Gahima: Inyenyeri News will never apologize for being a voice of everybody
Editor -in -Chief
After the recent Article that appeared in the Inyenyeri news under
the heading “ Is Gahima haunted by his Role in the Rwanda Genocide?”
Theogene Rudasingwa a brother to Gahima responded on his facebook page
by demanding an apology from inyenyeri news, in his words Rudasingwa
Theogene Rudasingwa defending his brother Gahima Gerald
are yet to reach a stage where we can disagree with civility. Instead
of challenging Gahima’s arguments, the Inyenyeri News article said he is
a thief. Now, being a thief and having ideas are different things. I
say this not because Gahima is my brother, or a colleague leader in the
RNC, but because I sense unfairness in the Inyenyeri attack. As for
debate on BBC documentary, that is precisely its utility. To encourage
debate. That means listening first, even if you do not agree.
News has simply disgraced itself by parading the usual shameful
Kigali-like hatred against Gahima. The honorable thing to do would be to
apologise to Gahima, but as it often said, only those morally
responsible can rise to that revolutionary challenge”.
Gahima Gerald who questioned untold story credibility
We have received different comments against and in support of the
above article. However, the most astonishing behaviour by some people as
those telling the Inyenyeri news to apologize for allowing the article
to be published. This is like telling the African Chiefs that they
should not apologize for allowing slavery of their Citizens a hundred
In unprecedented demand for accountability by some African civil
rights defenders the Traditional African rulers were encouraged to
apologize for the role they played in the slave trade.”We cannot
continue to blame the white men, as Africans particularly the
traditional rulers, are not blameless,” said the Civil Rights Congress.
Could we say that this human rights organization was not civilized
because it demanded the accountability of the African Chiefs who helped,
aided, assisted, the white man to capture many of their fellow
countrymen and take them as slaves?
Should we tell the BBC that allowed this article to appear in its
publications on 12, November 2009, to apologize? Who has the monopoly of
civilizations when it comes to facts or opinions? The best way of
showing civility when it comes to responding to issues in the free
speech world forum, is to write and counter argue what you think is
incorrect or biased as you might think.
What the Inyenyeri news did was to publish what the writer of the
above article thought was a responsibility for the opposition figures to
have the moral standing, indeed, to be part of any future
constitutional arrangement in Rwanda; there are some historical issues
for them to address.
As any prominent public figure, for instance Celebrities,
politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others
with power in society will always have a problem in drawing a line
between what is personal or private or public. Why should a public
figure that is suspected of theft, become private or vendetta if it
comes to accountability? Unless he/she comes with the facts that are
contrary to what has been said against him or her. The scales of
accountability when it comes to the Rwandan government and the
opposition figures should be of the same standard.
As regards, the Inyenyeri news position, we shall never apologize for
being fair, impartial, doing our job without fear or favor. Individuals
who are considered to be limited-purpose public figures remain so as
long as the public has an “independent” interest in the underlying
controversy against them.
Unlike all-purpose public figures, it is
relatively easy for a limited-purpose public figure to lose his status
if the controversy in which he is involved has been largely forgotten.
But most will still maintain their status even after they leave the
public office. Therefore, those who have been in public eyes remain a
target as long as there is reason by anyone to bring to life the old
Gahima haunted by his Role In the Rwanda Genocide?
The former Rwandan Prosecutor in the Post Genocide Government of the RPF
Dr Gerald Gahima has strongly criticized the Two American Professors
who participated in the BBC Documentary that exposed the role of RPF as
an institution and Kagame as its leader in Genocide and the shooting the
presidential jet of Kagame’s predecessor Juvenal Habyarimana.
The contentious issue in the documentary is the number of
Tutsis that are reported by the Two American Researchers and probably according
to Gerald Gahima the shooting was not the precursor of genocide.
The question still remains, if the presidential jet was not shot, would the
Tutsi have died on the same pace and gravity? The answer to any sounding sober
mind will argue that Tutsis had been killed before because they were Tutsis,
this means that by definition, of genocide, it was there, but the scale and
gravity at which the Tutsis were killed is the contentious issue and whether
Kagame or Gahima have failed to convincingly answer.
Indeed, does Dr Gelard Gahima acknowledge that the lighting of the match on
the dry season will burn the glass? Or pouring oil on the hot flame, what would
you expect? This is what the Professors and other academics are talking about?
Under the International law, Article II of 1948 Convention on
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy…”
The definition of genocide requires that the perpetrator have a
specific state of mind: the “intent to destroy” a group. The intent to
destroy is distinct from a perpetrator’s particular motive for the
crime, like counter-insurgency. In the absence of explicit evidence,
intent can be inferred from facts and circumstances that take into
account the general context of the crime, such as: preparation of other
culpable acts systematically and exclusively directed against the same
group; scale of atrocities committed; weapons employed; the extent of
bodily injury; and/or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory
Does the above Convention talk of any number? Why then many people
are embroiled in the number of the people who were killed? For example
under the international law, if the number of Hutus which was killed by
RPF was greater than the Tutsis but where killed in the war or as the
collateral not targeted would it deny the Tutsis Genocide? The answer
is no, Dr Gahima as an academic and a lawyer, he should be aware that
the genocide definition has gone broader to include even rape, torture,
or killing even a single person.
