Tag: HomeIrambuye

  • Rwandan returnees share stories of survival after years under FDLR control

    These returnees are now receiving care and support as Rwanda begins the process of helping them reintegrate into society.

    For many, this homecoming marks the beginning of a new life—one filled with hope, dignity, and the long-awaited chance to reclaim the rights and opportunities they were denied for years. Access to education, healthcare, and security—once distant dreams—are now within reach.

    More than 2,500 Rwandans have expressed the desire to return voluntarily. The process is being coordinated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which receives the individuals in eastern DRC and notifies the Rwandan government to prepare for their safe reception.

    Though recently arrived, many returnees are already expressing optimism and gratitude after escaping the harsh conditions imposed by FDLR control.

    Valentine Uwamariya recounted the fear that defined her life near FDLR strongholds.

    “They would come and abduct people. Some never returned. I remember someone named Dukundane—they took him and killed him. We lived in constant fear, never knowing who would be taken next.”

    Relieved to be reunited with her family in Rwanda, she returned with her six children and called it a second chance at life.

    For Marcel Nibishaka, a 31-year-old who was taken to the DRC as a child, life in exile meant growing up without education and in constant fear of abduction.

    “They used to come at night to steal livestock and food. We always heard they were taking young men. I lived with that fear every day,” he said.

    “I’m so happy to be back. I thought I would grow old without ever seeing my homeland again.”

    Japhet Mushimimana, another returnee, expressed deep appreciation for the warm welcome and support they’ve received. “Life in Congo was incredibly difficult. Even when we tried to raise cattle, the FDLR would take them. It felt like we were working for others. But coming back, seeing how Rwandans have developed and how well they live—it makes me proud to be Rwandan.”

    He admitted to initial worries about starting over in Rwanda, but those fears quickly subsided. “The way we’re being reassured, and the peaceful relationship between government and citizens here, makes us feel safe. Life here is nothing like what we experienced before. We finally feel we belong.”

    He added that what he appreciates most is the sense of security: “Back in Congo, people could rob you of your phone or money at any time. Here, we’re free, we’re fed, we’re treated with dignity. It gives me confidence that we, too, can live well and in peace.”

    Théogène Inyitaho admitted that his view of Rwanda before returning had been shaped by misinformation and fear.“We were told we’d never make it back. But seeing how we’ve been received, and everything we’re experiencing now, it’s clear we have nothing to fear.”

    Minister of Emergency Management, Maj Gen (Rtd) Albert Murasira, reassured the returnees—particularly those who had been hesitant due to fear of persecution. He stressed that Rwanda’s goal is not punishment, but reintegration and healing.

    “You are safe here. We will help you reintegrate, learn new skills, and live dignified, secure lives,” he said.

    A total of 1,156 Rwandans, previously held hostage by the FDLR, a terrorist group operating in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), have safely returned home in two phases.The process is being coordinated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which receives the individuals in eastern DRC and notifies the Rwandan government to prepare for their safe reception.Minister of Emergency Management, Maj Gen (Rtd) Albert Murasira, reassured the returnees—particularly those who had been hesitant due to fear of persecution.

  • Rwanda offers to host key UN agencies amid relocation plans

    This commitment was outlined in an official letter from Prime Minister Dr. Edouard Ngirente to UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

    The letter, dated May 15, 2025, comes at a time when the UN is actively exploring ways to reduce operational costs, improve efficiency, and shift certain functions away from high-cost centers like New York and Geneva.

    Prime Minister Ngirente outlined Rwanda’s unique advantages as a potential host, citing Kigali’s strategic air connectivity to regional and international destinations, as well as the country’s consistent political stability, institutional effectiveness, and overall safety.

    “Rwanda has positioned itself as a competitive destination for multilateral institutions, offering a cost-effective, secure, reliable, and enabling environment for their operations,” the letter states.

    The Government of Rwanda also pledged to provide office facilities and essential services while committing to the long-term development of a dedicated UN campus in the heart of Kigali.

    In alignment with UN protocols, Rwanda is offering a full package of privileges, immunities, and tax exemptions for UN personnel.

    In closing, the Prime Minister invited the UN to dispatch a technical mission to Kigali for a firsthand review of Rwanda’s infrastructure and services, in order to further discuss and align the proposal with the UN’s operational and relocation needs.

    “Rwanda stands ready to serve as a committed partner in shaping the future of the UN’s global operations,” Ngirente affirmed.

    This proposal aligns with broader conversations within the UN about decentralizing certain functions to more affordable and strategically located cities, particularly in response to ongoing financial constraints affecting several UN agencies.

    rharduv2ifjlbj4mjgx5gq6hqy-c8291.jpg

  • Rwanda retains B+ credit rating with stable outlook

    The latter conducts regular evaluations of countries’ financial and credit profiles worldwide. The rating reflects Rwanda’s resilient economic growth, ongoing fiscal reforms to boost domestic revenue, and effective debt management.

    The stable outlook acknowledges Rwanda’s challenges, including balance-of-payments pressures, regional security risks, and growing fiscal deficits.

    However, access to affordable concessional financing and a favorable debt structure with extended repayment terms help offset these risks.

    S&P notes that Rwanda’s debt servicing costs are significantly lower than those of similarly rated peers, with interest expenses projected to average 10% of government revenue from 2025 to 2028.

    S&P Global forecasts Rwanda’s economy to outpace many peers over the next five years, driven by substantial public investments in infrastructure, such as the new Kigali International Airport and airline expansion, alongside projects in agriculture, energy, health, education, and tourism. Rwanda’s economy grew by 8.9% in 2024, with an 8% rise in the fourth quarter.

    While agricultural growth was sluggish in 2023 and only moderately improved in 2024, favorable weather is expected to enhance output. The services sector’s steady growth is also likely to draw greater private sector investment.

    Despite these strengths, S&P highlights Rwanda’s exposure to climate change, weather disruptions, and regional tensions.

    The agency commends Rwanda’s revenue-enhancing measures, including higher tax rates, digital tax systems, and an expanded tax base, which are poised to strengthen fiscal stability and narrow deficits in the medium term.

    S&P’s reaffirmation underscores confidence in Rwanda’s proactive economic strategies, strong growth potential, and resilience amid challenges.

    Rwanda retained its B+ credit rating with a stable outlook in its latest assessment conducted by S&P Global, a U.S.-based credit rating agency.

  • Rwanda to launch nuclear medicine services

    This state-of-the-art technology will significantly boost Rwanda’s capacity to diagnose and manage complex diseases.

    Unlike traditional imaging tools, the PET scan works by injecting patients with small amounts of radioactive substances, which travel to areas of abnormal activity in the body.

    This allows doctors to detect conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and neurological disorders at earlier and more treatable stages.

    Speaking to the Parliament’s National Budget and Property Standing Committee, Dr. Nsanzimana confirmed that all necessary preparations for the PET scan’s arrival have been completed.

    “We are progressing with the acquisition of a PET scan machine, which is not yet available in Rwanda. We’re confident that by the end of this year, it will be here,” he stated.

    To enhance healthcare service delivery, the government has already provided modern diagnostic equipment to various hospitals, including CT scans and MRI machines.

