Analysis of the forms and expressions of Negationism of the genocide
against the Tutsi.
By dr BIZIMANA Jean Damascène
It is an established fact:
every time genocide is committed, it is followed by its Negationism[1].
With regard to the genocide against the Tutsi, Negationism is characterized by
two specific aspects. First, it intensifies as each annual commemoration day
draws near; then, it takes on changing and innovative forms depending on the
times. In the first days following the genocide, Negationism was expressed in
the form of absolute denial of this crime and its specificities. As time went
by, the supporters of Negationism failed due to the undisputable evidence of
the genocide, its judicial recognition by ICTR and the United Nations. Since
then, they have adopted new strategies and other courses of action and nuisance.
They succeeded to win over the sympathy of judicial institutions of some
Western States, NGOs and international organizations, using them for political
and Negationist ends. The arrest warrants issued by Judge BRUGUIERE and Judge
MERELLES as well as the UN Mapping Report fall in this category.
Another novelty is found
with the campaigners of this Negationism. At the beginning, these were found
among the killers and Rwandan or foreign lobbyists of the Hutu Power theory. Today,
supporters of Negationism are also found among groups of people who were not
directly involved in the genocide, among them some Tutsi. These groups or
individuals hide behind the claim of the freedom to exercise their civil and
political rights to preach Negationism, the genocide ideology and to incite directly
people to overthrow the Rwandan Government and commit a second genocide.
The outbursts of hatred
poured out by Bernard NTAGANDA, INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire and some
so called journalists of UMURABYO and others, as well as the heinous
acts of KAYUMBA Nyamwasa, GAHIMA Gerard, KAREGEYA Patrick and RUDASINGWA
Théogène and company, reflect all this new face of Negationism. It uses the
language of hatred against the Head of State of Rwanda, H.E. Paul Kagame, to
openly incite the people to commit genocide and political assassinations once
again. This is a new criminal phenomenon which perpetuates the line of theses
upheld by genocide perpetrators and Negationists. We feel that as we draw near
the commemoration of the genocide which cost the lives of many Tutsi
compatriots, it is necessary to revisit these new faces of Negationism, hoping
that their knowledge will arm us to better fight them. This is the objective of
this modest contribution.
I.
A
frightening record
Genocide against the
Tutsi in Rwanda was perpetrated with unprecedented violence and took the lives
of 1,074,017, of whom 934,218 have been identified by names[2].
The great majority of these victims were killed because they were identified as
Tutsi (93.6%). Others because they resembled Tutsi (0.85%), had friendship
relations with Tutsi (0.37%), were married to Tutsi (0.32%), had hidden Tutsi
(0.17%), or had shown opinions opposed to the regime that perpetrated genocide
(0.64%)[3].
Among these victims, those aged between 0 and 24 years accounted for the great
majority (53.8%). Victims were killed with brutality: 38.88% with machetes;
16.78% were bludgeoned; 14.80% with fire arms; 8.65% were beaten to death;
4.22% were thrown in lakes and rivers; 2.26% were burnt alive; 0.80% died of
hunger; 0.30% were disemboweled; 0.25% were forced to commit suicide; 0.19% of
babies were crushed against the wall and 0.17% were hanged. Genocide in Rwanda
was carried out on the whole national territory. 59.3% of victims were killed
on the hills; 11.6% in churches; 9.3% in residential houses; 3.9% in offices;
1.9% in schools; 1.5% on check points and 0.78% in hospitals[4].
527 mass graves were identified with a big number of corpses.
II.
A
crime recognized, obvious facts denied
Since 1994, reports by UN
experts have established that “the
qualification of the genocide must already be accepted with regard to Tutsi. It
is different when it comes to the killings of the Hutu[5]”.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) confirmed these reports
and established the existence of this genocide right from its first judgment
rendered on 2 September 1998 against Jean-Paul
Akayesu. Paragraph 18 of this judgment asserts firmly: “It then appears clearly that the massacres committed in Rwanda in 1994
had a specific target: to exterminate Tutsi, selected specifically because they
belonged to the Tutsi ethnic group and not because they were RPF fighters (…).
What transpired in Rwanda in 1994 was genocide against the Tutsi as a group”.
In 2006, ICTR brought to
a close once and for all the debate as to the existence of the genocide against
the Tutsi by underscoring that this genocide was henceforth a fact of common knowledge whose
existence, both in terms of facts and law, was no longer subject to denial[6].
This judgment put to rest the numerous attempts by the defense counsels in
Arusha who denied the existence of the genocide against the Tutsi before this
Tribunal. However, it did not stop the criminal fertile imagination of the Negationists
outside the court of Arusha.
1)
French leaders, pioneers of Negationism
At the height of the
genocide, French leaders at the highest level of the State became the first to
preach Negationism. Let us look at some facts: on 31 May 1994, on the sidelines
of the Franco-German Summit at Mulhouse, President François MITTERAND, while
having breakfast with Chancellor Helmot KOHL, told his host that there had been
reciprocal massacres in Rwanda, and never genocide: “We are being accused of having supported the former regime. This is a
unilateral account of the massacre. The reality is that ‘everybody is killing everybody else’[7].
On 14 July 1994, answering a question from Patrick POIVRE D’AVOIR, a
journalist, on the role of France in Rwanda, President MITTERAND said: “You think the genocide is over after the
victory of the Tutsi?” Meaning that if at all there has been genocide
against the Tutsi, RPF was also committing genocide against the Hutu!
On 8 and 9 November 1994
was held the 18th Franco-African Summit in Biarritz. The written
speech of President MITTERAND which was distributed to the participants
mentioned the “genocides” in Rwanda.
During the press conference held at the end of the Summit, journalist DE SAINT
EXUPÉRY referred to the genocide against the Tutsi. President MITTERAND replied
sharply using the word in plural. Collette BRAECKMAN was present at the time
and this is what she told the MUCYO Commission[8]:
“During the final press conference by
President Mitterand, my colleague Patrick De SAINT EXUPÉRY raised the issue of
the genocide in Rwanda. I will always remember that Mitterand asked: ’the
genocide’ or ‘the genocides’?! In those countries, people have always killed;
massacres are not a new thing. On that note, the press conference ended. I then
left with one of my colleagues from the Belgian Radio. Holding his microphone,
he approached the President who was already about two meters away from all the
journalists who were trying to reach him. As he was entering his car, he said
to one of the people he was with: ‘Ah! You see that idiot of a journalist? I
quite fixed him, didn’t I? I gave him the right answer. It serves him all
right’. My colleague from RTBF recorded that sentence and he played it to the
other journalists. We were all able to gauge the extent of the President’s
cynicism[9]”.
