On Thursday, June 13, 2024—Victoire Ingabire was invited as a guest speaker by the College of Business, Law, and Governance at James Cook University (JCU) in Australia.

Part of their Law Seminar Series, the event titled "Judicial and Political Reform in Rwanda" sought Ingabire’s insights on "potential reforms to ensure fair political expression and participation."

Ingabire was introduced as an "advocate for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Rwanda," Ingabire was presented to an audience of academics and law students as a champion of governance reforms and a promoter of peace through inclusive dialogue. But did the university truly know who they were hosting?

The speaker strides confidently onto the stage online, addressing eager academics and law students with lofty ideals of "judicial reform" and "inclusive dialogue." But hold the applause! Consider Ingabire as a paragon of democracy in the same way Count Dracula is a health advocate for blood donors.

Was this an attempt at a comedy show, or did the university genuinely miss some important information? Yes. If they expected her to educate bright-eyed law students and scholars about "judicial and political reform in Rwanda."

Because, of course, who better to pontificate on democracy, human rights, and peace in the Great Lakes region than a person who has spent her career sugar-coating genocide denial and cozying up to exiled architects of genocide? It’s like hiring a wolf as the keynote speaker at a "Sheep Rights Conference." But, alas, perhaps academia has a soft spot for irony—or simply missed the memo on fact-checking guest speakers.

For many who understand Rwanda's complex history and the reality of genocidal ideologies, this invitation was a shocking endorsement. Far from being a benign political reformer, Victoire Ingabire is widely recognized as a notorious genocide ideologue.

Her public rhetoric and political activism have consistently veiled dangerous narratives that attempt to rehabilitate genocidaires and undermine the monumental progress made in Rwanda since the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi. By providing her a platform, JCU either exhibited a shocking ignorance of her background or was complicit in spreading her noxious ideology under the guise of academic debate.

The real meaning of "inclusive dialogue"

In Ingabire's discourse, "inclusive dialogue" is a carefully chosen euphemism. On its surface, it sounds progressive, suggesting open political participation and reconciliation. However, those familiar with the coded language of genocide denialists know better: it calls for the reintegration of known genocidaires and their affiliates into Rwandan politics.

This agenda dates back to the establishment of the Rassemblement pour le Retour des Réfugiés et la Démocratie au Rwanda/ Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR) in April 1995, a group born from the ashes of genocidal leadership seeking legitimacy abroad. For Ingabire and her ilk, "dialogue" is a Trojan horse designed to destabilize Rwanda's hard-won stability.

In 2010, during her return to Rwanda, Ingabire stood before the Genocide Memorial in Kigali and dismissed the very basis of justice for victims by calling for "recognition of Hutu genocide." Her statement was a transparent effort to create moral equivalency between the victims and perpetrators of the 1994 genocide.

She positioned herself as a political martyr when tried and convicted on charges including terrorism and spreading divisionism. Far from a suppressed dissident, her trial revealed her deep connections to groups like the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR), a militia group founded by former genocidaires.

An "Advocate for Democracy"?

James Cook University promoted Ingabire as an advocate for democracy and human rights. But democracy and human rights are antithetical to genocide denial and the ideology of victim-blaming. For Rwandans, her advocacy is not a call for reform but a reiteration of a toxic narrative rooted in revisionism, hatred, and the disruption of national healing. Granting a stage to such a figure diminishes genuine efforts to build inclusive, just, and democratic institutions in Rwanda.

Would any university invite a senior Nazi ideologue to draw up plans for post-World War II Europe? Ingabire's rhetoric, though cloaked in the language of rights and reform, is the Rwandan equivalent—a blatant effort to rehabilitate the genocidal regime's members and sympathizers. Providing her a platform is akin to hiring a convicted pedophile to lecture on early childhood education and morality. It is an egregious contradiction that should send alarm bells ringing in any serious academic institution.

The Great Lakes region of Africa is still grappling with the consequences of genocide and ethnic related violence. Ingabire’s calls for "inclusive dialogue" are not about fostering peace or genuine democracy; they are about rehabilitating genocidal politics and ensuring impunity for those responsible for mass atrocities.

Her history, associations, and carefully calibrated speeches show an unrepentant pursuit of genocidaires’ reintegration and the perpetuation of divisive narratives. Hosting her as an expert diminishes not only the credibility of academic institutions like JCU but also threatens ongoing efforts toward reconciliation, justice, and progress.

Academic institutions have a responsibility to research, vet, and contextualize the figures they present, particularly when their rhetoric has real-world implications. By ignoring the reality of Ingabire’s politics, the Australian university allowed itself to become a stage for deadly propaganda masquerading as reformist dialogue.

A call for accountability

As Ingabire wrapped up her "reformist" lecture, one wonders if the next speaker in this twisted seminar series would be a fox advising hens on improved security measures. The absurdity of JCU’s invitation is a plain reminder that "advocacy" for some can be a gilded cloak for dangerous revisionism.

If academic institutions are truly committed to fostering informed debate and promoting human rights, they must understand that legitimizing criminals like Victoire Ingabire undermines these very values. The lessons of history are clear: platforms matter. Words carry weight. The denial and rehabilitation of genocidal ideologies have no place in institutions of learning.

Universities need to avoid mistaking wolves for shepherds when it comes to guiding public discourse. Otherwise, what's next? A seminar on integrity, led by the world's most notorious con artists? Perhaps James Cook's next invitation will clarify if this was satire gone rogue or if the university really believes in building castles of reform with bricks of denialism.

Perhaps, the JCU administration might consider their next speaker more carefully to avoid the possibility of inviting a convicted bank robber to offer insights on "Financial Ethics and Security" or enlist a known arsonist to share thoughts on "Fire Safety Protocols." The possibilities are endless.

It is essential for academics, students, and the public to recognize that Ingabire's rhetoric is not about reform but about rehabilitating a destructive past. Universities must do better. Giving her a microphone only risks echoing a dark history many have worked tirelessly to leave behind.

The Rwandan people reconstructed their country from the ruins—undeterred by the global stage often given to those who wish to rewind history’s darkest chapters. For now, we can only hope that next time, "inclusive dialogue" will not include rehabilitating the voices of mass violence—unless, of course, that was the true lesson all along.

Rwanda’s path toward peace, stability and justice was hard-earned and needs support rather than interference. That legacy cannot be trivialized by those who feign advocacy while perpetuating dangerous lies.