Kigali — ON Monday, November 4, 2019, members of the British parliament wrote a letter to President Kagame, pleading for the release of former military officers Tom Byabagamba and Frank Rusagara. ‘Have they released Julian Assange whose incarceration a UN human rights group of experts has judged to be illegal? And what have they done to stop the UK being turned into a safe haven for some of the most notorious Rwandan genocidaires?’ –one person on twitter immediately reacted. ‘Has the UK Parliament replaced Rwandan court?’ Others wondered amid general indignation. But before I continue, allow me to state that I would be the first to plead in favor of fellow countrymen to be released on health grounds. However, the idea of having members of a foreign institution meddling in a friendly nation’s court proceedings while these are still ongoing is revolting. This request seems like an attack on state sovereignty. The United Kingdom is known as the country which harbors many of the perpetrators of the Genocide against the Tutsi, where genocide ideology thrives, where genocide deniers source funding and airtime on state-owned media to deny the genocide. In the last couple of years, many countries in Europe have passed legislation criminalizing genocide ideology, while the UK, it seems as though the only thing the BBC reports on Rwanda is Genocide ideology and genocide revisionism – to quote a Genocide survivor, it is safer to be a genocide perpetrator, denier or revisionist in the UK, than to be a survivor or supporter of Paul Kagame and the Rwandan government. That’s not all, when the infamous ‘Untold Story’ was aired on BBC, British author Linda Melvern alongside other academics with knowledge on Rwanda petitioned the UK parliament to issue a statement distancing itself from such a hateful documentary produced and aired on a public broadcaster. The honorable gentlemen preferred to respond that their media was independent to, among other things - peddle genocide revisionism. Today, I would like to pay them with their own currency: Rwanda’s judiciary is independent! By consistently acting in tacit support of genocide ideology then, and turning away each time they are petitioned to do the right thing, UK lawmakers have lost all legitimacy or moral ground as regards our justice system. We did not see UK lawmakers write a letter to their judicial system, when a Rwandan General, head of Rwanda’s National Security Service travelling on duty, was arrested on British soil on trumped-up charges fabricated by one political French judge Jean Louis Bruguire and later discredited by his successor Judge Trevidic. It is therefore uncanny to see them coming out now to defend those in conflict with Rwandan law: in French it is called: ‘deux poids, deux mesures’. Now on the misconstrued letter: Unlike what the letter purports, the two convicts were high ranking officials of the army - and indeed of the state. Their crimes have not been taken lightly - as it should be for men of their position and rank. Furthermore, this habit of presenting senior military officials in conflict with the law as regular citizens should be clarified. We aren’t talking of the usual self-appointed politicians or journalists whom western polity like to portray as risk groups, but of generals and colonels. It is unheard of for a military officer to express negative political ideas in any setting without being given such a mandate. I believe there are fora to exchange ideas in the army and in other government bodies without threatening national security. Coups and other acts of sedition have been started by high ranking officials spreading rumors to spark insurrections. Rwanda’s national security is paramount, and disgruntled officials are expected to be mindful of the security implications and sensitivity of their position, and refrain from discussing their discontent. All these factors, which were considered by the military court have been overlooked by the ‘honorable oversees ladies and gentlemen’ in their letter. What are Rwandan officials to think when a former general, who served as a diplomat in a foreign country has officials of that country go out of their way to defend them, once their country of origin suspects them of acts such as ‘tarnishing the image of the country and government’ and ‘undermining the national flag’? Wouldn’t that tend to confirm the suspicions? Why haven’t the convicts written the letter directly to their Rwandan superiors, explaining their health conditions? So it is at the discretion of our nation’s leader to grant them pardon should he see it fit, and as mandated by Rwanda’s constitution. However one wonders if the injunction by foreign lawmakers does not thwart the opportunity of the convicts in question to benefit from grace. There are many Rwandans who have erred in the past, found themselves on the wrong side of the law, tried, sentenced, and later rehabilitated and redeployed - in fact the letter from UK members of parliament appears on the same day as one such high-level government appointment. To conclude: Rwanda’s justice system isn’t under the Privy Council, whereby a panel of British lords are the last resort on matters of justice in some African countries; a last vestige of colonialism. It is therefore not the place of British lawmakers to make law in Rwanda. The views expressed in this article are of the author.
