You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Freedom of the Press’ tag.
Rwanda: Proposed media law fails to safeguard free press
05 Jan 2012
A revised media law promised by the Rwandan government prior to and during its Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 fails to safeguard the right to freedom of expression and a free media.[1]
ARTICLE 19 welcomes several improvements in the draft, but calls on the government to bring the law into full compliance with international legal standards on the right to freedom of expression.
The State retains its control over the media in the draft Law by determining rules for its operation and defining journalists’ professional standards. Media freedoms and the right to freedom of expression are not safeguarded and can be restricted in violation of international law due to overbroad definitions and the creation of vaguely defined prohibitions. The Minister in charge of information and communication technologies (ICT) is given unlimited powers to determine the requirements for establishing media outlets and conditions for accepting foreign audio-visual media to operate in Rwanda. ARTICLE 19 is also concerned that the proposed amendments leave untouched problematic provisions in the current Media Law that are not in compliance with international standards.
The draft Law amending the 2009 Media Law of Rwanda includes nine articles covering legal definitions, the right to exercise the profession of a journalist, the right to seek redress, requirements for launching an audio or audiovisual media outlet, licensing for foreign audio visual media organs to operate in Rwanda and penalties for crimes committed through the media. The Media Law is a comprehensive legal act containing ninety-nine provisions which determine “the responsibilities, the structure and functioning of the media.” It regulates the establishment and functioning of media outlets, including Internet publications. In addition, it regulates the status of journalists, outlines press offenses, and describes the liability regime for media and journalists and the rights to correction, reply and refutation.
Positive developments
The draft Law introduces additional definitions to explain the regime established by the Media Law. Another positive feature is the repeal of some problematic definitions concerning the right to reply, the right to rectification, and the right to correction as these are not in compliance with international standards and unnecessarily restrict the right to freedom of expression.[2] ARTICLE 19 considers the following changes to be positive from a freedom of expression point of view:
Removal of the requirement that journalists hold particular academic qualifications as this unnecessarily restricts access to the profession[3]
Removal of excessively bureaucratic requirements concerning press cards. These may be used as mechanisms through which to control who operates as a journalist[4]
Lifting of a number of restrictions on journalists, including the prohibition from “the using of unlawful methods to obtain or to disseminate information”, “neglecting essential information”, “distorting ideas contained in an information or a text”, which are unclear and can be used by the authorities to harass journalists [5]
Repeal of the grounds on which the authorities can refuse to provide information as these are not in compliance with international standards[6]
Lifting of the requirement for photojournalists to seek authorization by the media authorities to perform their profession[7]
Liberalisation of the system of sanctions for the media by repealing the provisions on warning or suspension of a press publication[8] and penalties for irregular press publications[9]
Repeal of sanctions of “suspension” and “closure of a publication”, both of which are disproportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression[10]. There are always less intrusive forms of sanctions which may be used to ensure the media comply with the Media Law and do not violate the rights of others, for example fines[11].
Continuing problems with the draft Law
At the same time ARTICLE 19 is concerned that the following aspects of the draft Law do not comply with international standards on freedom of expression and information. Firstly, there are a number of problems in respect of the definitions advanced by the Draft Law:
The definition of “journalist” is too broad in its scope and covers persons who are not professionally engaged in journalism (such as bloggers and social media users) into the existing media law regime: According to the definition in Article 1 of the draft Law, any person involved in the collection, processing and dissemination of information can be regarded as a journalist. It means that persons such as university researchers, bloggers and social media users, for example, would fall under this broad definition and hence are subject to legal responsibility under the Media Law. It is inappropriate and unnecessary for a media law to regulate non-journalistic activities.
The definition of “news item” is overbroad and may be used to hold journalists liable for any information reported by them: The definition “news item” in Article 1 essentially includes any information published or broadcast by the media. The broad definition is dangerous from a freedom of expression point of view since Article 88 of the Media Law provides for criminal responsibility of authors and presenters for offences committed through news items. The broad definition of “news items” means that journalists can be held responsible for any information reported or distributed by them. This violates international standards, which provide individuals with protection for justified opinions (value judgements) and protect journalists from liability for reporting the statements of third parties. ARTICLE 19 is concerned that the unlimited responsibility of authors and presenters will have a chilling effect on free news reporting.
