For more than a decade, Rwanda’s requests for the United Kingdom to either extradite or try in its own courts, alleged Rwandan war criminals who participated in the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 have fallen on deaf ears.

About fifteen years ago, Rwanda located five key genocide suspects on UK territory. They are Dr Vincent Bajinya, a medical doctor who headed the National Population Office (ONAPO) during the Genocide, former mayors - Célestin Ugirashebuja, Charles Munyaneza, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Célestin Mutabaruka, a pastor.

Bajinya was the coordinator of Interahamwe militia in Kigali where he often organised meetings, in his home, where plans to kill the Tutsi were hatched.  Mutabaruka, presently a Pentecostal preacher in the UK, headed Crête Zaïre-Nil (CZN), a forest management organisation in Musebeya, southern Rwanda, during the Genocide. He, among other accusations, led a gang of killers that murdered people on Muyira Hill, in Bisesero, in May 1994.

Munyaneza, Nteziryayo and Ugirashebuja were Burgomasters, or mayors, in the communes of Kinyamakara, Mudasomwa and Kigoma, respectively - in southern Rwanda - during the Genocide. They all commanded Interahamwe to kill thousands of Tutsi in their respective communes.

Despite Kigali's readiness to support efforts by UK authorities to bring the five to justice, a decision is still pending on the extradition cases. Courts in the UK have many a time ruled against their extradition to Rwanda yet the Genocide Convention of 1948 requires countries to extradite or try cases of this nature.

As Andrew Mitchell, MP for Sutton Coldfield, noted in April 2019, the souls of those murdered in the Genocide cry out for justice but from Britain, justice has at the least been delayed, and at worst denied. At the time, Mitchell also recalled how the Nuremberg trials, military tribunals held by the allied forces under international law and the laws of war after World War II, commenced just seven months after WWII and were concluded within 10 months.

Mitchell told the UK Parliament that while Britain makes no move to try or extradite the mass murderers, the British taxpayer forked out more than three million Pounds in legal costs for the five men who are living on benefits including on housing benefit.

Members of the UK House of Lords on April 22 announced the formation of a group that will push their government to bring the five suspects to justice.

Lord Stuart Polak, a British Member of Parliament told a session in the House of Lords that the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on war crimes, was formed to look into matters relating to the presence of alleged Rwandan war criminals in the UK and the prosecution of those who participated in the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994.

The group will be chaired by Conservative MP, Mitchell, and Labour life peer Lord Mendelsohn, among others. Lord Polak wants the matter of genocide fugitives in his country to be dealt with before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), scheduled to be held in Rwanda this June. Governance and Rule of Law is one of the key topics during the upcoming Commonwealth leaders' meeting.

He and others have appealed to the Houses of Parliament and the UK Government to “lead by example”, in the context of upholding human rights and rule of law - part of the Commonwealth shared values.

“If we talk about good governance and human rights my lords, we should lead by example.” During a virtual discussion with APPG members on April 26, Rwanda's Minister of Justice, Johnston Busingye, said Kigali is humbled that this group was formed to look into the matter.

In the aftermath of the genocide one key thing to do was to ensure justice for the victims by bringing to justice those suspected of involvement, Busingye said.

He added: "Given the UK’s refusal to be a safe haven for Nazi war criminals that culminated in the passing of the war crimes Acts in 1990, and the subsequent action on individual suspects, the government of Rwanda made every effort to secure the extradition of the five fugitives. It was fruitless."In 2015 and 2017 a British District Court and the High Court ruled that there was compelling evidence of the involvement of the five in the genocide.

"But none could be extradited to Rwanda because that would breach their human rights." "The High Court didn’t rule on what could be done.   For the five fugitives the way forward was clear as day; British justice had afforded them a securer safe haven on a blank cheque."

As British justice doubted the quality of Rwanda’s justice, Busingye said, the ICTR and countries including the United States, Canada, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden ruled that Rwanda’s justice met international standards and extradited fugitives to face justice.

