Provisions in a proposed law that would place ownership and management of Genocide memorial sites on private property under the land owners’ hands have ignited a hot debate in Parliament, paralysing the process to pass the legislation.

For the second time this month, members of the Lower House last Wednesday halted the passing of the Bill over lack of clarity on who will be responsible for taking care of Genocide memorial sites found on private property like on church grounds and other private institutions.

Under Article 11 of the proposed law governing ceremonies to commemorate the Genocide against the Tutsi and Genocide memorial sites, those located in private institutions belong to such institutions, while those elsewhere are part of the state’s patrimony.

The same draft legislation states that memorial sites located in government or private institutions will be managed by those institutions and Article 25 requires them to hire staff to look after the sites.

Many MPs disagree with letting institutions take full ownership of the memorial sites or be the ones responsible for their management and would rather clearly put that responsibility in the hands of the state.

"We really want these memorial sites to be made public property instead of being put under private patrimony.

Why should we leave some memorial sites to be managed by independent organisations, while others are managed by the government?” wondered MP Henriette Mukamurangwa Sebera.

Legislators’ fears

Most MPs fear that leaving some memorial sites in the hands of private institutions might give them the leeway to do anything they want with them.

"We need to make the management of the memorial sites on private property clear enough, even if it means having an agreement with these institutions on how the sites will be managed,” said MP Juvenal Nkusi.

To ensure proper management of Genocide memorial sites, the proposed legislation has classified the sites under four categories; national memorial sites that will be managed by the National Commission for the Fight against Genocide (CNLG), district memorial sites to be managed by district local governments, special memorial sites that include those on private property of government and private institutions or on foreign-owned land, and international memorial sites.

While most memorial sites will fall under the category of district, – making them the responsibility of local governments catered for under district budgets – it is not yet clear if private organisations will take responsibility to look after the memorial sites on their property.

According to Bishop Smaragde Mbonyintege, the spokesperson for the Catholic Church, which has quite a number of Genocide memorial sites on its property, it should be the government’s responsibility to manage the sites and the latter would only seek partnership with the independent organisations to carry out the responsibility.

Several Catholic Church grounds became scenes of killings during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi as people sought refuge at church premises because they didn’t think the killers would dare trample the sacred grounds.

‘Church sites belong to govt’

Today, Mbonyintege says the Church grounds that have been turned into memorial sites after the Genocide seem to belong to the government even if they are on the church’s land.

"You can’t ask the Church to run the memorial sites because we may not have the means for that. What we need is partnership with government in managing the sites and that’s what currently happens. We will need to put the existing cooperation in writing,” he told The New Times.

The head of Ibuka, the umbrella body of Genocide survivors’ associations, Prof. Jean Pierre Dusingizemungu, said independent organisations should take care of memorial sites on their property because all Rwandans have to share the responsibility to look after the sites.

However, Dusingizemungu insisted that it needs to be clear in the law that CNLG keeps a regulatory and supervisory role to ensure that instructions on how to take care of the memorial sites are adhered to.

"All Rwandans should play a role in managing Genocide memorial sites because the government alone can’t afford to look after every site,” he said.

The Executive Secretary of CNLG, Dr Jean Damascène Bizimana, said it is already clear in the national laws that CNLG has the regulatory and supervisory role in taking care of the memorial sites.

He said although he agrees that government can’t leave the responsibility to manage Genocide memorial sites to private organisations, what the new law hopes to achieve is partnership with everyone, including independent organisations, in managing memorial sites.

Debates on who should take care of Genocide memorial sites on private property are ongoing in the parliamentary standing Committee on Unity, Human Rights and fight against Genocide after the MPs couldn’t pass the related law on Wednesday.

The new law governing ceremonies to commemorate the Genocide against the Tutsi and genocide memorial sites seeks to replace law N°56/2008 of 10/09/2008 governing memorial sites and cemeteries of victims of the Genocide against the Tutsi in all of its clauses.

The previous law was silent on the category of memorial sites raised on the premises of public or private institutions and those responsible for their management, which is the main reason for amendment along with the need to emphasise that the place of burial for victims of the genocide is called a "genocide memorial site”, not "cemetery of genocide.” editorial@newtimes.co.rw