During an official
reception held at the President’s Office for the Heads of Diplomatic and
Consular Missions and the Representatives of International Organizations accredited
to France, President MITTERAND spoke of Mission Turquoise and its achievements.
At the end of his statement, he asserted: “Whatever
people say, I am proud that the mission of Turquoise was able to save thousands
of lives which were threatened by genocides.
I however believe from recent information reaching me that after the departure
of this mission, these genocides have
not stopped[10]”.
The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Allain JUPPÉ, spoke strongly about
the genocide in his article published in the issue of Libération newspaper of 16 May 1994. However, in the month that
followed, he was caught in Negationism by using the word ‘the genocides’, suggesting that FAR and RPF had each committed
genocide[11].
His former colleague Minister of Cooperation, Bernard DEBRE, published a book
in 1998 on Rwanda in which he clearly stated that his intention was to show “the true history of the genocides”[12].
In September 2003, Dominique DE VILLEPIN, then France Prime Minister, granted
an interview on Rwanda on Radio France Internationale during which he mentioned
“the
genocides”. This lie shocked journalist Patrick DE SAINT EXUPÉRY who
published a book in which he reminded DE VILLEPIN that “there has never been genocides (in plural), save in your words, in
your speech, in your desire to dodge this issue[13]”.
2)
Former
Rwandan Authorities
There is no doubt that
the Government of Rwanda which was ruling the country in 1994 is directly
responsible for the genocide against the Tutsi and political assassinations
carried out at the time. Immediately after their defeat, in July 1994, those
former leaders embarked on absolute denial of the crimes they had just
committed in the country. The Prime Minister of this gang of murderers, Jean
KAMBANDA, who pleaded guilty before ICTR and was sentenced to life
imprisonment, denied the existence of the genocide soon after he fled Rwanda: “There have been inter-ethnic massacres. Conflicting
groups carried out massacres between them[14]”.
On the whole, this is the view held by all the leaders of the government
that committed genocide and their armed forces.
According to one official
document of the Interim Government on the mission report undertaken to Paris in
September 1994 by its Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Jérôme BICAMUMPAKA, it is France which advised them to use the
media to deny the genocide against the Tutsi, but in a biased manner: “France recommends always that we should get
organized so as to be seen as much as possible on the international scene
through unprecedented media actions; we should intensify our statements, but
these should be well thought out under a coherent and responsible strategy and
not warlike statements which would lead to polemics[15]”.
Until today, these former leaders, friends of France, continue to brandish Negationism
as their last weapon. Even from their cells in Arusha, they continue to publish
this type of documents, with the assistance of their counsels, some of whom are
notorious Negationists who do not hide their views, such as John PHILIPOT,
Peter ERLINDER, and many more.
The other group of Negationists
includes Hutu intellectuals and officials who do not accept to lose exclusive
powers founded on ethnic monopoly to which they were used since 1962. These
former officials who fled the country since 1994 and in the years after
demonize RPF, accusing it of all sorts of ills, while, in fact, they are
motivated by an ideology and mono-ethnic feelings which they are unable to
shed. Together with the perpetrators of the genocide in exile, this group is
the active core which spreads Negationism under the pretext of political
opposition. In this group you find people like Eugène NDAHAYO, NKIKO
NSENGIMANA, Sixbert MUSANGAMFURA, Joseph NGARAMBE, Claver KANYARUSHOKI, etc.
3)
Foreign
Negationist authors
Authors and writers, mainly
French and Belgians hailing from various circles, especially from academic and
media circles, immediately after the genocide was stopped, embarked on
publishing Negationist writings with unprecedented virulence. The French
ethnologist, Pierre ERNY, former professor at the National University of
Rwanda, was one of the first to defend the argument that no genocide was
committed against the Tutsi, but a “people’s
ordeal” whose final responsibility fell on RPF[16].
After him, his Belgian colleague, Filip REYNTJENS, published numerous writings
which were more subtle but highly Negationist. Though he does not deny openly
the existence of the genocide against the Tutsi, REYNTJENS opted for a Negationism
centered on blurring the truth of facts[17],
the equal sharing of responsibilities and accusing equally RPF and the
Government that had carried out the genocide[18].
He stopped collaborating with ICTR claiming that the leaders of the new
Government in Rwanda were not tried by this Tribunal, like Colonel BAGOSORA and
his group.
In the same vein, two
Cameroonian-French journalists, Marie-Roger BILOA and Charles ONANA, came to
the fore as radicals entangled in a blind Negationist path. Marie-Roger BILOA
was a journalist with Jeune Afrique. She
later established her own newspaper “Africa
International”, partly with financial support from President Juvénal
HABYARIMANA. The Negationism of Mrs BILOA is allegedly linked to her friendship
and the sympathy she felt towards the President who had come to her rescue at a
critical period in her career. With regard to Charles ONANA, he was a student
of Pierre PÉAN and Jean-François KHAN, Director of the French Negationist
magazine MARIANNE. Before he
published his pamphlet “Noires fureurs
blancs menteurs”, Pierre PÉAN wrote prefaces for the writings of Charles
ONANA and supported his Negationist arguments. For some time now, ONANA has
disappeared from the public scene and his place has been taken over by PÉAN who
has increased his appearances in the media and has been publishing fallacies on
Rwanda.
In Canada, brothers John
and Robin PHILIPOT have been relentlessly engaged in the same Negationist
battle. They are supported in this by Professor-Counsel Peter ERLINDER from the
United States, who was arrested last year in Rwanda and is still under
investigation by the Rwanda courts for his Negationism. It should be noted that
he was granted temporary release and on parole on medical grounds. He produced
medical certificates from an American psychiatric clinic proving that he was
suffering from mental disorders and that he had been receiving medical care
from this clinic for some time. One then wonders how a mentally sick person has
been authorized to argue cases before an international criminal court like ICTR
and give law lectures in a renowned university in the United States!
The Negationist arguments
of these individuals have been appearing regularly in the press and in
bookshops, in conferences and seminars in Europe, in America and elsewhere.
Notwithstanding this campaign, the genocide against the Tutsi has been
recognized internationally and, today, it has been confirmed worldwide.