"All extraditees have had their cases in Rwanda’s International Crimes Chamber of the High Court.  Most have been monitored by the extraditing or deporting countries."

Having failed with extradition Rwanda, in 2017, requested for in country trials.  A few visits by the UK's Metropolitan Police happened to deal with this request including the last visit in March 2020. Kigali agreed to hand over the investigation files of the five fugitives and did so on January 25, 2019 through the British High Commission in Kigali.

"The way we understand this process, we are waiting for more visits and more requests and our compliance. It seems that the one thing known about this rule of law and accountability process is that we will not be seeing the start of the trials of these men anytime soon."

All we seek is that due process is followed

Rwanda does not seek revenge and will not, the minister noted.  Rwanda does not prejudge the five suspects, he added, explaining that whether they are innocent or guilty will be decided by courts.  "All we seek is that due process is followed and that justice, so far delayed, does not end up denied."

The minister said the UK has projected herself, and has become known, and trusted, as that country where the rule of law and accountability are enshrined principles.

It is known, he added, as that country which resolved long ago that suspected war criminals or genocidal murderers would not be permitted, under whatever pretext, to evade justice and remain free and unperturbed on British territory.  "The matter of the five genocide suspects needs to show us  that this is the UK for real. It's 15 years of attempts to bring the five to justice.  We tried extradition (but) it was refused, we agreed. 

"We requested in country trials, it was accepted.  We were asked to provide support; we needless to say, accepted and did.  That was four years ago. We are still watching and waiting, waiting for the one signal that will show the genocide victims, in their lifetime, that finally there is commitment to bring these fugitives to justice."

Observers point out that UK courts claiming that the five suspects could not be extradited to Rwanda because their human rights would be violated is criminal double standards especially since the crime in question is a crime against humanity.

Doubting Rwanda's justice is also seen as merely discrediting the Rwandan government and its institutions yet the two countries have cooperation agreements in various areas. Many other countries, including the US and the Netherlands have extradited genocide fugitives to Rwanda and people still wonder why the UK cannot. Rwanda also has foreign prisoners serving their sentences in Rwanda, a sign of the confidence in the country's international standards regarding prisoners rights.

Genocide denial, UK’s stance on genocide against the Tutsi

Busingye also raised two related issues; genocide denial and the UK’s stance on the naming of the genocide against the Tutsi. Genocide denial, he said, is fueled by an array of people with a vested interest.  Genocide suspects, he added, are probably the most interested individuals in denial and revision.

The UK’s failure to act on the five fugitives, Busingye said, should also "be seen from this unfortunate angle; that by default it amounts to tacitly enabling genocide denial." The UK’s stance on not naming the genocide against the Tutsi as such, as it is, as it should be is incorrect and should be corrected, he said.

"The genocide against the Tutsi targeted the Tutsi as a group for extermination because they belonged to that group; to miss this point is to miss the point about the genocide.  "It is our hope that the UK will, sooner rather than later, address this matter of moral and legal clarity."

Last May, despite the fact that the United Nations passed a resolution setting April 7 as the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, the US and the UK raised concerns and sent their Positions of Explanations (PoE) to the UN over the words used in the text.

The UK said: “Whilst we did not break silence on the text, we would like to express some reservations on the text. We disagree with the framing of the genocide purely as the ‘1994 Genocide against the Tutsi’”. A letter from the UK chargé d’affaires, Jonathan Allen, objected to the “framing of the genocide purely as the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi”, seemingly hinting at two genocides.

In a related OpEd, Linda Melvern, a British investigative journalist and author of A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide (2000), and Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide (2004), among other books, called the two countries out.

 

Highlighting how the UK is distorting historical facts, she noted how one sentence avoided the word genocide: “The UK remembers the tragic events in April 1994 and is firmly committed to ensuring that such atrocities never happen again.”

 

While both pointed to other victims, she noted, these people were not killed in a genocide. "Only one group was the target of extermination. This was the case when past genocides in history were commemorated."