Monday, 15 December 2014

[AfricaRealities] Gahima: Inyenyeri News will never apologize for being a voice of everybody

http://www.inyenyerinews.org/justice-and-reconciliation/gahima-inyenyeri-news-will-never-apologize-for-being-a-voice-of-everybody/

Gahima: Inyenyeri News will never apologize for being a voice of everybody

Kamuzinzi 13/12/2014 Gahima: Inyenyeri News will never apologize for being a voice of everybody2014-12-14T16:40:53+00:00 HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION, WORLD No Comment

inShare0

Noble Marara inyenyerinews chief editor

After the recent Article that appeared in the Inyenyeri news under the heading " Is Gahima haunted by his Role in the Rwanda Genocide?" Theogene Rudasingwa a brother to Gahima responded on his facebook page by demanding an apology from inyenyeri news, in his words Rudasingwa stated that.

Theogene Rudasingwa defending his brother Gahima Gerald

"We are yet to reach a stage where we can disagree with civility. Instead of challenging Gahima's arguments, the Inyenyeri News article said he is a thief. Now, being a thief and having ideas are different things. I say this not because Gahima is my brother, or a colleague leader in the RNC, but because I sense unfairness in the Inyenyeri attack. As for debate on BBC documentary, that is precisely its utility. To encourage debate. That means listening first, even if you do not agree.

Inyenyeri News has simply disgraced itself by parading the usual shameful Kigali-like hatred against Gahima. The honorable thing to do would be to apologise to Gahima, but as it often said, only those morally responsible can rise to that revolutionary challenge".

Gahima Gerald who questioned untold story credibility

We have received different comments against and in support of the above article. However, the most astonishing behaviour by some people as those telling the Inyenyeri news to apologize for allowing the article to be published. This is like telling the African Chiefs that they should not apologize for allowing slavery of their Citizens a hundred years ago.

In unprecedented demand for accountability by some African civil rights defenders the Traditional African rulers were encouraged to apologize for the role they played in the slave trade."We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless," said the Civil Rights Congress.

Could we say that this human rights organization was not civilized because it demanded the accountability of the African Chiefs who helped, aided, assisted, the white man to capture many of their fellow countrymen and take them as slaves?

Should we tell the BBC that allowed this article to appear in its publications on 12, November 2009, to apologize? Who has the monopoly of civilizations when it comes to facts or opinions? The best way of showing civility when it comes to responding to issues in the free speech world forum, is to write and counter argue what you think is incorrect or biased as you might think.

What the Inyenyeri news did was to publish what the writer of the above article thought was a responsibility for the opposition figures to have the moral standing, indeed, to be part of any future constitutional arrangement in Rwanda; there are some historical issues for them to address.

As any prominent public figure, for instance Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society will always have a problem in drawing a line between what is personal or private or public. Why should a public figure that is suspected of theft, become private or vendetta if it comes to accountability? Unless he/she comes with the facts that are contrary to what has been said against him or her. The scales of accountability when it comes to the Rwandan government and the opposition figures should be of the same standard.

As regards, the Inyenyeri news position, we shall never apologize for being fair, impartial, doing our job without fear or favor. Individuals who are considered to be limited-purpose public figures remain so as long as the public has an "independent" interest in the underlying controversy against them. Unlike all-purpose public figures, it is relatively easy for a limited-purpose public figure to lose his status if the controversy in which he is involved has been largely forgotten. But most will still maintain their status even after they leave the public office. Therefore, those who have been in public eyes remain a target as long as there is reason by anyone to bring to life the old memories.

Noble Marara.

Editor -in -Chief, Inyenyeri News.

__._,_.___

Posted by: Nzinink <nzinink@yahoo.com>

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

----------------------------------------------------------
The Voice of the Poor, the Weak and Powerless.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Post message: AfricaRealities@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: AfricaRealities-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: AfricaRealities-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: AfricaRealities-owner@yahoogroups.com
__________________________________________________________________

Please consider the environment before printing this email or any attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-http://www.africarealities.com/

-https://www.facebook.com/africarealities

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-New International Scholarships opportunities: http://www.scholarshipsgate.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___

[AfricaRealities] Gahima haunted by his Role I n the Rwanda Genocide?

http://www.inyenyerinews.org/justice-and-reconciliation/behind-the-presidential-curtains-gahima-haunted-by-his-role-i-n-the-rwanda-genocide/

Gahima haunted by his Role I n the Rwanda Genocide?

Kamuzinzi 06/12/2014 Gahima haunted by his Role I n the Rwanda Genocide?2014-12-06T15:51:50+00:00 AFRICA, DEMOCRACY & FREEDOMS, JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION, LATEST NEWS No Comment

inShare0

The former Rwandan Prosecutor in the Post Genocide Government of the RPF Dr Gerald Gahima has strongly criticized the Two American Professors who participated in the BBC Documentary that exposed the role of RPF as an institution and Kagame as its leader in Genocide and the shooting the presidential jet of Kagame's predecessor Juvenal Habyarimana.

The contentious issue in the documentary is the number of Tutsis that are reported by theTwo American Researchers and probably according to Gerald Gahima the shooting was not the precursor of genocide.

Gahima Gerald

The question still remains, if the presidential jet was not shot, would the Tutsi have died on the same pace and gravity? The answer to any sounding sober mind will argue that Tutsis had been killed before because they were Tutsis, this means that by definition, of genocide, it was there, but the scale and gravity at which the Tutsis were killed is the contentious issue and whether Kagame or Gahima have failed to convincingly answer.