Consequently, Negationist lobbies have realized that they needed to sharpen
further their weapons, change their strategies and use other means. They have
thus resorted to using new methods for manipulating the courts in Europe so as
to deny the existence of the genocide, by accusing the authorities in Rwanda
who put an end to the genocide.
4)
Manipulating
the courts in Europe for Negationist ends
Two revealing cases of Negationism
using the courts for political ends appeared in France and Spain. Their
initiators are trying to influence other States.
A)
Jean-Louis
BRUGUIÈRE, a French investigating magistrate
Judge BRUGUIÈRE will go
down in history of the genocide against the Tutsi as an unprofessional judge who
distinguished himself by using abusive judicial acts in order to deny the
genocide against the Tutsi and trying to bring to trial the leaders of RPF who stopped
the genocide. The charge on which his investigation was based was submitted on
31 August 1997 by the daughter of Jean-Pierre MINABÉRRY[19],
co-pilot of the Falcon 50 of President HABYARIMANA, who died in the crash after
his plane was downed by Hutu extremists as it has been proved by the “Mutsinzi Commission[20]”.
Some anomalies characterize this investigation of Judge BRUGUIÈRE, proving
that this is a politically motivated case by French Negationist lobbies to hide
the truth regarding those who are responsible for the genocide.
First anomaly: the charge
was submitted three years after the event, which would justifiably make one
wonder why such a long silence and the sudden awakening to lodge the complaint
in 1997! It should be said that 1997 was a crucial year which was characterized
by the simultaneous proceedings of several cases of some important perpetrators
of the genocide at the ICTR, the growing questioning of the responsibility of
France in the genocide and the request that she should admit her mistakes. It
was then necessary for her to react in order to cloud the issue. The charge by
MINADERRY and the opening of a judicial inquiry by Judge BRUGUIÈRE were in
keeping with this process.
Second anomaly: Judge
BRUGUIÈRE opened the judicial inquiry on 27 March 1998, eight months after the
submission of the charge! This is neither by accident. In January and March
1998, journalist Patrick DE SAINT EXUPÉRY published a series of hitherto
unpublished articles revealing the importance of the involvement of France in
the genocide. In the same month of March 1998, a group of French intellectuals
called for the formation of a National Commission of Inquiry with the objective
of establishing the responsibilities of France in the genocide[21].
In order to prevent a serious and thorough inquiry from taking place, Judge
BRUGUIÈRE launched his judicial inquiry which automatically limited the mandate
of the Commission of inquiry. To silence calls for the inquiry, Paul QUILÈS, a
socialist MP close to François MITTERAND, put in place a Parliamentary
Fact-finding Mission instead of a true Commission of Inquiry. QUILÈS knew that
there were some issues which a fact-finding mission could not address, that it
did not have full powers to investigate, given that Judge BRUGUIÈRE was
carrying out an inquiry into the same facts.
In conducting his
investigations, Judge BRUGUIÈRE revealed himself as a Negationist who did not
hide his anti-Tutsi and anti-RPF bias. He breached all the rules of procedure
governing judicial investigations. While the law prohibits basing one’s charges
on witnesses about whom there exist serious and corroborating signs showing
that they took part in the events which the magistrate has been seized of[22],
BRUGUIÈRE used a certain Abdul RUZIBIZA as his material witness, who asserted
without proof that he was a member of a commando outfit which allegedly brought
down HABYARIMANA’s plane. According to the French law referred to above, RUZIBIZA
should have been automatically excluded as a witness, even investigated for his
admitted crime. On the other hand, BRUGUIÈRE refused to visit the venue of
events in Rwanda in order to piece together the facts, which was a mandatory
obligation in terms of criminal investigations. This explains why his
successor, Marc TRÉVIDIC, cancelled the whole of BRUGUIÈRE’s investigation and
restarted from scratch.
In his order published in
November 2006, Judge BRUGUIÈRE reached the most flagrant Negationist
conclusions, stating that it was the downing of HABYARIMANA’s place that caused
the genocide, a statement which of course is meaningless. Mr. Laurent CURT,
counsel of the widow of the pilot, Mrs. Jacqueline HÉRAULD, was outraged by the
basis of this order in very clear terms: “The
order which Bruguière issued in November 2006 against KAGAME and his close
associates is completely masterminded. It is meant to clear France of its
responsibilities in Rwanda and dwells on an ideal culprit. There is nothing
legal in this investigation. It is a political case. His accusations are
baseless; the case has nothing solid in it. Nothing in it, no serious charges.
It is staggering. My clients and I have never seen anything the like! For many
years, the family of my client decided to remain in the background. This story
was very painful. We had to mourn first. Then, his children wanted to know. But
then, this is the worst of all. We got ourselves manipulated[23].
What is not said is that behind the manipulations Mr. CURT and his client
were subjected to, there were deep political and Negationist motivations which
informed BRUGUIÈRE’s actions. There is no longer any shade of doubt that
BRUGUIÈRE was used as a tool by the Government of France in order to
destabilize judicially the Government of Rwanda and the Head of State, Paul
KAGAME.
In fact, a confidential
telegram from the American Ambassador in Paris, Craig STAPLETON, dated 26
January as revealed by WIKILEAKS[24]
Website, gives an account of a meeting with Judge BRUGUIÈRE. The American
diplomat says that “Bruguière confirmed
that he had consulted GoF (the Government of France) about issuing the arrest warrants
against nine close associates of President Kagame with regard to the killing of
President Habyarimana and three French members of the plane crew”. The
telegram explains also that, in his discussion with Judge BRUGUIÈRE on issuing
the arrest warrants, the latter “said
that he had submitted his decision to French officials, including President
Chirac” and that he “had decided to
consult them because he was convinced of the need to coordinate with the
Government”. The American Ambassador adds that Judge BRUGUIÈRE told him
then that “he was not surprised by
Rwanda’s official reaction and said that the French Government was prepared for
a violent reaction against French nationals. He was pleased with his own
decision to go ahead, adding that the international community had some moral
responsibility”. Finally, the American diplomat says that “Bruguière presented his case
professionally, but he did not hide his personal wish to see Kagame’s
Government isolated. He warned that it would be a mistake for the United States
to maintain closer relations with Rwanda”.
