The decision by the African Union to adopt a resolution on the abuse of universal jurisdiction by non-African countries was based on the agreement that these countries were infringing on the sovereignty of African nations by targeting African leaders with legally unsound indictments in order to serve their political interests.

Africa has been subjected to incalculable abuse and exploitation by a series of mostly European colonial powers who, in their merciless pursuit of domination and Africa's resources have wreaked destruction that will take the continent generations to undo.

This has been accomplished with absolute impunity to which advanced justice systems of Western countries have turned a convenient blind eye. Truth be told, Africa has more than sufficient grounds to indict those responsible for historical crimes which have enduring consequences.

Rwanda doesn't have to go that far back in history to find justifiable grievances. It needs only to look at what happened 14 years ago.

It is no secret that the 1994 genocide of the Tutsis of Rwanda was planned and executed by Rwandans. But that is not the whole story; Rwandans did it with the help of many foreigners, their money, their equipment and their advice.

Worse, those same foreigners have offered protection to the Rwandan architects of the genocide and are helping to play down the crime, lest their own role be brought to light.

This is where Rwanda's claims of justice find their foundation, and this is where the debate started by Mr Chege Mbitiru in his commentary titled "Kagame seeks right to pursue genocide suspects" (DN, July 14, 2008) fits.

However, any attempt to elicit timely dialogue on this issue that has taken on continental significance must place Rwanda's motives and legitimate claims in the broader and correct context of the involvement of non-Rwandans in the 1994 Genocide, as well as the continuing sabotage of the country's recovery efforts by those who supported the genocidal plan in one way or another.

Surely, if the concept of universal jurisdiction has to be worth its name and have any benefits at all, Rwanda should reap many of them.

For the average non-legal person in Rwanda, this concept translates as follows: if you have anything to do with grave crimes such as genocide, then no matter where you are, no matter how long, no matter who you know, the long arm of justice should catch up with you.

This would be a god-send for many Rwandan citizens whose yearning for legal remedy has gone on unrequited for far too long.

The indictments issued against a number of Rwandan military and civic leaders by Judge Bruguière in France and Judge Merelles in Spain are based on a flawed process, have no legal or factual basis, and are founded mainly on accounts of genocide fugitives and other witnesses without much credibility living in European capitals.

Neither of the judges carried out any investigations in Rwanda, or interviewed the alleged suspects, or involved the Rwandan justice system in the process as is usually required by law and principles of natural justice.

The indictments themselves are diversionary as they aim at blurring historical fact and protecting those who planned and implemented the genocide in Rwanda and are now living freely in the backyards of the same judges issuing these indictments.

Mr Mbitiru is right about the overwhelming evidence of France's involvement in the Genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda.

The Independent National Commission Probing the Role of France in the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, headed by Jean de Dieu Mucyo was set up to gather the facts on the involvement of French and other key players in the genocide, a task that was performed competently, diligently and with professionalism.

The commssions's report has been studied extensively by the country's state officials and should the judiciary decide to pursue individuals implicated in the report, it would be perfectly within Rwanda's rights to do so based on concrete evidence gathered and following the principles of universal jurisdiction as laid out by international norms.

This action would not be in contradiction with the recent decision of the African Union.

It is, therefore, not a question of being against universal jurisdiction. Rwanda simply disagrees with the hijacking of this concept for political gain, as well as the lack of an international regulatory mechanism to guard against its abuse.

Mr Makolo is the communications director, Office of the President, Rwanda.