I thought I wouldn’t say another word about the man for a while. But his corner keep pushing him into our faces and making such incredible claims that have to be corrected.

The man, Paul Rusesabagina, had his day in court last Friday, February 26. He was heard with great patience despite every effort by his team to stretch it beyond limit. He will be back on Friday and most likely do the same – raise objections, make deliberately incomprehensible prayers to the court and wait for the judges to make sense of them.

That appears to be part of the strategy – be stubborn, place obstacles at every stage of the proceedings, make demands in a roundabout manner, try the patience of the court and the public. Perhaps they will get tired or angry and make mistakes that he can then pounce on.

There is another element of the strategy to avoid answering for his deeds that his supporters and apologists have employed right from the moment of his arrest. They have run a campaign through some of the world’s influential media like the New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy magazine, Aljazeera, and others to spread stories unrelated to the matter before court. In this campaign, they have sought the help of some people with good reputations, but also the services of mudslingers and hate mongers.

The latest in this campaign is Terry George, co-writer, director and producer of the film Hotel Rwanda. In an article in Foreign Policy magazine, he makes it appear as if Rusesabagina is on trial for his role in the making of the film, or indeed that the film itself is on trial.

But this is not the case. The film has nothing to do with the arrest and trial of Rusesabagina. It is not on trial. Its quality as cinema is not at issue. It must actually be good to get an Oscar nomination. Even its treatment of a historical event is not much in contention. Of course they are inaccuracies typical with every film based on events still raw, with no benefit of distance and detachment. It is also known that the demands of cinema for the dramatic and a story with heroes and villains sometimes lead to bending the truth a little.

Rusesabagina is on trial for crimes he committed in Rwanda in the last two years or so. What he was or did to have the film made is a different story. He may even believe that he is a hero and that’s fine as long as it remains in his mind and is not forced on others or leads him to commit crimes. That must be made clear.

Then Terry George, and others, drag President Paul Kagame into the trial and shift focus from Rusesabagina to him, effectively putting him on trial instead. According to them, their man finds himself in the situation he is in because he is a fierce Kagame critic, that Kagame can’t stand competition. He is the victim of a vindictive president.

It is disingenuous for him to present the case against the so-called hero as the result of a personal duel between him and Kagame. First, it is incorrect. Secondly it is comparing the incomparable.

This, however, does not come as a surprise. The conclusion of his article in Foreign Policy is quite revealing.  He remarks in a condescending manner: ‘The long suffering people of Rwanda deserve much more from their president, their government, and their diplomats.”

If it is not any or all of these, it is the manner of Rusesabagina’s arrest that they bring up. The intention seems to be to turn it into a crime infinitely worse than his real crimes which they don’t mention.

None of these have anything to do with the reason Rusesabagina is on trial. The charge is clear – terrorism, financing terrorism, forming terrorist groups, kidnapping, murder, arson, and many others. This is the simple, unambiguous fact. No chance of confusion. It is there in the open. No excuse not to see it.

But his corner, among them all the rabid haters of President Kagame and Rwanda, those that can’t stand the sight of a dignified people going about their business as they see fit, and even those genuinely concerned about other people but who for some reason have lent their voice to the distortion of truth ignore this and bring up all these spurious excuses.

They do it because it is their chosen narrative to demonise Rwanda’s leadership and the country’s progress in a broad sense, and in a more specific way question the motive and legality of the trial, and so create doubts about its fairness. But they mustn’t be allowed to carry on in this manner any further.

Once was bad enough. Twice is outright immoral.  They first manufactured a hero and put into his head the idea that he could be Rwanda’s president.  As it turns out, he couldn’t do that without resorting to terrorism. Now they want to make him a martyr in order to save face and perhaps conceal their complicity.

All this is really unnecessary. There is a case before court. All they have to do is wait for the verdict and, when it is delivered, respect it. Surely that is not too much to ask.

The views expressed in this article are of the writer.