THE US SECRETARY OF STATE’S VISIT TO RWANDA SHOULD SPARK THE OPENING OF THE POLITICAL SPACE
On behalf of members of ISHEMA Party and on behalf of all Rwandans, we would like to welcome the United States (US) Secretary of State, Hon Antony BLINKEN to the country of a thousand hills, Rwanda.
On this occasion, it is imperative to raise some important issues faced by our people because of lack of good governance, violations of human rights, lack of an open political space, which, if not well managed are driving the country and the whole region into a chaotic end. The American government has played a major role in supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) despite its liberticide and warmongering nature in the Great Lakes region. While the RPF has a heavy responsibility, its partners, and donors such as the US cannot escape the public judgement. To confront these ills and correct what is popularly seen as mistakes of the past, a call to act is sent to the American People as well as to all the international community.
Mu minsi ishize Perezida Paul KAGAME yagiranye ikiganiro na Televiziyo y’Abafaransa izwi nka France24. Icyari kigamijwe kwari ukubaza Kagame ku bijyanye n’intambara u Rwanda ruherutse kongera gutangiza rugaba ibitero ku gihugu cya Repubulika iharanira Demokarasi ya Kongo. Koko rero, n’ubwo ibyo bitero byitirirwa umutwe wa M23, ibimenyetso byose byerekana ko ari u Rwanda rwateye Kongo, ndetse aya makuru agashimangirwa n’amashusho afatwa na Satelite z’Abanyamerika ndetse na Drones z’ingabo z’umuryango w’abibumbye muri Kongo, MONUSCO. Na Kagame ntiyigeze abihakana kandi ibi ntibyatuguranye. Igisa n’icyatunguye benshi ni ukongera kumva Kagame avuga ko ashobora kongera kwiyamamaza imyaka 20! Reka turebere hamwe uburyo ibi byifuzo ari urukozasoni ku gihugu n’abenegihugu.
Qui est Paul Kagame ? Comment a-t-il transformé un pays sorti exsangue d’un génocide fratricide ? “The Times” revient sur le parcours du président rwandais alors que son pays et le Royaume-Uni ont signé un accord de sous-traitance du droit d’asile “off-shore”.
Envoyer au Rwanda, dont l’histoire récente est l’une des plus sanglantes du monde, des migrants vulnérables qui avaient pour objectif d’entamer une nouvelle vie au Royaume-Uni ? L’idée peut sembler à tout le moins saugrenue.
Ce n’est certainement pas le genre d’accueil auquel s’attendent les Afghans qui ont fui Kaboul quand leur pays est tombé aux mains des talibans l’année dernière. Et s’il faut en croire l’expérience – car des accords semblables de traitement des demandes d’asile ont été conclus par le passé entre le Rwanda et Israël et le Danemark – ces réfugiés ne resteront pas longtemps sur le sol rwandais.
If President Paul Kagame has been tracking the furore over Priti Patel’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, he’s been doing it on the hoof. Kagame moves constantly these days: the news broke while he was en route to Barbados after a visit to Jamaica. In the past two months he has been to Congo-Brazzaville, Kenya (twice), Zambia, Germany (twice), Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Mauritania, Senegal and Belgium.
How the president of one of Africa’s poorest nations can afford all this travelling is a puzzle, and the fact that his Gulfstream jet is supplied by Crystal Ventures, his Rwandan Patriotic Front’s monopolistic investment arm, raises interesting budgetary questions. In a country where checks on the executive have been whittled away, the dividing line between a ruling party’s business interests and the presidential expense account is distinctly blurred.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Head of the Commonwealth.
Heads of States and Governments members of the Commonwealth. (all)
Secretary General of the Commonwealth
RE: LET 2022 CHOGM SET A GROUND FOR AN INCLUSIVE INTER RWANDAN DIALOGUE
It is decided. Irreversible. Or almost. The Commonwealth of Nations, an organization whose values and principles are democracy, good governance, human rights, rule of law amongst others, is going to hold its highest meeting in a liberticide country, Rwanda. For a common citizen, this is heart-breaking. Why? Because in a country under dictatorship, where top leaders have no respect of their own people they are supposed to protect, the hope is turned to external forces, and the Commonwealth is a such force. You can imagine what a disappointment it can be to wake up to the news that your hope, your expected advocate is supporting your persecutor! The leadership of ISHEMA Party, a political organization in opposition to the ruling party RPF, takes the liberty to alert you on what you might not be aware of and could harm the good image the Commonwealth citizenry has of the noble organization. At the same occasion, we request your mediation between the government of Rwanda and the opposition through an inter Rwandan dialogue to shape the future of our nation where “never again” shall have sense.
