THE INTERNATIONAL Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) last week held an ‘Open Day’, which sought to help Rwandans keep abreast of the work of the UN-backed tribunal set up to try key masterminds of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. 

On the surface, this was a thoughtful action by Bocar Sy, the tribunal’s head of external relations, and his team in their quest to bridge the information gap between the Tanzania-based court and Rwandans.

What is on the mind of many parties interested in the operations of the court, however, is whether this is not a little too late, especially since, according to the court’s calendar, it is supposed to close shop not later than next year. 

The fact that the tribunal has just a couple of cases left on their tray – which are also on appeal basis – means there is little to tell Rwandans on what is happening at the ad-hoc establishment that has been in place for two decades. 

Open Day would have been more appropriate at the time when the tribunal was busy, otherwise what is left to inform Rwandans is, for example, the dilemma the court finds itself in, to find asylum for the acquitted suspects whom Rwandans have less interest in, in my own opinion.

The others the tribunal is stuck with are those who have completed their sentences. 

I say there is less interest by Rwandans in the fate of these men, simply because, despite the controversies surrounding their acquittal, government has always maintained they can come to Rwanda as other citizens, which they do not want, so I do not see any reason why we should be concerned by their fate. 

That Mr Sy is having a second stint as publicist of the ICTR, he should have done this way before.

At this point in time, the controversies regarding the appeals decisions that saw several former cabinet ministers absolved of their role in the Genocide, despite an open confession by the Prime Minister of the Genocide regime, are all that people have on their mind. 

At the event, the officials dwelt much on the work done on the documentation centre, known here as Umusanzu Mubwiyunge (which also hosted Open Day), but that is for Rwandans to judge if indeed it lived up to expectations. 

It is being said that the centre, ahead of the tribunal’s closure, will be handed to the government and it is expected to become a resource centre for researchers, which is not bad in itself; my concern is, how resourceful is the facility itself?

It’s a no brainer to determine what most Rwandans feel about ICTR, especially in light of the comparison with the community-based Gacaca semi-traditional judicial system closed in 2012 after doing a phenomenal job for 10 years. 

Since the Genocide was committed against Rwandans by Rwandans and on the Rwandan territory, it is surely justified to request that the archives that have been accumulated by the ICTR be brought to Rwanda. 

The work by the court may be wanting but it still will be part of this country’s heritage. 

It defeats logic that the UN has given "temporary custody” of the voluminous paperwork to Tanzania, and, in turn, endorsed a multi-million dollar budget for the construction of a specialised facility where the documents will be preserved. 

Umusanzu mu Bwiyunge without the ICTR achieves in their entirety is yet another travesty on the part of the UN to the people of Rwanda.

If indeed, as some sources have suggested, the reluctance by the UN to transfer the archives to Rwanda may be premised on fears that a lot might be unearthed from the testimonies, mainly by defence witnesses, there is an alternative. 

A fully fledged UN centre on Genocide can be set up in Rwanda and managed by UN staff, since I suspect no such facility exists. 

Either way, the tribunal should not be telling us what they have done during Open Days but rather what they are doing to ensure Rwanda takes custody of the heritage that is the ICTR archives.

The writer is an editor at The New Times