The definition of “defamation” is overbroad and may be used to impose liability for the expression of opinions and to restrict in violation of international law certain forms of expression such as satirical publications or other forms of expression which by their nature are exaggerations, and parodies: Article 1 of the draft Law introduces a definition of defamation as “any act of using words, images or pictures published that are not accurate or true with the intention to offend the honour or estimation of the person or expose him/her to public contempt”. This definition can be used to restrict satirical publications or caricatures, which by their nature are exaggerations and parodies. Moreover, ARTICLE 19 is concerned that the definition allows for the imposition of liability for the expression of opinions, rather than for false statements of fact. We recall that international standards require a balance to be struck between the right to freedom of expression on the one hand, and the right of individuals to protect their reputations on the other. However, defamation provisions should not be used to restrict debate on matters in the public interest, particularly as they relate to the conduct of public officials or limit the use of different forms of expression, including those that are satirical.
In addition to the overbroad definitions outlined above, there are a number of substantive amendments made by the draft Law that are also problematic from a freedom of expression perspective:
The Minister in charge of ICT has unlimited powers to determine the requirements for establishing media outlets and conditions for accepting a foreign audio-visual media to operate in Rwanda: Article 4 of the draft Law gives powers to the Minister in charge of ICT to determine the requirements for establishing a local or foreign audio or audiovisual media outlets operating in Rwanda. However, no regulatory framework places any limitations on the exercise of this power, leaving all decisions to the discretion of the Minister. The Draft Law provides no safeguards against unnecessary restrictions on media freedom or against the abuse of powers by the Minister. We note that the constitutional principles of separation of powers and protection of human rights require that Parliament as opposed to the Executive legislate on matters concerning human rights including the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, when regulatory powers are delegated to the executive bodies the legislation should contain safeguards against misuse or abuse of powers by that executive body. These safeguards include guidance for the exercise of the regulatory powers and requirements to engage in consultations with affected stakeholders. There must also be judicial oversight of any executive regulation of the media, to ensure that the executive body is held to account for the misuse or abuse of their powers.
Introduction of new offences for example “publication of false information, intended to undermine the morale of Rwanda Defense Forces and the National Police and to endanger national security” or “inciting the army or the national police to insubordination” or “glorification or promotion of massacre, looting, arson, theft, rape, terrorism or treason.” ARTICLE 19 considers that the actus reus (the guilty acts) of these crimes are broadly defined and illegitimate restrictions on freedom of expression.[14] Moreover, ARTICLE 19 notes that the draft penal Code covers these offences.
Finally ARTICLE 19 is concerned that the proposed amendments leave untouched other problematic provisions in the current Media Law that are not in compliance with international standards, including:
The determination by the state rather than by media professionals of media professional standards[15]
The test of legality of the restriction on the right to freedom of expression set out in Article 17 of the Media Law does not include a requirement to determine the necessity of the restrictions[16]
The confidentiality of journalists’ sources is not effectively protected. Courts are able to require journalists to reveal their sources in relation to any legal proceedings, rather than only in the most serious of criminal cases. In contravention of international standards, the Media Law does not provide that information disclosing the identity of a journalist’s source should only be ordered by a court where there is no other reasonable alternative means available for obtaining that information[17]
The licensing by the Media High Council of all media rather than limiting licensing to broadcast media only. Licensing of the broadcast media is justified due to demand for broadcast frequencies exceeding the limited number that are available at any one time. However, there is no equivalent technical constraint that justifies imposing a licensing requirement on the print media, or controlling the print media through such a licensing regime[18]
The vague powers of the Minister in charge of information to “determine the capital of media outlets”[19]
The requirement for authorisation by the Media High Council for Rwandan journalists to become correspondents of foreign media outlets[20]
The Media High Council is not independent from government influence because the Minister in charge of information can reverse its decisions[21]
The registration regime for the copyright in press publications is not necessary, as copyright under international law does not require registration[22]
The unclear requirement for owners of internet cafes to screen and block pornographic websites[23]
The excessive fines[24]
There is also a lack of clarity regarding the enforcement of the Media Law, in particular it is unclear which bodies have the power to determine press offences and what procedures and procedural safeguards are in effect for the determination of liability and sanctions for those offences.
