Celestin Mutabaruka, Celestin Ugirashebuja, Charles Munyaneza, Vincent Bajinya, alias Vincent Brown, and Emmanuel Nteziryayo, have been living in the UK despite Rwanda’s demand for Justice.
For the best part of twenty years, Britain has in many important ways been a friend to Rwanda. But time and again, at moments when Rwanda needed the ear of a friend, deafness was feigned from Britain. Few instances reflect this selective deafness than Britain’s apparent disregard for pursuing justice for the victims of the Genocide Against Tutsi, an offhandedness that extends to its view of the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The capture of the city of Goma, by the M23/AFC (Congo River Alliance) rebel movement, as they bring more territory under their control, will bring one sickeningly grotesque spectacle at an end.
It is an image any decent human being would desperately wish they had not seen. A young man, grinning from ear to ear, is surrounded by a baying crowd. He holds a severed head in his hands, an act the crowd applauds.
Elsewhere, another young man, surrounded by a crowd that seems confused, unable to decide whether to be horrified or fascinated, look away or pay closer attention, is burning a man on an impromptu pyre. His expression is defiant, boastful, as though to say, yes, I am breaking a taboo.
These are films circulating on the internet that anyone with a strong enough stomach can see. The victims are Kinyarwanda-Speaking Congolese. The Genocide ideology that gave birth to the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda, was transported to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), or Zaire it was then in 1994, when the genocidal establishment, complete with its army and Interahamwe militia, was conducted into the country by its French backers.
That severed head, those burning bodies, that ideology, now sustained and enforced by the so-called Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) are why the M23/AFC rebel movement fights. It is why Rwanda has its troops on alert on the Rwanda-DRC border, and in the words of President Kagame, why Rwanda “will do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves.”
Like other European powers however, this is the salient reality that the UK stance on the crisis in the DRC studiously ignores. For Rwanda, this is not only a perverse refusal to acknowledge the causes of a crisis that affects the entire region, but equally perversely, it also amplifies President Felix Tshisekedi’s apparent strategy of escaping responsibility for his failures, by pinning the blame for any and all of Congo’s ills on Rwanda.
It is difficult to overstate the depth of feeling evoked by the apparent indifference to the threat posed to Rwanda, by the FDLR and its ideology.
And it is hard for Rwanda, not to see this indifference as the underlying reason the UK risks becoming a safe haven for individuals who stand accused of crimes of genocide, during the 1994 Genocide Against Tutsi.
Following the defeat of the genocidal establishment by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) forces in July 1994, a number of fugitives from Rwanda justice fanned out across the world. Travelling and in many cases, living in various countries, a number of them, who included the leaders of the genocidal establishment, eventually found their way to Western nations, where they expected to live out the rest of their lives, untroubled by Rwanda’s calls to have them answer for their crimes in the courts of law.
Among those who ended up in the UK, the most well known, and who have gone through the courts, are Celestin Mutabaruka, Celestin Ugirashebuja, Charles Munyaneza, Vincent Bajinya, alias Vincent Brown, and Emmanuel Nteziryayo. Mutaburuka now styles himself as “Bishop” after he and his wife founded the Fountain Pentecostal Church, in the village of Willsborough, Ashford, Kent. The Church is part of an even more ambitious project, a company, Belles of Revival (Worldwide) Ministries.
Britain prides itself on the excellence of its judicial tradition, and while there is ample reason to justify such self affirmation, it nonetheless jars with the apparent nonchalance, with which the country has failed to rouse itself to allow justice for the victims and survivors of one of the worst genocides of any generation, the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi, in Rwanda.
It is now more than two decades, since the the five men, all of whom had originally adopted aliases, and living comfortable lives in different parts of the UK, were identified through media reports, as fugitives from allegations of having played direct roles, in the mass murder of over a million women, men, children, including in all too many horrifying cases, children yet to be born, still in their mothers’ wombs.
With media pressure, they were eventually arrested in 2006, and held, pending their extradition to Rwanda, where they would stand trial. The case which was heard in London’s Westminster Magistrates Court, and presided over by District Judge Antony Evans, would begin in September of 2007.
All five men stood accused of the crime of genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; complicity in genocide; crimes against humanity; premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder; formation, membership, leadership and participation in an association of a criminal gang, whose purpose and existence is to do harm to people or their property; inciting, aiding or abetting public disorder; participation in acts of devastation, massacres and looting.
The UK has been a safe haven for the wanted genocidaires.
Among the “expert” witnesses called for the defence, was one Paul Rusesabagina, the self-styled “hero,” in the film Hotel Rwanda, who was flown from Belgium, before his emigration to the United States of America. His testimony however, would be dismissed by the judge as “worthless.”