I. Kagame, the Commonwealth Chair-in-Office (CIO)
One of biggest achievements in the process of self-realization of any dictator would be to be legally recognized as the Head of more than 50 countries from all corners of the globe. For Mr Kagame, this would not have happened, had the leader of Rwanda respected the Constitution of 2003 which provided that “under no circumstances may anyone serve more than two presidential terms”. The President whose role is to guarantee the protection of the Constitution failed his mission, not by omission, rather by a deliberate action aimed at self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment, and exclusion as well as deprivation of others’ rights on political participation and competition.
Rwanda is one of the world’s fastest growing economies and is ranked second in Africa as the easiest place to do business. In addition, this landlocked country boasts the world’s record for female representation in parliament. And it’s the only African country that manufactures “Made in Africa” smartphones.
This has also led major global brands including the world’s biggest car manufacturer, the world’s biggest nuclear company by foreign orders, a major U.S. multinational telecommunications company plus a retinue of other global corporations to set up shop in a country the size of the U.S. state of Maryland.
Rwanda’s economic and social accomplishments—while impressive—mask the underbelly of one of the world’s cruelest states, led by Paul Kagame.
Here, freedom of expression is muzzled. Extrajudicial killings are institutionalized. Show trials are routinely encouraged. Forced disappearances are embraced, while private businesses are forcibly seized by a regime that operates like the Nazi Gestapo.
Despite evidence of Kagame ordering his political opponents to be murdered, arrested, jailed, kidnapped, assassinated and tortured, the international community has continued to turn the other way. Why is that the case in Rwanda, but not in countries like Ethiopia, where U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called for a ceasefire to allow for humanitarian aid to flow into the Tigray region?
The President and the ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) have built and fine-tuned over the decades a totalitarian police state in which criticism of the government, or any semblance of dissent, is criminalized and often results in death for those who dare to speak out, said Jeffrey Smith, founding director of Vanguard Africa. He told TF in an email exchange, “There is no independent media, nor independent human rights groups or a political opposition that are allowed the minimum space to operate. The ruling RPF, in essence, has been wholly conflated with the state,” says Smith.
The 1994 genocide killed about 800,000 people drawn mainly from the minority Tutsi community, including moderate Hutus, while the rest of the world silently looked on. But Rwanda has since experienced an economic recovery that has been inextricably linked to Kagame, who officially took power in 2000.
In a controversial 2015 constitutional referendum, Rwandans voted overwhelmingly to allow Kagame, 63, to stand again for office beyond the end of his second term, which ended in 2017. He won elections held the same year with nearly 99 percent of the vote. In theory, he could run twice again, keeping him in power until 2034. His current term ends in 2024.
So why does the Western world play blind and deaf to the excess exhibited by Kagame? In other words, why the complicity in crimes and misdeeds in Rwanda ever since the end of the genocide?
“Rwanda has performed exceedingly well on the economic front. It’s seen as a success story in a continent that is dotted with malfunctioning states,” Lewis Mudge, the Central Africa Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) told TF in a telephone interview. “The international donor community loves a good story and Rwanda serves as an example.”
The United States and the United Kingdom, like other Western governments, did not intervene in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Nonetheless, both U.S. President Bill Clinton and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair later emerged as moralists and humanitarian interventionists, claiming human rights as one of the guiding principles for U.S. and British leadership in the world. This argument has since been used to bomb Yugoslavia, and invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
However, a U.S. diplomat quoted in the New York Times in an article aptly titled, “The Global Elite’s Favorite Strongman,” explained the reason the West disregarded the atrocities happening in Rwanda. “You put your money in, and you get results out. We needed a success story, and he was it.”
In late May, French President Emmanuel Macron travelled to Rwanda, formerly a French colony, in a gesture largely aimed at fixing a glacial relationship that had broken down as a result of the latter having backed the former extremist government in Rwanda, including supporting and training its military, which committed genocide.
