U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–691PDF 2016

DEVELOPMENTS IN RWANDA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 20, 2015

Serial No. 114–133

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Robert P. Jackson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................ 5

Mr. Steven Feldstein, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State ............................ 12

Mr. David Himbara, coordinator for the USA and Canada, Democracy in 

Rwanda Now (former aide to the President of Rwanda) .................................. 31

Major Robert Higiro, RDF, Retired, coordinator for Belgium, Democracy in 

Rwanda Now ......................................................................................................... 37

Ms. Sarah Margon, Washington director, Human Rights Watch ........................ 44

Mr. Willis Shalita, photojournalist and blogger .................................................... 53

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Robert P. Jackson: Prepared statement ....................................... 8

Mr. Steven Feldstein: Prepared statement ............................................................ 15

Mr. David Himbara: Prepared statement .............................................................. 34

Major Robert Higiro, RDF, Retired: Prepared statement .................................... 40

Ms. Sarah Margon: Prepared statement ................................................................ 47

Mr. Willis Shalita: Prepared statement ................................................................. 55

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 72

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 73

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: Questions 

submitted for the record and responses from: 

The Honorable Robert P. Jackson ...................................................................... 74

Mr. Steven Feldstein ............................................................................................ 75

Major Robert Higiro, RDF, Retired .................................................................... 77

The Honorable Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina: Questions submitted for the record and responses from: 

The Honorable Robert P. Jackson ...................................................................... 78

Mr. Steven Feldstein ............................................................................................ 80

Major Robert Higiro, RDF, Retired .................................................................... 82

(1)

DEVELOPMENTS IN RWANDA 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 

2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and I want to 

apologize for being a bit late. We did have some votes on the floor, 

so I appreciate your indulgence. 

Ladies and gentlemen, in 1994, as we all know, the east African 

nation of Rwanda experienced one of the most horrific genocides in 

modern times. An estimated 800,000 Rwandans, mostly ethnic 

Tutsis and moderates among the ethnic Hutus, were brutally murdered in a state-backed extermination campaign that lasted for 

months. 

Hutu-Tutsi tensions of course date back to colonial times when 

the Belgians created a superior class composed of Tutsis, shutting 

out Hutus from government jobs and higher education despite the 

Hutus comprising about 85 percent of the population. In 1959 and 

in 1960, tensions among the Hutus exploded in a campaign that 

left 20,000 Tutsis dead, and created about 300,000 Tutsi refugees. 

As with this earlier genocide, the international community 

watched largely from the sidelines during the 1994 genocide in 

Rwanda as the death toll rose from April until July of that year 

until the Rwanda Patriotic Front or RPF defeated the Hutu-led 

government military. More than 2 million mostly Hutu refugees 

flooded into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, leading to continuing problems in that country. The RPF-led Rwanda Government has criticized the United Nations for sheltering Hutu participants in the genocide and for allowing them to arm in refugee 

camps. 

Over the years, the RPF has used the guilt of the international 

community as a shield to prevent criticism of its action. U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power referred to Ambassador Susan Rice and 

her colleagues in the Clinton administration in the 1990s as bystanders to genocide. She quotes Dr. Rice in the 2002 book, saying, 

‘‘If we use the word ‘genocide’ and we are seen as doing nothing, 

what will be the effect on the November congressional election?’’ 

she asked. Part of Rice’s team during those years was Gayle Smith, 

2

the current nominee to head the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

As far back as May 1998, I chaired a hearing, and I chaired 

many hearings on the genocide, but this one included testimony 

about the willful U.S. neglect in preventing the Rwandan genocide. 

As recounted in an issue of the New Yorker magazine at the time, 

a high-ranking Rwandan informant had warned the U.N. leadership including Kofi Annan—and we actually had a hearing on the 

famous facts that was sent, and we had the reporter who broke 

that story, at a hearing—and the United States about preparations 

for killing 3 months before they actually began. And we all will recall that the U.N. peacekeepers had actionable information that 

went unacted upon. Furthermore, the United States has been accused not merely of inaction, but also of obstructing preemptive 

multilateral efforts to quell the crisis. Some have alleged that in 

the words of Refugees International president Lionel Rosenblatt, 

who also testified at my hearings and he said, and I quote in pertinent part, ‘‘The ball was not only dropped by the United States, it 

was blocked by the United States.’’

Paul Kagame, now President of Rwanda, was hailed as one of 

‘‘Africa’s new leaders’’ by Dr. Rice and her team during the 1990s 

and there has been no apparent change in their high opinion of 

him since then despite what Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert 

Jackson describes in several public administration statements related to human rights concerns and the ongoing dialogue with the 

Rwandan Government. 

As a matter of fact, Secretary Jackson, that frankly and that you 

very clearly and unambiguously point out that activities that are 

seen by the government as possible threats of national security or 

the political dominance of the governing RPF are often met with 

intolerance and harsh punishments. And you point out again, over 

the past year Rwandans have quietly reported the disappearances 

and suspected deaths of family members at the hands of the Rwandan security services. These reports as you go on to say come from 

a wide cross-section of Rwandan society cutting across geographic, 

socioeconomic, and ethnic lines. 

In the human rights report it is clear, though a little bit ambiguous the way it is written, it says there are fewer reports of disappearances and politically motivated abductions or kidnappings 

than in previous years. But local human rights organizations 

ceased investigating disappearances in 2012 after reporting pressure from the government officials, including threats and allegations of treason. 

President Kagame, I would go on to say, has been considered a 

hero on the international stage and has long been immune, and I 

say this regrettably, to public criticism. However, human rights reports about abuses in Rwanda have grown over the years. And as 

I just quoted, there was much had been said by our Deputy Assistant Secretary and others within the administration. 

In recent years there have been credible reports that the RPF 

government has commissioned assassins to kill dissidents living in 

exile who criticize the government or attempt to form political associations or parties. 

3

Several years ago, our Committee Chairman Ed Royce and I 

were told face to face by Paul Rusesabagina of Hotel Rwanda fame 

that the Rwandan Government had targeted him and was behind 

several attempts on his life in Belgium. I mean people can snicker 

and laugh, but frankly he told us that and he was very worried 

about his own personal safety. 

In early 2014, former Rwanda intelligence chief Patrick Karegeya 

who had been living in exile in South Africa was found murdered 

in his hotel room in Johannesburg. Karegeya was one of two dissidents one of our witnesses today, former Rwandan Major Robert 

Higiro, says he was asked to have killed. He was asked to be the 

assassin. The assassination plot, he revealed, was investigated and 

substantiated in a series of articles in Canada’s Globe and Mail 

newspaper, which interviewed Rwandan exiles in South Africa and 

in Belgium. 

Since 2012, this subcommittee has held a series of hearings on 

the violence perpetuated by various militia in eastern DRC. Perhaps the best known of them, the so-called M23, was supported by 

Rwanda. This Congress has enacted restrictions on some military 

assistance to Rwanda in response to its involvement in militia activity in the DRC and involvement in resource smuggling from that 

country, as uncovered in several U.N. reports. 

These charges of serious human rights and other abuses would 

be troubling in any case, but Rwanda is country that has enjoyed 

significant U.S. and international support. By largely avoiding criticism of Rwandan human rights issues, the Bush and Obama administrations raised assistance to Rwanda from $39 million in 2003 

to $188 million. And some of it is for very laudable goals, like U.N. 

peacekeeping and some of the health initiatives including food security. But again, some of it has been for other issues. 

Rwanda’s economy, due to donor aid, political stability and favorable investor policies, has grown by an average of 8 percent over 

the last decade. Yet donors began reducing or redirecting funds in 

2012 because of Rwanda’s role in supporting M23. The growing reports of human rights abuses also are leading to caution among 

donor nations about directly supporting the Rwandan Government. 

And this hearing is to go into focus on that. 

We have two very distinguished witnesses I will introduce shortly. I would like to yield to our distinguished Ranking Member 

Karen Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for your leadership and 

for holding today’s hearing on Developments in Rwanda, providing 

us the opportunity to discuss the nation’s challenges. 

While Rwanda is geographically a small nation, its condition and 

role in the stability of the Great Lakes region is critical. I would 

also like to thank our distinguished witnesses today, including Ambassador Jackson and Steve Feldstein from the Department of 

State as well as several members of the Rwandan diaspora and the 

international human rights community. I look forward to hearing 

your varied perspectives on both the successes and challenges of 

developments in Rwanda. 

As I often say, Mr. Chair, there are lots of challenges on the continent of Africa and I am always concerned that focusing on those 

challenges while very important it is also important to talk about 

4

where there have been some developments. And part of the irony 

of Rwanda in just two decades since the tragic events of the 1994 

genocide, the economy has been a bright spot on the continent and 

has maintained steady growth every year. According to the World 

Bank, Rwanda is on track to meet most of the MDG goals by the 

end of 2015. And I know reports are that the poverty rate has 

dropped. From a business perspective, Rwanda is often considered 

one of the easiest places to do business in sub-Saharan Africa. 

One of the things that has always been interesting to me is as 

I have received many international delegations and many delegations from Africa is that Rwanda has made incredible strides in 

empowering women to occupy seats in government. In recent years 

the Parliament has grown to include an almost two-thirds majority 

of women as they hold 64 percent of the seats in Parliament. 

But with all of this, the Rwandan Government has also faced accusations from many in the international community of being authoritarian and heavy-handed in its repression, of dissent and political opposition. This repression has included threats to journalists, detainment of political opponents, and even the killing of political dissenters. 

In view of both the spectacular economic and development gains 

in Rwanda and the international community’s concerns over 

human rights and freedom of speech, association, and assembly in 

the country, I hope that today’s discussion will help to illuminate 

the challenges in Rwanda and also perhaps provide a pathway forward for where U.S. foreign policy should go. And I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bass. I would like to now introduce 

our first two very distinguished witnesses beginning with the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Robert Jackson. 

Ambassador Jackson previously served as Ambassador to Cameroon as well as Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge at the U.S. 

Embassies in Morocco and Senegal. 

He also served at U.S. Embassies in Burundi, Zimbabwe, Portugal, and Canada. At the State Department headquarters he has 

worked in the commercial and consular sections and conducted officer training. He has also performed oversight work in the Office for 

the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights after 9/11. Ambassador Jackson has appeared before this subcommittee several times 

and we are always appreciative of his insights and his recommendations. 

Then we will hear from Mr. Steven Feldstein who is the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor and is responsible for its work in Africa on international labor affairs and international religious freedom. Previously Mr. Feldstein served as director of the Office of Policy in 

the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning at USAID and 

served as counsel on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

where he oversaw a portfolio that included oversight of all U.S. foreign assistance agencies, budgets and programs, State Department 

management operations, and international organizations. 

Mr. Ambassador, the floor is yours. 

5

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. JACKSON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bass, 

thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss U.S. efforts to 

support the Rwandan Government and people as they continue rebuilding their political, economic, and social structures following 

the 1994 genocide. In the interest of respecting the subcommittee’s 

time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a longer version of my 

testimony for the record, which you have, and just read a shorter 

version. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection so ordered. 

Ambassador JACKSON. For Rwanda, as for many countries in Africa, our policy is built around four interdependent and mutually 

reinforcing objectives—one, to strengthen democratic institutions; 

two, to spur economic growth, trade, and investment; three, to advance peace and security; and four, to promote opportunity and development. Rwanda has made enormous strides in spurring economic growth and promoting development while we continue to encourage further progress in ensuring that Rwanda plays a constructive role in the region and respects human rights and democratic principles. 

Let me first talk about Rwanda’s economic and development successes. Rwanda has become a model of inclusive economic growth 

and a world leader in leveraging development assistance into socioeconomic gains for the vast majority of its people. The United 

States and Rwanda share the belief that trade, investment, technological development, and market forces are keys to Rwanda’s long 

term economic development. The commitment of the United States 

to supporting Rwanda’s economic and social development is strong. 

USAID assistance to Rwanda’s education sector more than doubled 

from Fiscal Year 2012 to present, and many American companies 

and community service organizations have started operations in 

Rwanda in recent years. 

We have been proud to partner with Rwanda in the last decade 

as its economy has grown an average of over 7 percent per year, 

as its infant and child mortality rates have been halved, and as 

HIV and malaria rates have been reduced dramatically with help 

from the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, 

and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), respectively. 

With regard to Rwanda’s contribution to regional peace and security, I would highlight that Rwanda is one of the world’s most active and effective U.N. peacekeepers, the fifth largest contributor of 

troops in the world, despite its small size and population. Its peacekeepers serve in many of the world’s most complicated conflicts including the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Darfur, 

and frequently distinguish themselves by a willingness to take 

strong actions to protect civilians under imminent threat of violence. 

