I did argue in the previous article that the renegade gang of four namely Kayumba, Karegeya and the two brothers albeit of different fathers, Gahima and Rudasingwa, had oversized egos that came as a result of seeing themselves as institutions and not bearing to be considered otherwise.
I did argue in the previous article that the renegade gang of four namely Kayumba, Karegeya and the two brothers albeit of different fathers, Gahima and Rudasingwa, had oversized egos that came as a result of seeing themselves as institutions and not bearing to be considered otherwise.
I did argue in the previous article that the renegade gang of four namely Kayumba, Karegeya and the two brothers albeit of different fathers, Gahima and Rudasingwa, had oversized egos that came as a result of seeing themselves as institutions and not bearing to be considered otherwise.
They overestimate their importance within the Rwandan society and cannot imagine being rejected by the same system that they were part of, or within which they had assumed to be a ‘sub-system’. By simple logic they should have known that they were made who they were by a system, and could only be as important as the system wanted them to be. Nobody else could lay claim to this, least of all the ‘genocidaires’ that they have now associated with, a move that has greatly perplexed Rwandans, and one that has alienated even their own close friends.
That this group is now working with the likes of Mudacumura, the commander of the FDRL forces in the DRC, is an open secret. Karegeya, who recently returned from a European tour to mobilize interahamwe to demonstrate in favour of the UN Mapping Report, is also in the public domain.
The fact that the same group championed the report has baffled many Rwandans who now wonder how much more this gang of four will debase themselves and what objective they hope to achieve.
I have received numerous emails in response to my articles. Most are written by individuals who are at pains to believe the hard truths in the articles, for they are too weird for anyone to believe. However, that is how low this group has stooped. As pointed out in previous articles, people have drawn their own conclusions as to what this gang of four is, and put them where they belong - in a place where previously prominent leaders in society would not wish to end up.
They have now turned against that society for their selfish ends which they will not achieve anyway. Once again, this puts into context the character (or lack of it) of the group.
The case of Rudasingwa:
Some commentators have pointed out that Rudasingwa, like his half brother Gahima, led a life that is characteristic of an unsound upbringing. Many have then pointed out that the weird behavior before, during and after their public lives, are a testament of a background that knows no boundaries, nor limits of moral latitude. Rudasingwa was characterized by a bizarre personality even as a refugee in Uganda that included extreme arrogance, extravagance, corruption, and extreme greed for material things akin to the character of his half-brother Gahima.
A scam codenamed REDCOM that he designed to fleece Rwandan refugees in Uganda of millions of shillings, was to haunt him well into his public life. This scam was ostensibly designed to protect Rwandan refugees in Uganda against Obote’s operatives who at the time hunted down Rwandan collaborators of Museveni and the NRM. It defined Rudasingwa as a ruthless conman, prepared to gain personal benefit from a people that were helpless.
That he could have taken this route at this critical time in the history of Rwandan refugees in Uganda smacked of a lack of decency; hardly expected of a person that was to become a very high-ranking official of our country.
Similar scams were later to be launched as he went in pursuit of higher education. His character was so dubious; the degrees that he later acquired bore evidence of forgery.
This character was to manifest itself in the various positions that he held. During his short stint as Rwandan ambassador to the USA, accounts of gross abuse of office, corruption, extravagance and arrogance were his hallmark. When he was appointed Secretary General of RPF (a position he held for only six months – undoubtedly the shortest period a Party Secretary-General ever served), his abuse of office, high levels of intimidation, corruption and arrogance towards cabinet ministers and party members attracted much outrage that saw him relieved of his position.
His appointment as Director of Cabinet in the President’s Office saw him once again abuse his powers consistently, engaged in corrupt activities that involved colossal sums of money both in tendering and ordinary business at the President’s office. This again put to question his suitability for this important position. He was arraigned before the courts of law for all his crimes, some for which he was acquitted due to his highly manipulative nature. Like most of his fellow renegades, he fled the country after his decayed moral authority had been exposed to the public; a situation that his oversized ego could not endure.
All this puts into context the type of characters the gang of four exhibits, of which Rwandans who lived and worked with them are well aware. That they have allied themselves with ‘genocidaires’ and espoused the latter’s cause, a cause which by their own admission they fought against - serves to define their substance (or lack of it). Nevertheless, as was argued by Willis Shalita; a man without a moral campus is bound to end up anywhere.
Association with the UN Report
As pointed out in earlier articles, these renegades are now in cohorts with the FDRL in supporting the UN Mapping report. Karegeya, in particular, has played the ethnic card by mobilizing Hutus in Europe to hold demonstrations in favour of this flawed report, a report that by the very admission of its authors was based on "low standards of evidence” whereby "reasonable suspicion” was accepted as standard proof.
This negates all standards and norms of quality reports. The principles of international reporting or even substantive reporting for that matter require that, "if evidence adduced is not material leave alone fundamental enough to enable the authors to form an opinion on the subject matter of whatever nature, authors should refrain from making any conclusion based on the same subjective evidence”.
In an interview by Colette Braekman, Aldo Ajello, at one time the UN’s Secretary General’s Special representative to Central Africa, and later a special envoy of the European Union, argues "I knew that massacres had taken place but I never thought for a second that those massacres could be referred to as genocide.
That the report was changed into an academic discussion on genocide, without taking into consideration what really happened in Rwanda in 1994. Using the term is a colossal mistake and unfairness, which amounts to supporting the double genocide theory … Defining those massacres as acts of genocide amounts to removing credibility from the entire report. … the report is an act of hostility against Rwanda…”
Similarly, one should consider the credibility of witnesses interviewed, who are most certainly remnants of the interahamwe in the DRC, and their sympathetic NGO staff. The fact that refugees repatriated from the DRC were not involved in evidence gathering by the authors of the reports questions their flawed methodologies even further.
Nonetheless, many Rwandans wonder what could be driving the gang of four to mobilise such a report, for although it is highly flawed and thus inconclusive, one would expect it to ‘vindicate’ these very renegades, given their actions.
Is it not strange and outrageous that they could take such a route? Would anybody dare drink from their cup given their extremely compromised conscience that has driven them to side with perpetrators of acts that are not only treasonable, but have also left indelible marks on the conscience of Rwandans of all walks of life?