Continued from Part 9.

The debate over Reyntjens’ status as an expert resurfaced on several occasions. Appearing as a "defence expert” in the Butare trial, Reyntjens faced objections from the lawyers representing Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and her son, Arsène Ntahobari, who were co-accused alongside Joseph Kanyabashi. The discussions focused on Reyntjens’ qualifications and cast doubt on his knowledge of Rwanda during and after the genocide.

The defence, represented by Counsel Marquis, presented a series of arguments challenging Filip Reyntjens’ status as an expert on Rwanda:

"The role of an expert witness is to inform the Judges on specific matters of a technical nature that require particular knowledge in a defined field. From the five subjects on which Counsel Marchand wishes the witness to be declared an expert, it is clear that these fall within specific areas of expertise. Reyntjens does not meet the criteria for these particular fields. To be an expert in Rwandan history, there is an underlying concept: one must be a historian.

"I can accept that Mr. Reyntjens may be an expert in law. (...) As for the governmental measures of Rwanda, I respectfully submit that it is unclear what that actually means in practice. It clearly falls outside a defined area of expertise, such as medicine, law, political science, or others. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept this qualification, which seems to me to encompass far too much.

"As for the three other aspects: contemporary history of Rwanda, investigations, and historical analyses, including the events of 1994, he himself stated in his report and during his testimony that, regarding the facts, he relied on Ms. Des Forges. I find it difficult to understand how someone can claim to be an expert in these two fields. How can one assert expertise while relying on someone else’s book? I therefore formally object.

"As for the final aspect, human rights and personal rights, among others, in Rwanda, the problem arises when one adds ‘including investigations and analyses in this field’. The witness himself states that he conducted no investigations regarding the events at issue here, in Butare, and particularly when he says ‘including the human rights situation in Rwanda before, during, and after the events of 1994’. I respectfully submit that this is insufficient to qualify someone as an expert. I see nothing in Mr. Reyntjens’ testimony that demonstrates technical knowledge on specific issues... no specialized knowledge. He does not possess such specific knowledge. Consequently, in my opinion, Mr. Reyntjens has only met the criteria for being considered an expert regarding law and human rights. However, with respect to Butare, I submit that he does not have sufficient knowledge to merit qualification as an expert in this specific field.”

It should be noted that Reyntjens’ explanation of his expertise during his opening statement was hardly convincing. He first indicated that he was a professor of African law who had gradually shifted towards politics and development:

"I am currently a professor of African law and politics in Antwerp, and I am President of the Institute of Development... the Institute of Political and Development Management... Institute of Policy and Development Management.”

The first issue here is that "African law”, as a single legal system, does not exist. Africa has no unified body of law equivalent to European Union law.

Regarding the publications that purportedly justified his scientific expertise on Rwanda, Reyntjens stated:

"I cultivate a fairly broad field. I have published on Rwandan law, on the human rights situation in Rwanda, on elections, recent history, political developments between the 1980s and the period immediately preceding the genocide, and on Rwanda and other countries in the region within the framework of Great Lakes regional geopolitics.”

Expert status requires high standards of scientific rigour, including a profound knowledge of the subject and field experience grounded in precise facts that the expert has personally observed, verified, compared and analysed. These must lead to methodologically sound and substantively reliable conclusions. Reyntjens’ writings on Rwanda since 1994 do not meet these standards.

6.2. Objections from renowned academics and observers

In 1991, the Belgian daily La Libre Belgique noted that Filip Reyntjens’ "pro-Hutu revolution opinions are well known”. Historians and political specialists have since expressed their views on his work.

On September 25, 2017, following the publication by Presses universitaires de France (PUF) of a volume authored by Reyntjens in the "Que sais-je?” series, a collective of 90 predominantly European figures, including numerous historians, published an opinion piece in Le Monde. They challenged his account of the genocide against the Tutsi, highlighting what they described as his bad faith and unscientific approach.

They noted:

"One can only welcome the fact that this highly politically sensitive subject, due to the role played by the French State in Rwanda, is the object of an accessible synthesis. Yet, while it pretends to be scientific objectivity, this work is entirely a political polemic: the text as a whole seems driven by a single purpose: to denounce the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).”

Numerous similar critiques followed, challenging both the author and his publisher. Yet, in 2021, they released a second edition in which the same errors were deliberately repeated. On September 21, 2021, Libération published an article about this edition under the telling headline: "Genocide of the Tutsi: a ‘Que Sais-Je?’ that knows very little.” Its authors directed their criticism at both the writer and the publisher:

"We can only be astonished that a publisher, whose aim is to make knowledge accessible to all, could have ignored the warnings of recognized historians and participated, for a second time, in disseminating theses that deny fundamental elements of the genocide against the Tutsi. In doing so, the Humensis publishing group (owner of PUF) has not only contributed to the popularization of historically obsolete theses but has also lent credibility to an author defending revisionist arguments about the last genocide of the 20th century.”

The authors describe Reyntjens as a genocide denier, supporting their position with the following argument:

"Engaged in a media war against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) since 1990, to the detriment of the objectivity of his work, Filip Reyntjens repeats the repugnant theories attributing responsibility for the genocide of the Tutsis to the RPF, which, as early as October 1990, ‘could not have been unaware [...] that the attack would seriously endanger the Tutsis inside the country’, thereby placing part of the blame for the genocide on the victims themselves.”

The authors continue:

"Taking up one of the favourite arguments of the perpetrators of the genocide, Filip Reyntjens denies that the genocide against the Tutsis was planned in advance, arguing that it was the result of an unplanned process, triggered by the assassination of President Habyarimana and facilitated by the fear of Tutsis that existed among the population. This denial of the planning of the genocide, supported in a dubious manner by limited and selective sources, is all the more surprising given that Filip Reyntjens himself stated in 1995, under oath before the Belgian courts: ‘However, I know from numerous reliable testimonies that a plan for genocide and political massacres had been in place for a long time, with the first signs already visible at the end of 1991.’”

Conclusion

For a country like Rwanda, which has experienced genocide, prioritising a national identity that transcends ethnic identity is essential. The persistence of genocidal ideology in the Great Lakes region, including Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, makes this choice all the more important. Rwanda has pursued this approach since the end of the genocide. It is the choice of unity that builds peace.

Rwandan unity has historical roots that the genocide did not erase. Indeed, Rwandans’ unity and national consciousness are documented in the writings of the earliest explorers and missionaries.

The ethnic divisions imposed on Rwandans were a colonial construct. Consolidating national unity therefore requires a return to the customary and historical values that strengthen it. Choosing unity has enabled Rwanda’s reconstruction. This approach is also applicable across the three countries of the Great Lakes sub-region, which remain affected by remnants of a criminal ideology similar to that which caused and enabled the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994.

Any "expert” who promotes division, hatred and historical distortion, rather than supporting the consolidation of national unity, poses a danger to Rwanda and the entire Great Lakes region.

This is the case with Filip Reyntjens.

The end.

The writer is Minister of National Unity and Civic Engagement. This article was first published in Dialogue magazine, Special Edition No. 211, "The Prolonged Genocide”.