Once in a while, we all encounter individuals who make a fool of themselves and test the limits of the absurd by bringing irrelevant arguments to a serious discussion. Ms Ingabire Victoire is one of those. Early this week, on October 3, CNN published Ingabire’s article titled “Inside the prison where sunlight ceases to exist”, which makes one wonder why she talks about prison conditions in Rwanda in a discussion about asylum seekers stranded in unwelcoming western lands with no end in sight to their plight. Why would CNN entertain such cognitive dissonance, if it is not on a mission to expose Ms Ingabire’s foolishness to the world – as well as the caliber of Africa’s ‘leading opposition’? If we were to indulge Ms Ingabire’s absurdity as CNN does, one can assume that having seen asylum seekers packed in cages like animals, hunted down by western law enforcement agencies in various western countries, left to drown in the Mediterranean sea, or even shot at as they desperately tried to cross borders into Europe and the US, Ms Ingabire concluded that these people were ‘in similar circumstances’ as she was: convicted criminals who would end up in Rwanda prison cells. Ms Ingabire needs someone to whisper in her ears that the fact that the West is treating migrants as if they were criminals doesn’t make them such, and so they have absolutely no association with criminals. If the discussion (that CNN wasn’t interested in at all) is about the protection of asylum seekers’ rights, then we ought to talk about how asylum seekers are generally treated in Rwanda rather than how criminals are treated. Similarly, a rational discussion would make comparisons between the horrendous living conditions of asylum seekers in the West and what they are being offered in Rwanda; in other words, scrutiny as to whether Rwanda is in a position to match that level of inhumanity. But Ms Ingabire, as all narcissists, doesn’t care about the pawns she pushes - in this case, asylum seekers - in the pursuit of her political ambitions. Thus, all hot topics involving Rwanda must evolve around her, her ambitions and her desperate need for rehabilitation from her criminal identity as a convict. It is sheer madness to lament about Rwanda’s alleged suppression of political dissent in a discussion about asylum seekers. “While Rwanda’s intention to help the UK address its immigration challenges is laudable, the British government must first support Rwanda to live up to Commonwealth values – including respect of human rights and making its political process inclusive and transparent,” she writes, shamelessly adding “the spotlight on Rwanda’s human rights record – including treatment of dissenting voices – remains.” For one thing, living up to professed values of the commonwealth is exactly what Rwanda is doing by welcoming people whom other countries have rejected or want to get rid of. If there is any member state of the Commonwealth of Nations that should support others to live to up these values, it is Rwanda – for reasons that should be obvious even to Ms Ingabire. For another, even if for the sake of argument one were to agree with the assertion that Rwanda suppresses political opposition, the fact remains that asylum seekers are not aspirant political actors in Rwanda since the refugee convention does not allow them to undertake such endeavors unless they acquire Rwandan citizenship. Therefore, whether Rwanda suppresses political opposition or not is irrelevant to the discussion on asylum seekers. Of course, asylum seekers who are granted refugee status are allowed to form organizations and advocate for their interests. Their rights to freedom of association and expression are respected in Rwanda. As a matter of fact, it is through such organizations that Congolese and Burundian urban refugees were able to make a case for their integration in Rwanda’s community based health insurance scheme, which was granted in 2019. Does Ms Ingabire not know any of this, yet she claims to be concerned with the plight of refugees? She would if she were not so determined to slander her country while making excuses for others who fail to live up to commonwealth values. Pandering to western sympathy and parroting the West’s distorted narrative of the present reality seem to be the only tools she has left in order to keep alive political ambitions that are clearly on life support. Asylum seekers should find comfort in the knowledge that Ms Ingabire will never get anywhere near any public office as long as Rwanda stands for the right principles of humanity. Even her view about the government’s decision to welcome refugees with open arms clearly states that the decision is laudable because “it helps the UK address its immigration challenges”. In Ms Ingabire’s mind, helping the UK is the priority; the wellbeing of asylum seekers is a secondary issue that may or may not be mentioned at all. This is the kind of moral depravation clouding Ingabire’s mind as she hangs on to a thwarted political ambition. It should not be surprising that such moral depravation finds a favorable audience in western media houses, such as CNN: allowing asylum seekers to be used as pawns in political pursuits, while brushing aside the inhumane conditions in which they are kept in western countries; slandering an African government doing its best to come to their rescue when no one is offering a better alternative, while dramatizing a convicted criminal’s prison experience; and reducing a serious global challenge to click bait that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. CNN should be embarrassed! Only in matters concerning an African country would CNN consider Ms Ingabire as a former political prisoner rather than the criminal she is. It is also because we are talking about an African country that CNN in particular and the western media in general – as well as the so called human rights organizations – prefer asylum seekers to be mistreated in the West rather than seeing an African country lead by the example of its humanity. If US based media practitioners want sensational stories about the savage treatment of prisoners as a means of increasing their audience numbers, they shouldn’t look too far away from home. The testimony of Jumah al-Dossari is a good place to start, for instance. Here’s a glimpse that would bring in a record audience: “During that time, I was moved to the camp clinic because of the terrible state of my health. They would take me for investigations which were mostly held at night; they would beat me severely and tell me to confess that I was a terrorist!! Once, from the excessive and severe beatings, one of my foot shackles broke. Once, they poured boiling hot liquid on my head and the investigator stubbed his cigarette out on my foot. I said to him, “why are you treating me like this?” He then took a cigarette and stubbed it out on my right wrist and said, “in the name of Christ and the Cross I am doing this”. Once, they had beaten me so severely that my clothes were ripped and my genitals were exposed. I tried to cover myself up but they started kicking me with their boots. They stripped me of my clothes and lay me flat on the ground. One of the soldiers urinated on my head and my face after one of the other soldiers had raised my head by the hair. After that, a soldier brought petrol and injected it into my penis...” Jumah al-Dossari was held for 6 years at Camp Delta, at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay and was released without any charges. This is the real story of “the prison where sunlight ceases to exist.”