These scandalous
revelations show clearly that the investigation of Judge BRUGUIÈRE was not
judicial but political and that this magistrate did not have the required
independence and impartiality to carry out an investigation within the context
of the law. It is worth to recall that in 2007, Judge BRUGUIÈRE was candidate
for the legislative elections in the 3rd constituency of
Lot-et-Garonne and lost. This once again is a sign of his political commitments
which reveal lack of impartiality in his duties as a judge, more especially in
the case of Rwanda. We cannot end this dark issue without recalling that the
interpretation and translation of documents and testimonies of witnesses heard
by BRUGUIÈRE were done by a high level extremist Hutu, Fabien SINGAYE, formerly
a diplomat in charge of intelligence in the Rwandan Embassy in Switzerland
during the rule of Habyarimana. SINGAYE is the son-in-law of the tycoon
Félicien KABUGA, identified by ICTR as the financier of the genocide.
B)
Fernando
ANDREU MERELLES, a Spanish judge
Like in France, the same Negationist
lobbies manipulated the courts in Spain, using the same documents and the same
witnesses. The investigation by the Spanish courts was launched by Judge
Fernando ANDREU MERELLES on 26 February 2006, following a complaint submitted
by a Negationist Association called “Forum
International pour la vérité et la justice dans la région des Grands Lacs”. The complaint led to an indictment published
on 26 February 2006, accusing forty political and military individuals of the
State of Rwanda. This Forum is a group of individuals from Spanish catholic
circles of Opus Dei who supported strongly the Government of Habyarimana.
Basing themselves on the legitimate claim for justice made by the families of
the Spanish victims killed in Rwanda and in DRC, the Negationist lobbies
manipulated these families, making them believe that it was RPF and President
Paul KAGAME who were responsible for the killing of their relatives.
Negationism is at the
core of the indictment by Judge MERELLES and is characterized by the rewriting
of the history of the genocide, criminalizing the victims and clearing of the
killers. Both in the carrying out of the investigation and in the writing of its conclusions, Judge MERELLES simply repeated
without counter-checking, the arbitrary allegations made by political
opponents, some of whom are among the perpetrators of the genocide, or by
embittered defectors from RPF, without the necessary verification to establish
the truth of the facts. The investigation was carried out in breach of the
fundamental rules of procedure which protect the rights of the accused. The
mandatory rules for the prosecution and the defense were totally abused, as well
as the confidentiality of the investigation, representing a serious prejudice
to the presumption of innocence of the accused Rwandan personalities. The
charges listed by Judge MERELLES bear an unprecedented ideological, racial and Negationist
connotation.
Indeed, Judge MERELLES
accuses wrongly RPF of terrorist and genocidal intentions, a far cry from the
truth. Right from the first pages, he describes RPF as “a group with a political and military structure, heavily armed and
highly organized, which launched a series of activities of a criminal nature on
the Rwandan territory from Uganda from October 1990 to date”. Under the
international law, terrorism is characterized by three aspects: “acts of violence likely to cause death or
serious bodily harm; an individual or collective undertaking leading to the
commission of such acts; a confessed objective: to create terror among the
general public[25]”.
Judge MERELLES does not give any proof showing the terrorist nature of RPF
following these three elements required by the law. On the contrary, he
contradicts himself by describing RPA soldiers as fighters who are “well trained militarily, disciplined and
well armed[26]”.
How can an army with renowned discipline be at the same time a terrorist
organization? MERELLES claims that RPF was created with genocidal intentions.
According to him, RPF objective is “to
eliminate the biggest number of the Hutu ethnic group[27]”.
Still according to him, the liberation war launched by RPF in 1990 was to
fulfill the intention of “carrying out
operations for the systematic elimination of the members of the Hutu ethnic
group, Hutu intellectuals and leaders, as well those belonging to religious
orders and missionaries considered as collaborating with the Hutu[28]”.
Such a statement would require that MERELLES base himself on RPF founding
texts, on numerous statements and writings of its leaders, on demands of RPF
during the negotiations of the Arusha Accords, on its action programs, in order
to prove the veracity of this alleged criminal objective. Doesn’t MERELLES know
that the vast majority of the members of RPF are Hutu? How then can they accept
to be members of a criminal organization which advocates the extermination of
the Hutu?
Pushing further his Negationism,
MERELLES recognized how difficult it is to convince by denying openly the
existence of the genocide against the Tutsi. He then uses the trick of
recognizing the planned killing of the Tutsi while justifying them: “the killing of the Tutsi who did not flee
the country in 1959 was foreseeable[29]”.
This means that MERELLES admits, in spite of himself, the existence of the
intention to eliminate the Tutsi, as well as the conditions for the possibility
of committing ethnic based killings. The problem is that at the same time, he
makes up for it by saying “these
foreseeable killings of the Tutsi were going to be as a
reaction against the war launched by RPF[30]”.
Here is then the core of MERELLES’ Negationism. As far as he is concerned,
indeed, genocide against the Tutsi is not a deliberate act but a legitimate
reaction by extremist Hutu. And yet, genocide requires first and foremost, the
intention to commit it[31].
C)
UN manipulated by Negationist groups and
individuals
Another manipulation of Negationism
is embodied by the UN MAPPING Report published on 1 October 2010. The document
is seen as the result of an investigation carried out from July 2008 to June
2009 and accuses the Rwandan Army of having committed “a possible genocide” against Hutu refugees[32].
The authors of the Report say that among the criteria they used to validate the
information they gathered, was that this information had to be supported by at
least two independent sources[33].
They do not explain how they established the independence of one source against
the other, or how they assessed the credibility of each source. What is clear
is that several individuals and NGOs who were used as witnesses did not meet
the criteria of objectivity, independence and impartiality and cannot,
consequently, be considered as credible and trustworthy.
Considering the very
short time available to the investigators to carry out field work (eleven
months), they were content to collect and refer to documents belonging to
international organizations, particularly those of Human Right Watch and
Amnesty International , and those of some Congolese NGOs, mostly from the
Catholic Church. But these NGOs are themselves composed of and are sympathetic
with Negationists and genocide ideologists who have infiltrated them to the
extent that they hold leading positions in their policy organs. These Negationists
have then managed to feed UN experts with disinformation and propaganda they
have excelled in since 1994. Let us look at three illustrative cases: one
international NGO, one Congolese NGO and one private witness.
a)
Human Right Watch (HRW)
The MAPPING Report has
used nearly 80 documents from HRW. But for many years, HRW has been
characterized by a biased vision of the political situation in Rwanda and
should not, for this, be taken as a key reference. Yet the MAPPING Report
relies on HRW sources and considers them as absolutely credible. This raises
the real question of reliability. Our own researches have led us to observe
that HRW has been infiltrated by some Rwandan and foreign extremists who use
this NGO to spread their personal opinions. An example: the Africa Desk of HRW
is led by a Rwandan national, HABIMANA Aloys. He was the Director of a
Rwandese NGO, LIPRODHOR “Ligue rwandaise
pour la promotion et la defense des droits de l’homme”.
