In a wide-ranging interview in Kigali, President Paul Kagame discusses M23, accusations of human rights violations, finding a successor, AU reform, and the UK migrant deal.
Three decades after Rwanda's difficult past of genocide, the nation, under the stewardship of Paul Kagame, displays a transformative resilience. Kigali, the capital, now a beacon of green urban planning, security, and technological innovation, mirrors the ambitions of a country aiming to redefine itself. With a population of 1.7 million, it has emerged as Africa's second hub for international conferences and a cradle for startups and tech companies.
At 66, President Kagame advocates a governance model focused on efficiency and accountability, with an emphasis on development over formal freedoms. His administration, a blend of young technocrats, many of whom were educated in the West, showcases Rwanda's journey from devastation to order.
Kagame's micromanagement style will be tested as he seeks a fourth term, amid criticisms of electoral dominance and concerns over freedoms. His tenure has been marked by significant diplomatic efforts, including Rwanda's leadership in the Commonwealth and influence in the International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF).
However, Kagame's role in regional security, particularly in Democratic Republic of Congo, remains controversial. His administration's shadow over the M23's resurgence near Goma has attracted criticism from regional leaders.
As the country continues to navigate its complex path of recovery and growth, the narrative of an evolving Rwanda under Kagame remains nuanced, with achievements in governance and economic development contrasted against debates over political freedoms and regional diplomacy.
M23 and conflict in eastern DRC
You recently went to Luanda to meet Angolan President João Lourenço, who is a mediator in the crisis in eastern DRC. President Felix Tshisekedi was also in Luanda two weeks ago, and according to the mediation team, you have agreed to meet each other. Is this the case?
Yes. President Lourenço of Angola has been tasked to handle this matter in terms of easing the relationship between Rwanda and DRC to provide the platform on which other issues can be addressed. I was in Luanda last Monday following Tshisekedi's visit. Our teams are discussing the issues as we understand them, and this will be followed up by Lourenço and that will lead to a possible meeting between heads of state.
So there's work to do and that's fine, and it is going in the right direction so far.
But the problem is that President Tshisekedi said he was ready to meet you on two conditions: withdrawal of Rwandan troops from DRC and the containment of the M23. Are you willing to accept those conditions?
Well, those are the matters that will be discussed. You don't want to have discussions and then start by laying down your conditions. It's the wrong way to go about it. But I think sometimes people are playing to the gallery, posturing in the media and so forth. I don't know what that gives us. It only confuses the problem and makes it harder.
I hope as we go forward, the mediator will try to eliminate that. Otherwise, we have heard so many things. If you talk about the preconditions, that would suggest that maybe we come up with preconditions as well. That means we wouldn't have a meeting point and therefore the problem wouldn't be addressed as it should be, because I could easily say I want to preserve security until he reverses his statements about "attacking" Rwanda and "carrying out regime change" in Rwanda, as he has publicly talked about. I would also say that unless the FDLR is removed from Congo, I don't want to talk to president Tshisekedi.
The United Nations, United States, France, the European Union, and other countries have formally asked you to withdraw your troops from eastern DRC. Is this crisis not likely to become too costly for Rwanda from a diplomatic perspective?
The cost is likely to be higher with the situation as it is, to Rwanda, if we just sat back and waited for others to resolve our problems. So Rwanda, for one reason or another, is involved, no question about it. We are also involved in finding a peaceful resolution to the problem. So we are not just part of the problem, we are part of the solution.
Are Rwandan forces involved in DRC? Why do you think Rwanda would be involved in DRC? Would it be for fun? Is it for fun that we put our forces on the ground in eastern DRC?
We have been managing problems that originated 30 years ago because of what happened here, the tragic history and those who were associated with that in one way or another. We've been dealing with that.
I have said publicly that when a threat like that materialises and reminds us of where we have come from 30 years ago, I have told anyone who wants to hear that you don't need anybody's permission to do what we have to do.
SADC neutrality
Rwanda has accused the Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional force of not being neutral in this conflict. Why do you see this force as a possible threat to Rwanda's security?