We have recognized Rwanda’s leading role in peacekeeping 

through its designation as a priority partner in President Obama’s 

Africa Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership. At the same 

time, we continue to encourage Rwanda to play a constructive role 

in in the Great Lakes region, and we were pleased when Rwanda 

6

ended its support to the M23 rebellion in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and supported the Nairobi declarations 

that ended that conflict. 

We share Rwanda’s continued concerns over the presence in eastern DRC of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, 

or FDLR, the armed group, and we are encouraging the DRC Government, together with the U.N. peacekeeping operation 

MONUSCO, to carry out effective counterinsurgency efforts against 

this abhorrent armed group. 

In the current crisis in Burundi, we have urged all countries in 

the region, including Rwanda, not to take unilateral actions and to 

work through multilateral frameworks to support a peaceful resolution to the internal conflict stemming from Burundian President 

Nkurunziza’s decision to seek a third term in violation of the 

Arusha Accord. 

Unfortunately, however, Rwanda’s record of building democratic 

institutions and ensuring full respect for human rights is mixed. In 

response to and to protect against further destructive cycles of 

mass violence, the Rwandan Government has developed a strong 

state with an intense commitment to internal safety and security, 

national unity, and socioeconomic development. As a result, on the 

positive side, Rwanda is a country with low corruption and a strong 

record for combating not only corruption but demanding high accountability and performance from its public officials as well as ensuring prosecution for those who break the law. Violent crime rates 

are extremely low and have been dropping consistently over the 

last decade. 

Rwanda is a leader in combating trafficking in persons, having 

put in place a comprehensive nationwide anti-trafficking plan that 

it is aggressively implementing with NGOs and partners. Rwanda 

is also a leader in promoting the rights of disabled persons, and especially for elevating women to positions of leadership in government. 

As Congresswoman Bass noted, 63 percent of its Parliament is 

female, thus Rwanda boasts the highest number of women lawmakers anywhere in the world. And the rights of LGBTI persons 

are respected. 

There is also another side to the security coin, however. Activities that are seen by the government as possible threats to national 

security or the political dominance of the governing Rwanda Patriotic Front, or RPF, are often met with intolerance and harsh punishment. In some of these cases suspected wrongdoers are submitted to the Rwandan judicial system in a transparent manner, 

but in other cases they are not. Over the past year, Rwandans have 

quietly reported the disappearance and suspected deaths of family 

members at the hands of the Rwandan security services. These reports, as you noted Mr. Chairman, come from a wide cross-section 

of Rwandan society cutting across geographical, socioeconomic, and 

ethnic lines. 

In recent years domestic human rights organization have found 

it increasingly difficult to monitor and report on human rights violations and abuses. Among international human rights organizations, only Human Rights Watch maintains a permanent presence 

in Rwanda. Its staff report surveillance and occasional harassment 

7

by government officials and security services. Restrictions on press 

freedoms in Rwanda continue to be a serious concern. Human 

rights concerns are part and parcel of our ongoing dialogue with 

the Rwandan Government, however. 

We are concerned that political competition in Rwanda continues 

to be limited. There are 11 registered political parties, however, ten 

are aligned with the ruling RPF in a government of consensus. 

Only one, the Democratic Green Party, which advocates for policy 

alternatives and has taken a position against the removal of term 

limit positions in the constitution, has no seats in Parliament. We 

believe democracy is strengthened by inclusive political processes 

and active debate between parties and citizens. We continue to encourage the Rwandan Government to ensure protection of political 

freedoms particularly in the lead up to elections. 

The upcoming 2017 Presidential election will be pivotal for 

Rwanda’s future. Our consistent message to President Kagame and 

the Government of Rwanda, as it has been with other leaders in 

Africa facing elections, is that political space should be open to opposition parties that embrace peaceful democratic dialogue and 

transition. This includes ensuring freedom of expression, press freedoms, the ability of citizens to criticize the government and ruling 

party, and the ability of all to campaign freely for the candidates 

and causes they believe in. 

We also believe that neither parties nor individuals should seek 

to change constitutions to extend their terms in office for personal 

or political gain. This is a principle that we uphold throughout the 

world. As we are sadly witnessing in Burundi, there are serious 

negative consequences when one group limits the ability of others 

to participate fully in the political process. In our view, the best 

way to ensure long term stability and prevent violence is by making sure that all peaceful voices are allowed to speak and be heard. 

So while we applaud Rwanda’s great development success, we 

should not ignore the need for strong and transparent democratic 

institutions that will lay the foundation for long term stability and 

economic growth. As Rwandans have shown by building a strong 

and dynamic country over the course of two decades, they have the 

ability to meet difficult challenges beyond all expectations. We will 

continue to work in partnership with Rwanda to help it build the 

prosperous and democratic country that Rwandans seek. I thank 

the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jackson follows:]

8


94691a-1.eps
9


94691a-2.eps
10


94691a-3.eps
11


94691a-4.eps
12

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Feldstein? 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN FELDSTEIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Bass. Thank you for holding this important hearing. I know it has 

been several years since the committee last held a dedicated hearing on Rwanda and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. 

Like Ambassador Jackson, I have a longer version of testimony for 

the record I would like to submit. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Great. Rwanda holds a very personal connection 

for me. Fifteen years ago I first went to Rwanda as a fellow with 

the International Rescue Committee. I spent a year in the country 

supporting its efforts to recover from war and genocide. Living in 

Rwanda had a profound impact on me. It has been a key inspiration for my decision to pursue a career in foreign policy and human 

rights. 

Rwanda’s progress since the 1994 genocide has been remarkable. 

With an annual growth rate that has averaged 7 percent, with 1 

million people removed out of extreme poverty, with having 

achieved close to 100 percent primary school enrollment, and with 

infant mortality down over 60 percent since 1990, the accomplishments have been significant. Several years ago I paid a return visit 

to Kigali and I found a city profoundly changed. Modern office towers have replaced dilapidated buildings, the streets were spotless 

thanks in part to a widely acclaimed ban on plastic bags, new businesses seem to be springing up daily such as coffee ventures supplying top quality beans to U.S. brands like Starbucks and Peet’s. 

But this is only part of the story. Alongside Rwanda’s development progress there have been equally consistent efforts to reduce 

space for independent voices and to diminish the ability of the 

media, opposition groups and civil society to operate. This space 

matters. It is essential not only for democratic progress but for cementing Rwanda’s impressive economic and development gains. 

We see three key trends in Rwanda’s human rights situation. 

First, political space in Rwanda and the overall human rights environment continues to shrink. Second, this trend is reinforcing the 

wrong lessons for Rwanda, particularly that a country can continue 

to experience robust economic growth and foreign investment even 

while repressing its citizens further and reducing democratic space. 

This is not a sustainable path. At some point, if unchecked, human 

rights violations will begin to affect Rwanda’s economic performance, stability, and foreign investment. Third, Rwanda’s human 

rights record is setting a disturbing precedent for the region and 

continent. Other countries are carefully watching Rwanda’s model 

of economic liberalization and political repression. My counterparts 

frequently point to Rwanda and question whether protecting the 

rights of their citizens matters if they can achieve substantial economic development. 

The answer of course is that protecting the rights of all of 

Rwanda’s citizens and residents matters immensely to Rwanda’s 

13

long term stability and prosperity, to its continued positive economic trajectory, and to whether other countries recognize they can 

follow a similar path to greater prosperity. Rwanda can be a model 

for the region, or it can slip backwards over time never truly fulfilling its potential. 

We have articulated our concerns about Rwanda’s human rights 

record for many years directly to Rwanda’s senior leaders, including President Kagame, and we have highlighted Rwanda’s deteriorating situation through the State Department’s annual human 

rights report. The Department’s 2013 report for Rwanda noted that 

the government harassed, arrested and abused political opponents 

and human rights advocates, disregarded the rule of law, and 

placed significant restrictions on freedom of expression, peaceful 

assembly and association, and the press. It also highlighted reports 

that arbitrary or unlawful killings took place both inside and outside Rwanda. 

The credibility of elections provides an important indication of 

the level of space for independent voices and views. Unfortunately, 

Presidential elections in 2010 and parliamentary elections in 2013 

were beset by irregularities both in the pre-electoral period and on 

election day. This includes suppressing and denying registration to 

opposition parties, security officials present at polling booths, multiple voting, and local election officials filling out ballots in the absence of voters. Rwanda’s next Presidential election is in 2017, and 

we are cautiously hopeful that this election will mark an improvement upon previous contests. 

Our concerns about restrictions and fundamental freedoms extend beyond electoral processes. The U.S. has expressed deep concern about the arrest and disappearance of dozens of Rwandan citizens as well as credible reports that individual journalists are 

being threatened and sometimes directly censored. Rwandan journalists routinely self-censor their work and some journalists have 

been detained or threatened for reporting deemed to be critical of 

the government. 

Last year, the Rwandan Government shut down the BBC 

Kinyarwanda broadcast because of a controversial documentary 

about President Kagame and the genocide. We are concerned that 

since establishing the Rwanda Media Commission as an independent body the government has interfered with its work, undermined its role as a sole regulator of media content, and at times 

threatened commissioners. We are also deeply troubled by what appears to be politically motivated murders of prominent Rwandan 

exiles. This includes the December 2013 killing of former Rwandan 

Government official Colonel Patrick Karegeya who was found dead 

in a hotel room in South Africa. Months later, armed men raided 

the south African home of former Rwandan Army Chief of Staff 

Kayumba Nyamwasa who had been previously targeted for assassination attempts. President Kagame’s 2014 statements about consequences for those who betray Rwanda has further heightened 

these concerns. 

Also of deep concern are dozens of corpses, some bound and 

wrapped in sacks, that appeared in Lake Rweru along the border 

between Rwanda and Burundi in 2014. Four of those bodies were 

recovered and buried in Burundi. Fishermen reported that on two 

14

separate nights in September, Rwandan Marines attempted to exhume the bodies, allegedly to return them to Rwanda. In December, Burundi accepted an offer of forensic assistance funded by the 

U.S. and several other donors for an African Union-led investigation into the four recovered bodies. Rwandan officials stated the 

government also supported a joint investigation, but no investigation has been conducted. The U.S. continues to press the African 

Union to move forward with an investigation and accountability for 

those responsible. 

Rwanda is an important ally. It is a respected contributor to 

peacekeeping missions, it has rebuilt itself from genocide, and it 

has achieved impressive development and economic gains. I believe 

there is a bright future ahead for its people, which is why 

Rwanda’s current human rights situation is so personally disappointing to me. Ensuring respect for freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and respect for the rule of law 

are essential for cementing and building from these gains. The 

United States will continue to urge Rwanda to respect the rights 

of all its citizens. Thank you very much and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feldstein follows:]

15


94691b-1.eps
16


94691b-2.eps
17


94691b-3.eps
18


94691b-4.eps
19


94691b-5.eps
20

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony and for 

being so thoroughly candid about your personal as well as professional disappointment when it comes to the human rights situation 

as practiced by the Rwandan Government. 

Let me just ask you. One of our witnesses who will be testifying, 

Robert Higiro, was in the military for a number of years, and he 

was interviewed by General Dan Munyuza, who is the director of 

military intelligence, who said, we have decided to give you this 

job—kill General Kayumba, and the colonel you just mentioned, 

Karegeya, who died of course, and you mentioned that in your testimony as you concluded. 

And I am wondering, in a couple of days a Bishop Romero will 

be beatified by Pope Francis who was killed by all indications by 

a right wing death squad in El Salvador. I remember I had a meeting with President Duarte during the fight when the fight was between the FMLN and between the government, and I for one was 

one of those who believed passionately in strong human rights conditionality, and it was contrary to the Reagan administration. They 

didn’t want it. 

And I asked President Duarte about that, about the conditionality, and frankly in an absolute moment of candor, and refreshing 

candor, he said keep the human rights conditionality. Because 

there were people, I gleaned from that conversation, even within 

his own government that he did not have confidence in or trust for. 

But there is concern that when it comes to Kagame how high up 

does this go? Does it go to his level? And when I interviewed and 

spoke to Robert, who again will be testifying shortly, I asked him 

about that and the answer, and he will tell it in his own words, 

was not a good one in terms of complicity, if not outright direction, 

from the very top when it comes to death squads, which both of you 

in your testimonies have brought great, I think, focus upon. And 

I thank you again for that candor. 

It is great to be providing troops for peacekeeping and it is great 

to have an economic model that seems to be flourishing for some, 

but I think as you pointed out, the human rights record is setting 

a disturbing precedent for the region and the continent. That is 

very much of an indictment. What we all hoped would be a turning 

of the page seems to be turning in the opposite direction, and that 

was again your, Mr. Feldstein, testimony just a moment ago. 

So I wonder if you could tell us, have you tried to interview Mr. 

Higiro? He is here, if not now in the near future. He certainly has 

been very prominent and I think he lives in some concern of a potential death squad coming after him, and I say that with great 

sadness. 

