The France 24 story that was published earlier this month alleging manipulation of poverty statistics by Rwanda was never really about the accuracy or validity of statistics.

It was a fresh peg on which Rwanda’s detractors could hang stale attacks on the country.

For Rwanda’s detractors, the achievements of the last twenty-one years are an irritatingly frustrating obstacle.

These achievements get in the way of consistent efforts to persuade the world to share the carefully constructed impression of Rwanda as a dire place to live.

The "story” therefore that the country manipulates its statistics about its most notable achievements must have seemed a godsend.

"Story” because as a news story it was so tenuous as to have been too suspect even on the slowest of news days. Yet here it was, brazenly sat underneath a screaming headline of "Rwanda accused of manipulating poverty statistics.”

At best this was a story about a disagreement on methodology rather than manipulation of statistics and the implied intent to deceive. Even the non statisticians among us – most of humanity – are aware that these arguments are quietly going on between governments and independent surveyors on an almost daily basis. They are rarely news.

Let us however be fair to France 24, it might indeed have been a slow news day for them, and on such a day, the possibility that a government which has become synonymous with successfully fighting poverty levels among its people might be "manipulating” figures, is a reasonable area of enquiry.

On the other hand it would have taken all of five minutes of research to come to the conclusion that this was no scoop, but, a damp squib about statisticians trading figures, as is their wont.

Furthermore, this was an argument about a single set of figures, hardly worth such a to-do. In essence, the statistics in question were to measure the living conditions of the poorest Rwandans which inevitably meant looking at their consumption.

The organisation commissioned by the Rwanda government to carry out the survey, Oxford Policy Management (OPM), measured it one way, the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) whose only real crime could be said to have chosen such an unwieldy title, disagreed with OPM’s methodology in one aspect, and as they saw it, duly corrected the statistics, noting what they had done, and why.

For most of us the mere thought of working out who was right, OPM, or the NISR would be as gripping as watching grass grow. Not to say that these are not important statistics, they are after all about people’s livelihoods.

They are however only one set of statistics out of innumerable surveys that have been done on Rwanda.

Anyone seeking the truth about Rwanda’s success in combating poverty would have put any doubt about this particular set of statistics within a context of findings from among others the International Monetary Fund, World Bank.

Instead, enter Filip Reyntjens, Professor of African law and politics at the University of Antwerp, to give him his full title. The Professor we are told is "considered the leading expert on Rwanda today.”

In fact, he was considered the leading expert yesterday as well.

So much so that he was an adviser to the Habyarimana regime, a fact which may explain his other distinction as the leading detractor of the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) today.

He pronounces that Rwanda brazenly changed the methodology. Not content with just changing the methodology, but, doing so brazenly.

And how did the good professor know of this change? We are informed that an "anonymous source involved with the survey” informed him of it on realising that it had taken place.

We are not told why the source goes to the professor, rather than say the media or any international body concerned with upholding the integrity of development statistics.

One conjures up a rather odd scenario where "the leading expert on Rwanda today” is on speed dial of various anonymous sources, or is it just the one, and is immediately informed when Rwanda does anything of which the professor would disapprove.

And So that we are left in no doubt about the perilous nature of criticising Rwanda, we are told that the source "like most sources who criticise Rwanda” this one too "asked to remain anonymous.”

It is claimed that the NSIR was asked for comment, but, apparently none was forthcoming, at least not when France24 wanted it. Except that the NISR did comment.

In fact they did more than comment; they explained that given the changes in what was produced and consumed in the surveyed households, it would have made nonsense of the results not to reflect those changes in the methodology. This clearly cut no ice with the critics.

After all who are Rwandan statisticians to presume to know better than "the leading expert on Rwanda today” brazen indeed.

Suddenly, Britain comes in for criticism, for its failure to rightly castigate Rwanda. This leap seems bizarre until we learn that Britain’s Department for International Development (DfID) had a different view on the change in methodology from our leading expert on Rwanda today.

This from a spokesperson for DfID "We believe the revision of methodology used to estimate poverty levels was justified.”

If DfID, like Rwanda, like the IMF, like the World Bank to name a few insisted on demonstrating such poor judgement as to contradict the opinion of the "leading expert on Rwanda today”, perhaps another "leading expert on Rwanda” (yes, we are apparently fortunate to have more than one), might make them see sense.

Unfortunately this one prefers to remain anonymous.

A leading expert who is apparently too coy to be identified as such is indeed a rare blessing, but, put that aside for a moment, because our shy expert has some new information for us which apparently explains everything, or almost everything.

"To explain why the West-and particularly the UK-remains silent on such blatant manipulation...” Notice the manipulation is now not just brazen it has become brazen and blatant. And how does DfID’s rather emphatic response constitute silence?

Well, anyway, this silence is because, "seven years ago Kagame decided that English would replace French in schools and in government administration...so if the country’s results are good, it shows that aid is working.”

Confused? Rest assured, all will become clear. It cannot be because DfID, or the IMF judges the NISR’s methodology valid. You see there is a conspiracy in which every major multilateral organisation is involved, to make Rwanda appear to be doing better than it actually is.

Thankfully we have leading experts on Rwanda to point this out.

Given that almost the entire world is in on this conspiracy, it is incumbent upon us to outline what according to the leading experts on Rwanda we should believe: firstly, never, ever say, President Kagame, it’s always Kagame.

Always know, and here we must apologise to virtually every institution in Rwanda, every minister, adviser, civil servant etc... But, there is really no such a thing as a Rwandan government. "Kagame” issues directives from some Olympian throne, as in "Kagame decided that English would replace French...”

Rwandans must learn that improvements in their lives are really an illusion. They should feel oppressed, and at least six per cent poorer than they are.

Should they be troubled by the fact that this is contradicted by their day to day living experience, they must remind themselves that their experiences are nothing when measured against the "leading expert on Rwanda today”, plus the other one who must remain anonymous.

For in their wisdom, the leading experts see a parallel Rwanda, one that may not tally with Rwandans’ experiences, but, is nevertheless the one Rwandans must believe, because, well, did we point out that it comes from the leading experts on Rwanda?

The writer is a broadcast journalist based in London