Padiri Thomas Nahimana,

Umuyobozi w’Ishema Party

Akaba n’Umukandida w’iryo shyaka mu matora ya 2017.

THE BBC MUST BE CONGRATULATED FOR LAUNCHING SCRUTINY WITH “RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY”

Paul Kagame– wants only the victor’s side of the story to be heard

[Commentary: Open Letter to the BBC]

The letter objecting to the BBC documentary “Rwanda’s Untold Story” signed by a list of formerly credible academics and public figures reveals​ their inability to accept the fact that, after any major conflict the “victor’s tale” is not completely accurate, and that is particularly the case for the four-year war for power in Rwanda the last 100 days ​of which ​is called “the Rwanda genocide.”

This is a lesson taught to those of us in the U.S. ​who remember Vietnam by Robert S. McNamara in another documentary “The Fog of War” about another war built on half-truths​.

He also noted that​, had the Japanese won WWII, he and others who planned the gasoline bombing of Tokyo would be the war criminals.  It is quite amazing that “the myths of the victors” continue to be so easy to swallow — initially.  It is as if the signers of the letter seeking to suppress journalism have suspended disbelief despite what ​even the British must remember about the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

​But, the signatories are sticking to the Kagame/RPF victors’ saga long after the lack of evidence to support the “myth” has been exposed and contemporaneous data reported by third parties present in Rwanda has begun to create a new narrative.  The notables signing the letter have to ignore written judgments entered by the UN Tribunal for Rwanda, after Trial Chambers heard the best evidence the Rwandan government could muster for more than a decade, on exactly the same three issues raised in the letter, the UN Tribunal rejected all three.

Here are the facts:

First, IF there was any evidence to support the assertion that “30,000 interahamwe were trained as killers,” it was not introduced by the Prosecution as evidence in the trials of the government or military leaders of the Habyarimana government. The proponents of the letter cite no source.  In fact, the leaders of the government and military were acquitted of planning, conspiring, training, organizing, preparing, or any other sort of “planification” of any criminal acts against Tutsi civilians at all, prior to the assassination of President Habyarimana in the April 6, 1994 shootdown of the President’s plane.

This means that there was no evidence of planning to shoot down the President’s plane by his own forces, either.  This is what Trial Chamber-​found in the Bagosora Trial, Military-1:

When viewed against the backdrop of targeted killings and massive slaughter perpetrated by civilian and assailants between April and July 1994 as well as earlier cycles of violence, it is understandable why for many this evidence…shows a prior conspiracy to commit genocide….However, they are also consistent with preparations for a political or military power struggle…when confronted with circumstantial evidence [the Chamber] can only convict where it is the only reasonable inference…the Prosecution has not shown that the only reasonable inference based on credible evidence…was that [genocidal] intention was shared by the Accused.

…the Chamber is not satisfied that the Prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the four Accused conspired among themselves, or with others to commit genocide before it unfolded on 7 April 1994. (emphasis added)

Second, according to ​the letter’s signatory ​Gen. Dallaire, in his ​own​ Sept 1993 Reconnaissance Report to the Security Council,  the RPF reported the total number of Tutsi in Rwanda was about 667,000, a number which the RPF did not consider an undercount in a UN estimate pre-Genocide. (see p. 30).

After July 1994,  IBUKA, the RPF survivors organization estimated 300,000 Tutsi survived in Rwanda.  This means that according to contemporaneous numbers from the RPF ​via Gen. Dallaire​, total Tutsi deaths must have been a blood-chilling 337,000 and even less than Davenport and Stam estimate and means even more Hutu deaths would be required to reach 800,000 to 1,000,000 total or some 460,000 to 660,000 Hutus. Please take note:  these numbers come from General Dallaire and the RPF. (Moreover, Gen. Dallaire has been a Kagame admirer for a long time, as far back as 1994 telling The New York Times, “He is absolutely brilliant,” and “He has an exceptionally disciplined mind.”)