The others that you mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Ambassador, which I thought was excellent, we expressed concern in January of 2014 about the succession of what appeared to be politically 

motivated killings of government critics in exile, then you went 

through a whole long list. I am wondering, when we raise that with 

Paul Kagame what is the response? Is it denial? Is it we are committed to tracking down who committed these extrajudicial killings, 

like in South Africa when they tracked the colonel down. 

What has been the response, and could you provide those responses for the record if you don’t have it with you today? I would 

21

love to who is currently as I said the acting administrator assistant 

I should say. He see them. And how high up does it go? I mean, 

death squads are death squads and when people are killing critics 

we have to be absolutely clear that there is a penalty from our 

point of view to that kind of behavior. Mr. Ambassador? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to 

address your second and third questions. As for Mr. Higiro, the 

State Department has certainly had contact with him. He is well 

known and we will continue contacts with him. As for President 

Kagame——

Mr. SMITH. Before you leave that, did you find him credible? 

Were you able to take any of that information? Was it actionable? 

He has tape recordings that he shared with a Canadian newspaper 

which seems to make a very clear case that they attempted to hire 

him to do an assassination. He turned it down, not just one but 

two, again putting his life at peril. Did you hear those recordings 

yourself? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I have not heard the recordings, Mr. 

Chairman, and——

Mr. SMITH. Anybody at State? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I believe people at State have. Mr. Feldstein may have more information about that. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. I don’t have personal information on this specific 

case. I can say in general we have looked at a number of the different allegations that have been mentioned in testimony today 

and we do find a significant amount of those to be credible, enough 

to warrant further discussion. 

Mr. SMITH. What is the response from Paul Kagame? 

Ambassador JACKSON. So I think President Kagame has been 

very clear in his public and private statements and they have been 

consistent that he is very concerned about people who he sees in 

opposition. He appears to distrust any political dissent and freedom 

of speech and fears another genocide, Mr. Chairman, which does 

not in and of itself justify repression, but it is certainly reflective 

of his mindset. 

Mr. SMITH. But in no way is a suitable excuse——

Ambassador JACKSON. I agree. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. For killing people. Will you interview our 

witness in the next panel? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I will make certain that my colleagues 

renew their contacts with him, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just add, in 

terms of how far high up does it go and what are we looking at 

when it comes to decision making, I think a lot of that is still somewhat opaque, but I think one of the points that we mention is the 

fact that there have been statements attributed to President 

Kagame publicly that does talk about the threat inherent to certain 

actors in terms of what they say and how that affects the country. 

So I think the rhetoric has been dangerous. 

And I think the other thing that we do recognize is that in terms 

of how Rwandan Government and the military is organized it tends 

to be a fairly tightly controlled group that has very close links to 

the very top. And so we can make some assumptions that there is 

22

at least some knowledge of some of the actions that have been documented in the human rights reports and so forth. 

Mr. SMITH. Is there any evidence or is there any suspicion on the 

part of the State Department that it is coming from the top? I 

mean it almost begs credulity that somehow he is not aware of it 

and perhaps not even directing it. 

Ambassador JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a lot of 

credible evidence suggesting that President Kagame is aware of 

that. Whether he is ordering it or not is not entirely clear, but certainly he is aware of it and awareness means he should act upon 

it. 

Mr. SMITH. And he has not. 

Ambassador JACKSON. And to my knowledge he has not. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Royce asked that I ask you a couple of 

questions with regards to VOA in Rwanda. He sent a letter a couple of weeks ago to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, BBG, expressing deep concern over their plan to end VOA local language 

broadcasts in Rwanda. And he asked that I ask you, does the State 

Department believe radio to be a powerful news medium in Rwanda? Does State support the closure of VOA local language broadcasts there? And do you believe the remaining broadcasts in 

English and French will reach a broad audience given the fact that 

a large majority still speak Kinyarwanda? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, the State Department 

strongly supports continuation of the broadcasts in Kinyarwanda 

and Kirundi. We believe that they are very useful, particularly 

with the closure of the British Kinyarwanda service submissions to 

Rwanda, and we hope that we can work with the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors and this committee to ensure the continuation 

of those broadcasts. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would echo those sentiments extremely strongly. I think with the closing of the BBC 

Kinyarwanda Service this is the last international service available 

to a large portion of Rwandans that is broadcasting Kinyarwanda 

that they can access and have information, especially as we lead 

up to some very critical milestones including the 2017 elections. So 

I think it is extremely important to allow that access to information especially given the fact that local sources are more and more 

self-censored if not directly censored. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you. The South African Government has 

taken legal action against alleged assassins. Have any other governments taken a legal approach in response to killings of 

Rwandans abroad? For example, have the Belgians reacted in any 

way? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Not to our knowledge, Mr. Chairman. But 

the South African investigation of the murder in the hotel room 

continues. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you. If again Kagame is at least acquiescing to if not directly complicit in these assassinations and attempted assassinations what would that do to our response to his 

government and to him personally? 

Ambassador JACKSON. We are constantly reviewing our relations 

and possible sanctions against leaders who violate human rights. 

And Mr. Chairman, I want to be on the record saying that in terms 

23

of our cooperation with the Rwandan Armed Forces and security 

services we ensure that they are vetted in compliance with the 

Leahy laws for not having committed gross violations of human 

rights. 

Mr. SMITH. But how does that pan out when the director of intelligence and other high ranking military people appear to be 

complicit in these killings? 

Ambassador JACKSON. The appearance of complicity is the issue, 

Mr. Chairman, and we are continuing to look into it. 

Mr. SMITH. Do we have a task force or a very dedicated group 

of people trying to ferret out the information on this? Because it 

seems to me this cries out, I mean if he is involved with this or 

again acquiescing to it or in any way complicit, I mean these are 

serious crimes. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think in terms of at least 

how the connection between the allegations of gross violations of 

human rights and the assistance that we provide to Armed Forces 

we go through a very stringent vetting process. Every name that 

either potentially will receive some type of assistance or units that 

will receive assistance go through a screening process that is done 

by a team of people both through posts as well in Washington. It 

goes through a database, and so far the names that have been submitted have proven to be clean. I do think that when it does come 

to some of the allegations that are mentioned, I don’t think they 

extend extremely widely into the broader Armed Forces. 

I do think that they tend to be probably more localized in a 

smaller cohort of people, but we do take very seriously every single 

allegation and we are making sure to be very vigilant about ensuring that the assistance that we provide on the security side does 

conform to Leahy requirements. 

Mr. SMITH. Again I hope when all the information is out, if he 

is clean, let us ascertain that. But if he is not and we are unwittingly aiding and abetting him that would be a, and we have done 

that before under administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. 

And what I am suggesting is that there needs to be a very aggressive look to see what his complicity is with regards to these 

extrajudicial killings. And you only have to intimidate so many 

people to get everyone else to toe the line or at least mute, and we 

know that with human rights groups not being there, except for 

perhaps Human Rights Watch, that the reporting becomes less robust because it is that much harder to come by, people are less 

willing to talk. It has a chilling effect, I would think, on the real 

snapshot of what is truly going on in Rwanda. 

I would just ask, Mr. Ambassador, you were somewhat effusive 

when it came to trafficking and their record in combating human 

trafficking. I know they have a national plan. I have seen it. But 

my information suggests that last year they were designated Tier 

2 watch list, and you might recall I wrote that law, the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act. I wrote the watch list provision which we 

put in not as a parking lot, but as a between, on the bubble between an egregious violator as well and those who have a problem 

and they are trying to take some action. 

24

I don’t see much change from last year to this when it comes to 

investigations and actions, when it comes to penalties, people getting jail sentences. You can do a lot to put a superficial gleam on 

with a national plan, but if you don’t get people who are going to 

jail and getting real jail time, breaking up brothels—and as you 

know, the opening statement in the TIP Report couldn’t be more 

condemning that Rwanda and forced labor, sex trafficking and it 

goes on, about some of these people are exported to other countries 

like commodities. 

I just hope that—and I know there is always a battle between 

the TIP office and the bureaus—that when it comes to the designation we will not err on giving Kagame a pass, but we will say exactly what is happening on the ground in real terms not in superficial terms, in terms of having a plan and saying we are doing this 

and doing that when in reality it is not being done. I just would 

urge you, just speak truth to power. What you do in terms of the 

penalty phase which we wrote into the law, that shoe drops later. 

That is largely up to you if not exclusively up to you. 

But getting it right, they are on the Tier 2 watch list now and 

that is like a thread, I should say, an inch away from being an 

egregious violator as a Tier 3 country. Mr. Ambassador. 

Ambassador JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, the tier and the overall 

trafficking report for 2014 are still being finalized so decisions 

about rankings have not yet been made. However, I can tell you, 

absolutely, that there have been prosecutions. There has been a 

real effort at protection. We understand that more than 3,000 children and women have received benefits of services provided by the 

Rwandan Government and centers for women who have been the 

victims of gender based violence and children who have been in 

conflict. I am confident that will be reflected in the report and I 

believe statistics about prosecutions will show the trend. 

I would say that I think what is significant in terms of trafficking in persons is that the Rwandan Government has ceased its 

support for M23 and therefore for M23’s child soldiering, and I feel 

it is important to recognize that. That is a significant change from 

years past. 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t think that should give them an enhanced 

ranking, I mean that was so egregious that they were backing M23 

that it defies that they got away with it for as long as they did. 

And Rwanda as you know does not offer trafficking-specific 

aftercare for survivors and that is a very serious omission, I would 

respectfully submit, on their part. I am hoping that my distinguished friend and colleague Ms. Bass, she wanted to ask some 

questions, will be returning shortly. 

Again just to reiterate in a way, you will interview I hope our 

witness as he comes forward in the next panel. And if you could 

get back to us what Kagame’s reaction to our protests, and I assume demarches. Have we gotten to that point where we demarche 

him on the extrajudicial killings? How have we conveyed our displeasure over these killings, assassinations? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I was in a meeting with 

President Kagame last summer on the margins of the U.S.-Africa 

Leaders Summit. I can assure you that we raised our human rights 

concerns with him forthrightly. 

25

Mr. SMITH. And did we do it with specific names of murdered individuals and for a clear explanation as to what their understanding of it is and whether or not they were complicit in any 

way? I expect a denial on the complicity part, but it is not until 

certain colonels and certain people are being indicted and convicted 

that we can take seriously that they are against extrajudicial 

killings. 

And that is exactly what we argued in the ’80s with the FMLN 

and the Duarte government. Okay, where are the convictions? How 

many people have you grabbed and put behind bars for slaughtering people including Archbishop Romero, and my understanding 

is the killers have never been found on that case. So do you get 

down to that level? 

Ambassador JACKSON. We do not usually get to that level, Mr. 

Chairman. However, the human rights report documents in great 

detail individual cases, and I will defer to my colleague here about 

the release of the next human rights report. But I believe it is imminent. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Yes, we intend to make an announcement in a 

short period about the release of the human rights report. Really, 

at this point it has just been a matter of finding the right moment 

in the Secretary’s schedule to allow that to happen given the importance that we have placed with having him actually deliver this 

year’s report. 

Mr. SMITH. And could you give me your assurance that you will 

interview Mr. Higiro and have your relevant staff if necessary listen to those recordings? Because they are devastating. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Yes, absolutely. I will take that back to my colleagues and we will make sure that they connect with them. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You were probably 

aware, Ambassador Jackson, that a few weeks ago I was involved 

along with Chairman Royce and probably Chairman Smith as well 

in expressing concerns over the VOA. And I was just wanting to 

know if you could comment about that especially if, what you think 

about that whether or not we will be able to keep VOA open and 

on the air in Rwanda. 

Ambassador JACKSON. Congresswoman Bass, as I said to Chairman Smith, I want to assure you that we believe VOA’s broadcast 

in Kinyarwanda and Kirundi provide an enormous service. They 

are the only source of outside information in local languages for 

many of the people who listen to them, and we strongly support 

their continuation. 

Ms. BASS. Well, with that maybe you could talk about kind of 

where we are in our relationship with Rwanda. The thrust of U.S. 

funded programs to increase civil society, what is the dialogue? I 

mean it is often said in these hearings that we send messages to 

the government about one subject or another, but it is not really 

clear what the response back is. And I believe Chairman Smith 

was asking you questions along those lines when unfortunately I 

had to leave. But it is one thing that we send messages, what are 

the messages back? 

26

Ambassador JACKSON. So for Fiscal Year 2015, we have set aside 

$2 million for programs on rule of law and civil society strengthening. 

Ms. BASS. So tell me what that means. Give me an example. 

Ambassador JACKSON. So I don’t know. Let me give an example 

from another country because I don’t have the facts for Rwanda in 

front of me. But for civil society strengthening in Cameroon, where 

I was last posted overseas, we brought in Freedom House to do 

seminars training to help the civil society groups do fundraising. 