Indeed, does Dr Gelard Gahima acknowledge that the lighting of the match on the dry season will burn the glass? Or pouring oil on the hot flame, what would you expect? This is what the Professors and other academics are talking about?

Under the International law, Article II of 1948 Convention on Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy…"

The definition of genocide requires that the perpetrator have a specific state of mind: the "intent to destroy" a group. The intent to destroy is distinct from a perpetrator's particular motive for the crime, like counter-insurgency. In the absence of explicit evidence, intent can be inferred from facts and circumstances that take into account the general context of the crime, such as: preparation of other culpable acts systematically and exclusively directed against the same group; scale of atrocities committed; weapons employed; the extent of bodily injury; and/or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.

Does the above Convention talk of any number? Why then many people are embroiled in the number of the people who were killed? For example under the international law, if the number of Hutus which was killed by RPF was greater than the Tutsis but where killed in the war or as the collateral not targeted would it deny the Tutsis Genocide? The answer is no, Dr Gahima as an academic and a lawyer, he should be aware that the genocide definition has gone broader to include even rape, torture, or killing even a single person.

For instance, the tribunals have elaborated on the act of "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group." In the Akayesu case, the ICTR decided that the harm need not be permanent or irremediable and can include torture, be it "bodily or mental, inhumane or degrading treatment, persecution." The judgment in this case allowed rape to be considered an act of genocide when committed with the intent to destroy a protected group. The tribunals further confirmed that the harm also includes sexual violence that falls short of killing.

If then we take the augment of Mr Gahima that the American Professors were wrong on the number of the Tutsis who were killed, but we take the UN Mapping report or Report of other experts on the number of Hutus that have been killed, will it fit the purpose of Gahima's definition? Why and how should saying that Hutus died be a crime in Rwanda?

This is the same scenario in the Kenyan case were the charges were dropped because the government of Kenya failed to cooperate, should the Kenyan President celebrate? The answer is no, why? Because he has not been made innocent by the court, instead the case is shelved, any time he will be recalled to answer those charges, why? Because a crime of international law is not committed by abstract entities but by individuals, and by trying individuals, then justice is served.

Why Gahima wants to wash himself white? The answer is simple; Mr. Gahima had a role in all the mess in Rwanda which he does not want to accept the responsibility like his colleagues, namely Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa, and Dr Théogene Rudasingwa. For instance, the Human Rights Watch in 1994 reported many killings by RPF but were never investigated or prosecuted, this is what it said "Because this report focused on the genocide itself, we collected only limited data on crimes committed by the RPF. The information is sufficient, however, to demonstrate that certain kinds of RPF abuses occurred so often and in such similar ways that they must have been directed by officers at a high level of responsibility. It is likely that these patterns of abuse were known to and tolerated by the highest levels of command of the RPF forces".

If Gahima does not have the Data of the number of the Tutsis who were killed, does he have the Data for the Hutus? It's because of the objective of the RPF and Kagame to capture the State power, he never cared for the many Tutsis who were slaughtered by the Interahamwe and other EX-FARforces, and RPF was busy killing innocent civilians. Mr. Gahima with his colleagues under the orders of Kagame said that they did not need UN Intervention force to either help or protect the Tutsis who were being slaughtered, On April 30, Gerald Gahima and Claude Dusaidi of the RPF political bureau made a statement which declared:

"The time for U.N. intervention is long past. The genocide is almost completed. Most of the potential victims of the regime have either been killed or have since fled"

This was at the time when the Security Council was discussing sending a larger peacekeeping force to Rwanda with a broader mandate to protect civilians, according to many political analysts, the RPF feared that the force might interfere with its goal of military victory.

Mr. Gerlad Gahima therefore is not only counter arguing, but is defending his collective role and ugly past in the Genocide against the Tutsis and his abuse of power after the genocide in the Rwanda legal system. For Instance he ordered all the Ministry of Justice (MINIJUST) vehicles to be taken to one of the Garages owned by Muhamed near Kinamba, could he tell the Rwandan people and clear on this matter? Again, the fall of BAKAR Bank and the subsequent fleeing of its Managing Director, Mr Valence Kajeguhakwa, was the work of Mr. Gahima Gerald.

Similarly, the storey magnificent building, adjacent to his former office as the prosecutor general, how did he own it? The loans from many Banks were he even assigned his mother an old woman for more than 70 FRW Million, was unearthed by the Rwanda authorities. The abuse of power extended to the judiciary, he once went to the High Court single handedly with cuffs arresting judges, and many flying through windows.

Why can't Mr. Gahima be realistic, if the figures are wrong, and lets us assume that they are wrong why, can't the Rwandan government come up with the real figures? Or with immediate effect create a commission of Inquiry as it had done, on the BBC, or Habyarimana Shooting, or the French Role in the Rwandan Genocide respectively?

Where would the American Professors get the accuracy that Mr. Gahima wants us to believe if they are now blocked to go back to Rwanda and are now Persona no grata in Rwanda? The Dr Alison Des Forges he is referring to, was also made Persona no grata before she died, why? He is telling people to read his book? Is he an authority on genocide of Rwanda, in which he has an interest? As a lawyer, he knows the maxim of not being a judge in your own cause, indeed, that's why we have never had an independent inquiry in the death of two heads of state in the political and legal history of the international community.

Therefore, Mr. Gahima should tell the Rwandans his role in the Genocide against the Tutsis and the reckless massacre of many Hutus, he has a responsibility in all the mess of the Rwanda politics since RPF took power, it is his confession and ability to make himself a new man that many Rwandans want, not his rhetoric that he is a saint and Kagame is the devil.