Changes needed
ARTICLE 19 calls on the Government of Rwanda and all stakeholders to work to incorporate the following recommendations to bring the Media Law into compliance with international standards on freedom of expression and information:
ARTICLE 19 recommends that the proposed definition of journalist be amended by placing the focus on the nature of the information and specifying that a journalist is a person engaged in information via means of mass communication
There is no need for a definition of a news item. Instead, Article 88 of the current Media Law which includes the expression “news item” should be modified to ensure that journalists and media are not responsible for opinion founded on facts and made in good faith and that they are protected against liability for statements of others
The definition of defamation should be revised so as to apply to any intentional false statement of fact, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation
Articles 12, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 38, 57 and 78 of the Media Law should be revised and brought in compliance with international law and media standards.
For more information
Please contact Stephanie Muchai, Legal Officer – ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, muchai@article19.org or call +254 727 862 230.
[1] Report of the Working Group, paras. 79.12-15
[2] See Article 1 of the draft Law.
[3] See Article 1 of the draft Law.
[4] See Articles 5, 6, 9, and 11 of the draft Law.
[5] See Article 13 of the draft Law.
[6] See Article 14 of the draft Law.
[7] See Article 50 of the draft Law.
[8] See Article 75 of the draft Law.
[9] See Article 76 of the draft Law.
[10] See Article 84 of the draft Law.
[11] See Article 84 of the draft Law.
[12] ARTICLE 19 recalls that international courts make a distinction between opinions (value judgments) and statements of facts. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that freedom of opinion is a fundamental part of the right to freedom of expression and that in contrast to statements of facts, individuals should not be expected to prove the truthfulness of opinions. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to freedom of expression protects the right of everyone to express an opinion as long as it is based on facts and was made in good faith. See the case of Lingens v. Austria, Judgement of 8 July 1986, Application no. 9815/82, para. 46.
[13] For example, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of the British parliament keeps under constant review the extent to which legislative powers are delegated by Parliament to government ministers.
[14] Article 6 of the draft Law. ARTICLE 19 has already expressed concerns that journalists and the media in Rwanda are held responsible for press offenses in violation of international law. See ARTICLE 19’s submission to the Supreme Court of Rwanda in the case against two journalists of Umurabyo newspaper who were sentenced by the High Court in Kigali to 17-year and 7-year jail terms on 4 February 2011 over articles critical to the Rwandan authorities. The decision demonstrated that judges don’t know how to strike the right balance between the right to freedom of expression and other rights and legitimate interest. ARTICLE 19 is of the opinion that one of the weaknesses of the Media Law of Rwanda is how to seek liability of journalists and impose sanctions for press offenses.
[15] For example, professional standards are established in Article 12 of the Media law imposing obligations on journalists to publish verified information, and give the floor to all parties.
[16] Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) sets out the test for assessing the legitimacy of restrictions on freedom of expression. It states that these restrictions shall be only as are provided by law and are necessary:
[1] For the respect of the rights and reputation of others;
[2] For the protection of national security or of public order, public health or public morals
There exists a three part test to determine the legitimacy of limitations to freedom of expression. Firstly the interference to the right must be provided for in the law, secondly it must protect or promote an aim that is deemed to be a legitimate aim in international law and thirdly, the restriction must be necessary for the protection of promotion of that legitimate aim.
[17] Article 20 of the Media Law.
[18] See Article 24 of the Media Law.
[19] See Article 24 of the Media Law.
[20] See Article 25 of the Media Law.
[21] See Article 26 of the Media Law.
[22] See Article 38 of the Media Law.
[23] See Article 57 of the Media Law.
[24] For example, Article 78 of the Media Law prescribes a fine for up to $8,400 for any act of interference with privacy.
Rwanda journalists under threat
By Andrew Meldrum
KIGALI, Rwanda — Sporting a hat at a jaunty angle and a winning smile, Fred Mwasa is very much a journalist about town here.