And one of the really remarkable results of that was that the civil 

society groups decided to form their own coalitions, because one of 

the struggles that we have had in Cameroon has been that civil society has been so fractional and divided. 

So our goals in these programs are to bring people to together 

to advocate for common causes, and I would envision the same type 

of program in Rwanda. As for rule of law programs, across Africa 

we are working with judiciaries to help them to be stronger, more 

organized, more independent and——

Ms. BASS. Is that accepted in Rwanda? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I would have to get back to you on that. 

And I would like to defer to my colleague on some of DRL’s programming, if I may. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. JACKSON TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE KAREN BASS

In its new Strengthening Participation and Accountability (SPA) program, USAID 

has identified specific themes for which it seeks proposals from local civil society organizations to strengthen systems and processes to ensure rule of law, strengthen 

the role of civil society in development, and empower citizens to exercise their 

rights. Among the identified themes is strengthening the rule of law, where ‘‘rule 

of law’’ means that laws are knowable and understandable by all, apply to all, and 

apply to all equally. μ Through SPA, USAID seeks to strengthen the rule of law in 

Rwanda, by improving the skills of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other legal 

practitioners, and establishing effective oversight mechanisms, so that the justice 

sector institutions are able to perform their functions effectively, particularly as 

they relate to upholding laws protecting women and members of vulnerable populations. Moreover, rule of law may be strengthened and government accountability 

fostered by facilitating lawyers and human rights groups’ engagement in public interest litigation. By strengthening the rule of law, USAID/Rwanda will strengthen 

the institutions and frameworks that make it possible for civil society to engage in 

open debate regarding respect for civil liberties and human rights and participate 

effectively in decision-making.

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. I would also 

have to defer in terms of the specifics of the Rwanda program. But 

we do have a couple different things that we use that are applicable across Africa. These include specific human rights defenders 

programs that when there are dissidents or activists under duress 

we are able to provide needed assistance to help them find a safe 

space. We also have broader civil society strengthening programs. 

That means trainings outside of the country as appropriate to help 

build their capacity and ability to exert leadership at the right moments. 

I think one of the challenges in Rwanda, as I mentioned and as 

we document in the human rights report, is that they have fairly 

restrictive NGO registration laws. They watch very carefully the 

activities of different civil society groups. Any time a group moves 

27

across sort of an invisible line when it comes to political activity 

or human rights activity there tends to be a pretty stern, quiet reaction. And so that has really led to a chilling effect when it comes 

to the ability of civil society to operate in a free and fair manner. 

Now I think there is a broader amount of space available for 

service provision NGOs who do more development and humanitarian assistance work and I think that is something that is a positive. But on this sort of more political human rights front we have 

had a lot of problems in terms of finding groups that we can work 

with who aren’t subject to the type of restrictions I mentioned. 

Ms. BASS. Can you describe some of the service programs that we 

fund in Rwanda? 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. There is a range of those, and I would defer that 

more toward colleagues at USAID in particular. But in my prior 

experience, I know they range from health programs to agriculture 

to other of the sort of standard run of development programs that 

USAID oversees. 

Ms. BASS. So what about our security assistance to Rwanda specifically? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Let me address that, Congresswoman 

Bass. So our security assistance is primarily in terms of peacekeeping training and support for Rwandan peacekeeping. Rwanda 

is involved in eight peacekeeping operations with 5,500 soldiers 

and police involved in those operations. We, you may recall, suspended at the direction of this Congress our international military 

education and training programs in 2012. The plan is to resume 

those this year. So our security assistance has been focused on supporting Rwanda’s deployments in peacekeeping operations. 

Ms. BASS. What are we resuming this year? 

Ambassador JACKSON. International military education and 

training. 

Ms. BASS. What does that mean? 

Ambassador JACKSON. So this is primarily bringing officers and 

enlisted men from Rwanda to the United States for specific training programs. 

Ms. BASS. That is one of the things that is always confusing to 

me about our policy. Because we are going to criticize the government for their human rights record and then we are going to train 

their military. So it is like which one is it? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I respectfully submit that you need to do 

both. And it is important to train the military in order to make 

sure that they do not commit gross violations of human rights and 

that they are effective peacekeepers. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. It is just that it seems like some of the time it 

doesn’t turn out that way, right? So I would like to ask, not to put 

you on the spot here but maybe you could get back to me with 

some of the specific democracy programs. 

Ambassador JACKSON. I will have to get back to you on that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. JACKSON TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE KAREN BASS

Our democracy programs in Rwanda are designed to encourage dialogue among 

political parties, civil society organizations (CSOs), youth, and the media. These programs are: 

28

The Civil Society Support Program (CSSP); a $1.4 million contribution to a multidonor fund designed to strengthen the operations and effectiveness of local organizations operating in Rwanda. The key objectives of this program are to strengthen the 

capacity of independent local civil society organizations (CSOs) to engage with the 

Government of Rwanda (GOR) as more equal and effective partners on public policy, 

and rights and development issues, and to facilitate opportunities for the GOR and 

CSOs to engage on such policies and issues. It also allows us to more easily coordinate assistance to CSOs with other donors.

• The Strengthening Participation and Accountability (SPA) Program: This activity will be up to $7 million, implemented through a call for proposals. Proposals will be requested from Rwandan CSOs, or international NGOs and 

Public International Organizations to implement grants that strengthen systems and processes to ensure rule of law, strengthen the role of civil society 

in development, and empower citizens to exercise their rights.

• Promoting Civic Engagement in Political Processes (PCEPP) Program: This 

activity, an up to $10.7 million investment, will seek to increase civic engagement and policy dialogue in Rwanda’s political and electoral processes. During the upcoming elections, PCEPP will support increased free speech, policy 

debate and civic awareness throughout the electoral cycle. Activities will 

strengthen civil society engagement on public dialogue, policy advocacy and 

oversight; strengthen the media’s professionalism and ability to generate 

issue-based public policy dialogue, provide independent and objective information to citizens, and objectively report on the government’s actions; and enhance civil society provision of civic education that informs and empowers 

citizens.

• LAND Project: 2012–2017, planned investment of $12 million. The primary 

goal is to strengthen the resilience of Rwandan citizens, communities and institutions and their ability to adapt to land-related economic, environmental 

and social changes. The project primarily does this through producing evidence-based research led by Rwandan civil society and research institutions 

on the GOR’s land policies and through communication and advocacy efforts 

to ensure citizens are aware of, and engaged in, land policy issues.

• Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD): 2012–2017, planned 

investment of $15 million. The project supports the Government of Rwanda’s 

efforts to develop a more responsive civil service that meets the public service 

needs of Rwandan citizens. It will also help civil society organizations (CSOs) 

become more capable of contributing to the development of the country 

through training and skill-building efforts. The goal of the project is to improve the overall performance of targeted institutions to support Rwanda’s development goals and long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability.

• Youth for Human Rights: 2014–2017, planned total investment of $350,000: 

Youth for Human Rights (Y4HR) works to build the leadership and advocacy 

skills of young Rwandans (both women and men) to better understand and 

be able to stand up for their own rights and the rights of vulnerable communities.

Ms. BASS. And then I am also interested in to what extent we 

fund Rwandans versus fund U.S. contractors to do work in Rwanda. How much of it goes to NGOs that Rwandans run? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I will have to get back to you on that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. JACKSON TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE KAREN BASS

Of funding provided by the USG for democracy programs in Rwanda in FY 2014, 

$9.3 million of a total of $111.9 m in FY 2014 was provided directly to Rwandan 

NGOs to program.

Ms. BASS. No, no. That is what I was asking. I know that you 

don’t know that now. You made reference, I believe, Ambassador 

Jackson, in your opening remarks to Burundi. And I was wondering if you could expand on that in terms of what is happening 

29

obviously in relation to Rwanda, but I don’t remember exactly what 

you said and I want you to expand on that. 

Ambassador JACKSON. So in Burundi we see protests continuing 

following the coup attempt. The protests have now gone on ever 

since President Nkurunziza’s party nominated him for a third term 

and he was——

Ms. BASS. I am sorry. I don’t think I was clear. I was meaning 

specifically Rwanda’s role. I am familiar with what is going on. 

Ambassador JACKSON. Rwanda’s role in Burundi has been very 

constructive from my point of view. President Kagame has been 

very outspoken about the need for President Nkurunziza to respect 

the Arusha Accord, and Rwanda has been very welcoming to refugees. And President Kagame has participated in the meetings with 

other regional leaders to attempt to persuade President 

Nkurunziza to restart dialogue with the opposition and create an 

environment that will be conducive to free and fair elections. 

Ms. BASS. And by the way, the general that attempted the coup? 

Ambassador JACKSON. General Niyombare’s whereabouts as far 

as I know remain unknown. 

Ms. BASS. Was he one of the ones we trained? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Pardon? 

Ms. BASS. Was he one of the ones we trained? 

Ambassador JACKSON. I would have to get back to you. I am not 

aware. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. JACKSON TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE KAREN BASS

Major General Godefroid Niyombare attended the 2010 African Land Forces Summit in Washington at U.S. expense. Our records do not indicate that we have provided training to Niyombare.

Ms. BASS. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Follow up on my friend’s question. With IMET being 

resumed or in the process of being resumed, again Robert Higiro 

today will testify and will reiterate what he has said before that 

the director of military intelligence, Colonel Dan Munyuza was the 

one who—and he has got this on tape—said, ‘‘We have decided to 

give you this job. You have to go to South Africa and take out General Kayumba and Colonel Karegeya.’’

Now my question is when we are doing training, and as you said 

it is officers as well as others, will this man be left out of that 

training? I mean it seems to me that if this is true he ought to be 

indicted for conspiracy to commit murder. Is that on your radar 

screen? Do you know this man, the colonel? 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is one of 

those cases that precisely falls into the Leahy vetting requirements. So for anyone who would be submitted by the Rwandan 

Government for participation in the IMET program we would extensively go through all the different allegations that are there, different public accusations and so forth, assess the credibility and 

then make a determination about whether this person would be 

barred or not by law. I think with a person like this who is so publicly connected to some of the allegations that we have discussed, 

I would assume that that name wouldn’t come forward anyway. 

30

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you if I could, is Colonel Dan Munyuza, 

do you know of him? He is the director of military intelligence. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. It is a name I am familiar with. I haven’t personally met him. 

Mr. SMITH. What is your take on him? Is this a credible allegation? He is the one on the tape who is saying—and the BBC carried 

this and of course the Canadian newspaper that, we can listen to 

it if you would like—that he was trying to hire Higiro for this assassination. 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. I think the allegations carry a lot of weight. I 

think when it comes to the investigations taking place in South Africa related to this incident we are waiting to see what the judicial 

process does. 

Mr. SMITH. What are we doing regarding this man? I mean does 

our military intelligence, does our State Department interface with 

him as well? I mean if he is an alleged killer, an assassin or at 

least someone who puts people up to it, what is your view of this 

man? 

Mr. FELDSTEIN. From a democracy standpoint I have not have 

any contact with him and I couldn’t answer for other colleagues on 

that. I am not sure. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Jackson. 

Ambassador JACKSON. I have not had any direct contact with 

him, and given the nature of our training programs I would have 

to get back to you to see if there is any contact, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you? 

Ambassador JACKSON. Yes. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE ROBERT P. JACKSON TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

U.S. Embassy Kigali’s Regional Security Office maintains regular contact with 

senior Rwandan National Police leaders in order to ensure the security of the Embassy and American citizens in Rwanda. As the Deputy Inspector of Police—the second most senior position in the Rwandan National Police—the Regional Security Office has infrequent contact with Colonel Dan Munyuza on matters related to embassy security.

Mr. SMITH. It is very important. We will make that a part of the 

record. Okay, Ms. Bass, anything else? 

Ms. BASS. No, thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. We thank you very much, gentlemen. We will have 

some additional questions we will submit for the record. But it is 

concerning, disconcerting to me that the director of military intelligence have allegations pending against him, and you have to get 

back to me on that, back to us as a subcommittee. I wish you would 

have known that. And I wish something would, if it is true and 

maybe it is not credible, but it would appear that when you get a 

phone message and it is recorded we have methods and ways to ascertain whether or not it is an accurate tape recording. So please 

get back. 

I would like to now welcome our second panel—and thank you 

again, gentlemen—beginning with Mr. David Himbara who is an 

educator, political economist, and author currently working as a 

consultant focusing on African economic reform. A Rwandan native, 

Mr. Himbara spent a total of 6 years working for President Paul 

31

Kagame as head of strategy and policy in the office of the President 

and a principal private secretary to the President. Tasked with improving national competitiveness, Mr. Himbara spearheaded efforts 

that ultimately improved Rwanda’s ranking in the World Bank’s 

annual Doing Business Report, from 143rd to 67th out of 183 countries. Prior to his time in Rwanda he was based in South Africa 

working as a private consultant. 

