Dr Charles Kambanda missed the point and opportunity to respond to substantive issues with hard evidence pointed out by myself and Lt Col. Jill Rutaremara, the Defence and Military Spokesman, in what he calls ‘crusade’ in The New Times news paper with regards, to the renegades (and I will stand by this term, for that is what they are anyway!).
First, Kambanda, should have done research on the background and reasons that led these renegades to take the route they took. That he did not analysis of their background, leaves his response to our analysis highly flawed and dismissive.
His piece lacks serious intellectual input, and rather plays on the emotions of the renegades, which is typical of the situation they find themselves in. But surely a serious academic should endeavour to adduce persuasive and possible, conclusive evidence in his arguments, rather than reciting statements of disgruntled elements posing as oppositionists.
All commentators on these renegades have given sufficient background of the same, and why they happen to be in the situation they are in today. We have all argued exhaustively here, that, these are not political opponents of the government in true sense, for they did not flee the country as a result of political differences/ persecutions, but rather each committed heinous crimes to the government and the people of Rwanda, and this is on record.
If every criminal who is on the run from justice turns to be a politician and an oppositionist for that matter and even wishes to vie for a political position, then Africa would be headed for criminal regimes, which I am most certain will never happen. In the western countries, where these renegades make lots of noise in the name of politics, no one would hold office if he was ever investigated for corruption, nepotism and blacklisted by banks (read Gahima and Rudasingwa).
No military officer would ever vie for a political position let alone a serious civil job if ever he was convicted by their military courts (read Kayumba, Karegeya, and Rudasingwa). Now, these renegades are out there in the west colluding with extremist and terrorist and claiming legitimacy that they lost through the treasonable actions.
Kambanda (and others that belong to his school of thought are entitled to their opinions) cannot undo what these renegades did, nor pretend to re-write their history.
Besides, the information that we have adduced in the media and over which we stand firm and square is based on hard evidence that Kambanda may not have or may deliberately choose to ignore.
It is not hearsay, nor political witch hunt, as Kambanda insinuates, but rather statements of fact that are verifiable. All we have written on these renegades are hard facts, which no one can wish away, or distort to suit his political expedience.
But an academic like Kambanda knows the consequences of distortion of facts in academia. They are far reaching...
Kambanda’s arguments are legalistic in nature, and lack intellectual input one would have expected from Kambanda because the mistakes, crimes, and behaviour of these four individuals are cross-sectional and touch on serious moral issues that have characterised these renegades.
Kambanda should have researched on these issues if his intention was to write a more informed article.
These renegades are entitled to criticism of all sorts, except where their moral latitude is too corrupt to allow them to do so. Thus for instance Kambanda argues that, these renegades accuse the government of issues of accountability.
But, the question is: when should a criminal who has been accused of serious crimes of accountability hoodwink people, that he is now ‘holy’ and an authority on issues of accountability, and can even dare judge the government of the same crime that saw him leave office?
All these renegades failed the test of accountability albeit in different ways (which we have documented here before) and indeed Rudasingwa in his letter to The President dated 4th April, 2005, admits most of his failures and exposes his guilt over his failure to meet the President’s expectations.
... “Mr. President, I MIGHT have fallen short of your expectations.” ” I do not intend to undertake, now or in the future, any political or government responsibilities”.
I guess Kambanda did not have such information (and most other information we have outlined), but one would expect a serious and experienced academic to have done enough research before putting pen to paper.
Kambanda, should have stated his position in these issues and attempt to defend the same intellectually, if he could. He did’nt. Stating other parties’ position without serious defense of their positions with empirical evidence is the highest absurdity in academia, and Kambanda and the likes of his mind should know this.
All commentators on these renegades adduced sufficient, reliable and relevant evidence as to their crimes for which they were convicted and sentenced in absentia. Kambanda lost all he purported advance when he failed adduce hard evidence that would have questioned all that have been written on the renegades.
In any case, their case is not debatable any more, for no matter what the renegades can advance in cohorts with the likes of Kambanda (they cannot have a better ‘ally’). Rwandans know pretty well who these renegades are, for their record in the government is public. Perhaps what they did not comprehend is the substance (rather lack of it) which these renegades have sold to the Rwandan people when they fled the country.
What I can assure Kambanda is and his allied renegades is that, Rwandans have no words for these renegades. They have sold themselves (on radio and on the net) that, they can never get worse in the public know. I even do not know which Rwandan has lost so much in all you can name, more than these renegades.
Those who heard Kayumba’s utterances on BBC Gahuzamiryango on Tuesday evening were left tight lipped. His venom was not only un Rwandan, but also fell short of every measure of reason least logic. Do these renegades need a better leader?
To be continued....