Driving through Kigali, he rattles off commentary about the construction sprouting up across the capital city.
“That is our first shopping mall. And that is going to be a Marriott Hotel. … Americans bring democracy. Chinese bring things we need, like new roads,” says Mwasa, pointing out a new divided thoroughfare, landscaped with grass, flowering shrubs and palm trees.
Mwasa shows a poor neighborhood that he says will be torn down as part of the government’s ambitious urban development of Kigali.
“These old houses will be replaced by high-rise buildings. The families will be moved to the outskirts. Maybe they will be happy with their new homes, but maybe not,” said Mwasa, 31. “We want to look into that.”
Mwasa has a reporter’s knack for seeing stories wherever he looks. That’s good, because he’s the managing editor of a new weekly newspaper, The Chronicles, a sharp-looking paper that brims with political stories, features and commentary.
“Rwandan readers are looking for good stories to read and we are providing that,” said Mwasa, in his office, which features portraits of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I’m optimistic about Rwanda,” said Mwasa. “There is so much going on. So many new businesses. The time is right for a new paper.”
Two months old, The Chronicles’ circulation of 5,000 is quickly growing, and Mwasa expects advertisers will soon follow.
Mwasa’s bubbling enthusiasm about the prospects of Rwanda’s press, however, is not shared by many in the African media world. Rwanda is ranked as one of the world’s most repressive countries for the press, according to recent surveys.
More from GlobalPost: 2 sides to Paul Kagame [3]
Reporters Without Borders rates the Rwanda press climate as one of the 10 worst in the world, with a ranking of 168 out of 179 countries. Freedom House rates Rwanda’s press as “not free” and places it at 178 out of 192 countries.
Several independent papers have closed down after being criticized by President Paul Kagame’s government. Editors and reporters who have angered the government have fled Rwanda.
Sometimes even exile does not ensure safety. A Rwandan journalist was shot dead in Uganda on Dec. 1 in what many suspect was a hit job. Charles Ingabire, 32, was an outspoken critic of the Kagame government in the website, Inyenyeri. Police recovered five casings of a sub-machine gun in the bar where Ingabire was killed.
This was not the first time Ingabire was attacked. He was severely beaten in October by assailants who took his laptop and demanded that he shut down Inyenyeri. The website was hacked into and temporarily closed.
Ingabire is the second Rwandan journalist killed in less than two years. In June 2010, Jean-Léonard Rugambage, deputy editor of Umuvugizi a paper critical of the government, was shot as he drove home in Kigali.
“Critical journalists are not tolerated in Rwanda,” states the Committee to Protect Journalists. Since April 2010, six journalists fearing intimidation and arrests have fled in exile, according to the CPJ. Two Rwandan journalists, Agnès Uwimana and Saidati Mukakibibi, currently face lengthy prison sentences for charges that include insulting President Paul Kagame.
Yet, Mwasa and others say that the situation for the press is slowly improving. The Kagame government is taking steps to relax its grip on the state broadcasting and to reform laws regulating the press.
The improvements for the press were highlighted at the National Media Dialogue, a government-sponsored conference on the press on Nov. 15.
Dramatically contradicting the government’s speeches was the arrest, the same day, of the managing director of The New Times, a pro-government newspaper that had run an expose of corruption.
Rwanda’s press is relatively small and centered in Kigali. Rwanda’s literacy rate is 70 percent. As more than 80 percent of the country’s 11 million people live in the rural areas, radio is the most widely used way people get news.
Related: Rwandan journalist Charles Ingabire killed in Uganda [4]
As in everything in Rwanda, the press is affected by the 1994 genocide. Prominent Rwandan newspapers and radio stations aggressively incited the mass killings. That troubling history makes the government wary about allowing a completely unfettered press.
“This sector continues to be plagued by lack of professionalism,” said Prime Minister Pierre Damien Habumurenyi, when opening the National Media Dialogue. “Some of our journalists use their independence and open media environment in ways that stand in contrast to the democratic ideas for which they claim to fight.”
As Rwanda works to build a future beyond the genocide, a free press is necessary, according to Mwasa.