    “New CT scan machines have been delivered to hospitals such as King Faisal Hospital, CHUK, Kanombe Military Hospital, and CHUB, which have already begun installation and use. As for MRI machines, three will be available within the next two weeks,” the minister added.

    He also mentioned that advanced medical equipment will soon be installed in provincial hospitals like Kabgayi, Kibungo, and Kibuye, helping to reduce the number of patients referred to Kigali for specialised treatment.

    He confirmed that the PET scan acquisition is underway and expressed optimism that it will be in place before 2025 ends.

    Nuclear medicine, the field under which PET scans fall, remains limited in many countries due to the high costs associated with the equipment.

    The two primary types of nuclear imaging machines are Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET), with Rwanda choosing the latter for its higher precision and diagnostic value.

    The PET scan’s precision is particularly vital in treatment planning for complex cases like brain cancer, where accuracy is crucial to avoid damaging critical areas of the brain.

    Currently, Rwanda’s health facilities are equipped with various imaging technologies, including X-rays, ultrasound, MRI, CT scans, endoscopic ultrasound, and high-performance systems such as the Multix Impact E and Somatom go, many of which were unavailable just a few years ago.

    To support these advancements, the Ministry of Health has allocated RWF 16.5 billion in the 2025/2026 fiscal year specifically for the procurement of advanced medical equipment.

    In total, the Ministry and its affiliated institutions have been granted a budget of RWF 333.5 billion, up from RWF 330.2 billion in the 2024/2025 fiscal year.

    Rwanda’s Minister of Health, Dr. Sabin Nsanzimana, has announced that the country is set to acquire a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan machine—a cutting-edge medical imaging device that uses nuclear energy—by the end of 2025.Dr. Nsanzimana confirmed that all necessary preparations for the PET scan’s arrival have been completed.

  • Tutsi bones in flower vases on the altar

    In the parishes of Kiziguro, Karubamba, Mukarange, Nyarubuye, and Kibungo—which were the only ones I had visited—death had become a permanent resident. Corpses lay strewn across altars, rotting in pews, piled in silence beneath the Stations of the Cross.

    The air was so thick with decay that even breathing felt like betrayal—an act of life in places meant to preserve it. The stench clung to the nostrils and the soul. No incense burned anymore, only the putrid odour of genocide.

    The air in eastern Rwanda no longer smelled like soil or rain. It reeked of death.

    I was there. I smelled it. I stepped over blood-soaked Bibles. I sat on pews where killers prayed before slaughtering families.

    And I conversed with others as though life were continuing, while in truth, we were living in a nightmare where the cross had become a machete, and the altar a butcher’s table.

    To this day, I sometimes question my sanity for having survived it— for having watched so much death take place, precisely where life was supposed to be sacred.

    Something within me had begun to erode—not just my sense of smell, which had been dulled by the overwhelming stench of death—but my grasp of reality, of sanity, of the meaning of faith itself.

    The country I once knew, a land steeped in Christian rituals and piety, had become a crucible of unspeakable horror.

    I stood as a witness—not just to the killing, but to the collapse of meaning where it was supposed to be strongest: inside the churches.

    The rot of bodies, many already decomposed, lay scattered in and around the Catholic churches I mentioned— and in nearly every public place that once symbolised community.

    But it was the churches that betrayed me the most. The houses of worship became slaughterhouses. The same walls that once echoed with prayers and hymns became chambers of screams, of begging, of agony.

    In those weeks of April and May, the unthinkable became routine. Tutsi were hunted like animals. And worse, they were killed in the places they thought they would be safe—houses of worship, convents, mission schools.

    Such spaces in Rwanda had become graveyards with altars.

    The crucifixes looked on, silent and splattered with blood. By the first week of May, I began to question my own sanity. How could I still talk to others—have conversations—while surrounded by such horror?

    Were we no longer human? Or had humanity retreated from Rwanda altogether?

    I have struggled with this betrayal ever since.

    I want to bear witness to this. To say that I was there. That I remember the smell, the sounds of birds and crickets, the silence of the world. And most painfully, I remember the silence of the church.

    One image, even today, haunts me beyond measure. It is at Nyarubuye where hundreds of my relatives were killed by the genocidaires.

    At Nyarubuye Church, where hundreds had sought refuge, the killers did not just stop at murder. They desecrated the dead with chilling creativity.

    I remember most vividly the altar at Nyarubuye church. When the killers came, they did not just murder the bodies—they debased what was left. Bones—femurs, tibias, ulnae, scapulae—were lovingly arranged in flower vases.

    Not discarded, but displayed. On the altar. The killers, maybe some of them catechists, deacons, or “brothers in Christ,” carried out this grotesque performance with twisted delight. What were they thinking? I still do not know. But I cannot forget.

    I stood there. I saw it. The vases meant to hold symbols of life and beauty were now filled with symbols of brutality and contempt. What were they thinking?

    I still do not know. But the sight shattered something in me. It shattered my soul, my ability to associate the church with anything divine.

    It was a ritual of mockery, an abomination. Maybe they thought they were making an offering. Possibly, they thought they were decorating their victory.

    Perhaps they thought nothing at all. What is real—the extermination of the Tutsi was a continuous process.

    Some years later, I read David Gushee’s words in his essay, “Why the Churches Were Complicit: Confessions of a Broken-Hearted Christian”.

    I felt seen. I felt heard. Gushee names what I witnessed: the utter bankruptcy of a faith that had become performative, tribal, and hollow. He saw the same rot I smelled.

    To this day, I know people who struggle with liturgies. They find it hard to sing hymns, not because they lack faith in God, but because they lost faith in those who claimed to speak for Him.

    They saw the robes stained with blood. They smelled death inside sanctuaries. They were witnesses as scripture was used not to liberate but to lynch.

    Gushee describes himself as a “broken-hearted Christian.” That is the only kind many can be now.

    A Christian who is not broken by the genocide, not wounded by the failure of our institutions, is not paying attention.

    Jesus said in Matthew 23:27, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”

    That was Rwanda in 1994. A whitewashed tomb. A nation full of Bibles and catechisms, but also full of hatred, bigotry, and pusillanimity.

    This is why so many of us questioned our faith. Not because we had stopped believing in God, but because the people who claimed to speak for Him had become death dealers.

    They had used His name in vain — not with casual profanity, but with deliberate and determined betrayal. And that, I believe, is the worst blasphemy of all. I had to call it quits.

    For years, I could not set foot in a church. The smell of incense made me nauseous. The sound of choirs triggered flashbacks.

    The reading of scripture often felt like a defamation. How could I trust these words when those who preached them had shown so little integrity?

    Eventually, as a post-confessional atheist, I began to read the Bible again, but this time with new eyes. To read about Jesus, not just the lamb, but the lion who overturned the tables of corrupt religion.

    I realised that questioning faith after the Genocide against the Tutsi is not apostasy. It is honesty.

    Today, I no longer ask, “Where was God in 1994?” It is none of my interest. I ask instead, “Where were God’s people?”

    How could so many call themselves Christians while organising extermination campaigns, while locking families in churches and setting them on fire, while swinging machetes and praying before bed?

