On January 27, a small group of members of the European Parliament gathered in the Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights to stage yet another political spectacle targeting Rwanda.

ALSO READ: Ingabire’s family and the new face of genocide denial

The result was a predictable resolution calling on the so-called "international community” to pressure Rwanda into releasing Ingabire Victoire, once again portrayed as a persecuted opposition figure rather than what she truly represents: a political project shaped, promoted, and protected in Europe.

ALSO READ: Ingabire trial heads to Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation

What these EU lawmakers conveniently ignored is a basic and non-negotiable truth: Rwanda is not a colony of Europe, and its justice system does not answer to resolutions passed in Brussels.

The debate was convened by MEPs long known for their hostile posture toward Rwanda, including Mounir Satouri, Hilde Vautmans, Catarina Vieira, Rima Hassan, Nacho Sánchez Amor, and Ferragut. Their arguments leaned heavily on statements from Human Rights Watch’s Central Africa director Lewis Mudge, and on emotional testimony from Ingabire Victoire’s son, Rémy Amahirwa. Together, these interventions formed a carefully scripted narrative designed to generate sympathy rather than scrutiny.

What was absent from the discussion was evidence. No serious legal analysis was offered. No engagement with Rwanda’s laws or judicial process took place. No attempt was made to distinguish political opinion from alleged criminal conduct. Instead, the debate relied on sentiment, selective outrage, and ideological hostility toward the Rwandan state. This was not a human rights inquiry; it was political theatre.

The claim that Ingabire is imprisoned because she is a "prominent opposition politician” is misleading.

Ingabire, the former head of the Rassemblement Républicain pour la Démocratie au Rwanda (RDR) — a group created in the refugee camps of eastern Zaire, present-day DR Congo, by the very architects of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, faces criminal charges under Rwandan law. The RDR, and later FDU-Inkingi, were political fronts for the Kinshasa-backed FDLR genocidal militia composed of former Interahamwe and ex-FAR soldiers who fled Rwanda after murdering over a million people. The charges against her include the formation of a criminal group, plotting to commit crimes, resisting lawful authority, and spreading false information and propaganda aimed at undermining the state and tarnishing Rwanda’s image abroad.

Some of these charges originated from within her own political network. These are serious charges, and in any sovereign country, they are adjudicated by courts not foreign parliaments or lobbying campaigns.

For years, Ingabire has benefited from exceptional political protection abroad. Certain European politicians, self-styled "experts,” and international NGOs particularly Human Rights Watch, elevated her profile while demonstrating a limited understanding of Rwanda’s post-genocide realities. Their approach often ignores historical context, national security concerns, and Rwanda’s legal framework, replacing nuance with moral posturing.

This external patronage fostered a dangerous illusion: that Rwanda’s judiciary can be intimidated or overridden through international pressure. That illusion is false.

The decision to bring Ingabire’s son into the parliamentary debate was a calculated attempt to manufacture emotional leverage and media attention. While such testimony may resonate emotionally, it carries no legal weight. Criminal cases are not resolved through family appeals or parliamentary resolutions. They are resolved through evidence, due process, and judicial judgment.

There are also glaring double standards at play. Where was this "international pressure” when Ingabire publicly denied or distorted the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda? Where was the outrage when her mother – Thérèse Dusabe who was a midwife at Butamwa Health Center in Kigali during the genocide – butchered innocent women and babies, and she has now found a safe haven and freedom in Europe?

Some European MPs continue to act as though Rwanda remains under Western tutelage, assuming that resolutions passed in Brussels can intimidate courts in Kigali. This is a serious miscalculation.

Rwanda today is a sovereign nation with functioning institutions and an independent judiciary shaped by painful historical lessons.

Disagreeing with Rwanda’s laws does not grant foreign legislators the authority to override them. By pushing such resolutions, these MPs are not defending justice – they are undermining it and discrediting the very institutions they claim to represent.

The European Parliament has no mandate to dictate judicial outcomes in Rwanda. Rwanda’s justice system will not be run from Brussels, no matter how loud the noise.

Bertrand Kayumba is a social-political commentator.