Pages

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Rwanda: Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza dit à la Cour Suprême qu’il est extrêmement triste de jeter quelqu’un en prison pour avoir critiqué la politique du gouvernement


Rwanda: Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza dit à la Cour Suprême qu'il est extrêmement triste de jeter quelqu'un en prison pour avoir critiqué la politique du gouvernement

Kigali, le 30 Avril 2013.
Poursuivant sa déposition  à la Cour Suprême, Mme Ingabire a déclaré à la Cour qu'il est du devoir du parti qu'elle dirige, les FDU-Inkingi, de relever ce qui ne va pas avec les politiques gouvernementales afin que celles-ci soient corrigées. Elle a dit qu'il était triste que quelqu'un soit jeté en prison parce qu'il / elle a critiqué les politiques gouvernementales. Elle a ajouté qu'il était temps que le gouvernement cesse de considérer ceux qui le critiquent comme des ennemis, mais plutôt les prendre comme des gens qui sont soucieux de construire leur pays. La solution au problème auquel le pays est confronté, a-t-elle dit, ne peut être trouvée que par le dialogue et le débat politique. Elle a déclaré que tant que le régime continue de refuser un tel dialogue et le débat politique,  et jette en prison toute personne qui tente de souligner au gouvernement ce qui ne va pas, ceci ne fait que confirmer sa nature dictatoriale.
Le parquet a fait appel sur trois chefs d'accusation: la décision de la Haute Cour d'innocenter Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza concernant la charge de former un groupe armé ainsi que celle de répandre des rumeurs destinées à inciter la population a se révolter contre le gouvernement et le verdict de la Haute Cour qui a conduit à une réduction de peine.
En ce qui concerne le premier compte, Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza a souligné que l'accusation n'avait pas fourni suffisamment de preuves pour prouver que ce groupe armé a existé, ce que ce groupe armé avait fait et le rôle que Mme Ingabire avait joué dans l'incitation à la création de ce groupe armé. Mme Ingabire a ajouté que les éléments de preuve qu'elle a produits devant la cour ont démontré que cette idée avait germé dans le département d'investigation criminelle (CID) et le ministère public, en collaboration avec le major Vital Uwumuremyi. Elle a ajouté que la Haute Cour l'avait innocentée à juste titre en raison du manque de preuves de l'accusation.
La charge liée à la propagation de rumeurs visant à inciter la population à se révolter contre le gouvernement avait été basée sur trois éléments à savoir : ce que Mme Victoire Ingabire avait déclaré dans ses entretiens avec des journalists, ses écrits et son discours à l'aéroport. Le Procureur n'a fait que trier quelques mots que Mme Ingabire avait dits ou écrits et les a sortis de leur contexte pour la coincer. Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza a déclaré au tribunal que les FDU-Inkingi ont décidé de venir opérer au Rwanda en raison des problèmes que connaît le pays et le Procureur n'a pas pu prouver le contraire de ce qu'elle a dit ou écrit. Mme Ingabire a dit: "La Haute Cour m'a innocentée concernant la charge de répandre des rumeurs destinées à inciter la population à se révolter contre le gouvernement parce qu'elle était convaincue que mes critiques ne visaient pas à inciter la population à se révolter contre le gouvernement et que nous n'avons pas seulement montré ce qui ne va pas puisque nous avons également suggéré des solutions".
En ce qui concerne l'appel du parquet relatif à la réduction de sa peine, Mme Ingabire a dit que le verdict de la Haute Cour a été atteint en conformité avec la loi et qu'elle était fondée sur les preuves présentées à la Cour par le Procureur.
Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza a fait clairement comprendre que la lettre qu'elle a envoyée au Chef de l'Etat ne demandait pas le pardon présidentiel. Elle répondait aux représentants du gouvernement qui lui tendaient la main de négociation, mais elle avait répondu qu'elle ne pouvait négocier alors qu'elle était encore en prison.
Les audiences reprendront le 8 mai 2013, lorsque la défense de Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza présentera ses conclusions.
FDU-Inkingi
Boniface Twagirimana
Vice-Président intérimaire

Lady in Pink: Victoire Ingabire faces her judges in appeal – By Kris Berwouts

 