    How did the commandment “You shall not murder” become negotiable? How did the beatitude “Blessed are the peacemakers” get buried beneath genocidal propaganda?

    The truth is painful: Christian teachings in Rwanda had been distorted or misconstrued — or perhaps, worse, selectively manipulated to baptise ethnic hatred.

    Instead of standing up against evil, many church leaders blessed it. Instead of opening the doors of refuge, they locked them and handed the keys to the killers.

    Since the end of the first week of May 1994, I have changed my mind. I decided not to believe in the hollow religiosity that teaches forgiveness without truth and justice, unity without memory, piety without protest.

    What I believe now is much simpler, and much harder: that if God exists and is love, then anything that masquerades as faith but breeds hatred is heresy, sacrilege. I’m hedging.

    When I was young, I was taught in Sunday School that Christianity, which does not resist evil, is not Christianity at all. That, unless the Church repents not just in words but in truth—naming names, examining theology, changing its pedagogy, it will betray again. It is safer not to be naïve.

    What I know is that by the end of May 1994, many were broken beyond belief. They were now aware that the churches that taught Rwandans to love were the same churches that locked Tutsis in and called the killers.

    Some priests pointed out the Tutsi to be killed. Some held prayer services in the morning and joined killing squads in the afternoon. And that many more simply looked away.

    Where was the voice of love? Where was the voice that said, “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13)? Where was the courage to say, like the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20)?

    Instead, we heard nothing. Or worse, we heard betrayal cloaked in piety.

    In the years leading up to the genocide, the seeds of hatred were planted even in religious education. Our faith institutions became complicit, whether by omission or outright participation.

    I cannot count how many times I saw bodies laid before the crucifix. The Christian symbol of salvation, desecrated.

    It became impossible to look at the cross without remembering the bodies beneath it. The wood of the cross and the wooden benches of the pews were soaked in blood.

    Many survivors have recounted the terror of the machete, the screams that died in their throats. I remember those, too.

    But what haunts me is this: how did a people so saturated in Christianity become the architects of such evil? How did the message of love and salvation curdle into a culture of annihilation?

    Yes. What we saw made us question not just people, not just politics, but the core of faith itself. The image of Jesus, once a source of comfort, became unbearable to look at.

    His wounds were no longer symbols of redemption—they were reminders of betrayal. His commandment, “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:31), seemed to mock us in the blood-soaked aisles where neighbours hacked neighbours, children killed classmates, and pastors handed over entire flocks to slaughter.

    In Rwanda, love was dull. A neighbour was not someone to appreciate and trust anymore, but someone to fear, someone to betray.

    I wept when I read what Gushee wrote. Because I had lived it.

    The betrayals came not only from machete-wielding mobs, but from priests who opened the gates to the killers, from nuns who turned away the wounded, from so-called Christian neighbours who whispered where we hid.

    The scriptures, supposedly full of love, justice, and compassion, were hollow in those moments.

    Where were the sermons of resistance? Where were the voices crying out in the wilderness, preparing the way not for killers but for justice?

    A faith that does not resist evil is no faith at all. A Gospel that does not protect the innocent is not Good News—it is a tool of betrayal.

    Where was love?

    “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud… It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:4–6)

    Where was this love? Where was it when children were hacked to death in front of their mothers? Where was kindness when babies were smashed against church walls to save bullets?

    Where was the truth when priests told lies to save their own lives? Where was love when the altars of the Lord became tables on which bodies were dismembered?

    The killers were not aliens. They were baptised. They had taken communion. Many sang in choirs. Some led Bible study.

    Yet they sharpened their machetes and swung them with resolve. They hunted infants with a diligence one would expect of someone on a holy mission, not of salvation, but of annihilation.

    Some of them sang Christian songs while killing. I remember hearing a hymn being hummed, “Yesu ni we Mucunguzi wanjye”—Jesus is my Saviour, while a mother and her three children were butchered at Mukarange.

    Survivors remember the killers’ faces. They joked. They laughed. They placed bones in vases. They stepped over corpses to reach the altar as if reenacting a parody of the Mass.

    The Book of 1 John tells us: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4:20). By this measure, Rwanda in 1994 was full of liars. And the Church—our Church—was the enabler.

    We must tell the truth: Christianity in Rwanda was deeply complicit in the genocide. Not just by omission, but by commission. By silence and by speech. By acts of cowardice dressed up as spiritual neutrality.

    And we must also tell another truth: no ritual, no sacrament, no church title can replace the core of the Gospel, which is this — “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

    I am not writing these things to condemn all Christians. Where were the Christians who laid down their lives?

    Yes, a few existed—and they shine like stars in a dark sky. Some sheltered the hunted. Some gave their lives. But the silence of the majority was deafening.

    The truth is that many churches in Rwanda in 1994 became dens of death.

    Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness… it is no longer good for anything” (Matthew 5:13).

    The church in Rwanda lost its saltiness. It became tasteless. Useless. Dangerous.

    Gushee is right: structures, garments, books, liturgies—all these can become tools of evil if they are unmoored from love, from truth, from courage. And in Rwanda, they were.

    What happened in Rwanda should never be read merely as a failure of politics. It was a failure of discipleship. A failure of theological imagination. A failure of moral courage.

    Somewhere along the way, the Church in Rwanda forgot that love is not just a sermon, it is a stand. It is refusing to stay neutral when evil demands compliance.

    It is risking everything to protect the image of God in others, especially when that image is under assault.

    I remember a testimony about a man in Karubamba who quoted scripture as he prepared to kill. “You shall not suffer Amalek to live,” he muttered, invoking ancient genocidal commands.

    He was twisting scripture into a sword, baptised in blood. Yet he considered himself a Christian.

    Others carried rosaries, crosses, hymnbooks—as they hunted their neighbours. I was told about a young woman—barely 16—hiding in a sacristy.

    A group of boys found her, dragged her out, and raped her repeatedly under the crucifix. Afterwards, they shoved a splintered pew into her body. They were singing a church hymn when they did it.

    Gushee helps me articulate this anguish. He writes with broken-hearted clarity, “The Churches were there. The Christians were there. And they did not stop it.”

    Indeed, the problem was not that Christianity failed to reach Rwanda. The problem was that its message had become distorted, even reversed.

    The teaching of love became a vehicle for hate. The virtue of courage was replaced by cowardice. And animals began to look more human than people did.

    When I imagine what was in the eyes of those who killed children with machetes, I no longer see human beings. It is something else—emptiness, a void where humanity had once been.

    But these were people baptised in the name of Christ. They had taken the Eucharist. Some had even preached the gospel. What happened?

    Gushee hints at it: religious identity, without moral transformation, is meaningless.

    Scripture is not magic. It is not a spellbook. It is a call to conversion. And when it is twisted, it becomes a weapon. We saw this in Rwanda.

    Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:21). We had many who said, “Lord, Lord.” In fact, they did the opposite.

    They hid behind liturgy while sharpening machetes. They gave sermons and then gave orders to kill. They sang hymns and then sang songs of hate.

    The book of James says, “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17). I believe Rwanda was a nation of dead faith. Faith that did not resist evil, but accommodated it.

