Criticism is a good thing. We all do it all the time in all places and, except for the stupid or conceited, benefit from it. For those in public life, it comes with the territory.

For some reason, those who do well, perform beyond expectations or defy conventional perceptions attract a fair amount.

Usually people criticise to right a wrong, correct mistakes, check excesses or keep one focussed. When in charitable mood they may go a step further and propose alternatives or improvements.

So criticism is useful if honest, well-intentioned and purposeful. The usual expression for this is responsible, constructive criticism. And it works well when there are facts or evidence for what is not going right and therefore needs to be corrected.

It follows therefore that criticism for its own sake is not helpful. It is even worse when it is made because that is the fashion or because one wants to curry favour with certain interests - be they hosts, benefactors or even organisations.

For then it is irresponsible and self-serving.

Similarly, falsifying facts or bending them to fit a certain view or theory or imputing base motives on otherwise well-intentioned actions is dishonest.

Criticism driven by hostility, emotion or intended to discredit is equally deceitful.

Lately we have seen a lot of the latter sort of criticism on Rwanda and its leadership. The most well-known of these is the genocide denying BBC documentary: Rwanda the untold story.

Others include articles in various newspapers, among them those by Frank Kagabo, a London-based Rwandan journalist. Mr Kagabo has arrogated himself two roles: critic of President Kagame and his government and spokesperson and interpreter for a species of Rwandans unknown in the country. In both self-allotted roles, he has made serious mistakes.

Take, for instance, the comments on President Kagame’s travels outside the country that appeared in The East African (October 16-24, 2014) in which he makes several outrageous allegations.

He wants us to believe that the president treats Rwandans with disdain, that he does not care for them. The travels are wasteful. Parliament has no way of scrutinising the expenditure.

People have been gagged and cannot discuss anything to do with government expenditure, including presidential travel abroad.

All of these claims are completely off the mark and betray great ignorance of Rwanda today and draw heavily from stock attitudes to African leaders.

Statesmen make many foreign trips. The question should have been: why do they do so, and in the case of Kagame, what are his reasons?

They all – the rich and mighty as well as the poor and lowly- have national interests to promote and defend.

The powerful, like US President Barack Obama, often go off to important summits that shape the world or maintain the existing order. They also make bilateral visits to further their national interests. And they also host many other leaders, including some of our own.

Leaders of resource rich countries can afford to travel less. Others will go to them seeking concessions of every sort. Their worry is how to tell the genuine from the fraudster and how to ward off the latter.

The president of a less resource-endowed country like Rwanda has different worries – how to attract business and investment to the country. He may not have the clout to reshape the world, but he can lend a hand. He certainly has the responsibility to better the lot of the citizens.

Presidential travel is not a picnic. You cannot imagine that Kagame goes off to chill in a luxury villa on the Riviera or on some sunny beach in the Bahamas. Or that he travels with a huge entourage loaded with money to spend on things like shoes (a la Mrs Imelda Marcos).

That belongs to a bygone era of expired leaders. Unfortunately, that remains the stock view of African leaders and African "critics” fall for it without thinking.

Those who know anything about President Kagame’s travels will testify that he is more likely to be holed up in meetings all day marketing Rwanda and seeking what can propel the country forward. They say it is all work, work and more work. He is more like a salesman and not a pleasure seeking Big Man so beloved of foreign commentators. And no one can say the life of a salesman is glamorous.

From stumbling in the dark along presidential foreign journeys, Kagabo blindly wades into legal waters, with similar consequences. He is blind to law, crime and punishment.

Instead, everywhere he turns, he smells politics. In his view the leadership of Rwanda has "little commitment or faith to having a democratic dispensation” (The East African, November 15-21, 2014).

Where does this conclusion come from? From the courts jailing a group of Rwandans on criminal charges. But for Kagabo and those on whose behalf he writes, their imprisonment, following due process and open trial can only be the action of an intolerant administration.

Suddenly and from nowhere crime is elevated to political dissent and ordinary offenders become prisoners of conscience.

Here is a clear case of bending the facts to fit a pre-determined opinion. This is called distortion and it is dishonest. It is also bad manners disguised as forthrightness.

Criticism arising out of distortion cannot be construed to constitute constructive criticism. For this, as we have seen, you need good intentions, honesty and evidence. Strangely, criticism and honesty don’t sit well together. But they should.

jorwagatare@yahoo.co.uk