And so, the BBC finds itself in a pickle. Why? Because even when it found itself in a hole, it kept digging thus disregarding the first rule of anyone who would find themselves in such unfortunate circumstances.

If you attended – and paid attention during – the Press Conference in which the results of the Inquiry were officially released to the public, the words of the Committee Chairperson were instructive. One would have taken away the message of the prevalence of institutional arrogance on the part of the BBC not only by allowing a flawed documentary to air on its channels, but also in the way it displayed a contemptuous attitude – after the fact – towards the Commission of Inquiry.

Here are the details. Last October 1 – the choice for this date notwithstanding – the BBC aired a documentary titled "Rwanda’s Untold Story” whose main content were incendiary claims that essentially denied the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi.

Where the documentary was not outright in its denial, it explained away the planning and execution of the genocide as acting in justified self-defence. In essence, the documentary was a catalogue of claims that turned upside down the facts of the genocide against the Tutsi; in it was the trading of places between victims and perpetrators.

What happened after it aired, originally in Britain on BBC2 and elsewhere later, was not surprising. Rwandans inside and outside the country took to the streets to demonstrate against the BBC; scholars, researchers, politicians, media practitioners, and others, wrote a letter of public condemnation remonstrating against the BBC for what they considered unprofessional conduct.

Around the same time, the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA), established a Committee of Inquiry, headed by Mr. Martin Ngoga, the former Prosecutor General of the Republic of Rwanda, to examine complaints it had received from the public alleging that the BBC had made a number of transgressions against Rwandan laws, with particular offenses against laws of genocide denial and revisionism – complaints numbering seven in total.

In preparing for the task, the Committee asked the public to refrain from further demonstrations to allow it to work in a calm, tension-free, environment. This request was, for the most part, respected.

After four months of work, the Committee released its findings. At a press conference last Saturday, Mr. Ngoga told Rwandans that the evidence that the Committee gathered allowed to reach a number of conclusions and to make three recommendations.

Terminate the contract

First, the Committee recommended the termination of the existing contract between the Government of Rwanda and the BBC. Mr. Ngoga explained that the strength of the evidence showed that the BBC had made a number of transgressions, some of which were grave enough to warrant "the present dispensation” untenable. This decision was also based, he elaborated, on the repetitive nature of the transgressions, and on the fact that the subject matter being genocide denial and revisionism meant that the violation was not a simple breach; rather, that it was a "fundamental breach,” a transgression of a "significant” nature.

Initiate criminal and civil suits

The Committee recommended that the "respective organs” of the Government of Rwanda initiate criminal and civil suits against the BBC. On this point, some in the audience wondered how practical such a recommendation was. At issue was about how much power the government of Rwanda would have in bringing to account a gargantuan organisation such as the BBC.

In response, Mr. Ngoga explained the thinking that informed this particular recommendation.

Despite what may appear like practical difficulties, he explained, of "what they are” and "where they are” the Committee chose to stick to the principle that Rwandan laws cannot be trampled upon, and that genocide cannot be denied or minimised, by any individual or entity.

For the Committee, therefore, it is up to the mandated organs of the government to make the determination regarding the practical challenges involved in implementing the recommendation. In other words, he observed, those reading the report should not think that the Committee was being naïve in making such a recommendation.

Perhaps in recognising the tenacity of genocide deniers, the Committee calls for a ‘cohesive communication strategy.’

The BBC keeps digging

Finally, Mr. Ngoga revealed that while the Committee had its understanding of the evidence, the results of the BBC’s findings from its own internal inquiry, in which it chose to double-down that it saw nothing wrong with the documentary, removed any possibility of naivety on the part of the journalists, and perhaps institutional laxity on the part of the BBC in allowing it to air. Instead, the BBC’s findings emphasised institutional solidarity behind a fundamental wrong.

"It removed that benefit of doubt,” Mr. Ngoga said.