    And so, if I may ask, what did Rwanda’s Christianity mean?

    What does it mean to build cathedrals in a country where priests can call for the extermination of a people?

    What does it mean to teach theology if it cannot stop genocide? What does it mean to preach about love and then deny shelter to a fleeing child?

    The presence of churches guarantees nothing. Faith without courage, faith without love, faith without truth—it is worse than no faith at all.

    Let the Church weep. Let it repent. Let it never forget. Let it never again allow hatred to masquerade as holiness.

    Because I remember the bones in the vases. I still imagine the killers who smiled when they were doing the most abominable.

    We must ask ourselves: Do we preach a gospel of comfort or of courage? Do we build churches to serve God or to serve power and individual political, social and economic interests? Do we teach love that costs something, or love that excuses everything?

    Where was the courage of Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed”? Instead, we heard silence. Or worse, we heard complicity.

    And yes, there were exceptions — a few brave souls who sheltered the hunted, who paid with their lives to protect their neighbours. But they were the exception that proved the rule: the institutional Church, by and large, was not only silent. It was guilty.

    I remember a testimony where a priest used Paul’s words not to teach humility, but to urge compliance with mass murder.

    The priest quoted Romans 13 to justify obedience to the genocidal government: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”

    How did love come to mean hate? How did the virtue of courage get replaced with cowardice? How did shepherds become wolves? At what point did Rwanda’s sacred spaces stop being temples of hope and become slaughterhouses?

    Before the killers arrived at churches, many Tutsis ran there thinking they would find protection. The logic was simple: they won’t kill us in front of the cross. But they did.

    In front of the crucifix. In front of the Virgin Mary. In front of holy water fonts and Eucharist chalices. The killers came singing hymns. They came with rosaries in their pockets and blood on their hands.

    I began to ask myself questions no sermon had prepared me for. Could this faith be real? Had we believed in a lie?

    What kind of God allows His name to be used to justify this? Why did the churches not become Noah’s Ark for the hunted Tutsi? Why did they become their tombs?

    Even now, I shiver remembering the children crying beneath church pews, only to be silenced forever. I shudder at the memory of the flower vases with bones.

    What kind of blasphemy was this? Not just a moral failing, but a theological collapse.

    The teachings of Jesus—radical love, self-sacrifice, compassion for the marginalised—were twisted into tribalism, cowardice, and complicity.

    Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus. But in Rwanda, many of His followers cheered as tombs were filled.

    “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10)

    The blood of Rwanda’s victims cries out still. Not only for justice, but for truth. For confession. For accountability.

    To every preacher who remained silent: your silence was not neutral. It was permission.

    To every church that remained open during the killing, then claimed ignorance: your walls bear witness.

    To every believer who thinks the Church’s reputation is more important than its repentance: remember that Jesus overturned the tables in the temple—not out of hate, but out of righteous fury.

    Faith torn apart

    In 1994, churches demonstrated the spinelessness of silence. “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

    Yet the Church did not expose the deeds of darkness. It accommodated them. It blessed them by its silence. It shielded perpetrators behind its sacraments. Cowardice reigned where courage should have stood.

    The religious hierarchy failed us. Bishops offered platitudes. Priests ran away or collaborated. The faithful, scared and confused, clung to crosses that brought no help. The silence of the Church, like that of Cain after killing Abel, became deafening.

    We had reached a point where animals seemed more dignified than humans. A cow could pass a roadblock unharmed. A dog could wander a neighbourhood and live. But a Tutsi child? A Tutsi infant? Their crime was to exist.

    A genocide survivor recalls seeing an Interahamwe pet a dog right after finishing off two young Tutsi girls. The gentleness he extended to the animal was in stark contrast to the hatred he inflicted on the humans.

    What had become of us? What had the Church taught—or failed to teach—for such moral collapse to occur?

    By May, one genocide survivor told me, her prayers had grown bitter. She no longer prayed for safety. She no longer believed in divine protection.

    She only prayed that she might not go mad. That her soul, torn and hollow, might survive one more day. She prayed for death to come quickly if it had to come. She envied the dead, who had escaped the horror.

    Psalm 23 once comforted many: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.”

    But in 1994, the valley of death was not a metaphor. It was literal. And the Tutsi feared evil, because evil was present, and God seemed very much absent.

    Thirty-one years later, one survivor still struggles to sit in a church without flashbacks. He still cannot say “Amen” without remembering how many said it before being slaughtered.

    He still flinches when he hears certain hymns, remembering the killers who sang them with bloodstained hands.

    What allowed this to happen? Was it not a theology that prioritised ritual over righteousness? That emphasised obedience over conscience? That confused piety with holiness?

    Gushee’s grief rings true when he says:

    “The desecrated churches and parish houses and seminaries and church schools and prayer books and Bibles of Rwanda will survive (unlike the murdered people who once used them) as the enduring memorial to this fact.”

    But I would add this: They are not the only memorial.

    We, the survivors, are also memorials. We carry the memory in our bodies, our minds, and our broken faith. And we will not let the world forget.

    I carry that desecration in my soul. I carry it as a stain that no amount of prayer or preaching has yet erased.

    To the global church, I say this: Do not congratulate yourselves on the number of baptisms or the size of your choirs.

    None of that guarantees anything. Rwanda was baptised in blood, not because it lacked religion, but because it lacked courageous religion backed by a colonial power.

    It lacked prophetic faith. It lacked the kind of discipleship that says “no” to evil even when it comes dressed in priestly robes.

    To the churches of the world, beware. Beware of hollow piety. Beware of nationalism dressed in liturgy. Beware of tribalism hiding behind creeds.

    Beware of a faith that refuses to speak when it matters most. Because the next genocide may not come with warning signs. It may come with choirs. With candles. With prayers.

    It may come again, unless we remember what happened in Rwanda. And unless we finally, truly, dare to believe that love means courage.

    That faith means resistance. And that no altar, however adorned, is holy if it is silent in the face of evil.

    Never again is a promise. Not a slogan. And not just to the world. But to the Church.

    If this is not evil, then nothing is.

    If we cannot learn from the Genocide against the Tutsi, then the Gospel has failed in us.

    If the bones placed in flower vases do not haunt us, if the stench of death in sacred places does not humble us, then our theology is ash.

    It is dust. It is nothing.

    This is not merely history. It is a warning.

    The writer is a Genocide Scholar.

    ke-3.jpg

  • Crisis twins? Zelensky and Tshisekedi in the mirror of war

    Such is the case with Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), two presidents facing intense security crises who have, time and again, chosen nearly identical paths in how they respond to unrest within their borders.

    Despite leading countries shaped by distinct histories and geopolitical pressures, the two have responded to domestic conflict in remarkably parallel ways—fueling criticism that their hardline approaches may be deepening, rather than resolving, the crises they face.

    This has left both Ukraine and the DRC entrenched in drawn-out wars with no foreseeable end.

    The spark that reignited the flames

    Both the Ukraine-Russia war and the DRC-M23 conflict saw renewed escalations in the early 2020s, despite having roots in earlier unrest.

    Ukraine’s conflict reignited in February 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion, citing NATO expansion and the need to protect Russian-speaking populations in Donbas.