Lady in Pink: Victoire Ingabire faces her judges in appeal – By Kris Berwouts

Victoire Ingabire will find out the result of her appeal against incarceration in May.
The last time I communicated directly with Victoire Ingabire, on October 13th 2010, she sounded tense and tired. After an absence of more than 16 years, she had come back to Rwanda in January to participate in the presidential elections as the candidate of the Unified Democratic Forces (UDF-Inkingi), a coalition of Rwandan opposition parties with a large base of active members in the diaspora. But things had turned out differently -  she had been barred from running. A day after we last chatted, she was arrested and thrown in to jail. That's where she has been until today.  Two years later, she was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for conspiracy against the country through terrorism and genocide denial. Two weeks ago her appeal trial started. The judgment is expected sometime in May.
All the victims
Victoire Ingabire stepped into the political ring in a country that is unaccustomed to open debate. Over the years, the  Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) has built up its control over public life (including the political and judicial organs) along the lines of a one party system. This has happened despite the existence of a number of other satellite political parties which operate on the fringes of power but do not seriously dispute their basic loyalty to that power.
The presidential election of 2003, which brought the country's political transition to an end, was organised without any real political space: the only true opposition party did not receive official approval, and the main independent candidates for the presidential elections were disqualified on the eve of polling day. The campaign was accompanied by disappearances, arrests and intimidation of candidates, the electorate and observers.
In the Netherlands, where she lived with her family, Ingabire had developed political commitment and activism – she invested a lot of her energy in bringing together the most diverse opposition groups with people of very different ideological, regional and ethnic backgrounds within the Rwandan diaspora. In 2009, she gave up her high profile job in an international accounting firm to dedicate all her time to politics. She  arrived in Kigali on Saturday January 16th 2010 to prepare her campaign for the presidential elections in August.
The first hours after her arrival were very important. "I am ready to canvass for my candidature for head of state and victory is certain", she declared after stepping on to the tarmac at Kigali international airport. She drove from the airport straight to the Gisozi Memorial, built on a site where over 250,000 victims of the genocide are buried, to place flowers to commemorate "all victims", those who were killed in the genocide but also all the others who died in those years of conflict and violence.  Her speech caused fury on the part of genocide victims, the media and the authorities who accused her of propagating genocide denial.
Together with her team, she had to build up her party from zero. UDF-Inkingi was relatively well known in the Rwandan diaspora but nearly unheard of in the country itself. Exactly like the other genuine opposition parties, Bernard Ntaganda's Parti Social Imberakuri and Frank Habineza's Democratic Green Party, UDF-Inkingi tried to establish itself as a party and get through to the electorate.
No elections for Victoire
Soon after Ingabire's return to Rwanda, her party's office was demolished and her colleagues were roughed up by militants from the ruling party. The police were present but did not intervene. Later on, Ingabire personally suffered violence and intimidation. Starting three weeks after her arrival, she was regularly summoned by the police for investigation,  accused of spreading "genocidal ideology, 'divisionism' and contact with the FDLR".  In this first phase, no formal charges were brought against her, but a legal framework was created to slow down or hinder her other activities.
For example, on March 13th  2010 she received a letter from the communal authorities which forbade her from organising political meetings since she was subject to police investigation.  She wanted to react by holding a press conference but all the hotels where she had booked meeting rooms were threatened and cancelled the bookings at the last minute. When UDF tried to organise its constituent assembly, the municipality was willing to authorise this on the condition that the police would confirm that they would be present to ensure security. The police would be happy to ensure security provided that the commune gave its written authorisation.
Neither Ingabire, Ntaganda nor Habineza were able to register as candidates for the election and the three of them were at a disadvantage for teh following reasons:
  • The regime's monopoly of the media, which continually demonise the opposition parties and their leaders.
  • Verbal and physical intimidation of opposition parties, their leaders, members and activists.
  • The creation of a legal framework in which proceedings can be brought very rapidly and where the opposition finds it hard to defend itself: Accusations of spreading genocidal ideology and divisionism are very broad and not clearly defined in law. This terminology is applied to all those who have a different understanding than the official one of the recent history of Rwanda. This means it can be used to paralyse the leaders of the opposition and to prevent them carrying out their daily duties and exercising their political rights.
  • An administrative policy which aims to prevent opposition groups being registered, setting themselves up, organising meetings or making themselves known to the general public.
  • Infiltration of opposition parties in order to destabilise them from within.
First brick in the wall
I had regular contacts with Victoire in the 18 months before her return to Rwanda, but it took me a while before I started to take her seriously. I found it difficult to imagine that someone who had left Rwanda before the genocide and had never been back could threaten  a regime with an obsession in controlling public life (and posessed of the deadly efficiency to materialize that obsession).  But as she continued to prepare her campaign and raise support, I started to appreciate her dedication. She was modest and ambitious at the same time. She knew she would not be able to tear down fortress Kagame, built over a decade and a half, but she often said to me: "At some point, someone will have to break the first brick in the wall. Let this be my contribution." So she left for Rwanda to fight for real democratic space and genuine multiparty competition.
For a while she was public enemy n°1, but a month and a half after her arrival this stopped. At the end of February 2010, General Kayumba Nyamwasa left the country to oppose his former comrade-in-arms, thus starting a new phase in Kagame's annus horibilis. All of a sudden, the main threat to the regime came from within.