In 2003, LIPRODHOR was
slammed by a report produced by the Parliament of Rwanda which showed
particularly that it had espoused the ethnic based ideology of one political
party, MDR, and that it spread sectarian ideas in the Rwandese society[34].
Once this unhealthy collaboration between the leaders of LIPRODHOR and MDR was
established, Aloys HABIMANA sought refuge in USA, claiming that RPF wanted to
kill him. On 1 June 2009, he signed a controversial document which he sent to
the UN Secretary General and to the ICTR Prosecutor, demanding the indictment
of high ranking officials of Rwanda. This is the man who today represents HRW
on the African continent. Based in Nairobi, he is among those who provided
information to the investigators of the MAPPING Report. Could this individual
be unbiased with regard to Rwanda? Very doubtful.
b)
The JEREMIE Group of Bukavu
The authors of the
MAPPING Report used many documents from the JEREMIE Group based in Bukavu. This
is a Catholic NGO founded in 1993 by a core of individuals comprising the
former Bishop of Bukavu, Christophe MUNZIHIRWA, his Vicar General, Bishop
MITIMA, one Jesuit Father, MINANI-BIHUZO Rigobert, two White Fathers: Philippe
de DORLODOT and Jean CHAPTAL[35],
together with some civilian intellectuals. The JEREMIE Group claims to be a
Christian association for the defense of human rights. Right from its
inception, the Group initiated several activities, including the publication of
a position leaflet on topical issues. It maintained collaboration relations
with international NGOs involved in human rights, cooperation and development[36].
Some members publish also some documents.
From July 1994 when
Rwandan refugees arrived in Bukavu, the JEREMIE Group became quickly influenced
by their leaders and produced numerous communiqués reflecting the line of
thought of these genocide perpetrators. Bishop MUNZIHIRWA espoused the Negationist
line, sent false and defamatory writings throughout the world, which were
characterized by overweening hostility against the Government of Rwanda. In
January 1995, while the Government of Rwanda was struggling to rebuild the
country and busy trying to repatriate and resettle the returning refugees,
Bishop MUNZIHIRWA was busy soliciting the isolation of Rwanda on the
international scene. Through his relations with Belgian and French Catholic
circles, without any mention of the genocide, he sent out circulars to the West
in which he demanded an unconditional dialogue between the Government of Rwanda
and the genocide perpetrators and an end to the financial assistance to the
Government of Rwanda.
Read the following and
judge for yourself: “The big majority of
the refugees want to return home, but they cannot: the conditions for their
return are not good. They fear being thrown in prison on simple accusations
based on baseless charges, or being killed while trying to enter their
properties. According to objective witnesses living in Rwanda, killings
continue and are even on the increase. It is estimated that between five and
ten thousand people are killed in Rwanda every month. And refugees continue to
come. There is no other peaceful
solution to this tragedy except holding a meeting of all Rwandans so as to
reach a negotiated and balanced political solution. Much work and many
contacts made last November gave hope of the possibility of such a meeting. But
this hope was dashed by some financial aid from some Western countries to the
Government of Kigali. One is tempted to
question the reason of such an aid granted to a minority which took power through
arms. (…) it is not acceptable that Western democratic governments give
unconditional assistance to the Government in Kigali which denies the right to
speak and discourages the return home of more than a third of its population[37].
This Bishop MUNZIHIRWA’s opinion is totally ideological, politically
motivated, without any relevance to the facts.
In January 1996, Bishop MUNZIHIRWA went a step further and accused
Rwanda of committing genocide against the Hutu. In a letter sent to former
President Jimmy CARTER, he wrote as follows: “We have it from reliable sources that several officers of the Rwandan
Patriotic Army (RPA) based in Akagera Park and with the consent of the
Government, have been tasked with the abductions of people to be carried out in
the whole country. These abductions and killings target mostly Hutu
intellectuals. (…) Isn’t this a clear intention of destroying part of the Hutu
group and certainly all their intellectuals? This is in fact what Burundi did
in 1972 and continues to do today[38].
In his Negationist
publication entitled “Les réfugiés
rwandais à Bukavu au Zaïre: de nouveaux palestiniens?[39] with
a preface by Father Minani-BIHUZO and postface by Filip REYNTJENS, Father
Philippe De DORLODOT defends the argument that there had been two genocides,
one against the Tutsi by the Hutu and another against the Hutu by the Tutsi.
Father Jean CHAPTAL wrote to me in exactly the same words when answering a
letter I had sent him on the dangers of Negationism of the JEREMIE Group: “You are insisting too much on the issue of
genocide, and I think rightly so, but you especially do not want to hear a word
about the double genocide. I agree totally that during the 1994 tragedy, the
Hutu in opposition were not killed for being Hutu but as people in opposition,
but they too died. And how many of them died also in the years 1990-1994? True,
this was during the war, but they too died, and not only soldiers! And since
1994, many more died (…) can’t we then use the same words in such a situation?
Genocide or massacres of the population: the dead are there[40]”.
These few facts reveal one thing: by using the Negationist sources of the
JEREMIE Group, the authors of the UN Report themselves fell in the trap of Negationists,
unwittingly or deliberately.
c)
A Negationist witness, manipulator of the
MAPPING Report and foreign courts
Marie Béatrice UMUTESI is a Rwandan woman,
sociologist, born in Byumba in 1959. She worked with various NGOs in Rwanda. Marie Béatrice UMUTESI left Rwanda in
July 1994. Since then, she has made repeated false and libelous accusations
against the Government of Rwanda. She published a book: “Mourir ou fuir au Zaire: le vécu d’une réfugiée rwandaise[41]”, and is among key
witnesses in the MAPPING Report. She earlier testified with Judges BRUGUIÈRE
and MERELLES. When one analyses the evidence she adduced in the indictment of
Judge MERELLES accusing the Rwandan Army for crimes against the Hutu, one
notice that her evidence lies on arbitrarily fabricated lies in order to
mislead the good faith of those who have no sociological knowledge of the Great
Lakes region.