Third, the shooting down of the plane was the conclusion reached in 1997 the elite International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Prosecutor’s Investigative Team by: Michael Hourigan, Australian Queen’s Prosecutor; frmr. FBI Special Agent, James Lyons; Gen. Dallaires Chief Mil. Int. Ofcr. Col. Amadou Deme; Chief ICTR Prosecutor Carla del Ponte; French Investigating Judge Bruggiere; Spanish Investigating Judge Merelles; the subject of confessions by frmr Kagame Chiefs of Staff Theogene Rudesingwa, M.D.; Gen. Rudesingwa; Lt. Joshua Abdul Rusebiza(ICTR testimony); Lt. Ruyenzi; and supported by ICTR testimony from eyewitnesses including Fr. Col. DeSanQuentin in Kanombe Base and first at the crash site with Maj. Ntabakuze on April 6, 1004.All of the above is documented in the film, in documents cited in my book “The Accidental Genocide,” or in the evidence and transcripts at the ICTR.

Davenport, Stam and Reyntjens were all Prosecution witnesses, not defense witnesses, who stopped being called by the Prosecution as their conclusions began to contradict the RPF myths.  Interahamwe leaders…witnesses A and BY in the Military-1 Trial both testified as Prosecution witnesses after guilty pleas in Belgium and both claimed to be trained ONLY as self-defense forces.  This evidence is IN the ICTR record.  Please confirm the assertion.

Please read the Trevidic Report, it does not say what is alleged by the letter.  It’s conclusions are far more ambiguous than the letter suggests and are based on an analysis of re-produced sound recordings, not on the testimonies of any individuals involved in the shootdown team, itself. Without studying and understanding:

the four-year war that began as an invasion from Uganda in October 1990;

that resumed with a full assault in Feb. 1993 that displaced nearly 1.5 million Rwandans from the Byumba breadbasket that nearly took power;

the Burundi genocide that drove 300,000 refugees into Rwanda; and the U.S. ambassador telling Kagame in Nov. 1993 that if he resumed the war, he would be responsible for a second Burundi genocide in Rwanda  (ICTR Testimony of Amb. Robert Flaten, July 2005):

As Dr. Stam stated, discussing the 100 days of the “Rwanda genocide” without discussing the 4-year war following the RPF invasion is like discussing the Holocaust without discussing WW-II.

Please note, none of the allegations in the letter signed by so many cite to any hard evidence in support.  At the ICTR, this same lack of support required the Trial and Appeal Chambers to reject the allegations of the ICTR Prosecutor, the Rwandan Government, and the several Prosecutors on loan from the U.S. Dept of Justice which pursued the issue for more than a decade without success.

The letter fails to note the incontrovertible evidence of RPF crimes in Congo from 1993-2003 documented in the October 2010 UNHCR “Mapping Report;” the UNS/C Expert Reports on Illegal Resource Extraction from Congo, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 20012; Rwandan support for M23 and other occupying groups illegally extracting resources from Congo; the excess deaths in Congo and Central Africa between 5 and 10 million ​deaths attributed to invasions of 1996, 1998 and continual warfare over two decades.

In 2010, the Obama administration declared the Kagame election ​unfree and unfair, while Victoire Ingabire and other potential candidates were imprisoned and prevented from meaningful campaigning. In March 2014, HRW Reported the history of assassination of political opponents of Kagame dating back to 1993, and attempts on current opponents in exile.

In 2012, the U.S. War Crimes Ambassador, Stephen Rapp THREATENED with prosecution ala Charles Taylor for his support of M23 crimes in Congo.​ All of the foregoing are in the public record.​

The existence of this massive bloodshed, and its authorship in Kigali ​with assistance from Kampala cannot be denied by any honest signatories of the letter submitted to BBC.

The BBC documentary is true to the documentary record, and to the investigations and judgments of the United Nations ICTR despite the impunity enjoyed by Kagame and the RPF for crimes committed during the Rwanda genocide, described by former Chief ICTR Prosecutor Carla del Ponte.

The BBC is to be congratulated for following the story where the evidence leads.

Sincerely,

Prof. Peter Erlinder

Director, Int. Humanitarian Law Institute

Former Lead Counsel, Military-1, Ntabakuze Defense

Past-pres. ICTR-ADAD, Association des Avocat de la Defense

Source: http://www.blackstarnews.com/global-politics/africa/the-bbc-must-be-congratulated-for-launching-scrutiny-with-rwandas-untold