“We have a positive contribution to make,” said Mwasa, who also teaches journalism in Kigali. “The press should point out things that people think is taboo — to encourage debate.”
For instance, Mwasa’s paper has featured articles on the issue of whether or not President Kagame should run for a third term. The paper quotes government supporters who say it would be a good thing for Kagame to extend his time in office. Others say it would be terrible.
“This is a healthy debate,” said Mwasa. “We are helping to make a more open atmosphere in our society. That’s good for all Rwandans.”
More: Rwanda Now [5]
Andrew Meldrum’s trip to Rwanda was sponsored by the International Reporting Project [6].
KIGALI, Rwanda — Construction cranes bristle across this city’s hills, showing where high-rise towers are being built at a pace to match Rwanda’s rapid economic growth.
Cars, buses and motorcycle-taxis speed on smooth, divided highways while vendors sell bags of carrots, cabbages and beans. Kigali looks every inch an increasingly prosperous African capital city.
Then a young man walks by with a wedge-shaped gape in his skull. A woman’s warm smile cannot hide the searing scar across her face.
This is Rwanda today. Bustling progress, haunted by the country’s 1994 genocide in which some 800,000 Tutsis were butchered. About 10 percent of the country’s people were killed during the 100 days of massacres. Most were killed by being hacked with machetes and most were of the Tutsi minority.
Rwanda’s sparkling advances in economic growth, health and education are impressive. Women have gained in economic and political power, with one of the world’s highest rates of representation in legislature, at more than 
50 percent. Yet Rwanda’s impressive achivements also tainted by its legacy of horror.
President Paul Kagame personifies Rwanda’s duality.
Intelligent, diligent and committed, Kagame has led Rwanda from chaos to order and set the country on a path toward security and affluence. Yet Kagame is also autocratic, intolerant of criticism and his government is combative toward the press. A number of government critics have been assassinated, some ot them in exile. Others have been jailed in Rwanda, such as opposition leader Victoire Ingabire [3] who is on trial for allegedly being a genocide revisionist.
Kagame’s government denies any involvement in the killings of its critics. And of those jailed, the government says the law is merely following its course.
Kagame’s government discourages open discussion of the genocide and of Rwanda’s abiding ethnic tensions between the Tutsis, who make up about 15 percent of the population, and the Hutus, who account for 85 percent.
Kagame’s government is dominated by Tutsis, a situation that seems to guarantee continued resentment by Hutus. Open discussion of this and any differences between Hutus and Tutsis is discouraged; those who speak about it publicly risk arrest for genocide revisionism.
More from GlobalPost: Rwandan opposition leader blocked by charges [3]
“When you try to discuss relations between Tutsis and Hutus, 17 years after the genocide, you hear the same answer over and over again: ‘We are all Rwandans now,’” said a longtime Kigali resident. “It’s the only answer people feel safe with. It’s amazing how many people stick to the Kagame line. It creates this eerie feeling that we’re in a ‘Stepford Rwanda’ where people only say what is approved — but you know there is plenty lurking beneath.”
“Rwanda is a country of dueling narratives. It is a glittering hope or a repressive country run by a dictator,” said a diplomat in Kigali. “These opposing views are more stark than in most African countries. … The Kagame government sees economic growth as the key way of protecting its security. But now we are starting to see some political developments. There are nine opposition parties, but will they go anywhere? The big question is whether Kagame will run for a third term in 2017. Or will he retire and let someone else take the helm?”
Kagame was re-elected in August 2010 by a barely believable 93 percent. Many human-rights and democratic groups charged that the election was marred by violence and repression. Two opposition figures were killed and one attacked under suspicious circumstances. Several opposition candidates were refused permission to take part. Kagame firmly denies any election manipulation or violence.
Now attention is already focusing on the next election in 2017.
The crucial importance of whether Kagame runs for a third term can be understood when looking at neighboring Uganda, where President Yoweri Museveni has extended his rule to more than 25 years, and has increased repression there. Further south in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has kept himself in power for 31 years, ruining his country’s economy in the process, and at the cost of widespread violence, killings and other human-rights abuses. A third term is a bad sign for a country’s democracy.