We will then hear from Major Robert Higiro who served as an 

officer in the Rwandan military from 1990 to the year 2010. Major 

Higiro ran several training operations and commanded troops in 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the African Union’s 

peacekeeping force in Sudan among other missions. Last year, the 

Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reported that Major 

Higiro was one of several men hired to assassinate Rwandan dissenters living in exile. Despite living in exile thousands of miles 

from Rwanda, he remains concerned about his own security and believes that he is being hunted. 

We will then hear from Mr. Willis Shalita who is a Rwandan 

American freelance photojournalist who writes about African affairs. In 1999, on the fifth anniversary of the genocide against the 

Tutsi, he wrote an opinion editorial that was recognized by the San 

Francisco Chronicle as the best national opinion editorial of the 

year. He is a retired special investigator from the California State 

Bar. 

We will also hear from Ms. Sarah Margon who is the Washington 

director of Human Rights Watch. Prior to joining Human Rights 

Watch she was an associate director of sustainable security and 

peacebuilding at the Center for American Progress where she researched and wrote on a wide range of issues including human 

rights, foreign aid, good governance, and global conflicts and crises. 

She also served in the Senate as staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs, been a senior policy advisor to Oxfam 

America and worked at the Open Society Institute. She also testified before this subcommittee several times. So welcome back. 

Mr. Himbara? 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID HIMBARA, COORDINATOR FOR 

THE USA AND CANADA, DEMOCRACY IN RWANDA NOW 

(FORMER AIDE TO THE PRESIDENT OF RWANDA) 

Mr. HIMBARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass. First of all, I thank you very, very much indeed for your 

leadership for holding this hearing. Secondly, I also submitted 

my——

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement and any attachments, for all of our witnesses, will be made a part of the 

record. So proceed as you would like. 

Mr. HIMBARA. Let me also thank you very, very much indeed for 

your leadership in trying to save the VOA Kinyarwanda/Kirundi 

service. For God’s sake that is now the only remaining link to the 

outside world for Rwanda. After the closure of the BBC there is 

nothing out there. Let me also take the opportunity to say that in 

fact the chairman of the Independent Media Commission just fled, 

just a week ago. So this space, space is shrinking, shrinking. So 

that VOA, Mr. Chairman, help us. 

32

Now going back now to my presentation. As was mentioned I 

worked for President Kagame twice, in 2000 to 2002. It didn’t work 

out, when I decided to leave back to South Africa where I used to 

live, out in good terms. 2006, he invites me back. We sort ourselves 

out. He says, no, you can come back and lead the economic reforms, 

some of the things you were hearing, which I did up to January 

2010. I fled. 

And one of the issues was actually the same, same celebrations 

of the economic miracle, statistics that are not really credible. I always stood my ground and said, Your Excellency, we are analysts, 

monitors, reviewers. So we can’t cook statistics. I throw some statistic here that people can go out and look for themselves. If you 

see, for example, poverty reduction, one would say, well, 43 percent 

of the population are poor. You go to the World Bank or IMF, if 

you use $1.20 as a definition that is the globally accepted definition, 63 percent live under that. If we use another global accepted 

definition, $2 a day, 83 percent of Rwandans are poor. So people 

are mistaking the clean streets of Kigali as measure of development. 

So anyway that was my conflict. I said no. We develop, but development is not a lie, it is not a prestige, no it is hard knocks of policy making. So I fled, and when I fled to South Africa then that 

is really when my problems began. Chased, chased, chased. Then 

in 2013, 2014, after the death of my colleague Karegeya, same 

town, Johannesburg, I think I thought that was a good sign. I fled 

then from South Africa. So I went back to Canada. The Canadian 

Government itself monitors me and other colleagues because we 

are not safe, but I do say I can sleep a little more peacefully than 

staying in Johannesburg. 

Now the human rights situation, I really don’t have much to add 

beyond what the colleagues earlier on presented, but what I can 

add on though is the angle that most reports fail to capture. They 

fail to capture four things. First of all, if we look at the human 

rights situation, the horrific situation in Rwanda, we have to, we 

divide prior to 2012 as a phase, then after 2012. Then in those two 

periods we look at the targets, who are the targeted types. We look 

at the official stance. We look at the global environment in Rwanda. And then we look at the impact on development. 

So let us look at the target between those two periods. Prior to 

2012, the targets for harassment, imprisonment, or even killings 

like political opponents or media, so individuals like Victoire 

Ingabire, Deo Mushayidi, these are the people wanted to compete 

that are now in jail. We look in terms of killings, we look at people 

like Seth Sendashonga. We look at the opposition leader basically 

beheaded in 2010. So the media types, editors. So really that period 

the targets are clear and predictable. It is either political or media 

types. 

But now when we go now into post-2012 it is no longer, it is no 

longer just that. No. Three months ago, President Kagame’s personal doctor, Dr. Emmanuel Gasakure, shot in a police cell, killed. 

Gustave Makonene, this is the coordinator for Transparency International, strangled. Kagame’s personal driver killed. So whereas in 

the prior period, as I said, it is clear the targets, but now it’s almost random. 

33

Okay, now, number two, the difference between the two periods. 

Prior to 2012, the official stance or the official attitude was deny, 

deny, deny. Post-2012, no, it is celebration. President Kagame himself after Karegeya died said no, we did not kill him but I wish we 

did. Moreover, people like him is only when and how. Of all places, 

that was said in a breakfast prayer. Then 2 months later, again the 

President Kagame say, oh those people who are making noise 

about the human rights, no, no, no. We are not only going to imprison people, we are shooting them. We are going to shoot them 

in broad daylight. All this is in the public domain. So that is difference number two. 

So the difference number three between the prior and post-2012, 

prior 2012 you see the environment was basically, the environment 

kind of the usual dictatorial regime. The usual dictatorial regime 

is where for ordinary folk you just live on and there is no problem. 

The people who are problems are those high up in politics. But you 

see this is no longer the situation. The situation now is actually we 

are not talking about dictatorship, we are talking about now is a 

totalitarian state. Seeking to control. So as we move and drive fear 

into the population. 

So as we move to 2017 with this business of constitution, the villages, the towns, they are being forced to sign up to say we want 

a constitutional amendment. So what you are going to see then in 

Rwanda is not people demonstrating against the third term, but 

rather people demanding that the man stays. It is orders. In Rwanda, the smallest administrative unit in the system is called 

‘‘nyumba kumi.’’ That means ten houses. Every ten houses are 

watched by one individual. And as you move on, the whole state 

machinery, driving fear, is well established. 

Okay. The last difference between the two periods, the impact on 

development. Again you hear how Rwanda is a great success story. 

Prior to 2012 you see underground the government was grabbing 

business, business, business. Not on surface, you wouldn’t know it. 

Even American companies like Chevron, property grabbed, but 

those was kind of underground. But now in this current period, 

there is no apology for grabbing business. A $20 million mall, UTC, 

in the center of Kigali is grabbed and because the owner does not 

live there. It is like saying, so in UK if I said, well, since Bill Gates 

does not live in UK we are grabbing Microsoft. Pure madness. So 

it is that environment then that really, it is anti-developmental. 

So let me now conclude. We thank you again for holding this 

hearing. We thank you for fighting for the VOA. We also encourage 

you that we take this, I saw those hard questions you were posing. 

So I think we need to keep on that, perhaps even think of a congressional resolution that can seriously have an impact on policy 

change toward Rwanda. I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Himbara follows:]

34


94691c-1.eps
35


94691c-2.eps
36


94691c-3.eps
37

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Himbara, thank you so very much for your testimony. I would like to now ask, Mr. Higiro, if you would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR ROBERT HIGIRO, RDF, RETIRED, 

COORDINATOR FOR BELGIUM, DEMOCRACY IN RWANDA NOW 

Mr. HIGIRO. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, members 

of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I think 

my name has been mentioned several times. I am Robert Higiro. 

I was born in Uganda because my parents lived there after being 

forced out of Rwanda in 1959. So I share the same background 

with the President because he was also raised in Uganda as a refugee. 

I was part of the force that seized control of Kigali in 1994 which 

actually led to the falling of the former Hutu regime and brought 

an end to the genocide in Rwanda. I did work for two decades with 

the Rwandan Military and served in different capacities. I had two 

tours as a peacekeeper—one with the African Union, the initial 

launch of the full peacekeeping, and another one with the United 

Nations/African Union Hybrid mission which is still ongoing. 

On returning home, that was 2010, I only learned that I had 

been de-commissioned and out of job. What that means in Rwanda 

is that no single investor or businessman is going to work with you 

because it means you are disfavored from the system. So as my colleague just mentioned it is a controlled business environment. So 

I went to Uganda to pursue business opportunities, but not so long 

I was summoned back to Rwanda and I was questioned about my 

links with the former Army Chief of Staff, General Kayumba 

Nyamwasa, and former National Intelligence and Security chief 

Colonel Patrick Karegeya. These two officers had of course fallen 

out with President Kagame and had fled to South Africa. This happened to me but even to other many officers. 

The most recent example are Colonel Tom Byabagamba who actually protected President Kagame since 1990 until recently in 

2010 or 2012, looking after Kagame, protecting him. He was a deputy sector commander in southern Sudan as a peacekeeper. When 

he got home he was taken straight to prison. Same happened to 

General Frank Rusagara, military attache in the United Kingdom. 

After his services, straight to prison. David Kabuye served for a 

long time, straight to prison, and many, many, many others. 

The military we are talking about today is no longer there. He 

has young boys doing the peacekeeping. But all the top colors that 

actually helped him get into power, they are either in cells, dead, 

running, all over the world. Others are idle in the country which 

is a very dangerous aspect when it comes to national security. 

Well, after my interrogation I was suspicious. I knew that something is wrong that they wanted to use me for that job as usual. 

Having served 20 years I knew exactly why they summoned me, 

and I was met by the military leadership. It was not long my 

former trainees warned me that if I don’t leave the country I would 

be in danger. So I fled to Senegal, thinking that if I go as far as 

possible they will forget all about me. 

But a few months, 2 or 3, somebody was sent by the Director of 

Military Intelligence Dan Munyuza to tell me that they have a job 

for me. He calls me directly and tells me that they have sat down 

38

and decided to give me a job, and the job was to go to South Africa 

and eliminate former Chief of Staff General Kayumba Nyamwasa 

and former National Security and Intelligence chief Colonel Patrick 

Karegeya. 

And there is a question you asked, I should state on the record, 

is Kagame involved and up to where? When Munyuza, Director of 

Military Intelligence, is giving me a mission he is only quoting the 

President. Now I was desperate and I needed time to think about 

it, because I know that whether you do the job or not you are going 

to die anyway. So I called Colonel Patrick, gave him the story, and 

we agreed that I go to South Africa and play by Dan’s motions. 

I went to South Africa. We discussed between me and General 

Nyamwasa and Colonel Patrick, how to go about it. So we agreed 

that I should gather as much evidence as possible by recording 

each and every conversation of the instructions over this assassination plan which could be used like we are using it today. So I recorded these conversations for over 7 months, and eventually I told 

Munyuza of course that I could do the job. And he said he would 

offer up to $1 million for the job. 

We went on and on—modalities, the weapons to be used, what 

he wants me to do, how to do it, etc., etc., and then eventually 

couldn’t send in the money because we were waiting for the money 

to come in which would add on this evidence. But he started saying 

that the boss was saying, he tells me, we should wait, wait until 

you eliminate them first before you are paid. And I knew something is wrong, and then I had to flee South Africa. I went to Uganda, crossed to Nairobi and eventually found myself in Belgium 

where I live today as a dissident like others. 

In Rwanda, like others, I am a wanted man. Abroad I am on the 

hit list. Like him, like anybody else. Well, like you said, or the previous speakers, on the New Year’s Eve of 2014 Kagame achieved 

his wish and that is when Colonel Patrick Karegeya was found 

strangled in a Johannesburg hotel. I should add here that some of 

these individuals involved are known. We know them. South Africa 

is conducting the investigations. We are waiting. But we know 

some of these individuals. General Kayumba Nyamwasa has survived, I think, three assassination attempts in South Africa. The 

first one he was actually shot but he didn’t die. The others, they 

would find him in a different location and it has been three or four 

times. He is still living, we don’t know for how long. 

For me, when this happened, when Patrick died, I decided to find 

a leading newspaper, the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and 

Mail, and shared my story. I gave them access to the tapes. These 

tapes were independently verified and translated. This paper went 

as far as interviewing former military officers and they confirmed, 

indeed, the voice belongs to Munyuza. And not only that but particularly as you are telling them, Department of State we can 

verify this voice, if the government says, no, this is not Dan 

Munyuza then they should give us the official voice of Munyuza 

and we compare with the one I have. If it is not true, then well 

it is not. 

