The trial of the terror group led by Paul Rusesabagina is soon drawing to a close. Prosecution has begun making its final submissions and asking court for various sentences for the accused. In the case of Rusesabagina, they have asked for a life sentence.

The verdict, when it is delivered, must be respected. If any party is not satisfied with it, there is always the option of appeal. That is normal, accepted procedure everywhere in the world.

But that is not so with some in the west, particularly the media, lobbyists, human rights groups, individuals with different agenda, and ordinary citizens that they have misled. They decided long before the trial even got underway that they would never accept or respect the outcome. 

And so as the trial nears its end, and a guilty verdict looks almost certain, they are again questioning its fairness, spinning lies and issuing threats. The fabrications and arrogance are enough to get one really angry. And maybe that’s the intention, to divert attention from the real issues.

The trial of Rusesabagina and his terror associates (and these are often conveniently forgotten by his defenders because they do not fit into their narrative) is about justice. It has never been about a single individual, but more about his actions and activities. His assumed social standing, beliefs or nationality or residence are immaterial.

Those who commit crimes must answer for them. They cannot be permitted to roam the world freely, plotting and committing more crimes. Victims of those crimes must also get redress, that often means bringing to book those who harm them.

It is that straightforward. It’s about accounting for one’s actions. It’s against impunity. If Rusesabagina’s promoters are interested in fairness and justice, they should be asking different, more pertinent questions.

For instance, did the man they champion commit the crimes he is charged with? They know the answer. He admitted it in court before they advised him to boycott it. He has even bragged about it.

Is there evidence that he committed the offences and is it credible? Yes, and it is incontestable. His own admission again. Some of it was provided by his adopted country and more from his country of residence.

Are there witnesses and are they reliable? None more trusted than his lieutenants and co-accused and staff and records of his fake foundation in the United States of America.

And the trial itself, no possibility of external interference? If you mean from the state, no chance. It is held in open court and even streamed live on various media platforms with translations in foreign languages. Absolutely no chance of any sort of manipulation.

But if you mean meddling from outside Rwanda, there is plenty of that. There have been appeals to foreign governments to intervene and get Rusesabagina released using all kinds of pressure including threats of aid cuts and sanctions on some Rwandan government officials.

Does the court have competency to try the case and do the judges have the requisite qualifications and experience for the job? Don’t even raise that question. Their credentials are impeccable. They have even tried to accommodate Rusesabagina’s requests that would have been considered unreasonable elsewhere.

These are the questions they should have been asking. They would find that none can find fault with the process, question the evidence or doubt the judges’ integrity.

So what is all the noise about? Contempt, maybe, for us and our institutions. Perhaps even consternation with a country that refuses to be pushed into an alternative universe but insists on staking its place in the real one.

You see, they have no argument and so the best they can do is to frame the narrative away from the factual to the fantastic. And so what is a straightforward criminal case against the people and nation of Rwanda is reduced to a series of false equations.

It is reduced to a personal duel between Rusesabagina and the president of Rwanda. To many Rwandans this is a preposterous suggestion and an insult. But for his promoters, it is one way of raising (artificially) their man’s profile and stature.

Then they give it a moral dimension. Their man as a human rights crusader pitted against one who regularly violates them.

Or it is presented as a tussle of the unequal, between an ordinary man armed only with right who is prepared to stand up to a powerful political leader.

It is a contest involving a celebrity (albeit a manufactured one) and also a western national. The assumption here being that this makes him untouchable.

The strategy of coalition of interests that have created Rusesabagina and demonised Rwanda’s leaders in this matter is clear. You can bet who ordinary people in the west are likely to side with: an ordinary man standing up to power.

It doesn’t matter that many lives were cut short, young women widowed, innocent children orphaned and futures destroyed on the orders of this supposed defender of human rights. These do not count. They do not have rights. Who knows them anyway or who permitted them to be known? They are not celebrities.

Rusesabagina’s co-accused never get a mention. They are undistinguished and do not have the permission of the powerful to be noticed. They do not exist. Only he matters.

The court will soon settle the matter. It will base its decisions on facts, evidence and the law. It will not be swayed by false narratives, threats or other considerations. Justice will be done and hopefully the noisemakers will shut up.

The views expressed in this  article are of the writer.