Ambassador KIKAYA takes on Tony Blairpic.twitter.com/I6a4hGqUYu
Thursday, 28 February 2013
Ambassador KIKAYA takes on Tony Blair
Ambassador KIKAYA takes on Tony Blairpic.twitter.com/I6a4hGqUYu
USA/Rwanda: Munyenyezi’s fate far from decided
Editorial: Munyenyezi's fate far from decided
We are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Manchester resident Beatrice Munyenyezi received justice. Munyenyezi is the Rwandan refugee convicted this month by a federal court in Concord of lying on her U.S. immigration forms and stripped of her U.S. citizenship. She may or may not have lied on federal immigration forms. She may or may not have been a participant in the genocide that claimed the lives of an estimated 1 million people. She may or may not have had an affiliation with a political party. We don't know because, though the jury was convinced, we don't believe the testimony of the witnesses on either side was credible.
One side, which included Munyenyezi's relatives, claimed that the young mother closeted herself in her family's hotel and played no role in the massacre. The other side said she was at a barricade checking identity papers and determining who would be raped or killed. That side may have been acting, if not at the direction of the Rwandan government, then in ways that would wins its favor and avoid its enmity.
Munyenyezi's first trial ended in a hung jury because the charges against her were almost comically horrific – shooting a nun in the head as a cheering crowd watched – and the witnesses unbelievable. They included inmates freed in order to come to the United States who, her defense attorneys argued, could have their sentences reduced in exchange for favorable testimony.
That the prosecutors would go to court with such a slate of charges and cast of characters in itself raises questions. That they would return with drastically reduced allegations of Munyenyezi's actions and an entirely new cast of Rwandan witnesses raises more questions still. Atop those is the big mystery. Mun-
yenyezi's husband and mother-in-law, a Cabinet member, were prominent party officials convicted by an international tribunal of playing an active role in the genocide. If Munyenyezi played a role herself, why, during proceedings and investigations spanning some 16 years, did her name not come up? Why were no charges filed against her?
yenyezi's husband and mother-in-law, a Cabinet member, were prominent party officials convicted by an international tribunal of playing an active role in the genocide. If Munyenyezi played a role herself, why, during proceedings and investigations spanning some 16 years, did her name not come up? Why were no charges filed against her?
Last week, Rwanda's ambassador to the United States immediately issued a farcical call for Munyenyezi's summary extradition to Rwanda. Doing so would violate her rights under U.S. law and, since she has never been charged with a crime under Rwandan law, she can't be extradited. It also suggests that politics played a role in the trial's outcome.
Munyenyezi will be sentenced in June, and her lawyers will then appeal her conviction to a three-judge panel in Boston. The appeals court will not hear witnesses or consider new evidence but will decide whether a legal error occurred that might have jeopardized the outcome of the case. The appeal is a long shot, but it's one for justice's sake we hope Munyenyezi wins. Unlike the jurors, we're not convinced the prosecutors made their case.
If Munyenyezi's appeal succeeds, her U.S. citizenship law can, upon application, be reinstated. If her appeal fails, she will serve up to 10 years in prison, minus credit for pre-trial detention. At the end of her sentence, unless a federal immigration judge rules otherwise, she will be deported. That judge, some years down the road, could refuse to deport her if he determined that in Rwanda she would be tried under a corrupt legal system or face human rights abuses. That would likely be the case were she deported now – but who knows what's in store for Rwanda, whose president has hinted that he might not step down in 2017 as called for, and whose administration stands accused of fostering rebellion in a neighboring state.
Despite her conviction, the fate of Beatrice Munyenyezi is a long way from decided.
USA/Rwanda: Munyenyezi’s fate far from decided
Editorial: Munyenyezi's fate far from decided
We are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Manchester resident Beatrice Munyenyezi received justice. Munyenyezi is the Rwandan refugee convicted this month by a federal court in Concord of lying on her U.S. immigration forms and stripped of her U.S. citizenship. She may or may not have lied on federal immigration forms. She may or may not have been a participant in the genocide that claimed the lives of an estimated 1 million people. She may or may not have had an affiliation with a political party. We don't know because, though the jury was convinced, we don't believe the testimony of the witnesses on either side was credible.
One side, which included Munyenyezi's relatives, claimed that the young mother closeted herself in her family's hotel and played no role in the massacre. The other side said she was at a barricade checking identity papers and determining who would be raped or killed. That side may have been acting, if not at the direction of the Rwandan government, then in ways that would wins its favor and avoid its enmity.