In addition, France is determined to win back its influence in former French colonies in Africa, including in Rwanda. Some have begun cooperating with other powers, among them China and Turkey, said Arrey E. Ntui, a researcher with the International Crises Group (ICG).
“The French Government is currently not that popular in Africa as a result of its past exploitative history with African states,” said Ntui. “The current leadership in Africa is assertive and takes no prisoners. This calls for France to tread carefully because there are emerging nations that are willing to partner with Africa without a condescending attitude. So it would have been foolhardy, for example, for Macron to censure his Rwandan counterpart on account of real or imagined human rights abuses happening in Rwanda.”
Since his inauguration in May 2017, Macron has visited 18 African countries out of 62 states he has so far visited, a sign that he is determined to claw back the influence France once had when it counted 20 countries as its colonies within the African continent.
But should the world expect an insurgency anytime soon in Rwanda?
Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, a former presidential contestant who has been jailed for 15 years for daring to challenge Kagame told TF the Kagame government took power after a war and genocide.
“I would say that all these crimes committed in our country have traumatized Rwandans,” Umuhoza said. “Moreover, there is no room for dissenting voices in Rwanda. If one criticizes the government they are immediately labeled as the enemy of the state. Under such circumstances, people live in constant fear of expressing themselves. But this silence worries me a lot because it can lead to implosion in Rwanda one day.”
U.S. National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Report published every five years says the world is “at a critical juncture in human history” and warns that a number of countries are at high risk of becoming failed states by 2030—Rwanda being one of them.
Charles Wachira is a foreign correspondent based in Nairobi, Kenya, and is formerly an East Africa correspondent with Bloomberg. He covers issues including human rights, business, politics and international relations
Authoritarian states deliberately use a number of tools to manage their image internationally, writes Alexander Dukalskis. Creating positive news, distracting and silencing critique, and shaping elite opinion help make the world safer for dictatorships
Rwanda’s authoritarian leader Paul Kagame Photo: Wikimedia Commons
In 2012 news broke about a public relations contract between a firm called Racepoint Global and the Rwandan government. The contract involved a plan written by the firm to improve Rwanda’s image internationally, including managing the image of its authoritarian leader, Paul Kagame.
The plan is telling. Of course, it includes the standard public relations stuff like making the country look attractive and Kagame a wise leader. But more interestingly, it details its aims to undermine Rwanda’s critics abroad – including human rights activists.
The plan also aims to cultivate journalists in leading outlets to promote a positive image of Kagame, and Rwanda. Thanks to the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), you can look up the plan for yourself.
Soft power or image management?
We often think about states promoting a positive image of themselves abroad through ‘soft power’ initiatives. And rightfully so: they do this a lot. But the Rwanda Racepoint memo is a revealing reminder that states – and especially authoritarian ones with an image problem – do a lot of other things to manage their image. These activities are often ethically dubious or sometimes outright illegal – violent, even.
In his excellent book, journalist Ron Nixon details the methods South Africa’s Apartheid regime used to improve its dire image internationally. These included paying lobbyists, and sponsoring ‘look and see’ tours to South Africa for opinion-shapers. The regime even attempted to purchase a newspaper covertly, discrediting critics as closet communists. Many authoritarian states do all these things and more.
Authoritarian image management
In my new book Making the World Safe for Dictatorship, I try to understand what motivates these efforts and how they operate. Focusing on authoritarian states, I create a framework of what I call ‘authoritarian image management.’
Authoritarian states use a range of tactics abroad to burnish their image and stamp out criticism; in short, they try to make their world safe for their dictatorship.
Authoritarian states use a range of tactics abroad to burnish their image and stamp out criticism; in short, they try to make their world safe for their dictatorship. The idea of the book is to put all these different methods into the same conversation. It aims to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and how different states adopt different tactics.
Authoritarian image management has two audiences: mass publics or specific elites. Further, it can have two main forms: promoting positive messages or obstructing criticisms of the state. Put together, you get four types of authoritarian image management, depending on audience and form.
To study these tactics, I use a range of data, including FARA documents, interviews, case study evidence, and video analysis. I also created a publicly available database of all instances in which authoritarian states threatened and/or repressed one of their own citizens abroad between 1991 and 2019.
Creating positive images
Here let me highlight some examples that have transpired since the book came out.