    Likewise, in November 2021, fighting resumed between the Congolese army and the M23 rebel group, which later allied with the AFC (Alliance Fleuve Congo) in December 2023.

    This coalition claims to defend the rights of Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese, alleging targeted marginalization by Tshisekedi’s government.

    Dialogue dismissed

    Early in both wars, opportunities for peace existed. Ukraine was reportedly close to signing a peace agreement before British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened, allegedly advising against it. Zelensky has since rebuffed Russia’s calls for talks, stating that a nation under attack cannot be expected to negotiate with its aggressor.

    Tshisekedi has taken a similar stance. Despite numerous regional and international calls to engage with M23/AFC, he has refused, classifying the group as a terrorist organization.

    Zelensky continues to frame Ukraine’s struggle as a fight for democracy, while Tshisekedi frequently accuses Rwanda of backing M23—an allegation Kigali denies.

    Use of mercenaries

    Foreign military involvement has also shaped both conflicts. In 2024, Russia revealed over 4,000 foreign mercenaries were fighting in Ukraine—many believed to be supported by NATO member states. These countries have also provided Ukraine with financial aid and advanced weaponry.

    Similarly, Tshisekedi’s government enlisted support from over 280 European mercenaries, some of whom exited through Rwanda in January 2025.

    Reports estimate as many as 800 mercenaries, including Romania’s RALF group, were present in Goma. DRC also welcomed troops from SADC countries and Burundi, many of whom decided to withdraw after battlefield losses to AFC/M23.

    Territory lost, positions hardened

    Despite international support and militarized approaches, both leaders have suffered substantial territorial losses.

    As of 2024, Russia controls approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, including key regions like Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, displacing millions.

    In DRC, AFC/M23 now controls most of the eastern provinces, including the strategic cities of Goma and Bukavu, and has established de facto administrative authority over much of North and South Kivu.

    Human cost of prolonged conflict

    The military toll has been devastating. Ukraine is estimated to have lost up to 1 million soldiers, with an additional 100,000 desertions, according to reports Russia cites—though Kyiv disputes these numbers.

    The DRC’s toll is similarly grim. Over 2,500 soldiers from the national army and allied militias reportedly died during the battle for Goma alone.

    Desertions have also plagued Congolese ranks, with several troops captured and sentenced to death for fleeing combat.

    Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and Félix Tshisekedi of DRC responded to domestic conflict in remarkably parallel ways.

    Seeking sympathy, avoiding responsibility

    Rather than embracing introspection or compromise, both Zelensky and Tshisekedi have positioned themselves globally as victims, appealing to international partners for support while deflecting blame for internal failings.

    Zelensky continues to frame Ukraine’s struggle as a fight for democracy, while Tshisekedi frequently accuses Rwanda of backing M23—an allegation Kigali denies.

    Critics argue both leaders have shown reluctance to accept accountability for the underlying domestic fractures fueling the conflicts.

    Strategic minerals and superpower interests

    Both Ukraine and the DRC are resource-rich nations, which has shaped their relationships with the United States and other Western powers.

    Ukraine and the U.S. recently signed agreements granting access to Ukrainian natural resources, as part of post-war reconstruction efforts.

    Similarly, in early 2025, Tshisekedi’s government was reportedly exploring ways to leverage Congolese minerals in exchange for military and diplomatic backing against M23 and pressure on Rwanda.

    A late turn toward dialogue

    After years of intransigence, both leaders appear to be softening their stances. Zelensky has signaled a willingness to engage in peace talks with Russia, while Tshisekedi has similarly opened the door to dialogue with AFC/M23.

    In both cases, the United States has expressed interest in facilitating negotiations, marking a potential shift from armed confrontation to diplomatic resolution.

    Whether these talks will succeed remains uncertain, but for now, they offer the first genuine glimmers of hope in conflicts that have long resisted compromise.

    Ukraine and the U.S. recently signed agreements granting access to Ukrainian natural resources, as part of post-war reconstruction efforts.

  • Bugesera International Airport construction takes shape

    Construction of the airport began in 2017, spearheaded by the Government of Rwanda.

    A few years later, Qatar Airways joined the venture, bringing in additional investment and expertise that led to an expansion of the original design.

    Today, the project stands as one of Rwanda’s most strategic infrastructure investments, aligned with its broader National Strategy for Transformation (NST2) to boost economic growth and global connectivity.

    According to Jules Ndenga, CEO of Rwanda Aviation Travel and Logistics, foundational work such as the runway, internal roads, and water drainage systems was completed by the end of 2024. The focus has now shifted to constructing the airport’s main buildings.

    “We’ve moved into the vertical phase,” he explained. “The groundwork is finished—the runways, roadways and drainage systems are done. What remains is building upward, and we’re currently laying the foundations.”

    “The final phase, which will complete the airport, began nearly a year ago. We are currently at the stage of excavating the building’s foundation,” he added.

    The artistic impression of Bugesera International Airport.

    Although different parts of the project fall under separate contracts, overall construction progress is being tracked as a whole.

    When all the completed work is taken together, the project stands at roughly a quarter of completion.

    “The combined works so far account for about 25 to 30 percent of the entire project,” Ndenga said.

    The airport is being built by a joint venture of three companies: Mota-Engil from Portugal, which initiated the first phase of construction; UCC Holding from Qatar; and CCC (Consolidated Contractors Company) from Greece.

    Together, they formed a unified entity called UMC, which signed the official contract with the Government of Rwanda.

    According to Ndenga, this setup ensures streamlined coordination. However, these companies are free to subcontract certain works to local firms, which may supply concrete or handle internal road construction.

    Despite the solid progress, Ndenga acknowledged that certain external challenges could impact the timeline.

    Global economic instability, rising construction costs, and supply chain disruptions remain real concerns.

    He pointed to the post-COVID period as an example, when global demand for goods surged and transportation logistics became severely strained.

    Unpredictable weather is another factor. Rwanda typically schedules major construction during the dry season, but unexpected rainfall can delay critical phases of work.

    “You might plan to expedite construction during the dry season, only to be caught off-guard by sudden rain. These are the kinds of challenges that can’t always be controlled,” he noted. “Fortunately, on the technical side, Rwanda has strong experience in construction.”

    The project has also begun delivering on its promise of job creation. The ground work employed around 2,000 workers, and the vertical phase is expected to add another 4,000, bringing the total to over 6,000 jobs.

    While many of these are formal, contracted positions, the ripple effects are being felt more broadly.

    Small businesses and service providers in nearby areas like Nyabagendwa and Nyamata are seeing increased demand as workers spend their wages locally—eating at restaurants, shopping, and using local services.

    “Job creation includes both direct and indirect employment,” said Ndenga. “Even if we can show you contracts for 2,000 workers, more locals benefit from the economic activity this project generates.”

    Looking ahead, the first phase of Bugesera International Airport will have the capacity to handle 7 million passengers per year once completed in 2027.

    The second phase, expected by 2032, will expand that capacity to 14 million passengers annually. The airport is set to become a key hub for the region, with Qatar Airways holding a 60% stake in the infrastructure.

    The foundational work such as the runway, internal roads, and water drainage systems was completed by the end of 2024.Construction of the airport began in 2017, spearheaded by the Government of Rwanda.