Munyenyezi's first trial ended in a hung jury because the charges against her were almost comically horrific – shooting a nun in the head as a cheering crowd watched – and the witnesses unbelievable. They included inmates freed in order to come to the United States who, her defense attorneys argued, could have their sentences reduced in exchange for favorable testimony.
That the prosecutors would go to court with such a slate of charges and cast of characters in itself raises questions. That they would return with drastically reduced allegations of Munyenyezi's actions and an entirely new cast of Rwandan witnesses raises more questions still. Atop those is the big mystery. Mun-
yenyezi's husband and mother-in-law, a Cabinet member, were prominent party officials convicted by an international tribunal of playing an active role in the genocide. If Munyenyezi played a role herself, why, during proceedings and investigations spanning some 16 years, did her name not come up? Why were no charges filed against her?
yenyezi's husband and mother-in-law, a Cabinet member, were prominent party officials convicted by an international tribunal of playing an active role in the genocide. If Munyenyezi played a role herself, why, during proceedings and investigations spanning some 16 years, did her name not come up? Why were no charges filed against her?
Last week, Rwanda's ambassador to the United States immediately issued a farcical call for Munyenyezi's summary extradition to Rwanda. Doing so would violate her rights under U.S. law and, since she has never been charged with a crime under Rwandan law, she can't be extradited. It also suggests that politics played a role in the trial's outcome.
Munyenyezi will be sentenced in June, and her lawyers will then appeal her conviction to a three-judge panel in Boston. The appeals court will not hear witnesses or consider new evidence but will decide whether a legal error occurred that might have jeopardized the outcome of the case. The appeal is a long shot, but it's one for justice's sake we hope Munyenyezi wins. Unlike the jurors, we're not convinced the prosecutors made their case.
If Munyenyezi's appeal succeeds, her U.S. citizenship law can, upon application, be reinstated. If her appeal fails, she will serve up to 10 years in prison, minus credit for pre-trial detention. At the end of her sentence, unless a federal immigration judge rules otherwise, she will be deported. That judge, some years down the road, could refuse to deport her if he determined that in Rwanda she would be tried under a corrupt legal system or face human rights abuses. That would likely be the case were she deported now – but who knows what's in store for Rwanda, whose president has hinted that he might not step down in 2017 as called for, and whose administration stands accused of fostering rebellion in a neighboring state.
Despite her conviction, the fate of Beatrice Munyenyezi is a long way from decided.
Audio: BBC Newsday: Opposition politician says Rwanda responsible for eastern DRC
BBC Newsday: Opposition politician says Rwanda responsible for eastern DRC
Audio: BBC Newsday: Opposition politician says Rwanda responsible for eastern DRC
BBC Newsday: Opposition politician says Rwanda responsible for eastern DRC
Kagame naturalises Tanzanian, appoints him Cabinet minister: News-africareview.com
Kagame naturalises Tanzanian, appoints him Cabinet ministerBy THE CITIZEN | Thursday, February 28 2013 at 09:23
President Paul Kagame of Rwanda has appointed a professor of Tanzanian origin, Silas Lwakabamba, as his minister for Infrastructure in Cabinet changes announced Tuesday.
President Kagame reshuffled his Cabinet, bringing in new faces as well as creating new portfolios.
Among the newcomers include Prof Lwakabamba, who originates from Tanzania.
According to information obtained from The Citizen sources in Rwanda, Mr Kagame has been impressed by Prof Lwakabamba's performance in previous posts he has held.
The don was also granted Rwandese nationality.
The paper's source said Rwandese have praised their head of state for putting interests of Rwanda first when appointing Prof Lwakabamba.
"The people here in Kigali have commended the appointment and they praise President Kagame...I have not heard anyone complain on the origin or nationality of the appointed minister," said the source who could not be named.
Born and educated in Tanzania, Prof Lwakabamba trained in engineering at the University of Leeds in the UK. After graduating with a BSc (1971) and a PhD (1975) in Mechanical Engineering, he returned to Tanzania to join the staff of the Faculty of Engineering, which had just started at the University of Dar es Salaam.
He progressed rapidly through the ranks and attained his professorship in 1981, gaining managerial experience along the way. He became Head of Department, Associate Dean, and eventually Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.