First, perhaps the most salient example of an authoritarian state putting out positive messages designed for a mass audience is covid-related messaging by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The Chinese authorities have attempted to present the PRC as successful at home in eliminating the disease and generous abroad in helping other countries meet the pandemic’s challenges.
In a recent paper with my co-author Sam Brazys, we analyse the messaging of Xinhua, China’s main state news agency, and find that it portrays China in positive and generous terms. The idea is to portray China’s authoritarian system as capable domestically and non-threatening internationally.
China’s Xinhua state news agency portrays the country’s authoritarian system as capable domestically and non-threatening internationally
Responding to criticism
Second, authoritarian states don’t just try to present positive images to the general foreign public. They also try to mitigate or distract from bad news or criticism.
Someone like Navalny is a public relations problem for Russian authorities, and his global name recognition means that the government can’t just pretend he doesn’t exist. The authorities perceive that they have to respond to the negative press.
Third, authoritarian states can try to silence specific critics or groups of critics abroad. This tactic involves what scholars call ‘extraterritorial repression’ or ‘transnational repression.’ Freedom House has recently released a major report and underlying data on the subject.
From abroad he frequently criticised Kagame’s government. In August 2020 he was apparently deceived into boarding a charter flight and ultimately ended up in Rwanda where he now faces a terrorism trial.
A prominent critic of the Rwandan government is now no longer able to voice his criticisms to international audiences.
Shaping elite opinion
Authoritarian states try to cultivate elite opinion shapers to disseminate positive messages to international audiences. Sometimes this is through direct funding, sometimes through access. It may even stem from ideological affinity.
Authoritarian states try to cultivate elite opinion shapers to disseminate positive messages to international audiences
There are lots of potential examples here and many grey areas. One topic is funding for think tanks. In her recent report on the subject, Nadège Rolland details how authoritarian states try to fund think tanks to shape elite conversation on issues important to them. A similar logic can extend to universities.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Authoritarian image management is about more than just ‘soft power’.
Once you start thinking about the multiple methods available to authoritarian actors abroad it becomes important to see them as tools in a toolkit rather than as unrelated to one another.
By Andrew Harding Africa correspondent, BBC NewsPublished6 hours ago
Leaked footage of a controversial “oath” ceremony at the Rwandan High Commission in London has fuelled allegations of an aggressive global crackdown on dissent by the authoritarian government of the small East African nation, dubbed the new “North Korea” by its critics.
Members of the Rwandan diaspora have told the BBC that such ceremonies are commonplace and designed to instil fear and obedience.
One man said his relatives back in Rwanda had been abducted and possibly killed to punish him for refusing to co-operate. The Rwandan authorities have dismissed the allegations as false and unsubstantiated.
In the video footage, recently circulated on WhatsApp, more than 30 individuals can be seen standing in a crowded conference room at the Rwandan embassy in the UK, raising their hands and pledging loyalty to the governing party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).
“If I betray you or stray from the RPF’s plans and intentions, I would be betraying all Rwandans and must be punished by hanging,” the group says, in Kinyarwanda, while also promising to fight “enemies of Rwanda, wherever they may be”.
The RPF’s use of an embassy – which in London is close to Marylebone Station – for an overtly political pledge is, in itself, noteworthy.
But, while some of those attending the ceremony – understood to have taken place in 2017 – may well have been genuine supporters of the governing party, now living abroad, others have told the BBC that many attendees were there under duress.BBC”This is what happens everywhere. It’s routine. Either you take [the oath] or you are [the] enemy. It is black and white”David Himbara Ex-adviser to President Kagame
“I am certain the majority of people taking that oath did not believe it. We were lying to protect ourselves and our families back in Rwanda,” said one person who was – according to our investigation – present at the ceremony, but who asked us not to reveal their name for fear of reprisals.
“This is what happens everywhere. It’s routine. Either you take [the oath] or you are [the] enemy. It is black and white,” said David Himbara, who was once a senior adviser to Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame.
He is a Canadian citizen, academic and activist who says his life has repeatedly been threatened by Rwanda’s security services.
“The vast majority go because they’re terrified. They think that if they don’t go, something will happen to their family [in Rwanda],” said Rene Mugenzi, a British-Rwandan human rights activist, who was recently convicted of theft in the UK and jailed.
