Editorial  |   Poking fun is no laughing matter  |   Filling an important gap  |   The minister, the journo and the ladies  |   Rwanda oppressed by memory of genocide  |   Nigeria case is real-life thriller  |   Caseload  |   Vietnam: standing up for one who stood up

Sixteen years after extremists of the Hutu ethnic group murdered some 800,000 of their historic rivals, the Tutsis, Rwanda is still haunted by the horror of genocide. But efforts to ensure such an event will never be repeated have raised concern that the law is being used both to enforce a "one truth" version of history and to oppress political dissent.

Rwanda's 2003 constitution requires the government to "fight the ideology of genocide and all its manifestations", and the Genocide Ideology Law contains provisions against the expression of "genocide ideology" on pain of prison terms of up to 25 years. Defenders of these provisions say they are simply the equivalent of European laws against "Holocaust denial" and are designed to prevent a recurrence of the emotions that underlay the 1994 slaughter.

Critics, however, say they are really targeted not at those who may deny established historical facts but at anyone who raises doubts about the extent of the killing of Tutsis or points to the retaliatory killing of Hutus. Crucially, they say, the wording of the law is vague and that no proof of "intent" to incite or commit genocidal acts is required, such that reasonable comments or criticism of the government can be caught by it.

Last December, the Genocide Ideology Law passed the previous year in line with the constitutional provisions was used against opposition leader Bernard Ntaganda, the only registered presidential rival to the incumbent, Paul Kagame.

There are also wider worries about media freedom. A new media law, which came into force last year, introduces a broad range of restrictions on media freedom and lists a number of "press offences" which are regarded as criminal. For instance, there are harsh penalties for invasion of privacy but no clear definition of a public interest defence, while censorship, though declared unlawful, is in practice allowed through powers given to the authorities.

Supporters of President Kagame, who is described by Human Rights Watch as "austere and savvy", say he has brought political stability, economic growth and a calming of ethnic tensions to Rwanda, and that he is succeeding in his aim of making it the "Switzerland of Africa".

Critics, however, accuse Western governments of overlooking flaws in Rwanda's governance because of guilt at their own failure to act during the genocide. A report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative relating to Rwanda's bid to join the Commonwealth concluded that the country's constitution is a "façade" to hide "the oppressive nature of the regime." The report's author, Kenya-born Professor Yash Pal Ghai, an authority on constitutional law, says Rwanda is essentially "an army with a state."

Tom Rhodes of the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists says that only a handful of independent journalists remain in Rwanda after a series of physical attacks and arrests on media workers. A number of prominent journalists have gone into exile.