As the East African regional force was being deployed in eastern DRC, everybody in East Africa assumed we understood what the mission was about. But DRC thought the East African Regional Force was there for something else -- to fight its wars.
The M23 is Congolese - by the way, sometimes people talk about M23 as fighters, whatever you call them. They have 100,000 people here as refugees in Rwanda. These are their families, their relatives, their kith and kin, an ethnic group that is being targeted in eastern Congo.
Some of them have been here for the last 23 years, and the 15,000 or so who have come recently have been crossing the border almost on a daily basis. We have hundreds of families crossing every day, being targeted and uprooted from eastern DRC.
Now, if you call this M23 "terrorists", what are you sanctioning? The 100,000 people that are here as refugees? To me, that is not addressing the problem at all and then there are others, of course, the FDLR, and there is ADF which affects Uganda. Some are internal, like M23, others are from outside, like the ADF from Uganda, the FDLR from here, and maybe others from other places. So when the East African Regional Force went there, they were supposed to impose a ceasefire, and make sure that there are no groups fighting, and then follow up with political processes to address the root causes and the main issues.
The DRC government thinks it can resolve the problem militarily, but if they were capable, why would they need this African regional force to come and stop the fighting?
So when the East African regional force wasn't serving the purpose of Tshisekedi, fighting for him against M23 and fighting Rwanda [who is accused of supporting M23], he expelled the East African regional force. Before he expelled them, he was already working within SADC, trying to send a force to come and to do what he had wanted the East African regional force to do.
He wants a force to come and help him fight M23, whom he has already admitted, are Congolese. So, you want an external force to come and to fight your own people. You cannot resolve that problem through other means?
But what all this means is that we want to be helpful to resolve these matters that affect us, because the situation in eastern DRC is not just affecting Rwanda or DRC. It is actually affecting the region and beyond. There's no question. So why don't we therefore find a way of talking about it and not allowing Tshisekedi to dictate the terms of what must happen, because he is wrong.
We know he's wrong. He's wrong and he's using people. He's manipulating people to address his problem as he sees it, which is wrong.
Coping with criticism
Is it possible for your citizens to criticise you? Do you accept criticism, do people have sufficient freedom to express their criticism of you?
Yes, they have criticised me. I mean, you need to look at some social media and other media statements about me -- whether they are right or wrong. And by the way, I don't necessarily have to accept every criticism. I have a right, like you or anybody, to explain. It's not a given that when you are criticised for something, you are necessarily guilty. So until you satisfy me that I'm actually guilty, when I have given you my explanation, then I accept your criticism.
But you have to do the hard work of convincing me that what I did was wrong, just like I do. I don't simply attribute something as wrong to people without giving them proof. Maybe some of my criticism I placed on people, I also found it to be wrong, so I retract and accept it. But I want to be clear: not every criticism made about me is not necessarily incorrect. Maybe some of it is. In fact, it helps me to do better next time. I can't repeat mistakes so many times. I learn from what I have seen or heard, or that is proven to be a mistake. But as a human being, I certainly must be making a lot of mistakes.
Despite what Human Rights Watch claims in it's latest report about the fate of opponents in exile, can one be an opponent of Paul Kagame, without risking your freedom or even your life?
I wish those HRW rapporteurs took more time telling us about their own situation in the countries where they come from. They keep all this away from us. They never accuse their own of the same things, or if they do, it is always less of a problem than what we have done. The truth is the truth.
I really don't see the basis of this. By the way, what Human Rights Watch said about us 30 years ago is what they are still telling about us. Does it mean we never even changed, even the situation? Can we have a situation like that? They have accused us of things in 1994, 95, 96...
But it's not up to them to every day to be sticking their fingers. Who does that to them in their own situation? Are they perfect? Do I go there to complain about the wrongs they do among themselves, and later on they do to us? This is absolutely nonsense. Where does HRW come from? Every day, even on the television, you don't see where they originated from, the wrongs they do to people, the racism, all kinds of prejudices. They don't talk about it. It is way beyond them. They can't do anything about it.
But with Rwanda, they want to show the validity of their existence, so it is on Rwanda, which has no consequence to them. But if they tried somewhere else, as we have seen, why would they not try to somewhere else where we see worse things going on every day, against others and against us at the same time.
