Rwanda's President Paul Kagame on the campaign trail in 2010. Photo/FILE AFP
By JOINT REPORT The EastAfrican
Posted Saturday, June 22 2013 at 13:02
In Summary
According to the president, the choice of the country's leader lies with Rwandans.
Analysts say the president is duty bound to tell the citizens calling for him to stay beyond 2017 that all is well, and that he has laid a strong foundation for stability.
Could he have planned to stay? Observers say it is difficult to tell if the president harboured ambitions to amend the Constitution or if he has been forced by circumstances from within or without the country.
The president made this clear when, in response to a journalist's question, he said: "On the debate on whether I will retire in 2017, and you asking me now, the answer is yes, because that is the law currently".
"You obey a Constitution that is in place. But the Constitution... has a life… you respect it because it is in operation, meaning it could be a different law that you will need to respect come 2017."
According to the president, the choice of the country's leader lies with Rwandans.
"But… if you claim that the choice the people is a wrong one, then what do you want to see my people do to qualify their leader as being legitimate?" he questioned.
In the past few months President Kagame has been greeted at public events with pleas from citizens urging him to stay on beyond 2017.
But a scholar in Kigali notes that if the president benefits from any changes in the Constitution it will be seen as his own making.
"If, for example, people were to clamour for a change in the constitutional dispensation after his departure that allows him to return, that would be seen as a genuine political change. But any move now to change the Constitution that makes him an immediate beneficiary would be tantamount to opportunism," said the scholar.
Analysts say the president is duty bound to tell the citizens calling for him to stay beyond 2017 that all is well, and that he has laid a strong foundation for stability.
"Otherwise, if he agrees to stay, he will be sending out a message that he has not succeeded in making people feel secure," said a university lecturer.
Could he have planned to stay? Observers say it is difficult to tell if the president harboured ambitions to amend the Constitution or if he has been forced by circumstances from within or without the country.
Some scholars say the president may not have had a position on the matter, but was first weighing the situation before making a decision.
"I have a feeling we are about to lose an opportunity to change the course of our history. What we have achieved thus far is going to be seen only in opportunistic terms," a senior scholar of politics said.
The president's former principal private secretary, Dr David Himbarato, weighed in with his views.
"Paul Kagame's continued leadership in Rwanda beyond what the Constitution allows will be a real nightmare for the country for years to come. If he changes the Constitution to run again, it will not be for one extra term but life-presidency. Yet he has already run the country indirectly and directly for over 24 years since 1994."
Prof Elijah Mushemeza of Makerere University, who follows RPF politics closely said: "The transition is much bigger than the individual. But if it is looking at replacing him as an individual then that is not a transition. It should look at the generation — transiting to younger generation that still promotes the ideals of the RPF."
However, observers say that, with many of founders of RPF languishing in isolation and exile after espousing a different political narrative, President Kagame remains the only member of the old guard actively involved with politics in Rwanda.
During the RPF national executive committee meeting on February 8, President Kagame tasked RPF members to come up with a formula that would deliver "change, continuity and stability."
"I don't see any contradiction between what these people [ordinary citizens] are saying and the principles I have stated. Actually what they say falls within these three principles… it's about continuing with progress, it's about stability and maybe even if not so much, change,"
When he raised the principles of "change, stability and continuity,"
President Kagame says, "I was steering the debate away from the individual, the person to the real substance because we are talking about a country, a nation…"
There is a growing belief though that President Kagame is taking the route of his Ugandan counterpart President Yoweri Museveni. When Museveni came to power in 1986, he criticised African dictators who overstayed their welcome and attributed the continent's poverty and misrule to dictators clinging to power.
President Museveni was among African leaders who were branded the "new breed" by the West in early and mid-1990s because of their reforms of governance and the economy. They included the late Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Kagame himself.
Fast forward to 2003, when President Museveni's constitutional term approached an end, he was torn between leaving behind the legacy of a strongman or a statesman.
At the end of the day, he opted for the former and changed the Ugandan Constitution to remove presidential term limits.
Comments
Support Our Work Now !
Africa Realities Media is independent. Your support helps us expose injustice, challenge silence and produce evidence-based analysis on Africa and the Great Lakes Region.
Many abuses facing African people are committed by African states, ruling elites, armed groups, military forces and security services. But these abuses are often sustained by international silence, Western lobbying, trade interests, migration deals, mineral access, diplomatic partnerships and unequal global accountability.
Africa Realities Media exposes that system.
Lived Experience Matters
Survivors, displaced communities, refugees, families affected by repression, journalists, activists, women, young people and diaspora voices are not passive subjects. They are knowledge holders.
Their experiences must shape policy, advocacy, journalism and public debate. The people closest to injustice are often closest to the solutions.