I cannot go again over the list of Rwandans who were assassinated abroad and in the country. You have talked about it. He 

39

has talked about it. We have submitted a copy of that. It is a long 

one. But the reality is tragic. 

I would like to end with a message to my fellow Rwandans, 

Hutus and Tutsis have much to attain for with regard to another. 

Like me, many Tutsis support the establishment of truly independent courts that would follow these crimes committed by President Paul Kagame and his allies. If you allow me I will read you 

this quote from Mandela in 1994. I quote,

‘‘Out of the experience of an extraordinary human disaster that 

lasted too long, must be born a society of which all humanity 

will be proud. The time for the healing of the wounds has 

come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has 

come. The time to build is upon us.’’

I sincerely thank the subcommittee for its time and interest, and 

respectfully ask for help, and the help of the entire U.S. Congress, 

to urge Rwandans to put aside their divisions—regional, political, 

and ethnic—and work peacefully together to end this repressive regime. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Higiro follows:]

40


94691d-1.eps
41


94691d-2.eps
42


94691d-3.eps
43


94691d-4.eps
44

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Higiro, thank you very much for your testimony 

and for your courage, both you and Mr. Himbara coming forward 

as you are knowing that there are risks. And I thank you. Ms. 

Margon? 

STATEMENT OF MS. SARAH MARGON, WASHINGTON 

DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. MARGON. Thank you. I will just give a bit of a shortened 

version. I did want to thank you, Chairman Smith and ranking 

member, for holding this really important hearing—I know it has 

been a longtime interest—and for inviting me to testify. I am glad 

to be part of it and also to even out the gender balance on the 

panel a little bit. So thank you. 

Twenty-one years after the genocide, Rwanda has come a long 

way. By any measure, there has been real concrete improvement 

in terms of economic growth and access to public services. I won’t 

go over the indicators that were mentioned on the last panel, but 

I do think it is worth noting the country is on track to meet the 

Millennium Development Goals as you said, Ms. Bass, for 2015, 

and the Parliament is majority female at nearly 65 percent. 

By the sounds of it, Rwanda is not a country in crisis. It is a 

country where things work. But in reality, it is only some things 

that work. The same government that has helped so many 

Rwandans out of poverty and propelled the country’s economic 

growth has done so while severely restricting the fundamental civil 

and political freedoms of many. 

Indeed, gains are undermined by two persistent trends. One, systematic domestic repression that stifles, sometimes very violently, 

dissent, opposition, and independent thought; and two, repeated 

cross-border meddling and support for abusive armed rebel groups 

in neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the DRC. 

International and regional attention of Rwanda has usually been 

when it has gone cross-border into the DRC, and this has happened 

at least four times since 1996. 

I, today, would like to talk much more about the domestic issues, 

because I think actually it is within this environment that government accountability and transparency need to begin. Because, in 

fact, if there had been a viable civil society and media, perhaps the 

authorities in Kigali might have stopped their meddling operations 

and other adventures abroad. 

Rwanda is a country of double realities. Visitors are impressed 

with the facade, the apparent security. But it is a smokescreen, because many Rwandans live in fear and not just because of the legacy of genocide but because the current government—the only one 

since the end of the genocide in 1994—runs the country with a 

tight grip on power. Indeed, the ruling party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, dominates all aspects of political and public life. 

This is not new. It has been a constant feature since the end of 

1994. Civil society is weak as a result of years of state intimidation, infiltration, and heavy, heavy administrative burdens. Activists have fled, and the one remaining domestic human rights organization was taken over by members sympathetic to the government in 2013. My organization, Human Rights Watch, is falsely acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:05 Feb 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\052015\94691 SHIRL
45

cused of supporting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of 

Rwanda, or the FDLR, time and time again. 

Along similar lines, the Rwandan media remains heavily dominated by pro-government views with most journalists unable or unwilling to investigate and report on sensitive issues. To be fair, the 

Rwandan Government did introduce new media laws and reforms 

in 2013, which enshrine journalists’ rights to freedom of opinion 

and expression, but for the most part these reforms haven’t translated into any reality because of years of intimidation that have led 

to self-censorship and a decreased interest in investigating alleged 

abuse or even dissent. 

The Rwandan Government invokes the need to prevent a resumption of ethnic violence as justification for restricting freedom 

of expression. The practice is disingenuous because it silences all 

forms of dissenting criticism including many that have nothing to 

do with ethnic violence, and that is a tactic that could end up reversing Rwanda’s apparent stability and even its economic successes. 

Despite abundant evidence of serious repression by the Rwandan 

Government there has been muted international criticism. Kigali 

enjoys strong support from donor countries like the U.S., international financial institutions such as the World Bank, and a range 

of other political actors and independent foundations. The absence 

of a comprehensive policy approach to address Rwanda’s disregard 

for fundamental rights is stark. Rwanda is held up as the all too 

rare model of successful development in Africa so the focus stays 

there. The repressive domestic environment is treated as an ancillary problem or not treated at all mostly because, it seems, it is 

just too difficult to reconcile this bad narrative with the more positive one. 

But there is good reason beyond moral considerations for donor 

governments and all others to consider all at the same time. In 

2011, the World Bank’s World Development Report argued that 

peace is most likely to endure if Rwanda’s political space is gradually opened up, and it also argued that post-conflict stability premised on economic growth and strong leadership, but without political liberalization in the long term may have a finite duration and 

possibly a dramatic ending. His conclusion is an important warning 

for this Congress, particularly with the Fiscal Year 2016 budget for 

foreign operations approaching. 

So what does this mean for U.S. policy? I will make a couple very 

quick recommendations. For starters, the administration and Members of Congress should keep speaking out against abuses by the 

Rwandans. Recent statements have had a tremendous impact. 

Rwandan officials’ insistent denials of repression in their country 

make it clear that the statements matter. International legitimacy 

is very important to the Rwandan Government. It wants to be a 

regional player and condemnation of poor domestic behavior doesn’t 

fit that model. So please keep up the pressure. 

Second, I won’t go over the VOA again, but Human Rights Watch 

does support the full funding of VOA, and I was very pleased to 

hear State Department say that as well. Thank you both for your 

leadership on that issue as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. 

46

I would also urge you and the administration to push the Rwandan Government to permit the development of a truly independent 

civil society by allowing human rights groups to operate freely. 

This is not going to be easy. I note that while it was said on the 

earlier panel that there is $2 million for the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, if you look at the Fiscal Year 2013 budget, USAID spent $3.2 

million on democracy and governance in Rwanda, but only 

$500,000 of this went to civil society and none went to support the 

rule of law and human rights. 

Sorry? 

Ms. BASS. Where did it go? 

Ms. MARGON. I don’t know. You can’t find that information too 

publicly. I can try to look. But the absence of the funds doesn’t 

mean there isn’t engagement on the issue. What worries me is that 

because there is no funding specifically allocated for human rights 

and the rule of law and more money for civil society, there is no 

strategic approach being invoked to address these issues in a difficult environment. So I would encourage Congress, and the subcommittee in particular, to engage very robustly on this issue. 

Finally, I will just say that the United States should use its 

prominent role at the World Bank and with other financial institutions to urge broader guiding principles that are not only rooted in 

the freedom from want but also the freedom from fear. I will close 

by saying that I am aware of concerns expressed by some in the 

administration and also here in Congress that a more public stance 

on Rwanda’s domestic environment would undermine the bilateral 

relationship between Rwanda and the United States. But the U.S. 

often underestimates its own leverage and becomes overly cautious. 

The U.S. may need Rwanda for peacekeeping and other issues, but 

Rwanda needs the U.S. too. So the U.S. should continue refining 

its policy on Rwanda and send a strong signal of support to the 

many citizens who crave the freedom of expression and greater political space but haven’t had access to it. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Margon follows:]

47


94691f-1.eps
48


94691f-2.eps
49


94691f-3.eps
50


94691f-4.eps
51


94691f-5.eps
52


94691f-6.eps
53

Mr. SMITH. Appreciate it very, very much. Mr. Shalita? 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIS SHALITA, PHOTOJOURNALIST 

AND BLOGGER 

Mr. SHALITA. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bass, other members of the panel, it is an honor to be invited to speak before you 

at this hearing. Thank you very much. The diverse viewpoints included here demonstrates your commitment toward strong partnership between the United States and Rwanda. No topic is closer to 

my heart, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Willis Shalita and I am a proud American, but also 

a very proud Rwandan. But at one time, Mr. Chairman, I had no 

country. In the early ’60s, hundreds of my fellow Rwandans were 

expelled from our homeland. I lived in exile in Uganda up until Idi 

Amin’s reign of terror made me a refugee for the second time. 

Mr. Chairman, I have lived under a dictatorship. I know how it 

feels. I know what to look for. I am here to tell you today, Rwanda 

is not a dictatorship. Forty-two years ago America welcomed me 

into this country. I found a home and also my vocation as a special 

investigator for the State Bar of California. My job was to separate 

fact from fiction, build a strong case, and testify under oath about 

my findings. I did so hundreds of times, Mr. Chairman, over my 

28-year career as an officer of the court. Today I work primarily as 

a writer with a focus on Rwanda. 

After the genocide, 1 million Rwandans lay dead. No one had any 

real idea how to render justice, survivors and perpetrators, much 

less how to live together again. Twenty-one years later, Mr. Chairman, the country stands out. Rwanda leads the world in women’s 

representation in Parliament. Mr. Chairman, things don’t happen 

where there are no conducive conditions. 

Rwanda ranks number one among low-income countries in the 

World Bank’s annual Doing Business index. Professor Paul Farmer 

of Harvard Medical School found that the Rwandan health system, 

‘‘achieved some of the steepest declines in premature mortality ever 

documented anywhere.’’ Funding from the United States played an 

important role. 

As has been said, Rwanda is the fifth largest troop contributor 

to U.N. peacekeeping missions. Religious freedom is protected in 

Rwanda. An attempt to criminalize homosexuality was defeated in 

Rwanda. Rwanda is socially conservative, but gays and lesbians 

need not worry about government interference in private matters. 

Now Mr. Chairman, at this point you may be thinking, ‘‘Yes, 

but,’’ but why does there have to be a ‘‘but’’? The facts are real. The 

data comes from trusted, independent sources. Is Rwanda perfect? 

Not even close. But the best way to uncover its flaws is to go to 

Rwanda where the most scandalous data about a country is made 

public by its own institutions. Go attend a citizen outreach meeting 

and tell me if you think Rwandans are too intimidated to tell truth 

to power. I say not. 

So why do we often find ourselves adrift in this strange Bermuda 

Triangle of confusion when it comes to Rwanda? To prepare for this 

hearing, Mr. Chairman, I put my investigator hat back on. How is 

it that individuals who once proudly contributed to Rwanda’s success now calmly assert that the country is some kind of tropical 

54

North Korea? Mr. Chairman, the answer is simple and facts simpler than I thought—money and politics. 

The House lobbying database records that my fellow witness, Dr. 

Himbara, hired the top-tier firm in 2014 paying them $190,000. If 

he can afford that sum on his own, then I want whatever consulting gigs he has. And Mr. Chairman, if the money isn’t his, then 

this subcommittee deserves to know the source of this money. Democracy in Rwanda Now, DIRN, registered this domain, this is his 

outfit. They registered their domain a week ago around the same 

time this hearing was announced. Was something wrong with 

whatever affiliations were being used before? This subcommittee 

needs to know. 

I note that Mr. Higiro, here, is a senior cadre of the Rwandan 

National Congress, a foreign political party whose leaders seek the 

violent overthrow of the Rwandan Government and they even collaborate with the FDLR, a genocidal terrorist organization. Mr. 

Chairman, people have a right to seek influence provided they follow the rules. But until we know who know who foots the bill and 

why, there is no way to assess the credibility of claims made by 

this shadowy network. Maybe I am naive, Mr. Chairman, but my 

experience is that truth is more or less free for the picking. But if 

you want people to believe lies, well, that is going to cost you. 

References have been made about trials or fake trials and 

imprisonments of Rwandans. Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you 

that trials in Rwanda are open. There has been confidence expressed in the Rwandan judicial system by countries like the U.S., 

Canada, Norway, Denmark, who have extradited people who had 

bloody hands during the genocide against Tutsi. 

Mr. Chairman, this malicious campaign damages the strong bilateral relationship between Rwanda and America, but we must 

not let cynicism prevail over common sense and core human value 

that my beloved two countries share in equal strength and measure. Mr. Chairman, I will submit a longer presentation for the 

record. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shalita follows:]

55


94691e-1.eps
56


94691e-2.eps
57


94691e-3.eps
58


94691e-4.eps
59


94691e-5.eps
60

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Shalita. Let me just ask you, Mr. 