  • Key insights on Rwanda’s ten newly discovered mining blocks

    These blocks, rich in high-value minerals like cassiterite, coltan, wolframite, and rare earth elements, were detailed in the Rwanda Mining Board’s (RMB) May 2025 Mining Investment Pitchbook.

    Designed to attract strategic investors, the findings highlight Rwanda’s untapped mineral wealth across Kamonyi, Bugesera, and Gatsibo districts.

    Below is an overview of each block, showcasing their geological potential and investment opportunities.

    1. Binyeri

    Nestled in the Rukoma Sector of Kamonyi District, the Binyeri block spans 50 hectares and is geologically tied to the mineral-rich Kayenzi granite.

    Surrounded by active mining licenses, this area has a history of artisanal and medium-scale mining.

    Past surveys confirmed rare metal pegmatites, with cassiterite as the dominant mineral, making Binyeri a promising site for targeted exploration.

    2. Juru

    In Bugesera District, the expansive Juru block covers 1,354 hectares of quartzite and brecciated schists. It hosts epithermal deposits of tin, tungsten, and tantalum (3Ts), with tin being particularly abundant.

    A 2014 geophysical survey estimated 52,998 tonnes of cassiterite, and the block’s geology hints at potential for rare earth elements, positioning Juru as a high-value prospect.

    3. Mamfu-Rwasama

    Spanning 1,300 hectares in Gatsibo District, the Mamfu-Rwasama block lies in a tin-rich region historically mined by companies like SOMIRWA and Luna Smelter.

    Affected by regional metamorphism, it features two main vein types yielding high-grade cassiterite and coltan.

    The coltan found in the area contains about 63% tantalum and 20% niobium, while the cassiterite is very pure, with tin levels between 90% and 99%, making both minerals valuable for commercial use.

    4. Musenyi

    Located in Bugesera District, the Musenyi block covers 1,000 hectares and is a brownfield site previously licensed to Hard Metal.

    Near other active licenses, it contains Sn-rich pegmatites with significant tin and tantalum concentrations.

    Although current production is modest, the block’s high-grade ore and scalability make it an attractive investment opportunity.

    5. Remera

    One of the largest blocks, Remera stretches across 4,025 hectares in Gatsibo District, part of a historically productive tin district.

    Geophysical surveys have identified primary cassiterite veins beneath lateritic cover, with past production exceeding 4,488 tonnes.

    The block also shows iron ore potential, broadening its appeal across Gatsibo, Gicumbi, and Nyagatare.

    6. Rubiha

    In Gatsibo District, the Rubiha block encompasses 450 hectares near the Rugarama granite. It hosts over 20 mineralized quartz veins rich in cassiterite and columbite-tantalite.

    Decades of geological studies have mapped favorable pegmatite zoning, ensuring high-purity tin and a well-structured mineralization profile for efficient extraction.

    7. Rubona-Gatunda

    This 925-hectare block in Gatsibo District, a former Luna Smelter concession, is hosted in Bulimbi meta-sediments.

    Known for its tin and tantalum potential, it has a history of cassiterite mining.

    Recent petrographic analyses reveal late magmatic mineralization, particularly rich in tin, enhancing its prospects for modern operations.

    8. Rugarama

    Covering 2,175 hectares in Gatsibo District, Rugarama has benefited from extensive geological studies since the 1980s, including UNDP and BRGM surveys.

    The block is renowned for tin-rich placers and greisen zones, with over 20 quartz veins forming stockworks that yield significant cassiterite and tantalum, making it a cornerstone of Rwanda’s mining portfolio.

    9. Rweru

    Situated in Bugesera District, the Rweru block spans 875 hectares. It boasts high concentrations of niobium, tantalum, tin, lithium, and rare earth elements.

    10. Rweru-Kimvubu

    Also in Bugesera District, this 1,300-hectare block lies between two large granite bodies, intersected by fault systems.

    Soil and rock samples reveal niobium and tin concentrations well above global averages, alongside significant wolframite deposits.

    Its rare metal pegmatites and potential for rare earth element exploration make it a standout opportunity.

    According to Donat Nsengumuremyi, the Division Manager of the Mining Extraction and Inspection Division at RMB, these blocks align with Rwanda’s strategy to expand its processing industry and attract investment.

    Facilities like Gasabo Gold Refinery, LuNa Smelter, and Power Resources International are well-positioned to process minerals from these sites, supporting downstream value addition.

    Innocent Kagenga, Chairperson of the Rwanda Mining Association (RMA), highlighted the importance of transparent data, noting that mapping and publishing these blocks levels the playing field for local and foreign investors.

    Rwanda’s mining sector is poised for significant growth, targeting $2.2 billion in annual revenue by 2029, up from $1.7 billion in 2024.

    So far, Rwanda has issued 136 mining licenses to 99 companies, 18 exploration permits to 17 companies, 76 licenses for mineral trading companies, and 3 for mineral value-addition activities.

    In addition to the 3Ts, Rwanda also has deposits of gold in districts like Gicumbi, Musanze, Burera, Nyamasheke, Rusizi, and Nyarugenge.

    Gemstones used in jewelry can be found in Ngororero, Ruhango, and Muhanga; sapphire is found in the Western Province; and lithium and other minerals are under active exploration.

    Rwanda has discovered ten new mining blocks, collectively covering over 13,000 hectares.

  • Why engaging Tshisekedi in good faith is a strategic mistake

    As peace envoys shuttle between Kigali and Kinshasa, the fundamental absurdity persists—everyone speaks of peace, but no one holds the Congolese government accountable for its war-mongering, internal repression, and toxic ethnic nationalism.

    Let us begin with a small parable. Imagine someone blames the neighbor for burning down their house, and while standing in the ashes, they use the accusation as a campaign slogan.

    But here’s the catch—they were the arsonists. This is not a metaphor. This is Congolese politics under President Félix Tshisekedi.

    On April 18, 2025, the French media house France 24 ran a story headlined, “Washington Urges Rwanda to Stop Supporting M23 and Withdraw Troops from DR Congo.”

    This statement by U.S. Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region, Massad Boulos, urging Rwanda to “cease all support to M23 and withdraw RDF troops” may appear like diplomatic progress.

    In truth, they mark yet another instance of the international community treating Tshisekedi as a credible peace partner when he is anything but.

    This was just one week after Boulos, while standing on Rwandan soil, brushed aside questions on the same topic, saying, “We are not involved in those details.” Now, however, the United States was not only involved, it was suddenly a moral compass. For good reasons though.

    One must wonder: Is the U.S. foreign policy arm guided by rotating amnesia? Is geopolitics in the Great Lakes region reduced to ping-pong diplomacy?

    Was there any attempt to understand root causes or power dynamics in the region? There was no mention of the genocidaires still haunting eastern Congo under the FDLR banner.

    Yet, this call overlooks the complex tapestry of regional dynamics, historical grievances, and, most critically, the duplicity of a Congolese leadership that has mastered the art of political ventriloquism.

    From ‘Ethnic’ Survival to Political Expression

    And no mention of the fact that the very M23 Boulos wanted disarmed had been protecting Tutsi Congolese civilians from decades of targeted violence.