This, however, didn't mean the pressure on Victoire was relieved. On March 23rd she wanted to take a plane for a short holiday in the Netherlands with her family, but she was not allowed to cross the border. On April 21st she was arrested for the first time. Her documents and computer were confiscated and the restriction of her movements became more and more severe. She had to leave the modest but comfortable house she lived in because the regime put the landlord under pressure not to rent it out to an opposition personality.
Condemned
She was eventually arrested two months after the elections, on October 14th 2010. Her trial started in September 2011 and ended in April 2012. The verdict fell on October 30th with Ingabire being found guilty of conspiracy to undermine the government and genocide denial, she was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Amnesty International immediately asked for a prompt and fair appeal as the trial fell short of international standards. The trial was marred by the court's failure to ensure that evidence was properly tested, combined with the prosecution's disregard for due process in some instances," said Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International's Acting Deputy Africa Director in a press release on the same day.
Human Rights Watch also published a statement on the day of the verdict, in which their Africa Director Daniel Bekele clarified: "The prosecution of Ingabire for 'genocide ideology and 'divisionism' illustrates the Rwandan government's unwillingness to tolerate criticism and to accept the role of opposition parties in a democratic society."
Guilty?
It is very hard to defend yourself against charges of divisionism, genocide ideology and genocide denial. The legal definition of these terms is very broad and imprecise, which means that the law is easily used as a tool to silence dissident opinions, stop criticism or avoid debate.
I find it rather difficult to understand how you can accuse someone of genocide denial when the first thing she does when she comes back after 16 years of absence is to visit the Genocide Memorial to commemorate and pay respect to the victims. In her speech she said:
"I came back to my country after 16 years, and there was a tragedy that took place in this country. We know very well that there was a genocide, extermination. Therefore, I could not have returned after 16 years to the same country after such actions took place. They took place when I was not in the country. I could not have fallen asleep without first passing by the place where those actions took place. I had to see the place. I had to visit the place."
Ingabire, however, crossed the regime's red line by pointing out that not all the crimes committed during the war and the genocide have been registered and punished, clearly alluding to the crimes committed in 1994 by members of the former Tutsi rebellion -  the Rwanda Popular Front (FPR) –  now the ruling party:
"For us to reach reconciliation, we need to empathize with everyone's sadness. It is necessary that for the Tutsis who were killed, those Hutus who killed them understand that they need to be punished for it. It is also necessary that for the Hutus who were killed, those people who killed them understand that they need to be punished for it too. Furthermore, it is important that all of us, Rwandans from different ethnic groups, understand that we need to unite, respect each other and build our country in peace. What brought us back to the country is for us to start that path of reconciliation together and find a way to stop injustices so that all of us Rwandans can live together with basic freedoms in our country."
I don't see genocide denial in this. I don't feel any hidden sectarian or ethnic agenda. Not in this text, nor in other speeches I heard, texts I read or talks we had.
Talking to the FDLR
Ingabire has also has been condemned for alleged terrorism and preparing an armed struggle against the regime. According to her judges, she did not only collaborate with the FDLR, she also planned to form a new armed group, the Coalition of Democratic Forces (CDF).
Indeed, she had met with the FDLR in July 2009, in the form of Aloys Ntiwiragabo, one of its leaders. Some weeks earlier, the Congolese Minister of information, Lambert Mende, made use of a visit to Belgium to visit Victoire Inabire in Zevenhuizen near The Hague, where she lived with her family. He invited her on behalf of President Kabila to Kinshasa, because the Congolese government wanted her to talk to the FDLR leadership and convince them to give up their armed struggle and join her political approach. She accepted the invitation, was received by Kabila and talked to Ntiwiragabo. Unfortunately, the FDLR did not follow her advice.
Instead of, as was alleged, working with the armed groups on an agenda of terror and violence, Ingabire talked to the FDLR and asked them to cease the armed struggle.
Political trial
Victoire Ingabire was condemned after a political trial. Now appealing against her earlier sentence, Ingabire wants her sentence to be quashed, the Prosecutor demands 25 years. I personally do not see many reasons why the trial would be less political in appeal than it was in first instance, but this does not mean that the outcome is certain. Rwanda has been under very strong pressure from its main donors, including the Netherlands, and might use Victoire Ingabire's situation to show its humane and democratic side. On the other hand, people are already begining to get nervous about the forthcoming elections in 2017. Rwanda might use Victoire Ingabire as a statement about democracy and elections really being simple window dressing and not about effective participation.
In Rwanda, as in many other countries in the region, the opposition's role has never been considered to be positive, constructive and essential for democracy and the management of public affairs. Opposition is treated as a potentially destabilising, subversive and threatening element. Unfortunately for Mrs. Ingabire, these considerations could play to her disadvantage for the verdict in appeal.
Once more, Rwanda's international partners are getting stuck in their own ambiguity. On the one hand, they heavily insist on democracy and elections, but on the other they go very far in accepting non-democratic practices. This behaviour is a product of that difficult balance between contributing to the development of democracy and  concern about not damaging stability that is relative and precarious. The result is often a choice between what is considered the lesser of two evils.
As long as President Kagame is considered a key factor for relative regional stability, donors will tolerate what they consider to be a mild form of enlightened despotism. Despotism it sure is and history will teach us how enlightened it will have been. But I hope for Victoire that the regime will take this opportunity to show its mild side.
Kris Berwouts has, over the last 25 years, worked for a number of different Belgian and international NGOs focused on building peace, reconciliation, security and democratic processes. Until recently, he was the Director of EurAc, the network of European NGOs working for advocacy on Central Africa. He now works as an independent expert on Central Africa.
 
