Freedom of speech in Rwanda: myth and reality.

                        

 

 

 

 

Something I like about laws is that they are very clear on a subject which they’re stipulating. My colleagues might not fully agree with me on the previous statement because laws are updated or changed frequently. But one thing we can agree about is that our laws give us rights and responsibilities among them is freedom of speech and its limits.

 It was not in our culture as Rwandans to challenge our leaders. In our traditional belief, we believe that a leader is chosen by God and selected by God himself. This was supported by customs of how a king in particular was born with a seed, to specify that he was chosen by God himself. This custom was removed by another one due to the influence of Christianity in our society. Also, in Christianity it is commonly believed that a leader is chosen by God either the bad or good one. We can’t forget Islam which is also massively practiced in Rwanda, also like Christianity it also obliges its followers to respect the leaders.

In this modern era, leaders are elected, then held accountable for what they do. Different laws are in place to check the powers of the elected officials. Rwanda has been criticized of not having an environment of free expression. This article is going to show otherwise. Also I would like to show you the reader how due to the history of our country some freedom of expression is limited to the darkest time in our history.

The reason why I want to connect freedom of speech and leadership it is because it is widely recognized that freedom of speech is mostly seen when people hold the government accountable of their actions.  

Having an opinion on matters of the country, experiences or history is an example of ways to demonstrate freedom of speech. But some topics like the genocide against the Tutsi is not popular as an example of giving opinions. It is preferably not talking about the subject, or go with the official narrative. Due to negationists that twists the narrative of the events of historical events, some people especially the youth, may fall in the trap of negation while not knowing. As I said the official narrative is in place for guidance of knowing the facts of history, hence choosing it and leave other narrative so as to not fall in the trap of being on the other side of the law.

Asking questions with the intension to know and to understand more is not a problem. Officials are elected to do that job and institutions they work for. The problem is when some asks questions with intentions to twists the narrative and on top of that being old enough to have witnessed the events.

To understand the limits of freedom of speech lets use the example of Ingabire Victoire’s case. Ingabire Victoire returned to Rwanda in 2010, was jailed and later found guilty of conspiracy to cause insurrections and undermine an established government as well as denying and minimizing the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, sentencing her to 8 years in prison. She later appealed the verdict the country’s highest court, the Supreme Court, which in December 2013 increased her jail term to 15 years. Ingabire was released in September 2018 after President Paul Kagame commuted her prison sentence of 15 years and granted her clemency after serving half of her sentence.[1]

In 2014, represented by her two councels, Advocate Gatera GASHABANA and Dr. Caroline BUISMAN, filed an application pursuant to Articles 5 (3) and 34 (6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Application was filed against the Republic of Rwanda. On the other side Rwanda was represented by Senior State Attorney Mr. Rubango Kayihura EPIMAQUE.[2]  

The Application relates to the arrest, detention and trial of the Ingabire Victoire, on the basis of which she alleges violation of her human rights and fundamental freedoms. The instant Application emanates from the Judgment of the High Court of Kigali in Criminal Case No. RP 0081-0110/1O/HC/KIG delivered on 30 October, 2012, and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Rwanda in Criminal Appeal No. RPA 0255112, delivered on 13 December, 2013.  Ingabire showed that in 2010, after spending nearly seventeen (17) years abroad, she decided to return to Rwanda, according to her, to contribute in nation building. Her priorities included the registration of the political party - FDU lnkingi, in compliance with Rwandan law on political parties, which would have enabled her to popularize the political party at the national level with a view to future elections. she did not attain this objective because from 10 February,2010, charges were brought against her by the judicial police, the prosecutor and the tribunals of the Rwanda.[3]  

Rwanda contended that the Ingabire Victoire has seized this Court as an appellate Court by requesting the latter to reverse or quash the decisions of Rwanda’s courts, and to replace Rwanda’s legislative and judicial institutions. Furthermore, Rwanda shoed that the African Court is neither a Court of Appeal nor a legislative body which can nullify or reform court decisions and make national legislation in lieu of national legislative Assemblies". in this regard Rwanda showed that the Court to take such action should be dismissed'. Rwanda showed that the Ingabire Victoire failed to seize the Supreme Court sitting in constitutional matters to challenge the provisions of Rwandan laws that she alleges to be inconsistent with the Charter and other relevant international instruments. Rwanda further contends that 'the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and the responsibility to hear petitions aimed at reviewing adopted laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution', "she must therefore exhaust the local remedies available for that purpose: this, by filing an application before the Supreme Court sitting in Constitutional Matters..." Rwanda added  that "having failed to do so, makes the application inadmissible due to non-compliance with Article 56(5) [of the Charter] and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court", Rwanda avers further that the Applicant failed to seize competent courts to apply for judicial review of the decisions against her. Rwanda showed that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over applications for review of final decisions due to injustice.[4]

Furthermore, Rwanda showed that "by failing to make an application for the Supreme Court to review the decision that she considers unjust, Ingabire Victoire failed to satisfy the requirement set forth in Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules", and invites the Court to declare the application inadmissible.

In its judgement the court showed that Rwanda has violated Articles 9 (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and Article 19 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression and opinion. But the fact that the court doesn’t have the power to execute its judgement it dismissed the Ingabire’s prayer for the Court to order her direct release, and Rwanda has the power to take this measure itself.