    The starting point is to master the fabric of Eastern Congo’s turmoil. Let us backtrack.

    The instability in eastern DRC and threats to Congolese Rwandophones, particularly Tutsis, date back to the 1960s. This was long before the RDF or President Kagame.

    American Diplomatic telegrams from 1963 to 1965 already detailed systematic violence against Congolese Tutsis.

    So no, M23 did not invent this crisis. They are merely a consequence of a state that has normalized the exclusion and extermination of its own citizens.

    Then came 1994. The genocidaires who orchestrated the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda fled into eastern Congo.

    Successive Congolese regimes, including that of Joseph Kabila and Félix Tshisekedi, made no serious effort to neutralize them.

    On the contrary, they armed them, politicized them, integrated them into the Congolese army, and sometimes unleashed them on Congolese Tutsi civilians as part of ‘local defense’ militias.

    But here’s what makes it grotesque: Western actors are more outraged by Rwanda’s “alleged” support for M23 than by Kinshasa’s documented, historical and continued support for the FDLR and its splinter groups, whose ideology is openly genocidal.

    What is this if not geopolitical gaslighting?

    M23 began as a resistance movement seeking to protect Tutsi communities from extermination and expulsion.

    Over time, however, its ranks have swelled with Congolese from various backgrounds who are disillusioned with Kinshasa’s abysmal governance, tribal favoritism, and the brutal exploitation of non-Luba ethnic groups in the Kivu regions.

    Today, AFC/M23 is no longer just a Tutsi insurgency. It is a banner under which political dissent, resistance to state abuse, and calls for genuine federalism are gathering.

    Even individuals from President Tshisekedi’s own Baluba ethnic group have joined the movement. It has, therefore, become a national challenge—not a Rwandan conspiracy.

    And yet, instead of engaging in honest dialogue, Kinshasa rages against the mirror.

    A Tone-Deaf Courier of Warfare

    On May 2, 2025, Congolese Premier Judith Suminwa arrived at Ndjili Airport in Kinshasa to receive Congolese soldiers who had been under M23 custody since January.

    These were soldiers who had been captured and treated with dignity. Rather than acknowledge M23’s humane gesture, Suminwa chose war rhetoric.

    She said nothing of reconciliation. Instead, she delivered a chilling message from her boss, President Tshisekedi: “The struggle continues against the enemy and the occupier. The battle for the total liberation of the territory is ongoing.”

    Such tone-deafness would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

    In any other context, such a statement from a prime minister would be interpreted as a formal rejection of all peace efforts. Yet, the international community says nothing.

    Because, apparently, Suminwa is polite, educated, and French-speaking. Never mind the fact that she speaks the language of conflict fluently.

    The Prime minister was complemented by the army’s mouthpiece of aggression.

    On May 4, 2025, Congolese Colonel Mak Hazukay, army spokesman in the far north, escalated the belligerence. “We reserve the right to retaliate on all fronts if the threat from the rebels and their Rwandan allies persists.” I forgot to say he referred to AFC/M23 as “terrorists” which his seniors have been avoiding.

    Hazukay, it must be noted, represents the same army that has incorporated genocidaires into its ranks, the same army that has suffered multiple humiliations against M23, and the same army that routinely collaborates with FDLR in field operations.

    To hear him speak of ‘retaliation’ is like watching a pyromaniac protest the heat.

    As political discourse scholar Jennifer Mercieca notes, “Bad faith actors use the tactics of the demagogue: distortion, deflection, and division.” Hazukay checks every box.

    This is before entering a masterclass in political bad faith—which brings us to the man of the hour—Félix Tshisekedi.

    One could write volumes about his political dishonesty, his double-speak, and his willingness to sacrifice regional peace for short-term populism. But let us focus on just a few points.

    Tshisekedi came to power not through popular revolution or democratic transition, but through a secret pact with his predecessor Joseph Kabila.

    He owes his presidency to a backroom deal—not the ballot box. And he has governed accordingly: with no legitimacy, no roadmap, and no accountability.

    To mask this fragility, he resorts to Rwanda-bashing. According to Professor Ruth Wodak, a renowned discourse analyst, “Populist leaders often deploy the politics of scapegoating to unify a fragmented domestic base.”

    A master of the theory, Tshisekedi—has scapegoated Rwanda so often that it has become the only plank in his national security strategy.

    But here’s the motivation: he has no interest in peace. Because war allows him to rule without results while accumulating billions of dollars.

    He can suspend elections in eastern Congo. He can blame foreign interference for every national failure. He can parade around as a wartime president. It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.

    Diplomatic Interventions with Blind Spots

    To be clear, recent U.S. and Qatari diplomatic efforts—particularly the Doha framework—deserve credit. For the first time, regional and global powers are sitting at the same table to discuss lasting solutions.

    But let us be pitilessly honest: Washington and Doha are cities far too close to Kinshasa politically and far too far from Goma and Bukavu in reality.

    Any framework that treats M23 as the problem while ignoring the genocidaires of the FDLR, the kleptocrats in Kinshasa, and the system of ethnic exclusion against Rwandophones is disaster-prone. You cannot build peace on fantasy.

    There exists a limitless appetite for minerals—thus creating a moral black hole. Let us not ignore the elephant in the room: the resource curse.

    The world’s powers don’t really care about the Congolese people. They care about cobalt. They want gold, coltan, and tantalum.

    They want cheap access to critical minerals for their smartphones, electric vehicles, and green economies. Stability and human security, for them, is a footnote—unless it affects mining.

    This explains why so many Western capitals issue threats and sanctions against Rwanda while ignoring the complicity of the Congolese regime in harboring genocidaires. Who eventually turned marauders and predators of their own people.

    Seemingly, the stability of human lives is negotiable. But lithium is sacred.

    Let’s get back to the concern of negotiating with a bad faith actor: a fall guy errand.

    In his book Talking to the Enemy, political communication scholar Michael L. Butterworth warns, “Negotiating with bad faith actors who operate outside the bounds of shared facts is not diplomacy—it is appeasement in slow motion.”

    Tshisekedi is not just a bad negotiator. He is a dishonest actor. He uses negotiations to buy time, to rearm, to perform diplomacy without substance.

    The Luanda and Nairobi processes have been undermined not by Rwanda or M23 but by Kinshasa’s refusal to negotiate, its military provocations, and its refusal to disarm the FDLR.

    Tshisekedi talks about ‘sovereignty’ while inviting mercenaries, foreign troops, and genocidaires to his soil.

    To expect peace under his leadership is to expect rain from a stone. It is a political theater of the bizarre.

    Let us not beat around the bush. Tshisekedi, Suminwa, and Hazukay are not stewards of peace. They are custodians of chaos.

    They speak of liberation while collaborating with terrorists. They speak of sovereignty while outsourcing governance to foreign forces.

    They condemn ‘occupiers’ while being squatted on by their own lies.

    Their diplomatic drama has no intermission, no peak, and no certainty.

    Negotiating with President Tshisekedi is akin to playing chess with an opponent who changes the rules with each move.