Shalita, the Globe and Mail in an article by Geoffrey York and Judi 

Rever, which is a very extensive piece that they did, an investigative piece, they point out, and I quote them in pertinent part, that

‘‘The investigation by The Globe and Mail found a common 

thread in interviews about plots to murder exiles: Rwandan 

agents search for vulnerable people within the social circles of 

their targets and then put pressure on them or offer them 

money in exchange for their cooperation. In some cases, the 

agents go back repeatedly to the same potential assassins even 

if they failed to do the job, urging them to do what they were 

paid to do.’’

You have heard today witnesses, two, who have personal knowledge. One with recordings that I have asked and I will continually 

ask the State Department to review. I find it appalling that they 

have not done so yet, and maybe they have and somebody will 

emerge and say, oh, I have done that. But it certainly has not percolated to the point where the policymakers, the Acting Assistant 

Secretary, and of course Mr. Feldstein have any knowledge of. They 

have to get back to us on that. And then of course Mr. Himbara 

who was literally there with him and was part of a team on the 

economic side. Are you saying this isn’t true? 

Mr. SHALITA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to respond to that. Having been an investigator for 28 years, let me say 

this. Allegations are simply that. I welcome your request that these 

allegations, these accusations, be verified by independent persons. 

Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. The South African Government 

looking into General Nyamwasa’s attempted assassination has not 

finished its investigation, so how do we rush the conclusion that 

the Rwandan Government was involved? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, before I go into our other witnesses, just let me 

say, and even Acting Assistant Secretary Jackson pointed out that 

they expressed concern in January 2014 about the succession of 

what appeared to be politically motivated killings of government 

critics in exile. And then we went through a long list of—he did not 

elaborate when asked and I am sure he will get back, but I think 

there are people very concerned within our U.S. Department of 

State. 

I think Ms. Margon is probably very concerned about these people who are turning up dead. And when South Africa and other nations do take actions to investigate, and it is very hard to cross borders especially to really get to the truth of what is happening and 

when and where, but when you see a pattern, reasonable men and 

women say there is a real problem here. And as Mr. Higiro said, 

and I thought that was very telling, that when statements are 

made by the director of intelligence about killing he is only quoting 

the President. That is a pretty strong allegation. 

Ms. BASS. Yes, if you don’t mind, Mr. Chair, if you could yield. 

Didn’t the—you said that the South Africans were still investigating, and I thought the South Africans expelled the Rwandan 

representatives. No? I thought they had. 

Mr. SHALITA. Thank you, Ranking Member. No, if I can correct 

you, the South African Government has come to the conclusion that 

61

the alleged assassins were from Rwanda. The conclusion, Madam 

Member, has not been made that the Rwandan Government was 

involved. We live in America where you are assumed innocent until 

proven otherwise. There is no conclusive evidence. 

Ms. BASS. No, no. But I thought they expelled the Rwandan diplomats. So it wasn’t just that it was a Rwandan that they said committed the crime, but I thought that they kicked out the diplomats. 

They did not kick out the Rwandan Ambassador in South Africa? 

Mr. SHALITA. Thanks again. During the exchange of words, as 

happens always, the Rwandan Ambassador was asked to leave. But 

soon thereafter Rwanda sent back another Ambassador and we 

have, Rwanda has an Ambassador in Johannesburg. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you further on this. If Paul Kagame 

is not in any way complicit in any of this nor his director of national intelligence, would you then support and would the Rwandan Government support an international team of investigators 

who would have unfettered access to information to people so that 

they can investigate this and go to source material, look at logs, 

look wherever the investigation takes them? Because otherwise I 

would be concerned about a whitewash, again more people dying. 

I am very worried that this is in escalation, not in decline, especially as Mr. Himbara mentioned earlier. The two phases, political 

opponents but now it has morphed into his driver and other people 

who are selected for killings, and it just raises serious questions 

about how wide and how deep this will go in terms of the killings. 

So would you support? Do you believe the administration would 

support? I am talking about the Kagame administration, unfettered 

access and investigation by an international team of maybe under 

U.N. auspices or AU auspices who would get to the bottom of this? 

Mr. SHALITA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. As I 

stated before, I don’t speak for the Rwandan Government. I am 

here on my own as an American Rwandan who is interested in 

what goes on in my country. Mr. Chairman, your question is above 

my pay grade, but I will join with you having an independent body 

investigating these allegations. Again, Mr. Chairman, these are 

nothing but allegations. 

Mr. SMITH. Again, we did invite you to join us. The Embassy of 

Rwanda requested that. And I want all sides at all times on something so important as this to be present at the table. So I would 

hope you would take that back and join us in asking that Kagame 

allow that kind and even embrace it. If I were innocent and I were 

in his shoes I would demand that there be an international investigation to clear my name. There is nothing, as Proverbs says, more 

important than one’s name. The Book of Proverbs. If your name is 

tarnished you invite people who have no political agenda whatsoever to go in and uncover the truth. 

Mr. SHALITA. Mr. Chairman, again I was asked by the Rwandan 

Embassy to come and testify because they know of my passion 

about what goes on in Rwanda. I have no affiliation. I have no 

place in making decisions like you are asking for. However, let me 

say this, Mr. Chairman. I would support you fully, 100 percent, to 

send an independent organization to look into allegations. Again, 

Mr. Chairman, these are nothing but allegations, and making allegations doesn’t make a witness believable or not believable. It 

62

should be put to test and all evidence should be brought in and 

verified. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Himbara, did you want——

Mr. HIMBARA. Thank you, Chairman. I think the ranking member Karen Bass, she got it right. The court case on the attempted 

assassination of Nyamwasa, the original one, was settled in court. 

And the result of that case while that no, it is not actually the Ambassador that was kicked out, no, the Ambassador of Rwanda is the 

only person that was left. All the other diplomats were expelled. 

And it is important to hear what the judge said. This South African judge said, well, we are sending these four people to jail for 

this attempted assassination, but actually the people who should 

be in this court are authorities in Rwanda. That is clear. Then farther north in Sweden, Sweden expelled a Rwandan diplomat for 

harassing a Rwandan diaspora. Down south in UK, the Metropolitan Police, also the Scotland Yard had to send warnings to British 

Rwandans to watch out because they were targets. But for the 

South African case. It is a done deal. Absolutely. You are right, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. I just want to ask a couple other questions and we 

will get back. Let me ask Mr. Higiro, in your opinion is the U.S. 

Department of State pressing an investigation into the killings and 

the alleged conspiracy to assassinate well enough, aggressive 

enough? Have you been interviewed by anyone? Have your tapes 

been analyzed from CIA to U.S. Department of State as far as you 

know? And where is Colonel Dan Munyuza, the Director of Military 

Intelligence. Is he still in that position in Rwanda or has he been 

dismissed? Where is he? 

Mr. HIGIRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dan Munyuza actually 

was moving with me. I was employing him indirectly. So he started 

this when he was the Director of Military Intelligence, but we have 

the Chief of External Intelligence who is supposed to be dealing 

with people like us who are supposed to be killed outside the country. 

So because of the way they thought I am going to do something 

great and become a hero as they told me, he was moved from the 

Director of Military Intelligence to the Director of External Intelligence. So I continued with him. When the mission aborted, he 

was taken to prison straightaway and then he was brought back, 

he is now the deputy national police commander, but he is still in 

Rwanda. 

Let me make something clear. It doesn’t really matter where Dan 

Munyuza or Jack Nziza, what post they hold in the government or 

in the military or in the police. It is just a shadow for them to do 

what they are supposed to do. These are two gentlemen who get 

direct orders from the President. They are the ones who have killed 

almost everybody that has died. Seth Sendashonga they are talking 

about, was killed by Jack Nziza in Nairobi when he was a diplomat 

there. It doesn’t matter where they are. 

But I am going to defend my colleague, Mr. Shalita. I feel sorry 

for him. I feel sorry for Rwandans who are here. I feel sorry for 

the diplomats in these Embassies of Rwanda. They are told what 

to say. There are lines they can’t cross—and you can see him. He 

doesn’t really have even that information. They don’t even feed him 

the information to support to them. He doesn’t know anything 

63

about these cases. He is an American. He has been in America. He 

has never lived in Rwanda. He doesn’t understand what is going 

on. 

But to the passion he talked about, he thinks the country is moving in a good direction. And I am sure he is going to find out more 

after this hearing and probably we are going to talk about it. So 

that is the truth. 

And to the other question of the State Department, they have not 

done that so far. They have never——

Mr. SMITH. They have not. 

Mr. HIGIRO. They have never reached me. They have never 

reached me, but I have shared this with the Belgian Government 

and I think they know. Because of course when you are asking asylum we need to give such evidence as to support our criteria to be 

recognized. 

And still on that point, I would request to clarify that even where 

we are we are not safe, and the governments like you asked, the 

department responsible. They think it is a joke or not very serious, 

but it is very serious. The widow and children to the late Colonel 

Patrick Karegeya who was strangled in South Africa, are here in 

U.S., but they have been denied asylum up to now because of this 

conspiracy. I am not accusing them but there is a problem. They 

are like prisoners. They don’t move out of view. It is the current 

situation. 

You can take it from them and find out what is the problem? 

What kind of criteria does this family that their own father and 

husband was strangled in South Africa does not fulfill for them to 

get asylum in this democratic country? It is a big issue. The conventions, the Geneva Convention are clear, but something is wrong 

somewhere. Even us in Belgium, in Europe, in Africa, the refugees 

from Rwanda, let us talk about the kidnapping of Lieutenant 

Mutabazi to Rwanda. It was against the law, but the Ugandan 

Government has never said anything about that. The UNHCR has 

never said anything about that, but it was wrong. 

The wife and the children to this lieutenant are somewhere in a 

camp in Uganda. The children are not going to school. She was 

supposed to be taken somewhere. She is still there. So are we doing 

enough? Are the strong countries doing enough on what we are 

talking about? Absolutely not. 

We are here. I put my life on the line to come here and say, look 

here, the crime is this, and I do this in many different capacities 

and I talk to different Rwandans—Hutus, Tutsis—I do it every day, 

every day, every day. I talk to whoever I meet. I have talked to different diplomats. But nothing is being done. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. Sure. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess 

I want to ask that, the two of you, and feel free to chime in, Ms. 

Margon. What is Kagame’s motivation? I mean I am assuming that 

you are saying he is going to run again for a third term. What is 

his motivation? If he is so strong why does he need to do this? 

Mr. HIGIRO. Thank you. The third term thing is complicated now. 

I think he might have talked about it. What even Mr. Shalita believes is that the Rwandans love Kagame. Kagame is going to have 

a youth gathering in Dallas, Texas, on Saturday. Do you know the 

number? Seven hundred young boys and girls. Do you know where 

64

they are coming from? Rwanda, the diaspora here, Canada, Europe. 

Do you know who funds them to go there? The government. The 

money you give him. 

Ms. BASS. The money we give him. 

Mr. HIGIRO. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. You are saying he is flying Rwandans in from all of 

those countries? 

Mr. HIGIRO. Flying Rwandans, yes. 

Ms. BASS. They don’t live in Texas? 

Mr. HIGIRO. Not everybody is in Texas. And they have to feed, 

they have to sleep. I mean it is not my——

Ms. BASS. Well, he is having a rally of Rwandans in Texas and 

he is flying them from all over the world to be there? 

Mr. HIGIRO. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. So what you are saying is that he does not have the 

support at home? I mean why does he need to assassinate people 

all over the world? 

Mr. HIGIRO. What should I say? I mean we fought a very complicated war from 1990 to 1994. The Rwandans have experienced, 

mention any single crime which has not been committed in Rwanda. What does the President want that I don’t want for Rwandans? 

Ms. BASS. You want to respond to that? Why does he need to do 

that? 

Mr. HIMBARA. There are several reasons why. First, remember 

that already the U.S. had to apply for immunity for President 

Kagame. He made history here from a lawsuit. That is one. That 

is from the widows of the Presidents that were shot down. This 

government applied for immunity for him. The Congo Mapping Report, the U.N. mapping report concluded that there is enough material there to indict Kagame for genocide. 

Ms. BASS. So he is doing this so that he doesn’t have witnesses 

around when he did? 

Mr. HIMBARA. The moment he leaves power the immunity is 

gone. That is one reason. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Mr. HIMBARA. There are so many people that he has offended, so 

that is one. Number two, this so-called development that people are 

talking about, do you know the biggest companies that actually 

control that run the economy? It is the Rwandan Patriotic Front 

companies. The holding company is called Crystal Ventures Limited. It controls just about everything. 

So President Kagame, he wears three hats. President of Rwanda, 

chairman of the party, but also the leading businessman. So the 

Rwandan version of capitalism is crony capitalism. He loses that 

office, who knows where that business empire will be? 

Ms. BASS. Okay. So Mr. Shalita, everything that you have said 

is, is that I guess is that there is no proof of anything. Everything 

is just allegations? 

Mr. SHALITA. What we have heard here today, and having been 

an investigator for 28 years investigating the best lawyers in this 

country, I hear nothing but allegations. If there are facts why not 

share them with you? 