The FDLR Myth: How Rwanda Weaponises a Diminished Threat to Justify Occupation Investigation Exposes Contradictions in Rwanda's Security Narrative For over a decade, Rwanda has justified its military presence in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo by citing threats from the FDLR, a Hutu militia group linked to the 1994 genocide. But an investigation into FDLR's actual capabilities, Rwanda's military operations, and patterns of violence reveals a narrative that does not match reality. The FDLR threat, whilst real, has been systematically exaggerated and manipulated to justify objectives that have nothing to do with the militia group. Introduction The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) occupies a central position in Rwanda's justification for military intervention in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. For more than two decades, Rwandan authorities have portrayed the militia group as an existential threat requiring sustaine...
Kigali wants Washington to punish Congo too. But a ceasefire that leaves the occupier in place is not peace; it is occupation without noise. African lives are not worth less. African deaths are not normal. Western interests must never become a licence to kill African people. Introduction: A Familiar Complaint On 29 June 2026, Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olivier Nduhungirehe, sat before the cameras of France 24 and declared that his country was “disappointed by the increasingly biased US mediation” in the conflict with the Democratic Republic of Congo. He asked why sanctions had targeted only Rwanda. He called the measures unfair, one-sided and counterproductive. Weeks earlier, President Paul Kagame had told Jeune Afrique that sanctions and threats were insults thrown at Rwanda, and accused Washington of exerting heavy pressure on Rwanda while treating the DRC more delicately. The grievance sounds reasonable until you remember where you have heard it before. Since 2022, the Kr...
MASS KILLINGS OF HUTU BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER 1994 IN RWANDA, DRC AND UGANDA INTRODUCTION TO PART 2 Part 1 established the assassination of President Habyarimana, the Bruguière and Spanish investigations, Kagame's responsibility for starting the war, the Kigali massacres, challenges to the "genocide against the Tutsi only" narrative, and the need for UN framework revision. Part 2 documents specific mass killings of Hutu populations that have been systematically erased from history: the Kibeho massacre of 1995, the Byumba Stadium massacre of 1994, the hunting and slaughter of Hutu refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1996 to 1997, killings in Uganda, and the pattern of political assassinations and property seizures. 2. THE KIBEHO MASSACRE (22 APRIL 1995) 2.1 The Camp and Its Population By April 1995, the Kibeho internally displaced persons camp in Gikongoro prefecture southwestern Rwanda held between 80,000 and 100,000...
How Paul Kagame Uses Diplomats' "Bury Your Head in the Sand" Strategy as a Green Light to Continue Rwanda's War in the DRC Africa Realities Media | 17 July 2026 The purpose of this article is to expose a deliberate and systematic strategy: Paul Kagame's years-long practice of creating events — diplomatic dinners, RPF party meetings, genocide commemorations, international business forums and RPF Bureau Politique addresses — to which he invites foreign ambassadors and the world's business and political elite for one purpose: to explain, justify, and defend Rwanda's military invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Everybody who follows this region knows the strategy now. The same narrative. The same arguments. The same defiance. At one event he tells the Trump Administration to go to hell. At the next he says those sanctioning him will leave power and he will remain. At the RPF Bureau Politique of 17 July 2026, he tells ambassadors that the on...
Africa Realities Media speaks to Africa and to the developed world. Many abuses facing African people are committed by African states and ruling elites, but they are often protected by international silence, lobbying, public relations, trade interests, migration deals and unequal global accountability. While governments pay lobbyists to present a good image abroad, ordinary African people continue to face violence, hunger, disease, poverty, repression and exclusion. We challenge the normalisation of African suffering and demand equal truth, equal justice and equal protection.
Our work is designed to trigger debate, discomfort and action. We do not only expose injustice; we work for policy and systems change.
We want governments and institutions to address the root causes of inequality, disadvantage, discrimination, exclusion and barriers affecting African people. We believe lasting change must be shaped by people with lived experience.
Exposing Injustice in Africa
Africa Realities Media is an independent African accountability platform based in London. We report, analyse and challenge the systems that shape African suffering, silence African victims and protect abusive power.
We are not here to repeat diplomatic language. We are here to ask the questions that are often avoided: why are African deaths treated as normal? Why are African victims given less urgency? Why are governments that imprison, exclude, displace or kill their own people protected when they serve powerful international interests?
Africa Realities Media gives space to writers, researchers, experts, activists, community voices, campaigners, analysts and people with lived experience who want to contribute thoughtful, responsible and courageous content about the changes needed in the region, as well as the political, economic, cultural and social African realities that are often ignored, minimised or misrepresented.
Our articles and videos aim to encourage debate, raise awareness, stimulate critical thinking and support reflection. We seek to help people in the Great Lakes Region understand their rights to human rights, development and wellbeing, while also encouraging decision-makers to be more transparent, responsive and accountable.
Comments
Post a Comment