“You need to be active [in the RPF]. Even if you are neutral… they suspect you to be supporting opposition groups,” he said.
Asked about the “oath” ceremony, the Rwandan High Commission replied, by email, that members of the diaspora used its conference room for a variety of cultural engagements and that participation in an RPF loyalty pledge was legal and “entirely of their own choice and no-one is forced to do so”.
‘My brothers were abducted’
But the BBC has heard new evidence that Rwanda’s government has not only sought to threaten members of the diaspora seen as disloyal, but also that it seeks to punish such people by targeting their relatives still living in Rwanda.
“In order to intimidate me, they abducted my two brothers. They were never involved in politics. They were on Rwanda soil. Why should they be paying such a heavy price for doing nothing?” asked an emotional Noel Zihabamwe, from his home in Australia.
Mr Zihabamwe is a prominent member of the Rwandan diaspora in Sydney, who came to the country as a refugee in 2006, seeking to escape what he saw as an increasingly stifling and repressive political climate.
He says his refusal to actively support the RPF government prompted a public death threat from a visiting Rwandan diplomat in late 2017, which he reported to the Australian authorities.Noel ZihabamweThey often use this kind of kidnapping or murdering family members. This has to stop. We have had enough”Noel Zihabamwe A Rwandan living in Australia
That was followed by the alleged abduction of his two brothers, Jean Nsengimana and Antonine Zihabamwe, who were reportedly taken off a bus by police officers near the Rwandan town of Karangazi in September 2019 and have not been seen again.
“They often use this kind of kidnapping or murdering family members. This has to stop. We have had enough,” Mr Zihabamwe said.
“We would like to see the Rwandan government restore democratic rights to all citizens, cease targeted killings, kidnappings, illegal arrests and campaigns of intimidation of former citizens, like me, who are living overseas,” added Mr Zihabamwe, who now believes his brothers are probably dead and has decided to speak out in public, despite what he believes are considerable risks for himself and his extended family.
“Why can’t they let the family know where their bodies are, so we can organise a formal funeral? There are many Rwandans outside who have lost or missed their beloved ones.
“I want to speak against injustice. We need leadership that can stand for everyone, not for some,” he told the BBC.
‘No basis to allegations’
The Rwandan High Commission in London dismissed Mr Zihabamwe’s allegations as “tired and recycled” falsehoods and a “cheap ploy by political detractors to get free media attention”.
But allegations such as these are considered credible by many researchers, human rights groups and foreign diplomats, who say the Rwandan authorities appear to have calculated that – despite provoking some criticism from Western governments – such actions, which have included several targeted assassinations abroad, never appear to result in any long-term damage to Rwanda’s international relations.
The Rwandan government has received widespread global praise and financial support, over decades, for its hugely successful development agenda, which has helped to combat poverty and transformed Rwanda into one of the continent’s most impressive economies.
“Their view is – we can do what we like, kill who we like,” said one source, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The death earlier this year, in police custody, of the popular gospel singer Kizito Mihigo also stirred huge anger.
Kizito, as he was popularly known, had tried to cross Rwanda’s border illegally, the authorities said. They say he killed himself – a version which is widely disputed in the diaspora and by many analysts.
“If you’re Rwandan, it’s simply safer to stay silent,” said Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International’s deputy director for East Africa.
“The Rwandan authorities have a whole toolbox of tactics that they use to supress dissent at home and abroad, ranging from harassment to threats to illegal detention, disappearances, torture, and even extending to returning Rwandan dissidents from other countries back to Rwanda without going through extradition proceedings… and to threatening family members too.”
The Rwandan High Commission in London said such allegations had no basis, and were being spread by a “handful of opponents… in order to damage the image and continued development journey of Rwanda”.
President Kagame officially secured almost 99% of the vote in Rwanda’s last presidential election in 2017.
In London, Abdulkarim Ali, an official in the opposition Rwandan National Congress, said: “Either you pay allegiance to the RPF or… you become an enemy of the state. We normally compare it to North Korea.”
In Canada, Mr Himbara described the Rwandan government’s ideology as one of “totalitarianism – a government that wants to control all aspects of the Rwandan people, even in the diaspora”.
The Rwandan High Commission in London said the government’s main focus was to lift Rwandans out of poverty and create a good quality of life and opportunities for all of them.
