Following Rusesabagina’s voluntary and un-expected arrival in Kigali, friends and supporters — and yes, his accomplices — have spent un-due time vilifying the Rwanda government for arresting this avowed terrorist turned hero.
Let’s get one thing clear and out of the way: Rwanda is an independent sovereign state that does not take orders from elsewhere.
Second, Rwanda’s judiciary is independent of the Executive Branch and has received accolades for its performance as evidenced by Canada, the U.S. and other members of the EU extraditing wanted fugitives back to Kigali to face justice.
For the record Rwanda does not have a death penalty, unlike many other countries on the continent and elsewhere. Arguing that Rusesabagina will not receive a fair trial is silly, laughable and simply dismissable.
Some foreign lawyers have complained that they have been denied access to see Rusesabagina or represent him. The Rwanda Bar, and specifically the Kigali Bar have rules and regulations which call for reciprocity. A foreign lawyer cannot simply arrive in Kigali and demand special treatment. Even entering Akagera Park has conditions. This sense of “white privilege” does not work well in Rwanda.
A few American politicians, academicians and Hollywood stars have been singing in concert calling for Rusesabagina’s release — making a mockery of justice and disregarding the serious terrorist activities he is charged with, and has personally and openly, admitted to.
This man — a genocide denier and negationist — is charged along with 25 other alleged terrorists. What makes him special that folks are tripping over themselves calling for his immediate release? Others argue that his medical condition is so poor he should not be in prison. Well, why did he not consider that before he embarked on his alleged Bin Laden-like escapades?
Others are calling for Rusesabagina’s release arguing that because of the on-going pandemic he should be released on mercy grounds and given a chance to see his doctors for his many medical conditions. Baloney. I have had my eye surgery postponed three times since last March due to COVID-19 protocols, and I am not charged with any terrorist crimes.
Rusesabagina’s is an open and shut case, and his defenses would convict him before a jury of priests. Bear with me, and let’s examine them together.
He claims and argues (with a straight face) that he is NOT Rwandan. Well, he was not arrested for being a Belgian citizen, or being a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or because he opposes the government, but for allegedly committing terrorist activities on Rwandan soil which culminated in the death of nine Rwandans. Whether you are from Mars or Belgium and you are on Rwandan soil you do not have immunity to the crimes you have committed. His lead attorney should be charged with advancing such a childish defense, and for letting Rusesabagina argue his own case because every time he speaks in open court he indicts himself.
Rusesasabagina’s defenders argue that because he received a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005 he should be treated with kid gloves. Guess what? In 2002, TV icon Bill Cosby (net worth $400 million) received a similar medal but he was arrested, tried, and convicted for sexual assault and is now behind bars serving a 3 – 10 year sentence, at age 82.
The other comical argument Rusesabagina makes, and his defenders repeat, mostly Americans, is that since he is a Belgian citizen (who never renounced his Rwandan citizenship) he should not have been arrested, later on tried in Rwanda.
America does this all the time. Here is a few examples; Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed from Eritrea was forcefully taken out of Afghanistan, tried and convicted in America.
Zacarias Moussaui, a French citizen and one of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists was captured off American soil and brought State side, tried and is imprisoned in America.
Al-Mossaui, a Lebanese was abducted in Egypt and brought to America where he is serving a long sentence.
All these cases pale compared to Rusesabagina arriving in Rwanda voluntarily, being arrested and tried for terrorist activities he is alleged to have perpetrated or ordered to be committed on Rwandan soil.
American politicians and officials who have the balls to speak on behalf of Rusesabagina really need to shut the hell up. What have they said about over 900,000 or so young black men in American prisons charged with non-violent crimes? (America has 5% of the world population but 25% of the worrld’s prison population.)
What have these do-gooders said about 43 Arab alleged terrorists who are languishing at Guantanamo, Cuba — never charged with any crime or had their day in court?
Rusesabagina will have a fair trial, this much I know. If he is not found guilty he must walk as a free man. If he is convicted, I hope he rots in hell.
Your old Professor Rubadiri must wake-up to read each new blog you pen every time. They are all jewels.
You are the only person whose postings I understand because, unknown to you, you write in Kinyarwanda. In noble English.
Simple logic , judiciary supportable where facts , evidence , witnesses and the law shall decide on one’s case in a court of law including Rusesabagina ! No room for political machinations from mars as you said or else where ! No one is above the law whether he comes from Belgium or America . If anything law is about legality not morality ! In God and the Rwandan justice I trust !
Well said Mr Sharta these people are just arrogant with superiority complex in their heads. Time is coming when they will need just to shutup their mouth.
Well said!
I like this article so much. Good analysis brother. Keep researching
“Voluntary and un-expected arrival in Kigali”, are you kidding me!!!????
You make very good points but conclude subjectively. There is a deep bias that permeates your argument and clouds the facts you have so clearly given. I could have given more credence to your opinion if indeed you had shed some light as to why a wanted criminal could have chosen to return home voluntarily.
You make very good points but conclude. There is a deep bias that permeates your argument and clouds the facts you have so clearly given. I could have given more credence to your opinion if indeed you had shed some light as to why a wanted criminal could have chosen to return home voluntarily.