16 Jul 24 | News and features, Rwanda
Rwanda’s Paul Kagame has won 99.15% of the vote in this week’s presidential poll, a margin of victory so high that even Belarusian dictator Aliaksandr Lukashenka has baulked at claiming such a high figure in his own rigged elections.
Rather than being a vote of confidence, the main reason for Kagame’s overwhelming “victory” was the lack of opposition.
Last month, Rwanda’s opposition leader, Diana Rwigara said that after all the time, work and effort she had put in, she was very disappointed she had been barred from contesting the country’s 15 July presidential election.
Rwigara also failed to run in the 2017 presidential poll as she was charged with inciting insurrection, an accusation levelled years earlier against her late father Assinapol Rwigara, before he died in a suspicious car accident which his family says was an assassination.
“@PaulKagame why won’t you let me run? This is the second time you cheat me out of my right to campaign,” Rwigara posted on social media platform X formerly known as Twitter.
Following Rwanda’s elections on Monday, Kagame’s only opposition were two little known candidates. Rwigara and five others including two of his major challengers, Victoire Ingabire and Bernard Ntaganda, had been barred from the ballot.
Rwanda’s National Electoral Commission said the incumbent got 99.15% of the vote.
Kagame, who was key to a scheme to process asylum seekers arriving in the UK “illegally” – an initiative now scrapped by the new Labour government – has been in power since the end of the country’s genocide in 1994.
Countless critics have been jailed or killed since then. One of them, Hotel Rwanda hero Paul Rusesabagina, known for sheltering hundreds of people during the genocide was jailed for supporting terrorism in 2021 after being arrested while he was travelling internationally. His sentence was later commuted, and he was allowed back to the USA.
In an interview with Index, Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of Vanguard Africa, a non-profit group that works with activists to support free and fair elections, said the election outcome does not reflect the will of the people.
“In Rwanda, there is freedom of expression. But that freedom is limited to expressing support for Paul Kagame and his ruling party — whether coerced or otherwise,” he said.
“These latest so-called ‘election’ results — a sort of performative art perfected by Kigali — clearly establish the Kagame dictatorship as among the most effective and effectively brutal police states of the 21st century.”
It’s a view shared by Ingabire, one of the opposition leaders who was barred from both the 2017 and 2024 elections. Ingabire published an opinion article in May in which she said Rwanda’s election will entrench the persistent suppression of opposition voices.
In January 2010, after 16 years in exile, Ingabire returned to Rwanda with the intention to register her political party and run for president but was arrested and jailed for 15 years. Kagame later pardoned her after international pressure but she has been prevented from leaving the country. There is an international campaign: #CallKagameforVictoire for heads of government around the world to ask Kagame to end Ingabire’s persecution.
“My trial, marred by irregularities and a lack of minimum fair trial standards, ended with a harsh sentence for crimes including ‘genocide ideology’, a controversial offence that has been used to silence dissent,” Ingabire wrote in her opinion article.
Ingabire said the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights later ruled in 2017 that her rights to freedom of opinion and expression had been violated, a verdict she says which highlights the broader issues of legal restrictions on speech and the challenges faced by political opposition in Rwanda.
Ingabire said many international observers see Rwanda as an exemplary country as it adeptly orchestrates communication campaigns and disseminates compelling narratives globally showcasing its purported capability to address both domestic and international challenges that include counterterrorism.
The country has also deployed Rwandan soldiers in multinational peacekeeping missions.
“This carefully crafted public image is not reflective of reality,” she said.
In Professor Nic Cheeseman’s book How to Rig an Election, he quotes President Aliaksandr Lukashenka of Belarus saying he ordered his 93 percent 2006 election victory to be changed to around 80 percent because more than 90 percent would not be psychologically well received.
The author, who is professor of democracy and international development at the University of Birmingham, told Index in an interview that Kagame’s margin of victory speaks volumes.
“If Lukashenka, the last dictator of Europe, thinks that winning more than 90% in an election is psychologically implausible, it is pretty clear that 99% tells us as much about President Kagame’s desire for absolute control as it does the wishes of the Rwandan people,” said Professor Cheeseman.
According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2024 report, Kagame’s government has suppressed political dissent through pervasive surveillance, intimidation, arbitrary detention, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents.