In 1985, Prof Lwakabamba joined the UN- sponsored African Regional Centre for Engineering Design and Manufacturing based in Nigeria, as a founding Director of Training and Extension Services.
He became the founding Rector of Rwanda's Kigali Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) in 1997.
In 2006, he was appointed the Rector of the National University of Rwanda, the largest public institution of higher learning in that country, a position he occupied until Tuesday's appointment.
Kenya's new imperialists | Ngugi wa Thiong'o
Kenya's new imperialists
On Monday Kenyans elect a new generation of leaders, forged not by the independence struggle but western corporate greed
When Kenya goes to the polls on Monday, it will mark a generational change – no matter who wins. For the first time in its history, the country will be run by a leadership with hardly any direct experience of colonialism. There are risks to this development: the new leadership might trivialise what it means to be colonised, and the insidious ways in which imperialism is reproduced.
The outgoing president, Mwai Kĩibaki, is the last of the generation that led the country to independence, and for whom, whatever the policy, imperialism and anti-colonial resistance were not just slogans. They had seen blood in the streets and mass incarceration; the Hola massacre was mere smoke at the gates of hell. The first lady, Lucy Kĩbaki, was brutally tortured.
For them, Churchill – who presided over the concentration camps and villages and brutal mass relocations of people – can never be a hero. And whatever their shortcomings, they still have memories of the heroic deeds and sacrifices of ordinary Kenyans of whatever ethnic hue; they know in their bones that it was the unity of the Kenyan people that made independence possible.
The next leaders will not be encumbered by memories of humiliation and triumphant resistance. This may make them act with more confidence relative to Europe and the outside world. But it may also make them gullible to the machinations of the corporate west, without regard to a national vision. Chillingly, Kenya is on the brink ofcommercial oil production, and western firms are lining up for a slice of the cake.
We can get glimpses of the future by looking back to the last parliament. Asked to set up local tribunals to deal with crimes emanating from the horrific 2007/8 electoral violence, the MPs vehemently rejected the idea and shouted: "Don't be vague; let's go to The Hague." When the Hague-based international criminal court responded with summons, the politicians shouted: "Imperialism! We are no longer a colony!"
The rejection of homegrown institutions as vehicles for redress was the main abetter of that violence they refused to address internally. You cannot say the elections are rigged, and then refuse to utilise, even exhaust, the available democratic channels, however flawed they might be. The muscular tension that had built up during the hotly contested elections had no established channels for release. National institutions may not be the best, but they are often the basis of sober evaluations of claims and counter-claims.
Their contempt for national institutions can be seen in other ways.
Throughout the anti-colonial struggle and into the first years of independence, there were well established political parties, with differing visions: institutions with policies and clear guidelines on electing and rejecting leaders. The political class destroyed these. The contending parties in Monday's elections are all paper parties – or less politely they are regional mafia blocks under a boss. The party is the boss and the boss is the party: no history, no institutional memory, nothing to help regulate political behaviour and practice even within the boss party.
Some of the more infamous acts of the last parliament include passing a motion to ban African languages in official premises; a rural peasant would now have to bring an interpreter to a government office to have his needsattended to.
Moreover, more than 200 MPs – already some of the most highly paid in the world – voted themselves aseverance package that included over $80,000, diplomatic passports for themselves and their families, armed protection for life, and state burials for each of them. The president did not sign the bill, but it gives a clue as to the ruling mentality – a mentality that looks at the state as a looters' paradise.
This mentality finds a good partner in the bribing culture of the corporate west. In the US, bribery is official in the system of registered lobbyists. But there are the established institutions of the press and the courts that sometimes help cushion the impact of the fallout from corporate greed. For Kenya and Africa, however, the combination of local and outside raiders is deadly for the country and emerging democracies.
I am cautiously optimistic that there will be peaceful acceptance of the election results. But I fear that the governing class will continue to be no more than mimic men – copying their western counterparts in greed and contempt for the regular folk, while happily shouting "imperialism" when the slogan helps them cover up their looting tracks in the face of an angry populace.
Kenya's new imperialists | Ngugi wa Thiong'o
Kenya's new imperialists
On Monday Kenyans elect a new generation of leaders, forged not by the independence struggle but western corporate greed
When Kenya goes to the polls on Monday, it will mark a generational change – no matter who wins. For the first time in its history, the country will be run by a leadership with hardly any direct experience of colonialism. There are risks to this development: the new leadership might trivialise what it means to be colonised, and the insidious ways in which imperialism is reproduced.