“The focus of the High Commission is not on a handful of opponents who consistently spread false information in order to damage the image and continued development journey of Rwanda.”
1. À partir du 28 janvier 1961, le Rwanda a aboli la monarchie et est devenu une République, et à partir du 1er juillet 1962, il est devenu un État indépendant qui place en avant les intérêts de ses citoyens.
2. La gouvernance dans la République est très différente de celle de la monarchie. Dans la République, les décisions sont prises avec la concertation du peuple et évaluées par le peuple. Dans la monarchie, la gouvernance est basée sur « l’Ubwiru » le top secret dont la priorité était de servir l’intérêt du monarque et de sa clique au-dessus de l’intérêt commun.
3. Le régime dirigé par le FPR a souvent été caractérisé par des violations des droits de l’homme, notamment le droit à l’information sur la gestion de la chose publique ainsi que sur les accords que le Rwanda conclue avec d’autres pays. Un tel manque de transparence favorise des malversations de fonds publics et de compromissions néfastes à la souveraineté nationale.
4. Les autorités du FPR Inkotanyi étant soupçonnées de crimes graves et d’autres manquements dans leur administration, elles ne sont pas capables de protéger les intérêts du pays, plutôt en cas de pression, elles sont prêtes à signer quoi que ce soit dans le but d’échapper à la justice. En fait, leurs crimes les retiennent en otage, ce qui nuit aux intérêts du Rwanda sur la scène internationale.
5. L’accord entre le Rwanda et les clubs Arsenal et Paris Saint Germain, l’accord entre le gouvernement du Rwanda et les hommes d’affaires à l’instar des sieurs Howard Buffet et Bill Gates, les accords entre le Rwanda et les États-Unis, ou les pays tels que la Russie, la Chine, le Qatar et l’Israël n’ont jamais été rendus publics. Aucun membre de l’assemblée nationale n’en a été informé.
Les accords militaires inquiétants
6. Le 28 mai 2020, le Rwanda a signé un accord avec les États-Unis d’Amérique sur la coopération militaire. Ce genre de traités sont souvent sujets de controverses parce que les États-Unis cherchent à imposer la présence de leurs troupes dans d’autres pays et à porter des armes, mais ne peuvent pas répondre à la justice en cas de violations de la loi. Un pays qui refuse de signer de tels accords se voit dans le collimateur des « grands » dans un complot international, comme cela est arrivé au Burundi ces dernières années.
7. La Constitution du Rwanda de 2003, telle qu’amendée à ce jour, dans son article 169 au premier paragraphe dispose :
“Les accords d’installation de bases militaires étrangères sur le territoire national sont interdits.”
8. La signature de ces accords a eu lieu quelques jours après la menace des États-Unis sur l’éventuelle révision de la qualification du « génocide contre les Tutsi ». Dans la déclaration adressée au président de l’assemblée générale des Nations Unies, le représentant des Etas Unis d’Amérique insiste que de nombreux Hutus ont été tués lors du génocide, y compris ceux qui s’opposaient aux tueries. Cette superpuissance a signalé que, pour cela, les termes qui excluent les victimes hutues pourraient être revisités. Que le Rwanda ait immédiatement signé l’accord devrait inquiéter plus d’un.
Pour toutes ces raisons :
9. Le régime du FPR doit permettre l’accès aux accords signés avec des pays étrangers, des organisations internationales ainsi que des individus afin que le public puisse vérifier si ces accords ne sont pas effectivement en violation de la Constitution.
10. En effet, la loi organique n ° 03/2012 / OL du 13/06/2012 déterminant la structure, le fonctionnement et la compétence de la Cour suprême, notamment les articles 53 et 54, prévoit qu’en cas de violation de la Constitution par les accords internationaux, une plainte peut être déposée à la Cour suprême pour correction avec en annexe une copie de l’accord en question. Pour que cela se produise, les autorités doivent rendre accessible le contenu de ces accords qui restent cachés.
Ni inama yahawe izina rya Rwanda Bridge Builders. Yabaye kuwa 23 kugeza kuwa 24 Gicurasi 2020. Yahuje abari hafi 60 harimo amashyaka ya politiki atavuga rumwe na FPR ndetse n’imiryango itegamiye kuri Leta yita ku bibazo by’u Rwanda.