The Rwanda Broadcasting Agency Boss Mr. Arthur Asiimwe is not qualified to interpret any law let alone the media or RURA Law; this is the work of qualified judges and lawyers.  His actions might be interpreted or tantamount to impersonation and legally construed as abetting, aiding and assisting to pervert the course of justice.

Mr. Asiimwe’s argument is based on law of 2013 in which he accuses the Chairman of the Rwanda Media Commission (RCM) of getting it wrong on RURA’s decision to close BBC. According to Mr. Asiimwe the 2013 media law is categorical on who regulates audio-visual and Internet media. Under article 4, paragraph 2, the law states, “The national utilities and statutory regulator shall also carry out the regulation of audio, audio-visual media and Internet.”  You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand this provision. He said.

This is where Mr. Asiimwe a good journalist but a poor and incompetent person to interpret the law. How do you compare the law and science on Rockets?  For the information of  this wrong learned man , law is for the legal practitioners , like  judges and lawyers, while Science is left for the scientists, therefore his comparison defeats his moral  and legal authority on this matter. Let me then break down what he wanted to feed his audience, he quotes Article 4 of law media law 2013, as you can see above the law says “shall also” because he lacks the capacity of interpreting the drafting, wording and the intention of the law, he jumps on the band wagon of the conclusion of what judges call the literal rule of interpretation.

Indeed, Mr. Asiimwe shoots in the leg when he says that, “the paragraph that follows says that there shall be a working agreement between the Self-regulatory body and Rura”. Does this man know how to interpret the legal meaning of shall and the English meaning of shall? This is where the whole project of RPF dies in the maternity ward, why on Earth Mr Asiimwe engages in the language he does not understand, when it could be interpreted by another competent person? Is Mr. Asiimwe making it on behalf of the government?

Mr. Asiimwe goes further and says that the Media Commission developed a document and signed by the two parties. However, Article 5, subsection 1 of the MoU states, “Rura shall jointly work with RMC to handle audio, audio-visual and Internet media matters related to content.”  If the above Article says that Rura and RMC shall handle jointly, what more else does Mr. Asiimwe want the law to say?

This is where Mr. Asiimwe goes wild and mad, “in other words, Rura does not relinquish its legal mandate to regulate broadcast media but simply expresses a willingness or good gesture to regularly engage with RMC on issues related to regulating audiovisual content.  This engagement is not mandatory.  It can either be done or not depending on the necessity as determined by the public regulator”

Let me remind my brother Asiimwe, the legal meaning of “shall” is mandatory not his English interpretation and version of the media or journalism. In fact it’s like a cheque that would be signed by two people and one of the signatories, snaps his co-signee and signs the cheque and goes to the back to withdraw money. The bank will never honor that cheque because the law says that both shall be signatory to the cheque.

Amazingly he admits that he is not a lawyer, but he says that the little he knows, in my opinion, the he is a layman as far as law is concern, the little law he claims to know is no different from that one of any Rwandan, in Mutara or my grandfather from Tanzania, who could argue with some of his fellow Rwandans to settle disputes. Or is Mr Asiimwe different from these Gacaca Nyangamugayo who could pass a life sentence without any legal or formal education? This is interpreted as “GUSHISHOZA”or “GUTEKINIKA”

“I am not a lawyer, but the little I know is that a law supersedes any other document. This is why Article 4, subsection 2 of the media law weighs more on this issue than whatever the MoU might be saying” Again this is his ignorance of the law, fortunately he has said it all above, let me remind him that the MOU is part of the law that establishes the law of the media 2013. Therefore the MoU being part of the law that establishes this organization, it makes it mandatory and not discretionary as Mr. Asiimwe is misinterpreting it.

Mr. Asiimwe further says that RURA “does not relinquish its legal mandate to regulate broadcast media but simply expresses a willingness or good gesture to regularly engage with RMC on issues related to regulating audiovisual content.  This engagement is not mandatory.  It can either be done or not depending on the necessity as determined by the public regulator”Again here Mr. Asiimwe is getting it wrong because RURA does not relinquish power because it does not have it , therefore  no legal duty  do so.

However, I will not delay on this legal ignorance of Mr. Asiimwe, but assuming the RURA had those powers to close the BBC, my question to Mr. Asiimwe would again be, did RURA get it right by closing the BBC Gahuzamiryango because of a Story of BBC TWO broadcast in London?  Where is also natural justice of giving the BBC the right of defense or to here its side of the story?  What the RMC Boss Mr. Muvunyi was saying was clear and simple, Kagame might be angry with the BBC but using RURA to abuse the law is not only illegal but ultravires and absurd.

Why should Kagame use the Rwandan youth, women, and other hungry groups to demonstrate when the Documentary tells a story that happened when many of those demonstrating where not yet born or where too young to know the crimes of Kagame? Does Mr. Asiimwe remember the lady who was asked why they were protesting said that they have come to protest against the Germans? This typical manipulation and exploitation Mr. Muvunyi is talking about in a language that might be difficult for Mr. Assimwe to understand.

A nation that upholds the principle of the rule of law, will not use its institutions to abuse it, BBC might be wrong, but the process that was used to close it was not only wrong but illegal, they would have used the legal process and achieve their heinous actions. The disregard of the law is a sign of incompetence by the legal institutions or lack of independence. It might be perceived by the international community that Rwanda after 20 years is just slipping back miles in the rule of law.

Indeed, we have witnessed this incompetence or interference, when the dissents of Kagame are being arrested, they can spend months in prison without trial, why does this illegal detention still take place?  when it is possible to use the existing law to achieve that they want under their martial law?

We are very concerned that Mr. Muvunyi might be mistreated or killed, because the voice of Asiimwe is from another source that is more interested in what Mr. Muvunyi said, it is very imperative that whereas Mr. Muvunyi is entitled to his opinion and definition of the powers he has, the Kagame Cameras might see Mr. Muvunyi in another perspective. He should therefore be very vigilant, the final word for Mr. Asiimwe , he should leave the work of Caesar to Caesar and that of God to God, the interpretation of the law, is for the law practitioners no more no less.

 

Jacqueline Umurungi

Brussels.