Kigali is playing host to a summit of stakeholders in the mining sector from across the world, and Rwandan businesses are keenly involved as players in this global business.Local traders say they have for years been treated unfairly in the global minerals chain, with unfounded suspicion, and were determined to make their case at the conference.The Sixth Responsible Mineral Supply Chains summit is seeking solutions to the perpetual problem of the so-called ‘conflict minerals’ to ensure that dealers and end-users do not end up financing bloody conflicts in the region – knowingly or otherwise.Reports, year in, year out, by such groups as the UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have previously alleged that Rwanda was a major transit for illicit minerals from the Congo.This is despite the evident efforts that have been made by Kigali and local mining industry to make the sector as transparent as possible.Rwanda was the first country in the region to implement the so-called mineral tagging and traceability scheme, otherwise known as ITSCi, which was imposed pursuant to an order by US President Barack Obama instructing American companies to steer clear of ‘conflict minerals’.And, once again, just this month, Rwanda became the first country in the region to issue a certificate for export of minerals within a separate framework spearheaded by the twelve-nation International Conference for the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR). These efforts are being made, understandably, because Rwanda happens to be a producer of the kind of minerals in question; namely, cassiterite, wolframite, and tantalum. Most of these concessions are owned by multi-national companies across the country.Most of the reports suggest that Rwanda’s mining industry thrives on ill-acquired ‘stones’ from the neighbouring DRC.Nothing could be further from the truth.The least these hundreds of delegates at the mining summit in Kigali can do for the hardworking industry players in Rwanda is to acknowledge the important steps this country has taken – more than any other country in the region or anywhere else in the world – to make its mining sector open, transparent and predictable.Allegations – no matter how unfounded they are – that the local mining industry (illegally) lives off the natural wealth of the troubled Congo are not good for the prospects of this otherwise growing sector, as stated by local players.But I also find it in order to question the legitimacy of accusations that Rwandans conduct minerals business with their Congolese counterparts, as if that is illegal anyway!Yet those behind these allegations do not blame any other nationals or countries of doing the same (transacting minerals business with the Congolese).As long as there is a clear regulatory framework and complementary measures which eliminate possibilities of illegal trade in minerals (whether originating from Rwanda, the Congo or anywhere else), why can’t Rwandan businesses enjoy the same opportunity and access as South African, Belgian or Swiss traders with regard to the Congo mineral wealth?The irony is that the real beneficiaries of minerals from the Great Lakes region (legally obtained or not) are far away from this region and the sponsors and authors of these unfounded reports on ‘conflict minerals’ conveniently ignore this important fact.No country has so vigorously fought illegal trade in minerals – or any other commodity for that matter – like Rwanda. And facts speak for themselves.I hope the mineral dealers and business executives attending the Kigali conference will take note of these existing policies and practices in this regard.Over the years, this country has not only maintained a crackdown on minerals smugglers but also taken tough punitive measures against the culprits, and seized and expatriated to the Congo these materials.Just last year, the government suspended five companies that had been found to be flouting the mineral traceability process and one of them was blacklisted internationally.It is also absurd that these selectively applied restrictions have affected mineral exports from the region to the advantage of the most industrialised nations.The fact that illicit trade of natural resources has fuelled conflict in this part of the world cannot be disputed but I find no plausible reason to continue victimising countries that respect the established control mechanisms like the ITSCi to the letter.It is prudent that due diligence on ‘conflict minerals’ is stayed but let all traders and nations be treated equally because I do not see why a Rwandan who legally trades in minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo is looked at suspiciously when everybody else is not.Rwandans and their Congolese counterparts have since time immemorial operated vibrant cross-border trade. They trade in agriculture produce, dairy products, services, etc. Why can’t they freely trade in minerals as well? What’s wrong with a business transaction that’s being conducted within the confines of the law?Naturally Rwandans will benefit from a peaceful eastern DRC, at least economically. Rather than anyone try to inhibit this prospect, everyone should support economic cooperation that benefits both Rwanda and the Congo, and of course the peoples from either side of the border.Intra-regional trade is healthy for the Great Lakes region.The writer is an editor at The New TimesTwitter: @kimenyif