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Posted in Kris Berwouts, The Central Africa Forum. Bookmark.

Latest articles in this country:
Internal political shifts in Rwanda triggered by returning diaspora politicians – By Esther Marijnen
Will the Mounting Evidence of Rwandan Meddling in Eastern Congo Lead Donors to Change their Response? – By Courtney Meyer
Congo: Kabila in a Catch 22 with M23 – By Kris Berwouts
The Fall of Goma – By Michael Deibert
Give Kagame a break! A response to Richard Dowden – By Ken Opalo
Violence in the Eastern Congo: Rwanda fights to maintain economic control of the region – By Herman J. "Hank" Cohen
Kagame and Congo: how long can he deny Rwandan involvement in the East? – By Richard Dowden
Rwanda in Congo: Sixteen Years of Intervention – By William Macpherson
Crisis in Eastern DRC: ethnic massacres take back seat to speculation on Rwandan role – By Jessica Hatcher

Lady in Pink: Victoire Ingabire faces her judges in appeal – By Kris Berwouts

 

Lady in Pink: Victoire Ingabire faces her judges in appeal – By Kris Berwouts

Victoire Ingabire will find out the result of her appeal against incarceration in May.
The last time I communicated directly with Victoire Ingabire, on October 13th 2010, she sounded tense and tired. After an absence of more than 16 years, she had come back to Rwanda in January to participate in the presidential elections as the candidate of the Unified Democratic Forces (UDF-Inkingi), a coalition of Rwandan opposition parties with a large base of active members in the diaspora. But things had turned out differently -  she had been barred from running. A day after we last chatted, she was arrested and thrown in to jail. That's where she has been until today.  Two years later, she was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for conspiracy against the country through terrorism and genocide denial. Two weeks ago her appeal trial started. The judgment is expected sometime in May.
All the victims
Victoire Ingabire stepped into the political ring in a country that is unaccustomed to open debate. Over the years, the  Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) has built up its control over public life (including the political and judicial organs) along the lines of a one party system. This has happened despite the existence of a number of other satellite political parties which operate on the fringes of power but do not seriously dispute their basic loyalty to that power.
The presidential election of 2003, which brought the country's political transition to an end, was organised without any real political space: the only true opposition party did not receive official approval, and the main independent candidates for the presidential elections were disqualified on the eve of polling day. The campaign was accompanied by disappearances, arrests and intimidation of candidates, the electorate and observers.
In the Netherlands, where she lived with her family, Ingabire had developed political commitment and activism – she invested a lot of her energy in bringing together the most diverse opposition groups with people of very different ideological, regional and ethnic backgrounds within the Rwandan diaspora. In 2009, she gave up her high profile job in an international accounting firm to dedicate all her time to politics. She  arrived in Kigali on Saturday January 16th 2010 to prepare her campaign for the presidential elections in August.
The first hours after her arrival were very important. "I am ready to canvass for my candidature for head of state and victory is certain", she declared after stepping on to the tarmac at Kigali international airport. She drove from the airport straight to the Gisozi Memorial, built on a site where over 250,000 victims of the genocide are buried, to place flowers to commemorate "all victims", those who were killed in the genocide but also all the others who died in those years of conflict and violence.  Her speech caused fury on the part of genocide victims, the media and the authorities who accused her of propagating genocide denial.
Together with her team, she had to build up her party from zero. UDF-Inkingi was relatively well known in the Rwandan diaspora but nearly unheard of in the country itself. Exactly like the other genuine opposition parties, Bernard Ntaganda's Parti Social Imberakuri and Frank Habineza's Democratic Green Party, UDF-Inkingi tried to establish itself as a party and get through to the electorate.
No elections for Victoire
Soon after Ingabire's return to Rwanda, her party's office was demolished and her colleagues were roughed up by militants from the ruling party. The police were present but did not intervene. Later on, Ingabire personally suffered violence and intimidation. Starting three weeks after her arrival, she was regularly summoned by the police for investigation,  accused of spreading "genocidal ideology, 'divisionism' and contact with the FDLR".  In this first phase, no formal charges were brought against her, but a legal framework was created to slow down or hinder her other activities.
For example, on March 13th  2010 she received a letter from the communal authorities which forbade her from organising political meetings since she was subject to police investigation.  She wanted to react by holding a press conference but all the hotels where she had booked meeting rooms were threatened and cancelled the bookings at the last minute. When UDF tried to organise its constituent assembly, the municipality was willing to authorise this on the condition that the police would confirm that they would be present to ensure security. The police would be happy to ensure security provided that the commune gave its written authorisation.
Neither Ingabire, Ntaganda nor Habineza were able to register as candidates for the election and the three of them were at a disadvantage for teh following reasons:
  • The regime's monopoly of the media, which continually demonise the opposition parties and their leaders.
  • Verbal and physical intimidation of opposition parties, their leaders, members and activists.
  • The creation of a legal framework in which proceedings can be brought very rapidly and where the opposition finds it hard to defend itself: Accusations of spreading genocidal ideology and divisionism are very broad and not clearly defined in law. This terminology is applied to all those who have a different understanding than the official one of the recent history of Rwanda. This means it can be used to paralyse the leaders of the opposition and to prevent them carrying out their daily duties and exercising their political rights.
  • An administrative policy which aims to prevent opposition groups being registered, setting themselves up, organising meetings or making themselves known to the general public.
  • Infiltration of opposition parties in order to destabilise them from within.
First brick in the wall
I had regular contacts with Victoire in the 18 months before her return to Rwanda, but it took me a while before I started to take her seriously. I found it difficult to imagine that someone who had left Rwanda before the genocide and had never been back could threaten  a regime with an obsession in controlling public life (and posessed of the deadly efficiency to materialize that obsession).  But as she continued to prepare her campaign and raise support, I started to appreciate her dedication. She was modest and ambitious at the same time. She knew she would not be able to tear down fortress Kagame, built over a decade and a half, but she often said to me: "At some point, someone will have to break the first brick in the wall. Let this be my contribution." So she left for Rwanda to fight for real democratic space and genuine multiparty competition.
