Aimable Karasira, a former lecturer at the University of Rwanda and a prominent YouTuber, appeared before the High Court Chamber in Nyanza tired and less showing smiles compared to his previous appearances in court. Scheduled to defend himself against charges brought by the prosecution, the hearing took an unexpected turn as Karasira announced his recusal of the judges presiding over his case.

The charges against Karasira include genocide denial, incitement to public disorder, disseminating falsehoods, and failing to disclose the origin of his wealth. Despite the gravity of these accusations, Karasira has consistently denied all wrongdoing, framing himself as a whistleblower shedding light on the socio-political realities of Rwanda, including issues tied to the 1994 genocide. He asserts that his commentary on YouTube, where he gained a significant following, is rooted in factual critique, including accusations of war crimes committed by the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

Karasira’s health became central to the proceedings as he informed the court that recent medical tests at Mageragere prison revealed a dangerously high blood sugar level due to his diabetes. He expressed a willingness to defend himself but emphasized his inability to proceed under deteriorating health conditions. When asked to provide medical proof, Karasira pointed out that the prison authorities should supply it, as he, being incarcerated, could not personally access such evidence.

The court, however, insisted on the continuation of the trial, citing its inability to delay proceedings based on claims unsupported by verifiable documentation. The defense countered that Karasira’s condition required immediate medical attention, while the prosecution argued that the defense’s tactics were aimed at delaying the trial unnecessarily.

In a significant twist, Karasira questioned why the prosecution had removed Mr Nadjimu Mihigo, Karasira’s former videographer, from their list of witnesses. He argued that this move indicated the prosecution’s case was not well-prepared or serious. In response, the prosecutor claimed that Mr Mihigo had disappeared and expressed fears that he was threatened by Karasira and his close associates to prevent him from testifying. This, according to the prosecutor, highlighted the lengths to which Karasira and his supporters would allegedly go to delegitimise the case.

At the heart of the trial lies a contentious debate over the fairness of the Rwandan judicial system, which has faced significant criticism from international human rights organizations for a lack of impartiality, particularly in politically sensitive cases. When opposition figures or critics of President Paul Kagame’s government, like Karasira, are involved, allegations of judicial bias become even more pronounced.

Earlier in the week, the court had authorised Karasira’s legal team to review video evidence submitted by the prosecution. However, logistical hurdles, including restrictions imposed by prison authorities, hindered the process. This fueled further tensions between the defense and the judicial apparatus.

Karasira’s ultimate decision to recuse the judicial panel, including its president, came after the court insisted on proceeding despite his objections. His legal team highlighted procedural flaws and questioned the ability of the presiding judges to deliver an unbiased verdict. In Rwanda, a recusal request triggers an internal review, requiring a higher judicial body to assess whether the existing panel should be replaced.

Karasira’s legal and political predicament sheds light on broader issues within Rwanda’s governance and justice systems. His claim of enduring consequences as a genocide survivor and his open criticism of the RPF’s post-genocide conduct put him at odds with the state’s narrative. Despite substantial evidence documented by various sources implicating the RPF in war crimes during and after the genocide, the geopolitical alignment of major powers and media outlets often obscures these realities.

As the recusal process unfolds, questions linger about whether Rwanda’s judicial system can rise above its reputation for targeting political dissenters. The outcome of Karasira’s trial will likely resonate far beyond his case, serving as a litmus test for the credibility of Rwandan justice in the face of political opposition.