“The practical space for free private discussion is limited in part by indications that the government monitors personal communications. Social media are heavily monitored, and the law allows for government hacking of telecommunications networks. Rwandan authorities reportedly use informants to infiltrate civil society, further discouraging citizens from voicing dissent. Individuals have been forcibly disappeared, arrested, detained, and assassinated for expressing their views,” said the report.
Apart from autocratic rule at home, last week the head of the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), accused Rwanda of supporting 23 March Movement (M23) rebels that are committing atrocities in the neighbouring country.
In January, Burundi rebels closed its borders with Rwanda after accusing its neighbour of funding rebel attacks.
17 Mar 23 | News and features, Rwanda, Statements, United Kingdom
Home Secretary Suella Braverman will be accompanied by journalists from GB News, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. Photo: UK Home Office
For the second time in twelve months, Index on Censorship has submitted a Council of Europe alert related to the exclusion of media outlets from official UK Government visits.
On 17 March, the UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman MP is due to travel to Rwanda to reaffirm the UK Government’s commitment to its controversial plan to send refugees, asylum seekers and migrants to the African country as part of the UK Government’s pledge to reduce illegal immigration.
During the trip, the Home Secretary is to meet with representatives of the Rwandan Government and visit facilities set up as part of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership, which forms part of the new Illegal Migration Bill, which is currently making its way through UK Parliament. However, as reported by The Independent, she will only be accompanied by representatives from outlets including GB News, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. The BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, Daily Mirror and i newspaper have not been invited.
Martin Bright, Index on Censorship’s Editor at Large said: “We are concerned to hear that journalists from organisations judged to be critical of the government’s immigration policy have not been invited to accompany the Home Secretary on her trip to Rwanda. Democracy depends on an open and transparent relationship between government and the media, where all journalists are able to scrutinise the government. Index on Censorship believes that access to Government ministers, both domestically and as part of international visits, should not be treated as a reward for favourable coverage.”
In May 2022, Index on Censorship submitted an alert to the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists when Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel excluded a number of media outlets from an April 2022 trip where she signed the original deal in Kigali. At the time, the Home Office denied excluding certain journalists in an effort to avoid scrutiny. A Home Office spokesperson told the Press Gazette: “The Home Office fully adheres to the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance when dealing with members of the media”. A spokesperson for The Guardian said: “We are concerned that Home Office officials are deliberately excluding specific journalists from key briefings and engagements”.
All alerts posted to the platform are submitted to the relevant Council of Europe member state for response. While the original alert was published on 9 May 2022, there has been no state reply as of 17 March 2023. According to the Council of Europe’s own analysis, in 2022, the UK had a reply rate of 18%.
At the time of publication, the Home Office has not commented on the exclusion of media outlets ahead of Suella Braverman’s official visit.
24 Jan 23 | Africa, News and features, Rwanda
Rwandan journalist John Williams Ntwali – who many believed was the last remaining independent journalist in the country – died last week. He was apparently killed in a road accident in the country’s capital, Kigali, in the early hours of 18 January 2023. He was 43 years old, and leaves behind a wife and child.
It has been reported that a speeding vehicle crashed into the motorcycle he was riding as a passenger. Police spokesman John Bosco Cabera told Reuters that Ntwali was the sole fatality.
Ntwali, who was a leading investigative journalist and editor of the Rwandan-based news publication The Chronicles, was one of the few journalists who was openly critical of Paul Kagame, who became president of Rwanda in 2000. Several journalists and commentators are currently imprisoned under Kagame’s regime.
Ntwali was regularly threatened as a journalist exposing human rights abuses in Rwanda.
“I’m focused on justice, human rights, and advocacy. I know those three areas are risky here in Rwanda, but I’m committed to [them],” he told Al Jazeera. He also spoke about how death threats were common as part of his work.
There were widespread tributes to Ntwali’s death after it was announced.
The Rwanda Journalists Association said: “We are saddened by the death of journalist John Williams Ntwali this week in a road accident. Our condolences go out to his family, the wider media community and friends and relatives. May God rest in peace.”
MP and president of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Frank Habineza, wrote: “It is with great sadness that we share the tragic news of the death of journalist John Williams, who died in an accident. We are patient with his family. God bless you. Our sincere condolences. May his soul rest in eternal glory.”
As the authorities have yet to produce any reports or evidence from Ntwali’s fatal accident, Lewis Mudge, Central African Director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that he not only dared to report about political repression but that “he joins a long list of people who have challenged the government and died in suspicious circumstances.”