For a while she was public enemy n°1, but a month and a half after her arrival this stopped. At the end of February 2010, General Kayumba Nyamwasa left the country to oppose his former comrade-in-arms, thus starting a new phase in Kagame's annus horibilis. All of a sudden, the main threat to the regime came from within.
This, however, didn't mean the pressure on Victoire was relieved. On March 23rd she wanted to take a plane for a short holiday in the Netherlands with her family, but she was not allowed to cross the border. On April 21st she was arrested for the first time. Her documents and computer were confiscated and the restriction of her movements became more and more severe. She had to leave the modest but comfortable house she lived in because the regime put the landlord under pressure not to rent it out to an opposition personality.
Condemned
She was eventually arrested two months after the elections, on October 14th 2010. Her trial started in September 2011 and ended in April 2012. The verdict fell on October 30th with Ingabire being found guilty of conspiracy to undermine the government and genocide denial, she was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Amnesty International immediately asked for a prompt and fair appeal as the trial fell short of international standards. The trial was marred by the court's failure to ensure that evidence was properly tested, combined with the prosecution's disregard for due process in some instances," said Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International's Acting Deputy Africa Director in a press release on the same day.
Human Rights Watch also published a statement on the day of the verdict, in which their Africa Director Daniel Bekele clarified: "The prosecution of Ingabire for 'genocide ideology and 'divisionism' illustrates the Rwandan government's unwillingness to tolerate criticism and to accept the role of opposition parties in a democratic society."
Guilty?
It is very hard to defend yourself against charges of divisionism, genocide ideology and genocide denial. The legal definition of these terms is very broad and imprecise, which means that the law is easily used as a tool to silence dissident opinions, stop criticism or avoid debate.
I find it rather difficult to understand how you can accuse someone of genocide denial when the first thing she does when she comes back after 16 years of absence is to visit the Genocide Memorial to commemorate and pay respect to the victims. In her speech she said:
"I came back to my country after 16 years, and there was a tragedy that took place in this country. We know very well that there was a genocide, extermination. Therefore, I could not have returned after 16 years to the same country after such actions took place. They took place when I was not in the country. I could not have fallen asleep without first passing by the place where those actions took place. I had to see the place. I had to visit the place."
Ingabire, however, crossed the regime's red line by pointing out that not all the crimes committed during the war and the genocide have been registered and punished, clearly alluding to the crimes committed in 1994 by members of the former Tutsi rebellion -  the Rwanda Popular Front (FPR) –  now the ruling party:
"For us to reach reconciliation, we need to empathize with everyone's sadness. It is necessary that for the Tutsis who were killed, those Hutus who killed them understand that they need to be punished for it. It is also necessary that for the Hutus who were killed, those people who killed them understand that they need to be punished for it too. Furthermore, it is important that all of us, Rwandans from different ethnic groups, understand that we need to unite, respect each other and build our country in peace. What brought us back to the country is for us to start that path of reconciliation together and find a way to stop injustices so that all of us Rwandans can live together with basic freedoms in our country."
I don't see genocide denial in this. I don't feel any hidden sectarian or ethnic agenda. Not in this text, nor in other speeches I heard, texts I read or talks we had.
Talking to the FDLR
Ingabire has also has been condemned for alleged terrorism and preparing an armed struggle against the regime. According to her judges, she did not only collaborate with the FDLR, she also planned to form a new armed group, the Coalition of Democratic Forces (CDF).
Indeed, she had met with the FDLR in July 2009, in the form of Aloys Ntiwiragabo, one of its leaders. Some weeks earlier, the Congolese Minister of information, Lambert Mende, made use of a visit to Belgium to visit Victoire Inabire in Zevenhuizen near The Hague, where she lived with her family. He invited her on behalf of President Kabila to Kinshasa, because the Congolese government wanted her to talk to the FDLR leadership and convince them to give up their armed struggle and join her political approach. She accepted the invitation, was received by Kabila and talked to Ntiwiragabo. Unfortunately, the FDLR did not follow her advice.
Instead of, as was alleged, working with the armed groups on an agenda of terror and violence, Ingabire talked to the FDLR and asked them to cease the armed struggle.
Political trial
Victoire Ingabire was condemned after a political trial. Now appealing against her earlier sentence, Ingabire wants her sentence to be quashed, the Prosecutor demands 25 years. I personally do not see many reasons why the trial would be less political in appeal than it was in first instance, but this does not mean that the outcome is certain. Rwanda has been under very strong pressure from its main donors, including the Netherlands, and might use Victoire Ingabire's situation to show its humane and democratic side. On the other hand, people are already begining to get nervous about the forthcoming elections in 2017. Rwanda might use Victoire Ingabire as a statement about democracy and elections really being simple window dressing and not about effective participation.
In Rwanda, as in many other countries in the region, the opposition's role has never been considered to be positive, constructive and essential for democracy and the management of public affairs. Opposition is treated as a potentially destabilising, subversive and threatening element. Unfortunately for Mrs. Ingabire, these considerations could play to her disadvantage for the verdict in appeal.
Once more, Rwanda's international partners are getting stuck in their own ambiguity. On the one hand, they heavily insist on democracy and elections, but on the other they go very far in accepting non-democratic practices. This behaviour is a product of that difficult balance between contributing to the development of democracy and  concern about not damaging stability that is relative and precarious. The result is often a choice between what is considered the lesser of two evils.
As long as President Kagame is considered a key factor for relative regional stability, donors will tolerate what they consider to be a mild form of enlightened despotism. Despotism it sure is and history will teach us how enlightened it will have been. But I hope for Victoire that the regime will take this opportunity to show its mild side.
Kris Berwouts has, over the last 25 years, worked for a number of different Belgian and international NGOs focused on building peace, reconciliation, security and democratic processes. Until recently, he was the Director of EurAc, the network of European NGOs working for advocacy on Central Africa. He now works as an independent expert on Central Africa.
 
