Rwanda: A Step Backwards

A Step Backwards for Rwanda

Comment on the Parliamentary Recommendation to Ban Six NGOs

9 July 2004

The recommendation from the Parliament of Rwanda that the League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LIPRODHOR) and five other NGOs be dissolved is misconceived. African Rights urges the Government of Rwanda to reject the suggestion and undertake a fuller investigation. We call upon parliamentarians to move beyond the anger expressed in the heat of the debate and consider how the sensitive and difficult issues the discussion raised may best be addressed in the interests of all the citizens of Rwanda. We encourage them to review their recommendations and to explore, in an open and inclusive manner, constructive responses.

Parliament had established an ad hoc committee following the murder of genocide survivors in Gikongoro in late 2003, because the murders and the harassment of people willing to testify at gacaca hearings there appeared to have been well-organised. The committee carried out interviews nationwide and from these emerged a series of accusations against several NGOs and some church groups. The debate about this report led to the recommendation that certain of these groups be dissolved.

Some parliamentarians have expressed their worries that some of the attitudes held by the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide persist at various levels of society. However, the need for further research of specific allegations appears to be understood by them. Another concern of which we are aware is that officials responsible for implementing government policies may be failing to do so in some circumstances and that this is being exploited to increase tension. Equally, the broader context is that changing attitudes requires tackling widespread poverty, shortcomings in the justice system, problems of governance and the profound consequences of the genocide.

African Rights firmly supports the need to promote wider understanding and agreement about the genocide and its consequences in Rwanda. We are committed to the pursuit of justice for genocide victims. We recognise that the murder of genocide survivors, and the intimidation of gacaca witnesses are matters requiring special measures and we commend any attempt to set out the broader context in which the killings of late 2003 occurred. It is regrettable, however, that the work of a parliamentary commission appointed to investigate this issue produced a confrontational response instead of a direct engagement in a search for solutions. We encourage parliamentarians to consistently show leadership and sensitivity in matters concerning the genocide and its aftermath.

Insufficient evidence has been publicly presented to substantiate the accusations that the organisations and groups involved are engaged in ethnic divisionism. Without a substantial and careful investigation, the possibility of a proper debate is undermined. Moreover, although African Rights is not party to all the details of the discussion which followed the commission’s report, public information about its terms and content reflected some apparent misunderstanding about the meaning of a “genocide ideology.” Instead, the principal charge appears to be that the organisations in question are allegedly pursuing anti-government political activity in the guise of education or development work. If true, it may be appropriate for certain programmes to be opened to independent scrutiny. This should not equate to silencing criticism of government—a ban upon six NGOs would certainly be interpreted as such both internationally and by many Rwandese. While it would be naïve to describe civil society as neutral or to perceive it as consistently representing the perspectives and interests of ordinary people, a healthy civil society is an essential requirement of democracy, of Rwanda’s development and of its future as a nation at peace with itself.

Our own findings in research with all communities in Rwanda suggest that there is some reason to be concerned about the persistence of genocide denial and ethnic tension in some communities. This despite the efforts of the government to tackle the problem through gacaca and the work of the National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation. There has been some progress, in particular through the confessions of prisoners. Considerable efforts must, however, continue to be made to combat the decades of misinformation and propaganda which the people of Rwanda have been subject to. Government officials and members of civil society have a particular responsibility to set an example. It is also crucial to recognise that people’s experiences and needs in the present are of primary significance if the aims of unity and reconciliation are to be achieved, and therefore the relevant discourse should not be detached from their daily reality.

It is vital that the government and civil society, including the Churches, work together on matters of civic education. We offer the following recommendations:

To the Government of Rwanda

· Reject the resolution to ban the following organisations: The League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights; the Forum des Organisations Rural (FOR), Abahamya b'izuka, Souvenirs des Parents, SDA-Iriba and 11.11.11, a Belgian-based organisation with a local agency.

· Consider establishing mechanisms for mediation and regulation so that where the practices of a particular organisation give rise to a substantial reason for concern about ethnic discrimination or incitement, they may be handled in a thorough, fair and measured manner. One possible approach would be the establishment of a voluntary monitoring panel including representatives appointed by civil society groups, the Churches and the government, to come up with specific guidelines on these issues and to build trust between these sectors. More broadly, it may be helpful for civil society, the Churches and the government to create a forum where they meet on a regular basis to exchange information and views about the reality on the ground in the country as a basis for confidence-building and for meeting the needs of Rwanda’s people.

· Establish a civic education programme to ensure that people understand the meaning of the term genocide, have access to information about the planning and implementation of the 1994 genocide on a national level, and are in a position to distinguish genocide from abuses related to war. This is likely to require public commitment to address in a more transparent and determined manner any specific allegations of human rights violations by Rwandese Patriotic Army (RPA) forces during the 1990-1994 civil war and by the national army in the years since, particularly in the northwest insurgency in 1997-1998. The alternative is that these allegations may continue to be exploited by political opponents to advance illegitimate claims of a “double genocide.” Ensure that the meaning of the term “genocide ideology” is clearly defined so that it can be studied and taken on board by citizens at all levels of society. Work with willing members of civil society to promote this important endeavour.

· Promote a secure environment in which public debate and discussion can begin to flourish and where people have access to sufficient information from credible sources to be able to evaluate it.

· Intensify efforts to address the poverty which continues to damage the lives of the ordinary people of Rwanda and to make them vulnerable.