Related: 2 sides to Paul Kagame [4]
Kagame states publicly that he has no plans to change Rwanda’s constitution so that he will be able to run for another term.
“I will not be around as President come 2017,” said Kagame in an interview with the International Reporting Project. But he added a qualification that suggested there might be a loophole. “Let’s make judgment about 2017 when we come to 2017.”
But more telling may be the statements from officials of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front party calling for Kagame to stay in power. The party’s faithful do not say things that Kagame does not want to hear, so many in Rwanda fear that, with Kagame’s blessing, the party is starting a campaign to keep Kagame in power.
Kagame has a reputation as an adroit politician and he may well choose the option of hand-picking a successor who will allow Kagame to continue calling the shots, something like the arrangement worked out between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev.
Rwanda has made considerable headway, especially in improving its health, education and economy. But despite efforts to put up a façade of ethnic unity, it is clear that Rwanda has daunting obstacles to strengthening its democracy.
Rwanda’s challenge is to build a future that transcends its tragic past.
More from GlobalPost: Rwanda Now [5]
Andrew Meldrum’s trip to Rwanda was part of the International Reporting Project [6]‘s Gatekeeper Editors’ tour.
Rwanda journalists under threat
KIGALI, Rwanda — Sporting a hat at a jaunty angle and a winning smile, Fred Mwasa is very much a journalist about town here.
Driving through Kigali, he rattles off commentary about the construction sprouting up across the capital city.
“That is our first shopping mall. And that is going to be a Marriott Hotel. … Americans bring democracy. Chinese bring things we need, like new roads,” says Mwasa, pointing out a new divided thoroughfare, landscaped with grass, flowering shrubs and palm trees.
Mwasa shows a poor neighborhood that he says will be torn down as part of the government’s ambitious urban development of Kigali.
“These old houses will be replaced by high-rise buildings. The families will be moved to the outskirts. Maybe they will be happy with their new homes, but maybe not,” said Mwasa, 31. “We want to look into that.”
Mwasa has a reporter’s knack for seeing stories wherever he looks. That’s good, because he’s the managing editor of a new weekly newspaper, The Chronicles, a sharp-looking paper that brims with political stories, features and commentary.
“Rwandan readers are looking for good stories to read and we are providing that,” said Mwasa, in his office, which features portraits of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I’m optimistic about Rwanda,” said Mwasa. “There is so much going on. So many new businesses. The time is right for a new paper.”
Two months old, The Chronicles’ circulation of 5,000 is quickly growing, and Mwasa expects advertisers will soon follow.
Mwasa’s bubbling enthusiasm about the prospects of Rwanda’s press, however, is not shared by many in the African media world. Rwanda is ranked as one of the world’s most repressive countries for the press, according to recent surveys.
More from GlobalPost: 2 sides to Paul Kagame
Reporters Without Borders rates the Rwanda press climate as one of the 10 worst in the world, with a ranking of 168 out of 179 countries. Freedom House rates Rwanda’s press as “not free” and places it at 178 out of 192 countries.
Several independent papers have closed down after being criticized by President Paul Kagame’s government. Editors and reporters who have angered the government have fled Rwanda.
Sometimes even exile does not ensure safety. A Rwandan journalist was shot dead in Uganda on Dec. 1 in what many suspect was a hit job. Charles Ingabire, 32, was an outspoken critic of the Kagame government in the website, Inyenyeri. Police recovered five casings of a sub-machine gun in the bar where Ingabire was killed.
This was not the first time Ingabire was attacked. He was severely beaten in October by assailants who took his laptop and demanded that he shut down Inyenyeri. The website was hacked into and temporarily closed.
Ingabire is the second Rwandan journalist killed in less than two years. In June 2010, Jean-Léonard Rugambage, deputy editor of Umuvugizi a paper critical of the government, was shot as he drove home in Kigali.
“Critical journalists are not tolerated in Rwanda,” states the Committee to Protect Journalists. Since April 2010, six journalists fearing intimidation and arrests have fled in exile, according to the CPJ. Two Rwandan journalists, Agnès Uwimana and Saidati Mukakibibi, currently face lengthy prison sentences for charges that include insulting President Paul Kagame.