Indeed, Marie Béatrice
UMUTESI told Judge MERELLES that in DRC, she witnessed the killings committed
by Rwandan soldiers against Hutu civilians. When the judge asked her the proof
she had that it was Rwandan soldiers, she replied: “the only people who speak Kinyarwanda in Central Africa are Rwandans;
in Ouganda, people speak Kiganda and Congolese speak either Swahili or Lingala[42]”.
The truth is that the two provinces of DRC, i.e. North and South Kivu, are
inhabited by Congolese who speak Kinyarwanda. It is therefore erroneous to rely only on the linguistic criterion
to claim that all those who speak Kinyarwanda are soldiers of the Rwandan Army
and that, therefore, it is them who killed the Hutu. Judges BRUGUIÈRE and
MERELLES fell into this trap of being manipulated, as did the UN authors of the
MAPPING Report. The political tendency of this report was recognized by the UN
Secretary General, Ban KI MOON, on a visit to Rwanda in September 2010. Ban KI MOON
revealed then that the existence of this report was unknown to his office for a
long time[43].
It should be pointed out that one of the authors of this Report, Luc CÔTE, a
Canadian, has worked at HRW and ICTR and is renowned for his well known
hostility against RPF. Can such individuals carry out an impartial
investigation” The few facts reproduced in the preceding paragraphs prove the
opposite.
D)
Spanish Negationism through support to FDLR
FDLR are an extremist
militia based in DRC, composed of Hutu fighters from criminal organizations
which participated in the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994. Their major
objective is to use force to take the power they lost in Rwanda, to wipe out
totally the Tutsi to complete the 1994 genocide and to eliminate the Hutu who
work in the Government and in other institutions of Government. Their entire
political and military structure is geared towards this ultimate goal. FDLR has
been officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the UN[44],
the European Union[45]
and the African Union[46],
and its members have been put on the UN black list. Two of the key leaders of
FDLR, namely Ignace MURWANASHYAKA and Straton MUSONI, were arrested in Germany
on 17 November 2009 and are accused of coordinating war crimes and crimes
against humanity committed between January 2008 and 11 October 2010. The
Executive Secretary of this outfit, Callixte MBARUSHIMANA, was arrested in
France and handed over to the International Criminal Court for his role in the
war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Eastern DRC in 2009. A UN
report has established that two allegedly nonprofit making Spanish
organizations, S’OLIVAR Foundation and INSHUTI Association, fund-raise in Spain
for financing FDLR. This financing is done through Catholic Missionaries of the
Xaverian Missionary Fathers Congregation working in Kasongo and Bukavu in DRC,
and through the Congregation of Belgian Brothers of Charity who left Rwanda in
1994 and are now settled in Kigoma, a town at the border between Tanzania,
Burundi and DRC[47].
This report indicates that the Chairman of S’OLIVAR Foundation and INSHUTI
Association, Joan CASOLIVA, collected and handed over to FDLR a sum of 200 000
US dollars, together with weapons. Also, an Italian missionary, Father Giorgio
LANARO, sent funds collected in Europe to FDLR.
Furthermore, S’OLIVAR
Foundation and INSHUTI Association jointly finance an annual meeting which is a
Negationist campaign and is held annually in Spain in the so-called form of “inter-Rwandan dialogue”. This meeting
brings together Rwandan political opponents, Negationists and members of FDLR
and other groups of the same ilk: INGABIRE
UMUHOZA Victoire; Charles NDEREYEHE NTAHONTUYE (members of FDLR living in
Holland, currently wanted by Rwandan justice for having planned the genocide); Jacques KANYAMIBWA (formerly Major in
FAR, member of FDLR living in Toulouse/France); Claver KANYARUSHOKI(former Ambassador of Rwanda in Uganda living in
Paris), Joseph MATATA (chairman of a
Negationist association in Brussels called Centre de Lutte contre l’impunité et
l’injustice au Rwanda); KABANDA Célestin
(former Secretary of State in the Ministry of Finance, member of MDR hard
line faction), etc. These two Negationist organizations, namely S’OLIVAR and
INSHUTI, are the key initiators of the charge which led to the indictment
lodged by Judge MERELLES, an indictment which, as we have seen, is first class Negationism.
E)
Negationism and calls for genocide by Faustin
KAYUMBA NYAMWASA, GAHIMA Gérard, RUDASINGWA Théogène and KAREGEYA Patrick
It may sound incredible
that they are Negationist Tutsi with regard to the genocide which affected
members of their own ethnic group. This is however the terrible reality. There
have been a few Negationist Tutsi who came out in the open such as Antoine NYETERA,
one of the key defenders of Jean PÉAN’s argument, and Déogratias MUSHAYIDI who,
before he was arrested in Burundi, had been using all political and media means
to destabilize security in Rwanda. A fresh step has just been made by a core of
four former Tutsi officers, both civilian and military, who left Rwanda to
avoid legal action for offences they committed relating to embezzlement of
public funds, abuse of power and corruption. This group consists of KAYUMBA
NYAMWASA, former Chief of Staff and former Rwandan Ambassador to India; Patrick
KAREGEYA, former Chief of External Intelligence; Gérard GAHIMA, former General
Prosecutor and his brother Théogène RUDASINGWA, former Director in the
President’s Office. These four committed various offences in Rwanda.
When they learnt that
some legal proceedings were being prepared against them, they made the first
move and fled the country. Since then, they have been fabricating all sorts of lies
against the Head of State whom they accuse of all sorts of ills without any
proof: corrupt dictator, thief, torturer, and many more. Motivated by hatred
against President Paul KAGAME, these individuals have now associated themselves
with extremist groups who continue to nurture the intention of returning to
Rwanda by force to complete the genocide. These groups preach the genocide
ideology and carry out terrorist and criminal activities, especially in DRC and
in Rwanda through targeted infiltrations. They collaborate openly with FDLR and
the Forces Démocratiques Unifiées (FDU-INKINGI). The leaders and members of
these groups are well known for their anti-Tutsi position and for their clear Negationist
attitude. The above mentioned foursome former Tutsi officials of RPF have since
associated themselves with these extremist groups, thus following the same
ideological, terrorist and Negationist course The foursome have been spreading
in the media writing to incite ethnic hatred, social upheaval and genocide.