The judge noted that Rusesabagina’s claims, were “so contrary to all evidence and facts placed before this court as to be worthless…I have spent a great deal of time look at this evidence…the evidence [Rusesabagina’s], the evidence was not that of an independent expert, but rather that of a man with a background strongly aligned to the extremist Hutu faction, and as such cannot be considered as independent and reasoned.”
In serving the cause of the five accused, Rusesabagina was continuing the role he had played in Rwanda, during the genocide. Despite his anointing by Hollywood as a “hero,” he was an enthusiastic factotum for the extremist government.
He would have been well acquainted with the accused, all of whom had occupied privileged positions within Rwanda’s genocidal establishment, three of them as mayors of their districts. In their positioin, it would have been unheard of for them not to have played a significant part in the commission of the Genocide Against the Tutsi.
Judge Evans was happy for the extradition to proceed. His judgement was passed on to the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who signed off on it.
But, as might have been predicted, the defendant’s array of some of Britain’s most distinguished lawyers, immediately launched an appeal. They included Sir Keir Starmer, before his appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions, a position he would occupy, until he entered parliament, rising to become prime minister, today.
Predictably, the lawyers relied on claims from Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), that their clients would not get a fair trial in Rwandan courts. They knew full well that barring the political will to see the case expedited, the appeal processes would almost certainly amount to lengthy, if not indefinite delays.
Further attempts by the prosecution to have the men extradited failed, but the courts seemed in no doubt that they should stand trial for the crimes of which they stood accused. Denying the prosecution’s motion for extradition, judge Emma Arbuthnot, nevertheless made it clear that the men had “a prima facie case to answer.”
Whether or not they are asked to stand trial, remains to be seen. Their lawyers continue to skillfully play for time, banking on that lack of political will to see justice done. It is perfectly valid, for successive UK governments, to point at the independence of the courts, that is undoubtedly true. But it is also disingenuous to pretend that the judiciary does not respond to the political will, a point made by some UK parliamentarians.
In a debate in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British parliament, Dame Margaret Hodge, wondered if there would have been greater impetus to see the cases tried, if the crimes had been committed in a different country other than Rwanda.
Referring to responses believed inadequate from the government, she noted that, “Were we talking about people who were allegedly involved in the Nazi holocaust, there would be a much stronger sense of urgency on the action that needs to be taken…during the extradition proceedings, there has been 10 years in which I assume information has been gathered by the authorities…Complexity and thoroughness do not justify this level of delay…”
It is difficult to see what can justify that level of delay. As long ago as 2017, a press summary of the UK High Court’s judgement, forcefully asserted, “It must be clear that these are charges of the most serious kind.
It is highly desirable that trials in such cases should take place in the country concerned. Anyone against whom there is apparently credible evidence of involvement in genocide should face trial and, subject to the requirements of law any such trials should take place in Rwanda. It is highly undesirable that Britain should become a haven for genocidaires fleeing trial or seeking impunity.”
There is little doubt however, that Britain has become such a haven, nor despite legal technicalities, is there much doubt that Rwanda fully meets the requirements of the law, that would have allowed the accused to be extradited to be tried in the country.
In the time Britain has taken to do very little to nothing, other jurisdictions, from the United States of America, Canada, to Europe, have both tried individuals, who in the words of the High Court, sought impunity in their countries, and extradited some suspects, having satisfied themselves that Rwanda did indeed more than fulfill the requirements of the law, for fair trials.
In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights, ruled that genocide suspect, Sylvere Ahoruguze would get a fair trial in Rwanda, and could be extradited. And in 2012, the United Nations judged that Rwanda’s reform of the justice system, was sufficient for them to send the remaining cases from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), to be tried in Rwanda, after the ICTR was wound up in 2015.
The irony of course, is that Rwanda justice reforms were necessary because the very people now fleeing it justice, had all but destroyed it.
Despite all that however, it is unlikely that the fugitives in Britain will ever touch Rwandan soil again, which leaves Britain under the obligation to try them in UK courts. The longer Britain takes to fulfill that obligation, the less likely it becomes that the accused will ever answer for their alleged role in the crime of genocide. As happened in the case of Felicien Kabuga, who was eventually tracked down after decades on the run, the suspects, all of whom are now in their sixties, could plead senility, if they ever get to court.
And their highly paid lawyers, will almost certainly use the delay to question witnesses’ memory, while some witnesses are likely to have died, by the time any of the five’s cases gets before a judge.
In the meantime, the survivors of the Genocide Against the Tutsi, are forced to watch, as Britain’s indifference rubs salt in their wounds, by allowing the accused to thumb their noses at the very idea of justice.
And the cost is not just to the emotional wellbeing of survivors. So far, the case has cost the British tax payer, more than three million pounds sterling, and rising.
In the DRC too, the main cause of the conflict now raging there, the genocide ideology seeded by the FDLR, into Congolese society and body politic, is ignored by the UK, as the government simply repeats the hapless Felix Tshisekedi’s claims against Rwanda. Wish such friends, does Rwanda need any enemies?