Yet, Mwasa and others say that the situation for the press is slowly improving. The Kagame government is taking steps to relax its grip on the state broadcasting and to reform laws regulating the press.
The improvements for the press were highlighted at the National Media Dialogue, a government-sponsored conference on the press on Nov. 15.
Dramatically contradicting the government’s speeches was the arrest, the same day, of the managing director of The New Times, a pro-government newspaper that had run an expose of corruption.
Rwanda’s press is relatively small and centered in Kigali. Rwanda’s literacy rate is 70 percent. As more than 80 percent of the country’s 11 million people live in the rural areas, radio is the most widely used way people get news.
Related: Rwandan journalist Charles Ingabire killed in Uganda
As in everything in Rwanda, the press is affected by the 1994 genocide. Prominent Rwandan newspapers and radio stations aggressively incited the mass killings. That troubling history makes the government wary about allowing a completely unfettered press.
“This sector continues to be plagued by lack of professionalism,” said Prime Minister Pierre Damien Habumurenyi, when opening the National Media Dialogue. “Some of our journalists use their independence and open media environment in ways that stand in contrast to the democratic ideas for which they claim to fight.”
As Rwanda works to build a future beyond the genocide, a free press is necessary, according to Mwasa.
“We have a positive contribution to make,” said Mwasa, who also teaches journalism in Kigali. “The press should point out things that people think is taboo — to encourage debate.”
For instance, Mwasa’s paper has featured articles on the issue of whether or not President Kagame should run for a third term. The paper quotes government supporters who say it would be a good thing for Kagame to extend his time in office. Others say it would be terrible.
“This is a healthy debate,” said Mwasa. “We are helping to make a more open atmosphere in our society. That’s good for all Rwandans.”
More: Rwanda Now
Andrew Meldrum’s trip to Rwanda was sponsored by the International Reporting Project.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/111216/rwanda-journalists-under-threat
Uganda/Rwanda: Investigate Journalist’s Murder | Human Rights Watch
(New York) – The Ugandan authorities should open an effective and transparent investigation into the murder of a Rwandan journalist on November 30, 2011, and identify and bring those responsible to justice, Human Rights Watch said today. The Ugandan government should also provide protection for Rwandan journalists and other critics of the Rwandan government who are living in Uganda, Human Rights Watch said.
Charles Ingabire, editor of the online publication Inyenyeri News and a vocal critic of the Rwandan government, was shot twice in the chest as he was leaving a bar in the Bukesa-Kikoni Makerere area of Kampala late at night. Friends told Human Rights Watch that he frequently went to that bar and had gone there that evening to meet some friends.
A spokesman for the Ugandan police told the media that the police had opened an investigation into Ingabire’s death and that two people were being held for questioning.
“The persecution of government critics can reach beyond Rwanda’s borders,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “We fear for the safety of other exiled journalists and government opponents in the aftermath of Ingabire’s murder.”
The Ugandan police should explore every lead in the search for Ingabire’s killers and intensify protective measures for other Rwandan refugees, Human Rights Watch said.
Ingabire, who was 31 years old, was a survivor of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. He had worked as a journalist in Rwanda, but left in 2007 and obtained refugee status in Uganda. While in Uganda, he contributed to Umuvugizi newspaper, one of Rwanda’s most outspoken publications.
Umuvugiziwas suspended in 2010 by the Media High Council, a Rwandan government-controlled institution. Jean-Léonard Rugambage, another Umuvugizi journalist, was murdered in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in June 2010. Its editor, Jean-Bosco Gasasira, fled Rwanda in 2010 after numerous threats to his safety.
After the suspension of Umuvugizi, Ingabire became the editor of an online newspaper, Inyenyeri News, which often published articles critical of President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and of the Rwandan government and army. Within a short time, the website appeared to have been infiltrated, and its contents suddenly changed, portraying the government in a favorable light. Ingabire’s friends said they suspected it had been taken over by elements close to the government. Ingabire and his colleagues moved Inyenyeri News to a new web location and it resumed its critical reporting.