In a document entitled
“RWANDA BRIEFING[48]”
posted on the Website in August 2010, the foursome expressed opinions of
extreme Negationism. Under the pretext of contesting the method of government
in Rwanda, they show at all no recognition of the genocide perpetrated against
the Tutsi, evoke the imaginary oppression of the Hutu and advocate the
perpetration of genocide once again as a political solution: “the Hutu are oppressed, killed and will
rise up to commit a second genocide against the Tutsi (…) it is impossible that
the Hutu who are the majority accept to continue being oppressed by the Tutsi who are the minority in the
country; instead, the Hutu will take up arms and topple the Tutsi government”. In
the Ugandan newspaper The Observer of
2 August 2010, KAREGEYA Patrick said that “he
supported anybody who will take up arms against the dictatorial regime of
President Kagame”. In the programme IMVO N’IMVANO broadcast on radio BBC on
29/05/2010, KAYUMBA NYAMWASA and Patrick KAREGEYA reiterated their position,
declaring in public that they will be at the forefront to attack Rwanda, cause
chaos in the country and topple the existing regime.
Whoever lives in Rwanda
knows the present real situation in the country: all Rwandans are considered on
merit; there is no ethnic based discrimination, both factually and legally. The
positions of KAYUMBA and his friends are extremely dangerous because they not
only hide the truth about the genocide and the good governance practised in
Rwanda, but they also arouse hatred and the genocide ideology. The
dissemination of such ideas brings to mind the period 1992-1994 with RTLM
broadcasts, the articles of KANGURA and other extremist newspapers which
incited people to commit genocide. In post-genocide Rwanda, if the authorities
are not vigilant, such words can lead to a new slaughter of genocidal dimension.
It is important to recall
that KAYUMBA NYAMWASA, KAREGEYA Patrick, GAHIMA Gérard and RUDASINGWA Théogène
who spread such ideas are not ordinary political opponents without a history
behind them. They are wrongdoers who ran away from justice in their country and
hide behind political commitment to mislead the international opinion. We can
point out, for example, that Patrick KAREGEYA collaborated with the man most
wanted by ICTR, the billionaire Félicien KABUGA, and protected his interests in
Rwanda, without anybody’s knowledge, taking advantage of the important position
he held as the Head of Rwanda’s External Intelligence.
According to the
revelations made on 9 February 2011 by the spokesperson of the Prosecution in
Rwanda, Alain MUKURALINDA, during a press briefing in Kigali, KAREGEYA Patrick
has been “in secret contact” with the
family of Félicien KABUGA and helped his children to acquire illegally their
properties, including two buildings in Kigali: “The officers of the Prosecution who were investigating this case
discovered that the former Head of Intelligence had, between October and
December 2003, used his position so as to return illegally the estate belonging
to this tycoon wanted for genocide to
his family. We intend to freeze once again the properties belonging to this
wanted fugitive which have been returned illegally”. It is not difficult to
imagine that for such a favour, the billionaire genocidaire must have paid
dearly to Patrick KAREGEYA. What is it then that he can teach Rwandans in
general? And what, in particular, can he tell the survivors of the genocide
whom he has betrayed?
F)
Negationism in support of Victoire INGABIRE
UMUHOZA and other campaigners of ethnic extremism
Another form of Negationism
which has gained ground recently involves the support given to political
leaders and journalists who use the freedom of expression to spread the
genocide ideology and Negationism. The case in point is that of Mrs. Victoire
INGABIRE UMUHOZA, president of “Forces
Démocratiques Unifiées (FDU-INKINGI). The Rwandan Office of the Prosecutor
says that it has solid evidence of the collaboration existing between
FDU-INKINGI, in particular INGABIRE UMUHOZA, and the FDLR terrorist group. This
is also the case with Bernard NTAGANDA, founder of the registered political
party “Parti social (PS-Imberakuli)” who,
in his public addresses, conveys positions of hatred, highly Negationist,
calling for ethnic divisions and genocide[49].
Such words go beyond the context of freedom of opinion, freedom of thought and
freedom of expression, and cannot be tolerated in Rwanda or in any other State.
Likewise, two
journalists, Agnès UWIMANA and Saidati MUKAKIBIBI of UMURABYO newspaper, on
several occasions published articles preaching Negationism, inciting ethnic division,
genocide and breach of public order. They, for example, published articles
saying that the President of the Republic was worse that Adolf HITLER, the head
of the Nazi! I know of no single State in the world, in particular in Europe,
which would have accepted such an insult if it were leveled against its Head of
State. In such circumstances, the Rwandan courts did what they were supposed to
do and arrested, tried and sentenced the duo, one of whom, Agnès UWIMANA, is a persistent
offender of the same crime. She was sentenced in 2007 for the same offence and
had served her sentence before resuming her activities. The High Council of the
Media had in vain warned her several times before her recent arrest. In court,
while pleading guilty, she recognized her mistakes in her published articles
which lacked professionalism.
Pretending ignorance of
this obvious reality, four international NGOs (always the same!), Reporters without
Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Committee for the
Protection of Journalists based in New York, rose up against Rwandan courts,
accusing them of suing these journalists for their political opinions, as if Negationism
and inciting people to commit genocide were democratic, legitimate and
defendable opinions. In this connection, HRW wrote that these were “political lawsuits”. Reporters without
Borders said “it was shocked by the
stubbornness and cruelty of Rwandan justice[50]”.
Amnesty International demanded pure and simple repeal of the laws which
criminalize divisionism and the genocide ideology. Why do these NGOs not ask
European States to repeal laws prohibiting and punishing anti-Semitism and the
use of Nazi symbols? Yet, the laws which punish anti-Semitism in Europe are
similar to Rwandan laws against the genocide ideology. In fact, since
anti-Semitism is not an acceptable opinion in Europe, the genocide ideology and
Negationism in Rwanda cannot be considered as acceptable ideas.
Such opinions are
insulting, destructive and must be fought with all the energy we can muster.
Only truth should be defended, and this truth is elsewhere than in the arrest
warrants of Judge BRUGUIÈRE and Judge MERELLES, in the actions of Bernard
NTAGANDA, INGABIRE UMUHOZA Victoire, KAYUMBA NYAMWASA and their ilk. As the
late Rev. Modeste MUNGWARAREBA[51]
who died mysteriously in Kigali on 5 May 1999 said, “It is a contradiction to work for an ideology of death. If one is looking
for the truth, it will be found and it
will accordingly be defended[52]”.