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Posted in Kris Berwouts, The Central Africa Forum. Bookmark.

Latest articles in this country:
Internal political shifts in Rwanda triggered by returning diaspora politicians – By Esther Marijnen
Will the Mounting Evidence of Rwandan Meddling in Eastern Congo Lead Donors to Change their Response? – By Courtney Meyer
Congo: Kabila in a Catch 22 with M23 – By Kris Berwouts
The Fall of Goma – By Michael Deibert
Give Kagame a break! A response to Richard Dowden – By Ken Opalo
Violence in the Eastern Congo: Rwanda fights to maintain economic control of the region – By Herman J. "Hank" Cohen
Kagame and Congo: how long can he deny Rwandan involvement in the East? – By Richard Dowden
Rwanda in Congo: Sixteen Years of Intervention – By William Macpherson
Crisis in Eastern DRC: ethnic massacres take back seat to speculation on Rwandan role – By Jessica Hatcher

MAIN REASONS WHY RWANDAN REFUGEE ARE NOT YET READY TO RETURN IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND WHY CESSATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED OUT

MAIN REASONS WHY RWANDAN REFUGEE ARE NOT YET READY TO RETURN IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND WHY CESSATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED OUT.

  • Imprimer
  • E-mail
Détails
Publié le mardi 30 avril 2013 14:01
MAIN REASONS WHY RWANDAN REFUGEE ARE NOT YET READY TO RETURN IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND WHY CESSATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED OUT.
 
Our beloved visitor, We Rwandan refugees are very happy to receive you and you are highly welcome.
 
 Dear Sir/Madam,
 
We Rwandan refugees, we love our country Rwanda and we are not happy to be called refugees and even staying outside our country. But due to a number of reasons, many Rwandan are still staying outside their country as refugees and we are requesting you to allow us to continue staying in their countries, Uganda inclusive and stop or postpone cessation clause program that is soon affecting Rwandan refugees until our country is fully secured.
 
