On July 15, over nine million Rwandans woke up early to exercise their civic rights by voting for presidential and parliamentary candidates of their choice. The majority in foreign media had already predicted incumbent President Paul Kagame as the winner of this election, and so did Rwandans.

ALSO READ: RPF’s liberation of Rwanda in the eyes of wanainchi

What Rwandans don’t agree with though, is when foreign media – especially the agenda driven Westerners – start questioning Kagame’s big margin of victory in a free and fair election.

They fail to believe the kind of political organization and security set up that delivers a violence-free election somewhere in Africa. Many foreigners ask; how can one presidential aspirant be loved by all nationals and members of other political organizations? Some media organizations even cross the line and draw conclusions based on either their shallow understanding of Rwanda’s politics, or their own imaginations and wishes. Accordingly, they write and draw conclusions basing on where Rwanda was yesterday.

ALSO READ: Election observers: Rwanda had peaceful, diligently managed polls

For instance, France24 wrote, and I quote; "...Kagame is expected to secure an easy victory due to severe restrictions on opposition figures...’’ Basically, to them, Kagame’s victory is not due to his overwhelming support, or track record of achievements, but severe restrictions on opposition figures.

READ ALSO: Democracy beyond elections: The ignorance of international media on Rwanda

The BBC started its coverage of Rwanda’s election with an emphasis on how Kagame is seeking a fourth term prompting thoughts that terms in office should be very limited or quickly changed. You want to buy this idea until you realize that these same advisors on global governance have set themselves as ‘Permanent Members’ of the United Nations and this is not subject to debate but rather they dictate how often Rwandans should change their leaders.

ALSO READ: FIFA’s Infantino congratulates Kagame as Amahoro Stadium officially opens

The BBC then cites a UN report to further smear Rwanda and its 66-year-old visionary leader for allegedly sending troops to neighboring DR Congo. Regardless of who compiled this report and with which intentions, President Kagame has actually been consistently asking journalists to first ask themselves why anyone who values human life shouldn’t be supporting M23, a Congolese rebellion fighting against ethnic cleansing in its country. The rebels are fighting for, among others, their persecuted community’s existential rights. At least, Rwanda is DR Congo’s neighbor and any insecurity tends to have spillover effects like hundreds of refugees into its territory.

The BBC doesn’t ask similar questions on the presence of Black Water and some other Eastern Europe mercenaries fighting alongside the Congolese national army, or FARDC, and genocidal forces like FDLR whose raison d’etre is to exterminate ethnic Tutsi wherever they are. The BBC quickly tables 66 years as a factor and doesn’t ask the same question to leaders of some of the world’s superpowers above 80 years of age and old enough to be Kagame’s parents but are still struggling to stay in office despite their glaring incapabilities.

Al Jazeera cites the same UN report accusing Rwanda of aiding M23 rebels before even talking about the election itself but quickly acknowledges that Rwandans are voting in an atmosphere of peace and stability that didn’t exist before. Maybe, with the security situation around the world, Al Jazeera cannot afford to take peace and stability for granted. The little that I know about modern wars is that they are fought with mostly Western supplied weapons, ammunition and technology.

ALSO READ: Rwanda cannot carry DR Congo’s burdens, says Kagame

I urge Al Jazeera to first investigate and tell us who exactly is producing and selling weapons and ammunition to hundreds of armed groups in eastern DR Congo. According to Al Jazeera, gold from DR Congo was smuggled across Rwanda and Uganda (and this is still within an election report) but its journalist does not tell us which companies and which countries bought this gold. Is it, perhaps, because Rwanda is a soft target?

These Western media organizations equally cite biased or agenda-driven Western so-called rights groups such as Human Rights Watch that criticize Kagame for allegedly ‘suffocating the opposition and killing his opponents’ and don’t even bother to provide evidence for the benefit of their readers. These Kagame accusers quickly forget that in their own backyards, citizens and political opponents are shot, on camera, and in broad daylight, regardless of their political status. According to foreign media, it seems Rwanda’s electoral commission should have accepted each and every application regardless of the applicant’s qualifications, experience, or political agenda, in order to satisfy foreign influencers as if in their own countries the president’s office is for every Tom, Dick, and Harry!

To imagine that Rwanda’s highest public office is occupied by use of a primitive trial-and-error methods shows how some foreign journalists look down on us.

The same leadership that provided security, comfortable lodging and free internet to these journalists while they covered Rwanda’s elections is the same leadership that pulled off violence-free elections.

If foreign media kept silent when Rwandan authorities were providing free health care to all Rwandans and still remains silent when Rwandans successfully host one international event after another within world class facilities, they should remain silent forever.

The author is General Counsel at RBA and the author of The House Is Burning.