For instance, the tribunals have elaborated on the act of “causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.” In the Akayesu
the ICTR decided that the harm need not be permanent or irremediable
and can include torture, be it “bodily or mental, inhumane or degrading
treatment, persecution.” The judgment in this case allowed rape to be
considered an act of genocide when committed with the intent to destroy a
protected group. The tribunals further confirmed that the harm also
includes sexual violence that falls short of killing.
If then we take the augment of Mr Gahima that the American Professors
were wrong on the number of the Tutsis who were killed, but we take the
UN Mapping report or Report of other experts on the number of Hutus
that have been killed, will it fit the purpose of Gahima’s definition?
Why and how should saying that Hutus died be a crime in Rwanda?
This is the same scenario in the Kenyan case were the charges were
dropped because the government of Kenya failed to cooperate, should the
Kenyan President celebrate? The answer is no, why?
Because he has not
been made innocent by the court, instead the case is shelved, any time
he will be recalled to answer those charges, why? Because a crime of
international law is not committed by abstract entities but by
individuals, and by trying individuals, then justice is served.
Why Gahima wants to wash himself white? The answer is simple; Mr.
Gahima had a role in all the mess in Rwanda which he does not want to
accept the responsibility like his colleagues, namely Gen. Kayumba
Nyamwasa, and Dr Théogene Rudasingwa. For instance, the Human Rights
Watch in 1994 reported many killings by RPF but were never investigated
or prosecuted, this is what it said “Because this report focused on the
genocide itself, we collected only limited data on crimes committed by
the RPF. The information is sufficient, however, to demonstrate that
certain kinds of RPF abuses occurred so often and in such similar ways
that they must have been directed by officers at a high level of
responsibility. It is likely that these patterns of abuse were known to
and tolerated by the highest levels of command of the RPF forces”.
If Gahima does not have the Data of the number of the Tutsis who were
killed, does he have the Data for the Hutus? It’s because of the
objective of the RPF and Kagame to capture the State power, he never
cared for the many Tutsis who were slaughtered by the Interahamwe and
other EX-FARforces, and RPF was busy killing innocent civilians. Mr.
Gahima with his colleagues under the orders of Kagame said that they did
not need UN Intervention force to either help or protect the Tutsis who
were being slaughtered, On April 30, Gerald Gahima and Claude Dusaidi
of the RPF political bureau made a statement which declared:
“The time for U.N. intervention is long past. The genocide is almost
completed. Most of the potential victims of the regime have either been
killed or have since fled”
This was at the time when the Security Council was discussing sending
a larger peacekeeping force to Rwanda with a broader mandate to protect
civilians, according to many political analysts, the RPF feared that
the force might interfere with its goal of military victory.
Mr. Gerlad Gahima therefore is not only counter arguing, but is
defending his collective role and ugly past in the Genocide against the
Tutsis and his abuse of power after the genocide in the Rwanda legal
system. For Instance he ordered all the Ministry of Justice (MINIJUST)
vehicles to be taken to one of the Garages owned by Muhamed near
Kinamba, could he tell the Rwandan people and clear on this matter?
Again, the fall of BAKAR Bank and the subsequent fleeing of its Managing
Director, Mr Valence Kajeguhakwa, was the work of Mr. Gahima Gerald.
Similarly, the storey magnificent building, adjacent to his former
office as the prosecutor general, how did he own it? The loans from
many Banks were he even assigned his mother an old woman for more than
70 FRW Million, was unearthed by the Rwanda authorities. The abuse of
power extended to the judiciary, he once went to the High Court single
handedly with cuffs arresting judges, and many flying through windows.
Why can’t Mr. Gahima be realistic, if the figures are wrong, and lets
us assume that they are wrong why, can’t the Rwandan government come up
with the real figures? Or with immediate effect create a commission of
Inquiry as it had done, on the BBC, or Habyarimana Shooting, or the
French Role in the Rwandan Genocide respectively?
Where would the American Professors get the accuracy that Mr. Gahima
wants us to believe if they are now blocked to go back to Rwanda and are
now Persona no grata in Rwanda? The Dr Alison Des Forges he
is referring to, was also made Persona no grata before she died, why?
He is telling people to read his book? Is he an authority on genocide of
Rwanda, in which he has an interest? As a lawyer, he knows the maxim of
not being a judge in your own cause, indeed, that’s why we have never
had an independent inquiry in the death of two heads of state in the
political and legal history of the international community.
Therefore, Mr. Gahima should tell the Rwandans his role in the
Genocide against the Tutsis and the reckless massacre of many Hutus, he
has a responsibility in all the mess of the Rwanda politics since RPF
took power, it is his confession and ability to make himself a new man
that many Rwandans want, not his rhetoric that he is a saint and Kagame
is the devil.