The outgoing president, Mwai Kĩibaki, is the last of the generation that led the country to independence, and for whom, whatever the policy, imperialism and anti-colonial resistance were not just slogans. They had seen blood in the streets and mass incarceration; the Hola massacre was mere smoke at the gates of hell. The first lady, Lucy Kĩbaki, was brutally tortured.
For them, Churchill – who presided over the concentration camps and villages and brutal mass relocations of people – can never be a hero. And whatever their shortcomings, they still have memories of the heroic deeds and sacrifices of ordinary Kenyans of whatever ethnic hue; they know in their bones that it was the unity of the Kenyan people that made independence possible.
The next leaders will not be encumbered by memories of humiliation and triumphant resistance. This may make them act with more confidence relative to Europe and the outside world. But it may also make them gullible to the machinations of the corporate west, without regard to a national vision. Chillingly, Kenya is on the brink ofcommercial oil production, and western firms are lining up for a slice of the cake.
We can get glimpses of the future by looking back to the last parliament. Asked to set up local tribunals to deal with crimes emanating from the horrific 2007/8 electoral violence, the MPs vehemently rejected the idea and shouted: "Don't be vague; let's go to The Hague." When the Hague-based international criminal court responded with summons, the politicians shouted: "Imperialism! We are no longer a colony!"
The rejection of homegrown institutions as vehicles for redress was the main abetter of that violence they refused to address internally. You cannot say the elections are rigged, and then refuse to utilise, even exhaust, the available democratic channels, however flawed they might be. The muscular tension that had built up during the hotly contested elections had no established channels for release. National institutions may not be the best, but they are often the basis of sober evaluations of claims and counter-claims.
Their contempt for national institutions can be seen in other ways.
Throughout the anti-colonial struggle and into the first years of independence, there were well established political parties, with differing visions: institutions with policies and clear guidelines on electing and rejecting leaders. The political class destroyed these. The contending parties in Monday's elections are all paper parties – or less politely they are regional mafia blocks under a boss. The party is the boss and the boss is the party: no history, no institutional memory, nothing to help regulate political behaviour and practice even within the boss party.
Some of the more infamous acts of the last parliament include passing a motion to ban African languages in official premises; a rural peasant would now have to bring an interpreter to a government office to have his needsattended to.
Moreover, more than 200 MPs – already some of the most highly paid in the world – voted themselves aseverance package that included over $80,000, diplomatic passports for themselves and their families, armed protection for life, and state burials for each of them. The president did not sign the bill, but it gives a clue as to the ruling mentality – a mentality that looks at the state as a looters' paradise.
This mentality finds a good partner in the bribing culture of the corporate west. In the US, bribery is official in the system of registered lobbyists. But there are the established institutions of the press and the courts that sometimes help cushion the impact of the fallout from corporate greed. For Kenya and Africa, however, the combination of local and outside raiders is deadly for the country and emerging democracies.
I am cautiously optimistic that there will be peaceful acceptance of the election results. But I fear that the governing class will continue to be no more than mimic men – copying their western counterparts in greed and contempt for the regular folk, while happily shouting "imperialism" when the slogan helps them cover up their looting tracks in the face of an angry populace.
U.N.'s Ban tones down criticism of Rwanda over Congo claims
U.N.'s Ban tones down criticism of Rwanda over Congo claims
UNITED NATIONS |
By Michelle Nichols
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In a special report to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon toned down criticism of Rwanda over accusations that it supports rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but still warned against external support for the revolt.
A draft of Ban's report seen by Reuters on Monday had applauded states who suspended aid to Rwanda after U.N. experts, who monitor compliance with sanctions and an arms embargo on Congo, accused Rwanda of supporting M23 rebels in eastern Congo.
The draft report read: "Actions taken by some bilateral donors to suspend aid and funds to those countries reportedly supporting in particular the M23 send a strong message that such practices must cease immediately.
But in the final report, sent to the 15-member Security Council on Wednesday, that statement was removed. Ban did not name any countries in his report, but that paragraph was a clear reference to Rwanda.
Rwanda has strongly denied any involvement in the M23 rebellion in resource-rich eastern Congo.