Kigali,
12 March 2011
[1]
See the numerous publications of Professor Yves TERNON, one of today’s best knowledgeable
experts in the history of genocide. Prof. Yves TERNON is a doctor and historian
[2]
Ministry of Administration, Information and Social Affairs, Final Report,
November 2002. The difference is due to the fact that for some victims,
particularly the infants, it was not easy to obtain their full particulars.
They were known by their nicknames such “Baby, Sonny, Little girl,…”. Others
were old people known as Grandpa, Mzee (=Old man), Mukecuru (Old lady)…”
[5]
Report of the Special Reporter of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, René Degni-Segui, 28 June 1994
[6]
ICTR, Karemera case, judgment of 16 December 2006
[7]
For detailed information, read Jacques Morel. La
France au cœur du génocide des Tutsi, Paris, L’Esprit frappeur,
mars 2010
[8] Bearing the name of its Chairman, Jean de Dieu Mucyo,
the Commission was tasked by the Government of Rwanda to look into the role of
France in the genocide
[9]
Testimony received by Rwanda’s Commission of Inquiry on the Role of France in
the Genocide, Kigali, 14/06/2007.
[10]
Letter ref. No. AF/005/INFO, Rwanda Embassy in Paris, Paris, 13 January 1993.
Author: Nsengiyumva Athanase, Ag. Chargé d’affaires, mentioned in the Mucyo
Commission Report
[11] Alain Juppé, “Intervenir au Rwanda”. Libération, 16
June 1994
[12] Bernard Debre,
le Retour du Mwami, Paris, Ramsey, 1998
[13] Patrick De Saint
Exupéry, L’Inavouable: La France au
Rwanda, Arènes, 2004, p. 15
[14]
Interview in Traits d’Union Rwanda, 5
January 1995, p.13
[15]
Cf. Mucyo Commission Report, Part II
[16] P. ERNY, Clés
pour comprendre le calvaire d’un people, l’Harmattan, 1994
[17] Fr S. DESOUTER
and F. REYNTJENS, Rwanda, les violations des droits de l’homme par le FPR/APR,
Plaidoyer pour une enquête approfondie », Université d’Anvers, 1995
[18] See particularly
his article “Sujets d’inquiétude au Rwanda”, DIALOGUE, September 1994
[19]
The other widows later joined the court action, including Mrs Agatha Habyarimana
[20]
From the name of the Chairman of the Commission of Independent Experts looking
into the crash of the Falcon 50 in Kigali on 6 April 1994
[22]
French Code of Criminal Procedure, article 105
[23] Statememt by
Laurent CURT to author Sébastien SPITZER, Contre
enquête sur le juge Bruguière. Raisons d’État. Justice ou politique ?, Paris,
Editions Privé, April 2007, pp. 237-238. See also Entretien de Me CURT avec
Mehdi BA, Golias Magazine, March/April 2005, No. 101, pp. 28-40
[25] C.
Bourgès-Habif, “Le terrorisme
international », in Hervé Ascensio, Emmanuel Decaux et Alain Pellet,
Droit internatioinal pénal, Paris, Pedome, 1999, pp. 457-466
[26] Acte
d’accusation du juge MERELLES, p.3
[28] Acte
d’accusation du juge MERELLES, p.4-5
[29] Acte
d’accusation du juge MERELLES, p.10
[31]
Convention for the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide of 9
December 1948
[34]
Report of the Parliamentary Commission on the killings in Gikongoro and the
genocide ideology in Rwanda, approved by Parliament during its session of 17
September 2004
[35]
Father CHAPTAL held a key position as Assistant to the Head of the White
Fathers for the entire region of Eastern DRC: Bukavu, Goma, Maniema, Kisangani,
Ituri,…
[36] Report of the Seminar of Christian groups and
associations for the defense of human rights and civic education in the
Democratic Republic of Congo held in Kinshasa from 6 to 10 May 1999
[37] Bishop MUNZIHIRWA Christophe, Letter to Cardinal G.
DANNEELS, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels and to Bishop J. DELAPORTE, Chairman
of France Justice and Peace Commission, Bukavu, 16 January 1995
[38]
Bishop MUNZIHIRWA Christophe, Archbishop of Bukavu, Letter to President J.
CARTER, CARTER Foundation, USA, Bukavu, 30 January 1996
[39] Philippe De
DORLODOT, Les réfugiés rwandais à Bukavu au Zaïre: De nouveaux palestiniens,
Paris, L’Harmattan, 1996, p.254
[40]
Letter of Father Jean CHAPTAL to the author of this article, 28 May 1996
[41] Marie Béatrice
UMUTESI, Mourir ou fuir au Zaïre: le vécu d’une réfugiée rwandaise, Paris,
l’Harmattan, 2000, 312 pages
[42]
Indictment by Judge Fernando Andreu MERELLES, Madrid, February 2008, p.85
[43]
Communication of Jean Paul KIMONYO, Advisor to the President of the Republic of
Rwanda, International Conference on the 62nd Anniversary of the
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, organized by the National Commission on the Fight against Genocide,
Kigali, 9 December 2010
[44]
Ibidem
[45]
European Union Council, 14 May 2008, common position No. 2008/369/PESC on the
adoption of restrictive measures against
DRC
[46]
Peace and Security Council, 33rd Session, Meeting of 24 June 2005 ,
Addis Abeba, Report of the Chairman of the Follow up Commission on the Decision
of the 23rd Meeting of the Peace and Security
Council (PSC) on the situation in Eastern DRC between DRC and Rwanda,
PSC/PR/2.(XXXIII)
[47]
Final Report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo to the
Security Council, 23 November 2009 (S/2009/603)
[48]
http//:www.google.com Rwanda briefing
[49]
In the same group are people like Paul RUSESABAGINA, Félicien KANYAMIBWA,
Jean-Marie Vianney HIGIRO, etc
[50]
Reporters without Borders, Communiqué of 4 February 2011
[51]Born
in Mushubi in the former Prefecture of Gikongoro, currently Nyamagabe District,
Rev. Modeste MUNGWARARERA was a gentleman and a model priest. He experienced all the stages of genocide in
1959, 1963, 1973 and 1994. In October 1990, he was unfairly imprisoned because
of allegedly collaborating with the “enemy”
[52]
Testimony of Rev. Modeste MUNGWARAREBA, Revue LA SOURCE of the Christian
Community of the National University of Rwanda, May 1997, p.31
No comments:
Post a Comment