In British newspaper, Ingabire should have requested the extradition of genocide fugitives living in the United Kingdom | New times
The Guardian’s decision to embrace and give the platform Hutu-Power figures and their talking points caught the attention of Rwandans. Recently, a convicted criminal, Victoire Ingabire, was allowed to deceive the public regarding her conviction in Rwandan courts. His article, “My story proves Rwanda’s lack of respect for good governance and human rightsÂ», Intervenes in the middle of a series of publications reviewing the historical facts around the genocide against the Tutsi. This has made Rwandans wonder why The Guardian, a British newspaper, seems determined to lend a hand to the growing denial movement in the West.
While many are willing to believe that Western newspapers uncritically embrace “free speech” or would accept the suggestion that the editors of The Guardian are just plain ignorant and too lazy to verify the facts when it comes to to cover Africa, in general, and Rwanda in this matter, this dubious defense would not stand up to scrutiny after learning that dissenting voices, mainly Rwandan, were denied the possibility of debunking the lies spread against their country on the same platforms where false statements, omissions and fabrications are granted immunity. Indeed, if free speech were the cause they claim to be championing, the logic would apply to both sides of the argument. However, the refusal to publish anything that contradicts the current anti-Rwanda narrative clearly indicates malicious intent on the part of The Guardian officials.
But let’s ask ourselves the basic questions the editors of The Guardian should have asked. Who is Victoire Ingabire and what is her story? Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza is the daughter of ThÃ©rÃ¨se Dusabe, a genocide convict who enjoys impunity in the Netherlands. Dusabe was accused, among other crimes of genocide, of having killed Tutsi women who came to give birth at the health center in the former commune of Butamwa (now Mageragere sector) where she was a nurse. In August 1998, just five months after President Bill Clinton’s visit to Rwanda, Ingabire Victoire, following in his mother’s ideological footsteps, took the lead of the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR), a movement “Political” party formed in Mugunga – in the former Zaire – refugee camps by the masterminds of the genocide against the Tutsis and whose armed wing was made up of ex-FAR and Interahamwe militias.
Among the founding fathers of the RDR were the notorious masterminds of the genocide, Theoneste Bagosora, Ferdinand Nahimana and others who led the Cameroonian branch of the party and were later convicted by the International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR). During his visit, President Clinton referred to this group which, only five months later, would be led by Victoire Ingabire in these terms: âIn the northwest of your country, attacks by those responsible for the 1994 massacre continue today. “
In 2009, the new “political” party of Ingabire Victoire, the FDU-Inkingi, itself a dissident group of these genocidal groups, was pinned down by a group of UN experts for its links with the FDLR, the genocidal armed militia that the United States classifies as a terrorist group. Later, in 2010, FDU vice-president Joseph Ntawagundi, who had returned to Rwanda with Ingabire, was overtaken by his past. Faced with damning testimonies, including that of his own wife, he pleaded guilty to direct participation in the genocide of the Tutsi for calling for the murder of eight people. It should be noted that at the time of Ntawangundi’s arrest, Ingabire Victoire defended tooth and nail his vice-president, claiming that the charges were politically motivated.
On October 15, 2010, The New Times reported the arrest of Victoire Ingabire “suspected of being involved in subversive activities. Ingabire was arrested after being implicated by Major Vital Uwumuremyi, a former rebel commander of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) who was intercepted as he attempted to sneak through the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC ) – Rwandan border. âFurther evidence of Ingabire’s links to genocidal groups roaming the eastern DRC has been provided by Dutch authorities after a search was carried out of his home in the Netherlands.
It should also be noted that this evidence was overwhelming enough to prompt Ingabire’s husband, Lin Muyizere, to appeal to The Hague Court with the aim of blocking the transfer of the incriminated documents to Rwanda. In November 2011, the Dutch Embassy informed the Rwandan Foreign Ministry that the Hague Court had rejected Muyizere’s petition. “The judge ruled that Muyizere’s objections were inadmissible. This means that all legal obstacles to sending said evidence to Rwanda have been removed.Â», We read in part in the Note Verbale of the Dutch Embassy.
On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court increased Victoire Ingabire’s prison sentence from the High Court’s initial eight-year sentence to 15 years, after finding her guilty, among other crimes, of forming armed groups. to destabilize the country and minimize the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. What Ingabire fails to say in its misleading article is that she and the prosecution appealed the first sentence, which the prosecution deemed too lenient. All of this information is available in the public domain if The Guardian were a newspaper that serves the truth.
In addition, Ingabire insists on her condemnation for minimizing the genocide because she knows that her audience in the West remains, to this day, unable to identify with the pain of Rwandans and their indignation at the contemptible words of Ingabire at the Memorial of the Gisozi genocide. On that fateful day, Ingabire equated the planned mass murders of over a million Tutsis with crimes attributed to the RPF, echoing the theory of double genocide peddled by genocide masterminds before, during and after the genocide against the Tutsi.
Obviously, Ingabire has no defense to offer when it comes to his association with the genocidaires and his plans to launch an armed struggle to overthrow the Rwandan government. This is why his story in The Guardian omits these details. Looks like she was born in 2010, had only exercised her freedom of speech when she was arrested and sentenced, and had no criminal record to justify.
No one believes that the editors of The Guardian are unable to verify Ingabire’s claims, whether on its condemnation, the impressive economic progress Rwanda has made since 1994, or on the state of human rights. On this particular issue of human rights violations, the modus operandi remains the same. Allegations against the government, without any evidence to support them, are treated as established facts. However, if we were to stick to established facts in order to safeguard the Commonwealth values ââthat The Guardian is supposed to share, everyone would agree with British MP Andrew Mitchel’s point of view that ââBritain has a guilty secret that should worry all honest people who care about its role in the world.Indeed, if we really care about shared values, protecting fugitives from genocide, like Britain is doing, is not something to be proud of but something that everyone should condemn.
If Ingabire really cared about Commonwealth values, she would seek the extradition of the five genocide fugitives living in the UK whenever she was given a column in a UK newspaper. If she were principled in her human rights defense, she would even seek the extradition of her own mother, a genocide convict many believe helped escape to the Netherlands. She would also apologize for her involvement in mass killers, starting with those who controlled the refugee camps in Zaire and launched deadly attacks against Rwanda. But, of course, it’s not really about shared wealth values. It is about rewriting the history of Rwanda under the guise of human rights and Ingabire Victoire is presented as yet another anointed “hero” fighting the Rwandan “dictatorship” after the resounding failure of the “Hollywood hero” project.
Ironically, on Hollywood’s âheroâ as well, British courts agreed with the views of many Rwandans. On the evidence presented by Paul Rusesabagina to defend four genocide suspects living freely in the United Kingdom, Judge Antony Evans did not mince his words. “In reality what he [Rusesabaginaâs testimony] did was to set out the context of this evidence and show that the evidence was not that of an independent expert, but rather of a man with a background strongly linked to the extremist Hutu faction, and as such cannot be considered independent and motivated“, ruled Justice Evans.
The question is: will The Guardian and the regime change sponsors ever learn?