Ban's final report did provide a less specific warning that "ongoing support to armed groups by neighboring countries continues to be a source of serious instability, and should have tangible consequences for perpetrators."
M23 began taking parts of eastern Congo early last year, accusing the government of failing to honor a 2009 peace deal. That deal ended a previous rebellion and led to the rebels' integration into the army, but they have since deserted.
The U.N. Security Council's Group of Experts, which monitors compliance with sanctions and an arms embargo on Congo, said in a report last year that Rwanda's defense minister was commanding the M23 revolt in Congo and that Rwanda was arming the rebels and supporting them with troops.
The United States, Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain and the European Union reacted to the experts' accusations by suspending some aid to Rwanda, which relies on donors for about 40 percent of its budget.
The U.N. Security Council had requested the report from Ban on the Democratic Republic of Congo. As expected, Ban recommended that an intervention force of several thousand troops be created within the existing U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo to fight armed groups, including M23.
Ban is due to brief the council on his proposals next week.
The Security Council will now need to pass a new resolution authorizing the force and diplomats have said it will likely be supported. African leaders signed a U.N.-mediated deal on Sunday aimed at ending two decades of conflict in Congo's east and approving the creation of the intervention brigade.
Ban recommended that the intervention brigade initially be deployed for one year. It is a peace enforcement mission, which allows the use of lethal force in serious combat situations. Diplomats say South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique are the most likely candidates to supply the troops for the new force.
In practical terms, U.N. diplomats say, troops in the brigade will have more freedom to open fire without having to wait until they are attacked first, a limitation that is standard for U.N. peacekeepers deployed around the world.
(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; editing by Christopher Wilson)
U.N.'s Ban tones down criticism of Rwanda over Congo claims
U.N.'s Ban tones down criticism of Rwanda over Congo claims
UNITED NATIONS |
By Michelle Nichols
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In a special report to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon toned down criticism of Rwanda over accusations that it supports rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but still warned against external support for the revolt.
A draft of Ban's report seen by Reuters on Monday had applauded states who suspended aid to Rwanda after U.N. experts, who monitor compliance with sanctions and an arms embargo on Congo, accused Rwanda of supporting M23 rebels in eastern Congo.
The draft report read: "Actions taken by some bilateral donors to suspend aid and funds to those countries reportedly supporting in particular the M23 send a strong message that such practices must cease immediately.
But in the final report, sent to the 15-member Security Council on Wednesday, that statement was removed. Ban did not name any countries in his report, but that paragraph was a clear reference to Rwanda.
Rwanda has strongly denied any involvement in the M23 rebellion in resource-rich eastern Congo.
Ban's final report did provide a less specific warning that "ongoing support to armed groups by neighboring countries continues to be a source of serious instability, and should have tangible consequences for perpetrators."
M23 began taking parts of eastern Congo early last year, accusing the government of failing to honor a 2009 peace deal. That deal ended a previous rebellion and led to the rebels' integration into the army, but they have since deserted.
The U.N. Security Council's Group of Experts, which monitors compliance with sanctions and an arms embargo on Congo, said in a report last year that Rwanda's defense minister was commanding the M23 revolt in Congo and that Rwanda was arming the rebels and supporting them with troops.
The United States, Sweden, the Netherlands, Britain and the European Union reacted to the experts' accusations by suspending some aid to Rwanda, which relies on donors for about 40 percent of its budget.
The U.N. Security Council had requested the report from Ban on the Democratic Republic of Congo. As expected, Ban recommended that an intervention force of several thousand troops be created within the existing U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo to fight armed groups, including M23.
Ban is due to brief the council on his proposals next week.
The Security Council will now need to pass a new resolution authorizing the force and diplomats have said it will likely be supported. African leaders signed a U.N.-mediated deal on Sunday aimed at ending two decades of conflict in Congo's east and approving the creation of the intervention brigade.
Ban recommended that the intervention brigade initially be deployed for one year. It is a peace enforcement mission, which allows the use of lethal force in serious combat situations. Diplomats say South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique are the most likely candidates to supply the troops for the new force.
In practical terms, U.N. diplomats say, troops in the brigade will have more freedom to open fire without having to wait until they are attacked first, a limitation that is standard for U.N. peacekeepers deployed around the world.