The main reasons that hinder Rwandese from repatriating are noted below:
 
1. To tell the truth, HUTUs killed TUTSIs and TUTSIs killed HUTUs more than necessary until now, but Rwandan Government changed the name from mass killing to Genocide to Rwandese and later Genocide to TUTSIs and all survivors of Genocide are TUTSIs while all perpetrators are HUTUs who died are remembered and all survivors including orphans are assisted while HUTUs who died are not remembered and their survivors, orphans and widows are not assisted in all aspects of life and we have may living examples.
NB. All bones for TUTSIs, HUTUs and even TWA were buried in Beautiful burial sites and they are called parts of Tutsis who died during Genocide. Do HUTUs and TWA become Tutsi after death?
 
2. Our beloved guest of honor, Rwandan refugees from Oruchinga and Nakivale Refugee Settlement started repatriating voluntarily since 1996 up to 2009 but over 90% of those who repatriated came back due to their insecurity problem. Now how can they go back? When majority of them are returnees.
 
3. It is true there is no war in our country, but there is a cold war that is based on the following:
 
(i) GENOCIDE IDEOLOGY: Any person who is not satisfied with the way Rwandan government is treating people is called Genocider or any one who talks or respond to the government, Tutsis do not participate in night patrol only Hutus and Twa (Local Defense) do.
(ii) IN EDUCATION SECTOR: All Tutsis are given scholarships as they are called survivor, widows and orphans of Genocide whether true or not but no Hutus or Twa can get it.
(iii) RECALL PERIOD (IBUKA = REMEMBER): In this period many Hutus suffer in may ways such as being beaten, abused verbally and some go to jail in case one Tutsi or may shows that they are traumatized.
(iv) FREEDOM OF SPEECH: In Rwanda, there is no freedom of speaking anything whether good or bad that is not in line with the government's programs, or ask why some programs are set in the way that is not satisfying the entire community.
 
4. KILLING PEOPLE DURING THE NIGHT AND ABDUCTING OTHERS:
This exercise of killing innocent people and taking others to unknown places was practiced since 1994 until now. This is done by RPF soldiers by using some of friends or relatives of those innocent people.
To those who were civil servants or politicians or government workers, soldiers or students, they use the positions they had before genocide and they take them, where they were working from and be either killed or imprisoned and then they go back to disorganize and intimidating the remaining ones (relatives).
 
5. INJUSTICE: In Rwanda Local Courts (GACACA) confused and conflicted many Hutus as they were only perpetrators of Genocide in that simple cases were made criminal cases, and they were characterized of lies and assumptions. Example of a true lie; there is a person who died before Genocide and he was accused to have killed people during the Genocide.
 
GACACA had its powers but they could even intervene in cases that could be settled in High Courts or Supreme Courts or Courts of Army.
 
NB. Many of us who are still outside the country, we are sentenced and that is why they want us to repatriate in order to be imprisoned.
 
The same court could imprison people and take long time to settle their cases and after like 2 or 3 years they release them saying that they proved innocent and no compensation for that period in jail and in jail they are treated badly.
 
People who complete their sentences, in prison and who are set free because they are proved innocent go back home when they are mentally and physically incapacitated due to poor treatment in a jail and they can not be assisted in any way.
 
Other reasons that threaten Rwandese from repatriating:
Revenge done and still being done by Tutsis to Hutus show that peace will take time to come in Rwanda.
Young generations that are born in Uganda do not know their home country and they do not have where to go and they do not know what to do, especially orphan.
All old people above 50 years of age are accused of having participated in 1959 conflicts that caused Tutsis to leave the country so they should be penalized of what they did.
Some were killed in Rwanda and others are outside the country.
 
With those few reasons and many unmentioned we are requesting you to cancel out the decisions of cessation clause. In case you need testimonies, here are many people who face the mentioned challenges recently and some few years ago.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
RWANDAN REFUGEES  

Telephone: +256(0)774900275, +256(0)754112618
Kagaba Leodegard

MAIN REASONS WHY RWANDAN REFUGEE ARE NOT YET READY TO RETURN IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND WHY CESSATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED OUT

MAIN REASONS WHY RWANDAN REFUGEE ARE NOT YET READY TO RETURN IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND WHY CESSATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED OUT.

  • Imprimer
  • E-mail
Détails
Publié le mardi 30 avril 2013 14:01
MAIN REASONS WHY RWANDAN REFUGEE ARE NOT YET READY TO RETURN IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY AND WHY CESSATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED OUT.
 
Our beloved visitor, We Rwandan refugees are very happy to receive you and you are highly welcome.
 
 Dear Sir/Madam,
 
We Rwandan refugees, we love our country Rwanda and we are not happy to be called refugees and even staying outside our country. But due to a number of reasons, many Rwandan are still staying outside their country as refugees and we are requesting you to allow us to continue staying in their countries, Uganda inclusive and stop or postpone cessation clause program that is soon affecting Rwandan refugees until our country is fully secured.
 