In her article published on 20 Apr 2022 in Aljazeera, entitled: My story: Being an opposition figure in Rwanda. She says that she intended to register FDU-Inkingi and run in the presidential election against Paul Kagame. On the day of her return to Rwanda, she visited the Gisozi Genocide Memorial Centre and gave a speech urging unity and reconciliation. In what she called criticizing the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front’s (RPF)’s policies for not being sufficiently inclusive, and demanded to recognize and honour all the others who had fallen victim to violence before, during and after the genocide against the Tutsi.[5] She intentionally twisted the reality of the history and chose to deny the genocide against the Tutsi.

Journalists in different societies, are one of the symbols of existence of freedom of speech. In Rwanda every journalist has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the opinions; right to seek, receive, give and broadcast, information and ideas through any media. But the freedom of opinions and information shall not jeopardize the general public order and good morals, individual’s right to honour and reputation in the public eye and to the right to inviolability of a person’s private life and family; the freedom shall also be recognized if it is not detrimental to the protection of children.[6] Rwanda is mostly criticized of not having a free media, the critics says that the media in Rwanda is controlled by the state even the private one.

Let’s ask ourselves what happens when the journalists choose to use that freedom of opinion and spread lies. Citing unreliable and biased organizations in ranking freedom of press, and place them at the table of judging who has freedom of expression and who doesn’t. Masking themselves as journalists who are informing but in reality, they are spreading controversial narratives full of lies. A good liar uses a certain truth to get a free pass of spreading lies. The saddest part is using old fashioned narratives full of lies and claim that there is a new discovery.

The myth is that they are journalist claiming to tell investigated truth. The reality is that they are journalist reporting news full of lies. Making villains heroes in their fabricated stories, calling convicted criminals human rights activists, it shows how dangerous an unregulated media can be. Putting in front the narrative that Rwandans are silenced and can’t express themselves, is their way of trying to cause chaos in the public.

Back in 2011, at the start of the 9th National Dialogue, President Kagame, while addressing over a thousand participant at the parliament; he told them that “Those who say that Rwandans cannot express themselves can only mean three things; that Rwandans are mute, or someone is physically preventing them from speaking, or they have nothing to say”. He added that; freedoms were not a myth whose possibility and definition lay only in the hands of a few with the power, privilege and capacity to dictate to others what is in their interest.[7] International media says that in Rwanda there is no critics, I think because we do things in different way that’s why they don’t consider it critics. They think criticizing is insulting with is quite different. In the out-reach programs of the president citizens tell him what’s not going well and appreciates what has been achieved.

Those who say that President Kagame is not criticized, how can they explain when he goes to meet the citizens, and they complain about non-functioning of local government. Indirectly they are telling him as the head of state that the government is not functioning well for them. After receiving their complains those leaders are replaced so as to put in place those who are capable.

Umushyikirano is another reality of how Rwandans expresses their freedom of speech. Asking any leader a question and being answered directly either online of live at the event, this shows the exercise of free speech of Rwandans.  National Umushyikirano Council as stipulated in the article 141 of the Constitution it brings together the President of the Republic and citizens’ representatives. Resolutions of the National Umushyikirano Council are submitted to the relevant institutions to enable them to improve their service delivery to the population.[8]

Umushyikirano which aims to be a leading example of participatory and inclusive governance. By directly engaging with their leaders, Rwandans feel part of the decision-making that affects their lives. Umushyikirano also serves as a forum for Rwandans to hold their leaders and government accountable. Each year about one thousand people attend the event in person, while thousands more follow the proceedings through live TV coverage, online and radio. At the event, Rwandans have the opportunity to ask questions to their leaders. Each Umushyikirano has a theme and participants are asked to pose questions related to that theme or any other development issue. Once a participant has asked a question, either in person, via Twitter, Facebook, SMS, the web or phone, the leader responsible for that area responds. The main achievements of Umushyikirano are considered to be the participation of Rwandans in national decision-making and the fast-tracking of government programs and citizen priorities based on the resolutions tabled each year.[9]

The myth is that freedom of speech means you can speak whatever you want, the reality is that what you speak has limitations due to its nature. Limitations differ from country to country, due to culture, history and laws.  Another reality is that due to how the country functions it shows how her citizens show how they are free to express themselves. It might be contrary to what you call freedom of expression but that's their choice. 

---

[1] https://www.ktpress.rw/2024/02/victoire-ingabire-in-court-to-seek-clearance-prosecution-insists-shes-unworthy/

[2] https://www.african-court.org/en/images/Cases/Judgment/003-2014-Ingabire%20Victoire%20Umuhoza%20V%20Rwanda%20-%20Judgement%2024%20November%202017.pdf

[3] Idem

[4] Idem

[5] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/4/20/my-story-being-an-opposition-figure-in-rwanda

[6] Law N° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media article 8 and 9

[7] https://www.paulkagame.com/let-no-one-speak-for-you-president-kagame-tells-rwandans-at-start-of-9th-national-dialogue/

[8] Official Gazette n° Special of 04/08/2023 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

Article 141

[9] https://www.umushyikirano.gov.rw/about