(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; editing by Christopher Wilson)
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Kagame Says, ’I dont Need a 3rd Term’
President Kagame Says, 'I dont Need a 3rd Term'
Published on 27-02-2013 - at 04:08' byBigabo Patrick
Published on 27-02-2013 - at 04:08' by
Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has said he is not requesting for another term as President of Rwanda after 2017.
He categorically cleared the air saying, "Look at me, Iam not the person who needs the third term. I don't need it. I don't need your third term."
President Kagame expounded saying," I want to do my business for which the Rwandans entrusted me to do and when am done I will be done...I can continue to serve my country in very different ways."
He further said that he was thinking about the future of Rwanda not the third term.
Refering to the recent RPF national Executive Committee meeting in which the third term issue arose and gained momentum there after, President Kagame said, "My version was clear. I said everything I had to say and I meant what I said."
He noted that if there are people who wanted me to say what they wanted to hear from me, "I tell people what I want them to hear from me not vice versa. There shouldn't be different versions to what I said in that meeting."
In that meeting i raised three issues;
I raised the issue of Change and which is indeed entailed in the constitution of Rwanda. And what is expected in 2017 is change subject to term limits.
I also raised the issue of Continuity: Meaning continuity of progress Rwanda has been making. I believe the country has been making progress but you might have your own views.
Lastly in that meeting I talked about Stability: Rwandas situation is very complex and unique. We have our history that is complicated.
The President is currently responding to Questions raised by Journalists at the Monthly Press Briefing.
IGIHE is currently at the press conference and details of the entire interuction will be published .....
G8 must act on Congo human rights abuse
G8 must act on Congo human rights abuse
EmailAs we prepare to mark 20 years since the first gross violation of international humanitarian laws was committed in the Congo (compiled in the UN mapping exercise 1993-2003), and 10 years since the 1998 Rwandan-led invasion of Congo was said to have officially concluded, we join our voices with that of Save the Congo to appeal to the government to encourage other leaders meeting for the 2013 G8 summit in Britain to commit to making accountability for crimes of international concern, and violations of UN resolutions in Congo, conditional for direct budgetary support and military support to all governments implicated in the wars and human tragedy overwhelming the Congo (Eleven states sign UN deal for peace in DRC, 25 February).
We also urge the UK government to mobilise our partners in the EU, the Commonwealth and the UN to end impunity for the M23 leadership and others who have committed serious human rights abuses, as highlighted in President Obama's telephone call to President Kagame on 18 December; and to take immediate steps to ensure that Bosco Ntaganda, also known as "the Terminator", is arrested and transferred to the custody of the international criminal court.
We urge G8 leaders to call upon the UN secretary general, with the UN commissioner for human rights, to commission another UN mapping exercise to compile gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian laws committed in Congo from 2003 to 2013; and ensure that all those listed in the final UN group of experts report on the Congo for supporting the M23, or any other militia gang, in Congo are placed on the UN sanction list.
Vava Tampa Founder, Save the Congo!
Adrian Sanders MP
Alex Cunningham MP
Bob Russell MP
David Amess MP
John Hemming MP
Dr. John Pugh MP
Mike Hancock MP
Paul Flynn MP
Lord Nicolas Rea
Baroness Cox of Queensbury Deputy speaker, House of Lords, 1986-2005
Baroness King of Bow Founding chair, APPG on the Great Lakes
Lord Hannay of Chiswick UK ambassador to the UN, 1990-1995
Lord Alton of Liverpool Patron, Save the Congo
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Chairman, Conservative party, 1987-89
Lord Joffe of Liddington Lawyer for the 1963-64 Rivonia trial, representing Nelson Mandela
Lord Anderson of Swansea Co-founder, Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa
Vava Tampa Founder, Save the Congo!
Adrian Sanders MP
Alex Cunningham MP
Bob Russell MP
David Amess MP
John Hemming MP
Dr. John Pugh MP
Mike Hancock MP
Paul Flynn MP
Lord Nicolas Rea
Baroness Cox of Queensbury Deputy speaker, House of Lords, 1986-2005
Baroness King of Bow Founding chair, APPG on the Great Lakes
Lord Hannay of Chiswick UK ambassador to the UN, 1990-1995
Lord Alton of Liverpool Patron, Save the Congo
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Chairman, Conservative party, 1987-89
Lord Joffe of Liddington Lawyer for the 1963-64 Rivonia trial, representing Nelson Mandela
Lord Anderson of Swansea Co-founder, Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa