How can one claim to be making African arguments while using western lenses in arguing? This question never leaves the mind as one reads an article by Maina Kiai titled "Rwanda gets free pass at African Court,” published on the African Arguments’ platform. The arguments Kiai, a Kenyan activist, makes and the evidence he tables betray a superficial understanding of Rwanda, which distorts the lived reality of the people whose freedoms he claims to defend. Here is why.
For starters, Kiai unoriginally rehashes the same disproven tropes about a supposed "climate of fear in Rwanda.” This, as we recall, was the dubious invention of Amnesty International in the lead up to the 2017 Presidential elections; it was repeated by several media outlets without even minimal reflection. The fact that these were the most peaceful, violence-free elections in the East Africa region never impressed Amnesty International nor Kiai and the like. This is not surprising.
When a violence-free election takes place in Africa, especially in countries like Rwanda where "critics” have for long predicted doom, as a result of the society’s resistance to the western liberal conception of democracy, it’s easier to attribute the law-abiding spirit of these particular Africans to fear – and for those who carry water for western interests to feel defeated. In Kenya, the Home Guards felt this way at the height of the Mau Mau Movement that fought for the people of that country.
Even as it rejects a foreign imposed approach to governance and notion that the definition of democracy must come from outside, Rwanda accepts shortcomings. As a matter of fact, each year, Rwandans set goals for themselves at the national and local level. And each year, Rwandans assess their performance, be it that of the government or that of local authorities.
Whatever shortcomings Rwandans may identify in their government’s performance, they are assured that it is always trying to do better. Perhaps, a climate of accountability - rather than that of fear - prevents the kind of violence we see elsewhere during elections.
Kiai would think of this if he wasn’t trying so hard to confirm his pre-existing biases while seeking the validation of his western audience.
To make the case of a repressive government "whose policies and practices of criminalising peaceful public disagreement have quashed dissent and entrenched fear among the population, even beyond its borders,” Kiai cites two of the most unreliable western organisations, the discredited Freedom House and the irredeemably corrupt Human Rights Watch under the leadership of the extortionist life president Ken Roth.
Consider this. The Freedom House report "Rwanda: Transnational Repression Case Study” contains major flaws, including: the misrepresentation of the repatriation of FDLR combatants and their dependents from the DRC as "massive renditions”; the whitewashing of a self-incriminating terrorist leader, Paul Rusesabagina, who is presented as a mere critic of the Rwandan government; and the legitimation of Rwanda National Congress (RNC) officials cited in the December 2018 UN report (https://reliefweb.int/sites/) for its criminal activities in eastern DRC – just to name a few of the flaws in the report. The report even cites alleged assassination attempts targeting Rwandan "critics” in Europe. Yet, these allegations were never substantiated. The illustrative case used by the report omits that the suspect Rwandan hitman was released by the British police shortly after his arrest; ironically, his alleged target has since been condemned for fraud and sentenced to prison by a British court. In other words, this particular report goes to great lengths to portray criminal organisations and individuals creating havoc in the Great Lakes region as legitimate opposition to the Rwandan government.
As a result of this bias, what should be a case of transnational terrorism is presented as a case of "transnational repression”. One can only wonder what agenda Freedom House is pushing and how someone like Kiai who claims to know Rwanda and its political environment can be swayed by such blatant distortions.
But the most confusing aspect of Kiai’s article is his assessment of the work of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. His context-free analysis leads to the kind of confusion he tries to sow.
"The refusal to engage with the court, though not surprising, was a blow for Rwandans wishing to challenge the government and access justice," Kiai writes, blaming Rwanda and failing to explain why this particular court would reward Rwanda’s decision with a "free pass”. Normally, judges would be hostile to anybody – including governments – that refuses to cooperate with the court. Moreover, why would Rwanda get a "free pass,” from a court whose work the government has been very critical of? It doesn’t make sense.
Kia has much to learn. Rwanda’s decision to withdraw its declaration allowing individuals to file complaints at the court is not surprising, considering the two cases that led to it, namely Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (Application no.003/2014), and Léon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda, (Application no. 012/2017). In the first case, the court determined that Rwanda violated the freedom of expression and opinion of Victoire Ingabire on the grounds that "the applicant’s punishment was not proportionate to the legitimate purposes which the conviction and sentence seek to achieve”. In other words, the court did not dispute the fact that Victoire Ingabire had committed the offense of genocide minimisation. However, the court’s insistence on a disproportionate punishment betrays a liberal view of the importance of freedom of expression over any other societal concern – a value system that Kia (and the editors at "African Arguments”) seems to have swallowed without thinking about any African society, not even his own, Kenya. As a result, the court’s decision runs counter to the views of a society that can only be reminded how the US invoked the concept of freedom of expression to justify its refusal to jam the RTLM radio that was inciting people to kill their neighbours during the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994.
As if to add insult to injury, the Court then proceeded to legitimise the frivolous claims of Leon Mugesera, a genocide convict, and found Rwanda guilty of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on the grounds that "his fruit-based diet is not respected and that he does not receive the whole wheat bread required by his diet.” Regardless, of the veracity of the claims made by Leon Mugesera and the dubious process that led to their admission by the court, any reasonable observer would conclude that the African Court of Human and People’s right has failed its primary duty of protecting the dignity of African lives.
First, by determining that the minimisation of the extermination of more than one million Tutsi, African lives taken in the span of three months, doesn’t deserve the punishment Victoire Ingabire received. Secondly, by allowing one of the masterminds of the genocide to claim that he was subject to "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” because the bread he was given was not up to his "standards” – perhaps it wasn’t like Canadian bread he was used to before his arrest and perhaps Kiai’s next article about the human rights situation in Rwanda will be demanding that the country imports bread from Canada!
It wouldn’t be surprising if such judgements were rendered in western courts. It is degrading and insulting to Africans when they are rendered in an African court. Yet, this is the same court that has given a "free pass” to Rwanda, if Kiai is to be believed.
The truth is, Kiai is trying to win in the media a case he lost in the court by cherry picking facts, disseminating the distortions of self-styled human rights organisations, and perpetuating the myth that Rwanda has some sort of unexplainable influence over courts’ decisions in foreign land. The same tactics were used recently by the usual "critics” of Rwanda when another court in France decided to dismiss once and for all the case of the 1994 shooting of the plane carrying former Rwanda’s president, Juvenal Habyarimana. Oftentimes, when facts don’t speak in one’s favour, it is easier to resort to conspiracy theories than to make a fact-based analysis.
In the meantime, as Africans wait a little bit longer before having an African centred perspective on concepts such as freedom of expression, justice, and democracy, Home Guards will continue the charade that they speak on our behalf.