    His administration’s rhetoric oscillates between calls for sovereignty and overt support for militias like the FDLR, a group with roots in the perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi inside Rwanda.

    Political discourse scholar Dr. Sarah Nouwen notes, “Engaging in negotiations requires a baseline of mutual respect and a shared commitment to truth. Without these, talks become performative rather than transformative.”

    In the DRC’s case, the performative aspect is glaring, with peace talks serving more as public relations exercises than sincere efforts to resolve conflict.

    Hypocrisy and the Death of Reason

    The most galling part of all this is the ease with which powerful Western governments allow themselves to be visibly manipulated.

    Washington demands that M23 disarm and withdraw. Why? But, where? And under what guarantees?

    Who will protect Congolese Tutsis from FDLR extermination? Who will secure the border zones?

    Who will prevent the re-militarization of genocidal groups?

    No answers. Just slogans.

    Just hollow press statements from officials like who think that thirty years of blood, betrayal, and broken promises can be fixed with a press conference.

    In How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that “when institutions reward bad faith, the entire system deteriorates.”

    If they’re right, then the Great Lakes region is not merely deteriorating—it’s being sabotaged by those who should know better.

    The international community’s engagement with the DRC often oscillates between interventionist zeal and negligent apathy.

    While calls for Rwanda to withdraw support for M23 may be valid for convenience’s sake, they must be accompanied by a critical examination of the Congolese government’s role in perpetuating instability.

    In the arena of Congolese politics, President Tshisekedi plays multiple roles, each tailored to his audience—be it international diplomats, domestic constituents, or regional allies.

    Yet, beneath the costumes and scripted lines lies a consistent theme: the prioritization of power and corruption over peace.

    Engaging with such a leader requires more than diplomatic overtures; it demands a critical appraisal of intentions, actions, and the broader context.

    As political discourse scholar Dr. Chantal Mouffe asserts, “Democratic politics is not about reaching consensus but about confronting and negotiating differences.”

    In the DRC’s case, this means recognizing the performative aspects of its leadership and seeking genuine avenues for accountability and reform.

    Until then, peace talks will remain a pantomime, negotiations a farce, and the Congolese people the unwilling audience to a never-ending tragicomedy.

    If this were a play, it would be regarded as a dark clowning. Tshisekedi, the unwitting star, delivers his lines with theatrical seriousness, Suminwa performs as a chorus of war cries, and Hazukay brings in the comic relief—if one finds genocide denial funny.

    But this isn’t theater. It’s real.

    Real people are dying. Real communities are being uprooted. Real genocidaires are still roaming free.

    So let us call it what it is: a diplomatic farce.

    The world must stop indulging Tshisekedi’s regime as a legitimate peace partner. It is not. It is the epicenter of the problem.

    And until that truth is accepted, no resolution, no initiative, no envoy—be they from Doha or D.C.—will ever deliver peace.

    You cannot negotiate with bad faith. You can only expose it.

    And laugh bitterly at the tragedy of it all.

    Democratic Republic of Congo’s President Félix Tshisekedi.

  • Post-peace deal prospects: Will Rwanda become a processing hub for DRC’s minerals?

    According to President Donald Trump’s senior advisor for Africa, Massad Boulos, these agreements will pave the way for billions of dollars in investments from American and Western companies into both countries.

    “When we sign the peace agreement … the minerals deal with the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo] will be signed on that day, and then a similar package, but of a different size, will be signed on that day with Rwanda,” Massad Boulos told Reuters recently during an interview in Doha, the capital of Qatar.

    However, the path to signing these agreements involves preconditions. For instance, the DRC is requested to address security threats that affect Rwanda, particularly neutralizing the FDLR militia.

    On Rwanda’s side, the conditions involve the request to end alleged support for the M23 rebel group, claims Rwanda has repeatedly denied.

    At the same time, the DRC is expected to implement domestic reforms that ensure equitable resource distribution across its regions and promote decentralized governance.

    Once these steps are completed, the U.S. will proceed with bilateral economic agreements focused on trade and investment.

    Since Donald Trump returned to office, business-driven diplomacy has been at the heart of his foreign policy, with his Senior Advisor on African Affairs, Massad Boulos, leading negotiations.

    While the DRC, with its vast natural wealth, will be the principal recipient of U.S. investments, Rwanda is not overlooked. The U.S. has acknowledged Rwanda’s mineral reserves, technical expertise in extraction and refining, and its efficient global export systems.

    “The [agreement] with the D.R.C. is at a much bigger scale, because it’s a much bigger country and it has much more resources, but Rwanda also has a lot of resources and capacities and potential in the area of mining as well … not just the upstream, but also midstream and downstream to processing and refining and trading,” Boulos said.

    According to Boulos, U.S. companies will invest in both countries. Some firms are already in talks to invest at least $1.5 billion in the DRC’s mining sector. Oversight of the U.S. contribution to these partnerships will be handled by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).

    Infrastructure and energy at the center

    A major component of the negotiations has been infrastructure. The U.S. believes the DRC’s mineral wealth cannot be fully tapped without better transport and energy systems.

    This includes the Lobito Corridor, a 1,300-kilometer railway linking Angola, the DRC, and Zambia. The project is expected to expand and protect critical mineral supply chains, increase rail transport capacity, and reduce freight transit times and costs.

    The United States has pledged funding for the infrastructure project, which is expected to be completed by 2029.

    Another high-priority project is the Ruzizi III Hydropower Plant, a regional energy initiative expected to produce 147 megawatts (MW) of electricity.

    Funded by the World Bank, European Union, and African Development Bank (AfDB), the $450 million project was launched in 2016 but delayed, with completion now expected by 2030.

    Once operational, Rwanda will receive 47 MW, with the remaining energy shared between the DRC and Burundi.

    Rwanda’s role in mineral processing

    A particularly notable topic is the possibility of processing DRC’s minerals in Rwanda.

    Rwanda already has well-established refining facilities, including Gasabo Gold Refinery, Power X Refinery (tantalum), and LuNa Smelter (tin).

    Exporting raw minerals often results in lost economic value. For instance, when coltan is processed, it yields tantalum—but also produces valuable by-products such as niobium (used in steel and electronics) and phosphate (used in fertilizer).

    When countries export unprocessed coltan, they lose all potential gains from these by-products, which are only extracted in refineries.

    Gold refined in Rwanda reaches 99% purity, and its tailings—silver—is a valuable metal commonly used in jewelry.

    Because Rwanda processes these materials locally, it avoids refinery charges and captures revenue from every by-product.

    This dual benefit, saving costs and adding value,is a strategic advantage that Rwanda is set to expand.

    As part of the upcoming trade agreements with the U.S., Rwanda is positioned to become a regional hub for mineral transformation.

    This means minerals extracted from the DRC may increasingly be transported to Rwanda for processing, before being exported to global markets under Rwandan trade infrastructure.

    The U.S. has also recognized Rwanda’s efforts to create industrial zones dedicated to mineral processing.

    These zones could soon host new facilities built to handle imports from countries including the DRC.

    The U.S. has also recognized Rwanda’s effort to create industrial zones dedicated to mineral processing.Rwanda already has well-established refining facilities, including: Gasabo Gold Refinery.