Opposition ineligibility
The fact that Victoire Ingabire cannot be a candidate is a big problem to them.
Do you know her background? That woman was sentenced 15 years in prison for the right reasons and let me tell you what people will not say. I was seeing some rubbish in the media. The evidence was not provided just by Rwandan prosecutors, but also by the Dutch prosecutors or investigators, so she was sentenced to 15 years. The issue was prosecuted properly, but when she served more or less half of that time: the president of this country, who is myself, in the cabinet, decided to forgive the rest of this.
Now, what does such a person have to say about the so-called right to stand as president? No, we go by the rule of law in this country. What is so important about this person, or more important about this person, than any other person in this country ? Is she above the law ? No, there is history. She should be talking about that. She should actually be grateful that she was even forgiven and just keep quiet.
On finding a successor
The RPF just nominated you as a candidate for a fourth presidential term. In a recent statement, you say that you accept what you describe as burden, while launching an appeal for the party to find you a successor. In reality, you have been expressing this wish for for years. Why is it so difficult to find a successor?
You are aware, of course, our context is not the same as in other countries' context. Every country has a context. In Rwanda, therefore, what is likely to happen in one form or another is going to be influenced by that.
Maybe, while I am working together with others in the country, we have made good progress in a very complex situation. Sometimes people get caught up in a comfort zone: since we are doing fine, why do we even bother? I mean, this is human. We are talking about human beings, and some people even want to say, let him keep doing it, since is he is able to carry this. All the arrows and the spears thrown at him, who wants to go there?
Here, where I am, I don't think is a comfortable place. Some people find it comfortable, where they are in similar situations. To be honest, I do not find it comfortable. For example, when we are talking about the management of a post- genocide situation, where victims have demands that are completely different from the perpetrators expectations. Managing that and what it costs, you really have to have a sort of thick skin.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Maybe if they are courageous enough to pick on somebody else, this person may come and deliver as well, or better. But taking them to that point, and everybody agreeing to do that, is beyond my power, is beyond my power, yours and anybody else's power.
African Union reform
For almost seven years, you tried to carry out an ambitious plan to reform the AU. Now it's President Ruto's turn. Are you satisfied with your results? When it comes to three crucial points -- the strengthening of the powers of the commission, the body's financial independence, and the bureaucratic mechanisms of the AU -- have you succeeded in your mission?
Well, first of all, I was greatly honoured and happy that federal leaders of our continent put their trust in me to carry out this honourable job, of spearheading the reform process on our continent and in our institutions.
We made good progress, maybe on a scale of ten we went up to six. It was four remaining and this happened because of something maybe we will continue having, for we have a problem on our continent. When we the leaders decide things, you don't always see a follow through of the decisions we have made ourselves. Along the way, somebody, just because it is in their interests, individually or otherwise, decide to change course -- when they were part of what was agreed or when they even suggested what to do!
So there is this bringing together of these 50 plus countries, that is difficult in itself, but then the 50 plus countries or leaders are each looking in all kinds of directions. So bringing them together to focus on what will improve the continent and improve us individually and so on is a nightmare. So you can't blame one person here or another person there, including me. It's all of us.
The UK migrant deal
Regarding the agreement that Rwanda has signed with the United Kingdom to transfer migrants to your country, do you think it will really come into force?
For us, we are clear about what partnership we created with the UK on the understanding of what migration issues are for us, and for them, and we got involved in trying to find a way through this partnership.
And that's how we came to work with the UK and we are hoping we can still find a way of resolving this matter. We are told that people are getting rich every day, richer and richer because they're involved in the smuggling migrants into Europe. I can understand if the UK is looking at it and saying no. We need to have an orderly way of accepting people here, those who are coming through smuggling, through the criminal way of doing it. We need to find a place where they can be and we sort things out properly. This is how the partnership came up.
So the controversy is on the side maybe of UK, with people who have different ideas. That's their business. Some say they shouldn't do this. They say that you can't send people to Rwanda. If you don't want people here to come here, we are not going to hold anybody responsible and we don't have to carry anybody's burden. Right?