The Human Rights Foundation said that his death is considered suspicious as he was in “the regime’s crosshairs for his journalistic work.”
There have also been calls for an independent enquiry into Ntwali’s death, with Ntwali’s family and friends requesting an independent international investigation. Angela Quintal, Africa programme coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said Ntwali will be mourned and also called for “a transparent, comprehensive, and credible accounting of the circumstances that led to his death.” Index join in these calls for accountability.
Ntwali’s funeral was held in the Gacurabwenge sector of the Kamonyi district, Rwanda, on 22 January 2023.
Rwanda was ranked 136 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders 2022 World Press Freedom Index. According to the organisation, media owners must pledge allegiance to the government, and methods such as espionage, surveillance, arrest and forced disappearance is used in the county to prevent journalists from working freely. It also says that arbitrary arrests and detention of journalists have increased in recent years.
Ntwali’s death comes one year ahead of Rwanda going to the polls. Last summer Kagame said that he planned to run again in 2024, seeking his fourth term in office.
“I would consider running for another 20 years. I have no problem with that. Elections are about people choosing,” he told France 24. In 2017, Kagame reportedly won 99% of the vote, leading to cries of foul-play. Whether Ntwali’s death was suspicious or not, his death leaves a huge hole in Rwanda’s media landscape. Who is now left to speak out against Kagame?
11 May 22 | Media Freedom, News and features, Rwanda, United Kingdom
Index has filed a Council of Europe alert raising concerns about the decision to exclude certain journalists from accompanying UK Home Secretary Priti Patel on an official visit to Rwanda where she announced a proposed new arrangement for sending British migrants to the central African country to have their asylum claims decided.
Journalists from The Guardian, Financial Times and The Mirror were among those excluded by the Home Office on the mid-April press trip, restricting their ability to scrutinise a significant development in British foreign policy.
Among those excluded was Rajeev Syal, the Guardian’s home affairs editor, who had previously reported extensively on bullying allegations against Patel. Other home affairs specialists did accompany Patel on the trip. The Guardian said: “We are concerned that Home Office officials are deliberately excluding specific journalists from key briefings and engagements.”
The Financial Times told Press Gazette: “On this occasion our journalists were excluded from the press trip and received minimal briefing. It is clearly not good practice to exclude some media from government meetings simply because they are willing to ask difficult questions.”
Index understands it is not the first time journalists have been blacklisted by the Home Office in this way. Only a select group of reporters was invited on a trip Priti Patel made in November 2021 to Washington DC to discuss terrorism and the global migration crisis with Alejandro Mayorkas, US secretary of homeland security.
The government’s controversial scheme will see migrants who arrive in small boats after crossing the English Channel flown 4,000 miles to Rwanda to have their claims processed; in her speech in Rwanda, Patel said 28,000 migrants crossed the Channel this way in 2021.
Migrants will be encouraged to relocate to the African country. Patel said, “Those who are resettled will be given support, including up to five years of training to help with integration, accommodation, and healthcare, so that they can resettle and thrive.”
Opponents of the scheme have questioned Rwanda’s record on human rights and free expression. Journalists working in Rwanda operate under a strict accreditation system and criticism of President Paul Kagame is off limits.
In March, Human Rights Watch said Rwanda did not match up to international standards of free speech and warned of a wave of arrests of Rwandan journalists and commentators: “Judicial authorities in Rwanda, lacking the independence to stand up and protect free speech in accordance with international law, have unjustly convicted and jailed people based on their protected speech and opinions,” said Lewis Mudge, Central Africa director at Human Rights Watch.
The first legal challenge to the Rwanda scheme was launched last week on behalf of an Iranian asylum seeker. Lawyers argue the proposals breach international law, the UN refugee convention and British data protection legislation.
In her speech in Rwanda, Patel said, “This agreement fully complies with all international and national law, and as part of this ground-breaking agreement, the UK is making a substantial investment in the economic development of Rwanda.”
The Home Office has denied targeting certain journalists and says it adheres the UK’s Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance in dealing with the media.
The Council of Europe was founded after World War II to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of rule across the continent. It is committed to upholding the European Convention on Human Rights.
The British government will be asked to provide a formal response to the alert, although it has a poor record in this regard, responding to just 10 per cent of the alerts filed in 2021.