Ms. BASS. Well, I think that Mr.——

65

Mr. SHALITA. I resent the fact that my fellow witnesses here, 

they think they are entitled, well, they are entitled to their opinion 

but they are not entitled to their own facts. Let me say something, 

Mr. Chairman. The allegations——

Mr. SMITH. Again, we have a man who has recorded the request 

that he assassinate two individuals that the Toronto newspaper 

and the BBC found credible. To my chagrin, and I am sure that 

of the ranking member, our own State Department has not even 

listened to those tapes. I mean that is evidence. That is evidence. 

Of course there is a due process stream that needs to be followed, 

but when you get multiple allegations with streams of evidence, it 

begs the question why are we looking the other way and acting as 

if none of it is credible. 

Mr. SHALITA. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, what the 

newspaper in Canada says is not evidence. It is not a legal institution. 

Ms. BASS. Well, no, let me just ask you. Let me just ask you this. 

And I will get to you. But let me just ask you this. As an investigator, if there are tapes would you then want to have a tape of the 

voice of the person who the allegation is made about? Because 

there is enough science to prove whether or not it is the same person. It doesn’t seem to be that deep. 

Mr. SHALITA. I have not listened to the tape. I have read the 

transcript in its entirety. 

Ms. BASS. I know. I am just saying as an investigator wouldn’t 

that conclude? 

Mr. SHALITA. I would want the real voice of Colonel Dan 

Munyuza to compare with——

Ms. BASS. Right. That is what I am saying. 

Mr. SHALITA [continuing]. What is alleged this gentleman has. 

Ms. BASS. Right. So if that was done, wouldn’t we be able to 

know? 

Mr. SHALITA. If it was done, yes. I would absolutely agree with 

you. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. I mean it is just hard to believe that there is 

just allegations and nothing has ever been proven. 

Mr. SHALITA. Well, for instance, Mr. Higiro has made an allegations that Rwandans are being flown to Texas. I live in Austin, 

Texas. I want to go on the record and challenge him. Tell me where 

there is Rwandans. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Well, actually I would like to just ask Ms. 

Margon—for my part if you don’t mind, Mr. Chair, I will conclude 

my questions by just asking you to respond to both sides of what 

I asked. 

Ms. MARGON. Sure. I also wanted to respond to your point about 

what Rwandans want in the next election. Human Rights Watch 

hasn’t done an investigation into what happened in South Africa, 

and as I understand it the South Africans have undertaken an investigation themselves. The outcome remains unknown to date, so 

we do still have that. I think what we are looking at as an organization whose currency is their independent research is that we 

have repeatedly documented a climate of fear and incredibly violent 

tactics that have been used against dissenters in Rwanda. It is a 

66

government that is maintaining its power through a strategy and 

approach of that type. 

We have seen it with disappearances that we documented from 

March until November 2014, which we put out in a report on which 

the State Department also commented on. That is not a new thing. 

It is still happening to some degree although it seems to be at a 

lesser one. But repeatedly the decimation of independent voices is 

not simply because there wasn’t money for it or because people felt 

they could do better things like go into business. It was because 

they were afraid for their lives and they have fled the country, 

many still living in fear, outside borders. 

And so while we haven’t done research on this specific issue, I 

did want to put it within the broader context of what we are looking at, which is a government that is maintaining a very tight, and 

in some cases very aggressive and violent, grip on power. In terms 

of your questions about what Rwandans want, I think it is hard to 

tell. Nobody knows what Rwandans want because they are afraid 

to speak out. If you look at the past elections of the President, it 

is, I think it was 76 percent for the last Parliamentary elections 

in 2013. And then in 2010 it was about 93 percent in favor of 

Kagame. Who knows how many of those people actually wanted the 

President and his party to win? Most people I would say based on 

our research are too afraid to do anything else. 

You are looking at an environment that may not on election day, 

let us say, be free and fair as we start to think about the 2017 elections. But it is an overarching context which we have seen in other 

countries on the continent, including as we will see this weekend 

in Ethiopia, an overarching election environment which is not at all 

conducive to a legitimately free and fair election. It is important to 

think about that when you think about what the people of Rwanda 

are doing and saying. 

Ms. BASS. I am sorry. Just, I mean a little comparison though. 

The Ethiopian diaspora is very active and there is also a lot in 

Ethiopia that I think is very well known. So I think with Rwanda, 

unless I am just not aware of it, there just doesn’t seem to be that 

level of activity. I don’t know if whether it is social media or not. 

Maybe the Rwandan diaspora is active in other countries. I don’t—

yes. 

Mr. HIMBARA. Let me tell you why it is very difficult to be active 

while we are in communities. It is very difficult for us to be active. 

Ms. BASS. In Rwanda. 

Mr. HIMBARA. Even here. So now I am going to say something 

that I held back because I will cry, but also because it will put my 

brother into danger. 

Mr. SMITH. Maybe you shouldn’t. 

Ms. BASS. You made your point. Your point is clear. 

Mr. HIMBARA. But I think I need to put it out here on the record 

anyway. 

Ms. BASS. I would prefer you not. Let me just move on. 

Mr. Shalita, then I will come back to you. 

Mr. SHALITA. Is the Rwandan diaspora very active? Very active. 

For the record, for the last 3 years every September more than 

5,000 Rwandans meet on Rwanda Day. Is that active or what? 

Ms. BASS. Where? 

67

Mr. SHALITA. The last year was in Atlanta. The year before that 

was in Chicago. The year before was in Boston. This addresses the 

fact that we are very active. I have been very active on Rwandan 

issues probably before Mr. Higiro was born. Look at my blog. 

Ms. BASS. I will. 

Mr. SHALITA. Look at the social media——

Ms. BASS. All right. 

Mr. SHALITA [continuing]. Of Rwandans exchanging their views 

on the country. And they are all not supportive of President 

Kagame. And most of these come from Rwanda, for the record. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Let me go back and allow you to finish and then 

I am done. 

Ms. MARGON. The only point I was going to make is that I think 

Ethiopia is a much larger country with a larger diaspora—which 

happens to be centered in Washington—which may be part of the 

reason you hear from them more regularly. But also I do think 

when you look from our objective perspective, you do see similar 

issues of development success being put forward. And our attempt 

or our effort is not to undermine the successes that are real and 

important to the actual people who are receiving them, but to look 

at the other side of the coin and figure out how better to integrate 

the two for the long term gain of the country overall. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Mr. HIGIRO. So can I say something? Compliment something? 

Ms. BASS. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. HIGIRO. Just like I said before, Mr. Shalita whatever he sees, 

we see. Let me give you an example of what he is talking about. 

A few months in Belgium, Brussels, they had a conference of about 

40 Presidents and Heads of State. President Obama inclusive. The 

only President that had demonstrations is Paul Kagame. There are 

two sides. One side singing and praising him, another side against 

him. And you ask yourself, what kind of specialty, why is Rwanda 

unique? Why is it that amongst 40 heads of state one single President is having this? Think about it. What is wrong? Why does the 

Rwandans have to put a lot of effort in receiving Kagame wherever 

he goes? What is the problem? 

There is something called Rwanda Day. If you don’t go there it 

is a problem. Then you never back home. That is one. Two, in Belgium now, I am going to give a specific example. If you are Rwandan and you probably have obtained the nationality, Belgian nationality, if you want to go to Rwanda you need an invitation. Just 

think about that. Do you know why? It is because they want to control, people in the diaspora, and connect them to where they are 

going. Why? Because they think people like us are sending messages to Rwanda. So they want to know who is from Belgium, 

where did he land? Which house is he staying in? As simple as 

that. I mean what are we talking about? 

Look at the region. This starts from Congo. What happened in 

Congo? How many times did we go to Congo? And Mr. Shalita 

should understand that I have the credibility to talk about this. I 

have served that state for a long time, since I was little. I grew up 

in that system. I know each and everything. I was in the Congo, 

for the record, once, twice. When we took over Congo in 1997 and 

fell to Kabila, the old Kabila, we were called back swiftly, and they 

68

relaunched again for a coup d’etat which didn’t materialize. We 

ended up in Angola. We fought wars you can’t even imagine. We 

fought our ally Uganda in Kisangani. You know that? What does 

the guy want from Congo, we have got Uganda. 

President Museveni has made peace with President Kagame because he was disturbing him. He was actually funding their opposition. President Kagame has publicly stated that he is going to hit 

President Kikwete of Tanzania when time comes. It is public information. So what are we talking about? It is all out there. It is not 

a secret. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. We are going to have to conclude the hearing, but I 

just want to make a couple of final points. We will follow up on requesting that Kagame allow an investigative unit maybe under 

U.N. auspices or AU auspices that would go wherever the evidence 

takes them, and to interview without fear of retaliation those men 

and women that have been intimidated. 

I think, Ms. Margon, you make a very good point about the climate of fear, the use of violence. I remember Greg Simpkins and 

I on one trip to Darfur, before we got there we went to Ethiopia. 

We met with President Meles. It was soon after several people 

were gunned down in post-election violence in an election that was 

anything but free and fair. And we met with President Meles who 

was absolutely dismissive of the violence. Matter of fact, when we 

left I actually, and Greg and I worked very hard on this, wrote a 

bill called the Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights 

Advancement Act with benchmarks. And when the House flipped 

to Democratic control, my ranking member and good friend and 

now sadly deceased, Donald Payne, took it up and it became his 

bill. It was Payne-Smith. First it was Smith-Payne. 

And the idea was that we have got to be serious about human 

rights. And I can think of no more important issue than protecting 

people from violence, beatings. I have heard of almost like a Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde type of, the face that Kagame gives to the Western 

world and to Westerners versus what he does to his own people. 

And that is really very, very disconcerting especially since there is 

a seemingly a pattern of extrajudicial killings. 

So we need to get to the bottom of this. This subcommittee is 

committed to it. Again I think at great risk to yourselves you have 

come forward. Mr. Higiro, I just can’t say how deeply I respect, and 

as well as you, both of you for coming forward. I am sure the other 

human rights groups would love to operate freely and in an unfettered fashion. You are not. You are trying and we all appreciate 

that. But there are risks to the people who bear witness to the 

truth, so thank you again for that work you are doing, Ms. Margon. 

We are going to follow up on this. I hope to hear back from the 

State Department on what they are doing. 

Again, Ambassador Jackson made some very good comments 

about their concerns, but we got no sense as to what the return 

mail showed when we raised these issues. How do we do it? He 

said one was done on the fringes of another of the African meetings. Here that doesn’t cut it. This should be our Ambassador, this 

should be our top people and our mission in, as well as the Assistant Secretary and right up to the Secretary level, even President 

69

Obama, raising these issues face to face with details about individuals; otherwise human rights get short shrift. 

I have been in this Congress 35 years and I get so angry, and 

that is the only word to describe it, whether it be China or Rwanda 

or as it was even under the Bush administration in Ethiopia, when 

Meles was able to claim a robust commitment to peacekeeping but 

that doesn’t provide a whitewash for serious human rights abuse. 

We welcome that that they are deploying peacekeepers, but it is 

not a whitewash and can never be so construed. So yes? 

Mr. SHALITA. One final point, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your leadership. I think this committee will be interested in finding 

out why Mr. Higiro was dishonorably discharged. Once you find 

that out, then, Mr. Chairman, ask yourself this question. Somebody 

who is dishonorably discharged, would this be the same individual 

given a task to go and commit an assassination? 

Mr. SMITH. I want to just say very clearly that that needs to be 

taken with a grain of salt big-time. When you are the focus of a 

government retaliation or a death threat, I mean whistleblowers 

don’t fare well anywhere whether it be the United Nations where 

many have been summarily dismissed. 

And I have held hearings and done work along those lines to protect those who speak out against corruption at the United Nations, 

or within our own U.S. Government. I mean we are always passing 

new laws, enhanced protection for whistleblowers because they get 

the back of the hand anywhere in the world including in the U.N. 

or the United States, and I would respectfully submit in Rwanda 

as well. 

Again we have credible newspapers. The BBC is a credible news 

media organization that have looked into this and can now with articles and recordings, they get retaliated against too. So let us not 

forget that. That Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, if there are death 

squads being deployed to kill the diaspora and the political opponents or as you said, Mr. Himbara, then phase two, even others, 

we need to get to the bottom of it. And we owe it to the Rwandans 

who deserve not a country where there is a climate of fear but 

where there is a robust democracy where human rights and economic prosperity go hand in hand. So thank you for your testimonies. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

72

f


94691n.eps
73

f


94691m.eps
74

f


94691g.eps
75


94691h-1.eps
76

f


94691h-2.eps
77

f


94691i.eps
78


94691j-1.eps
79

f


94691j-2.eps
80


94691k-1.eps
81

f


94691k-2.eps
82

Æ


94691l.eps