The main reasons that hinder Rwandese from repatriating are noted below:
 
1. To tell the truth, HUTUs killed TUTSIs and TUTSIs killed HUTUs more than necessary until now, but Rwandan Government changed the name from mass killing to Genocide to Rwandese and later Genocide to TUTSIs and all survivors of Genocide are TUTSIs while all perpetrators are HUTUs who died are remembered and all survivors including orphans are assisted while HUTUs who died are not remembered and their survivors, orphans and widows are not assisted in all aspects of life and we have may living examples.
NB. All bones for TUTSIs, HUTUs and even TWA were buried in Beautiful burial sites and they are called parts of Tutsis who died during Genocide. Do HUTUs and TWA become Tutsi after death?
 
2. Our beloved guest of honor, Rwandan refugees from Oruchinga and Nakivale Refugee Settlement started repatriating voluntarily since 1996 up to 2009 but over 90% of those who repatriated came back due to their insecurity problem. Now how can they go back? When majority of them are returnees.
 
3. It is true there is no war in our country, but there is a cold war that is based on the following:
 
(i) GENOCIDE IDEOLOGY: Any person who is not satisfied with the way Rwandan government is treating people is called Genocider or any one who talks or respond to the government, Tutsis do not participate in night patrol only Hutus and Twa (Local Defense) do.
(ii) IN EDUCATION SECTOR: All Tutsis are given scholarships as they are called survivor, widows and orphans of Genocide whether true or not but no Hutus or Twa can get it.
(iii) RECALL PERIOD (IBUKA = REMEMBER): In this period many Hutus suffer in may ways such as being beaten, abused verbally and some go to jail in case one Tutsi or may shows that they are traumatized.
(iv) FREEDOM OF SPEECH: In Rwanda, there is no freedom of speaking anything whether good or bad that is not in line with the government's programs, or ask why some programs are set in the way that is not satisfying the entire community.
 
4. KILLING PEOPLE DURING THE NIGHT AND ABDUCTING OTHERS:
This exercise of killing innocent people and taking others to unknown places was practiced since 1994 until now. This is done by RPF soldiers by using some of friends or relatives of those innocent people.
To those who were civil servants or politicians or government workers, soldiers or students, they use the positions they had before genocide and they take them, where they were working from and be either killed or imprisoned and then they go back to disorganize and intimidating the remaining ones (relatives).
 
5. INJUSTICE: In Rwanda Local Courts (GACACA) confused and conflicted many Hutus as they were only perpetrators of Genocide in that simple cases were made criminal cases, and they were characterized of lies and assumptions. Example of a true lie; there is a person who died before Genocide and he was accused to have killed people during the Genocide.
 
GACACA had its powers but they could even intervene in cases that could be settled in High Courts or Supreme Courts or Courts of Army.
 
NB. Many of us who are still outside the country, we are sentenced and that is why they want us to repatriate in order to be imprisoned.
 
The same court could imprison people and take long time to settle their cases and after like 2 or 3 years they release them saying that they proved innocent and no compensation for that period in jail and in jail they are treated badly.
 
People who complete their sentences, in prison and who are set free because they are proved innocent go back home when they are mentally and physically incapacitated due to poor treatment in a jail and they can not be assisted in any way.
 
Other reasons that threaten Rwandese from repatriating:
Revenge done and still being done by Tutsis to Hutus show that peace will take time to come in Rwanda.
Young generations that are born in Uganda do not know their home country and they do not have where to go and they do not know what to do, especially orphan.
All old people above 50 years of age are accused of having participated in 1959 conflicts that caused Tutsis to leave the country so they should be penalized of what they did.
Some were killed in Rwanda and others are outside the country.
 
With those few reasons and many unmentioned we are requesting you to cancel out the decisions of cessation clause. In case you need testimonies, here are many people who face the mentioned challenges recently and some few years ago.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
RWANDAN REFUGEES  

Telephone: +256(0)774900275, +256(0)754112618
Kagaba Leodegard

-“The root cause of the Rwandan tragedy of 1994 is the long and past historical ethnic dominance of one minority ethnic group to the other majority ethnic group. Ignoring this reality is giving a black cheque for the Rwandan people’s future and deepening resentment, hostility and hatred between the two groups.”

-« Ce dont j’ai le plus peur, c’est des gens qui croient que, du jour au lendemain, on peut prendre une société, lui tordre le cou et en faire une autre ».

-“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

-“I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile.

-“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

READ MORE RECENT NEWS AND OPINIONS

Popular Posts

WebMD Health Channel - Sex & Relationships

Love Lectures

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

David DeAngelo - Dating Questions For Men

Christian Carter - Dating Questions For Women

Women - The Huffington Post

Recent Articles About Effective Communication Skills and Self Development