Ingabire confided to friends that he had been threatened several times in the months leading up to his death, they told Human Rights Watch. About two months before his murder, he was attacked and beaten in Kampala, and his computer stolen. The assailants – whom he did not recognize – told him they wanted him to close down his website. He also received anonymous telephone death threats warning him to stop writing articles critical of the government.
While it is too early to draw conclusions about the motive for Ingabire’s murder, his death takes place in the context of a well documented pattern of repression of independent journalists, opposition party members, and civil society activists in Rwanda, Human Rights Watch said. Several journalists, critics, and opponents of the government in Rwanda have been arrested and detained or prosecuted in 2010 and 2011, and others outside the country have been threatened repeatedly.
Rwandans living in Uganda are at particular risk, given the geographical proximity and close links between the two countries, Human Rights Watch said. Rwandan refugees in Kampala frequently report being threatened and followed by people they believe are Rwandan intelligence agents.
Attacks on opponents and critics have also taken place further afield. In June 2010, General Kayumba Nyamwasa narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in South Africa. Nyamwasa is a former chief-of-staff of the Rwandan army and was once a close ally of Kagame, but is now an outspoken government opponent in exile. In May, two Rwandans living in the UK were warned by the London Metropolitan Police that there were threats to their safety emanating from the Rwandan government.
“The Rwandan government frequently states its commitment to democracy and free speech,” Bekele said, “but such statements are hollow when critics are threatened and attacked. The Rwandan judicial authorities should cooperate fully with their Ugandan counterparts in unearthing the truth about Ingabire’s murder.”
The silent funeral of an exiled Rwandan journalist
The crime reporter for Uganda’s vibrant Daily Monitor, Andrew Bagala, went to an odd funeral over the weekend. Last week, he covered the murder of online journalist Charles Ingabire, 32, who was shot dead in the early hours of Thursday morning by unknown gunmen at a bar in a Kampala suburb. “I decided to follow up the case and attend the funeral,” he told me. “It was first funeral I have ever been to in Africa where there was silence.”
Instead of the customary cries and wails, Bagala said, people wept quietly to themselves. “Even the speakers – usually at an African funeral everyone wants a chance to say something, good things about the deceased. But here no one wanted to talk.” In fact, only two pastors spoke at the funeral, and one of them did not give his second name, he said. When Bagala attempted to interview mourners, they declined to give their identities or have their photographs taken. Many attendees, he said, had fled Rwanda and feared agents would spot them.
Scattered amidst the mourners in the pews at the Evangelical Restoration Church were Ugandan and Rwandan security agents with walkie-talkies in their coat pockets, Bagala said. With such a tense atmosphere, it’s not surprising the whole service lasted only 20 minutes.
Charles Ingabire was shot dead at 32. (Ally Mugenzi/BBC)
It is certainly too early to point fingers at anyone for the murder. The online journalist hardly practiced journalism while in Rwanda, except for a brief period at Umuco, a newspaper banned in 2008. Once Ingabire left Rwanda in 2007, he worked briefly for another publication, Umuvugizi (which has also periodically been banned), before he launched Inyenyeri News. The website appeared to be well read both inside and outside Rwanda, local journalists told me. Ingabire was a former soldier, and Inyenyeri News had many stories about the army, including testimonies from exiled soldiers which made the site popular in Kigali and in the diaspora. Two months prior to his murder, unidentified individuals attacked Ingabire, demanding that he stop publishing the website. Fearing further attacks, Ingabire had applied for resettlement to a third country, but the United Nations High Commission for Refugees rejected the application due to his former soldier status, colleagues told me.
The quiet, quick funeral is indicative of the trials and tribulations exiled Rwandan journalists face. Some media columnists claim their colleagues fled Rwanda in order to “get rich from international NGOs” or to get “quick resettlement” to a Western country. Nothing could be further from the truth. In all the cases of Rwandan exiled journalists I have encountered, the journalists have left with heavy hearts and light pockets, to live a destitute existence in a neighboring country. For those who apply for resettlement, the arduous process takes years. Worse, none of them feel safe even after they have settled outside Rwanda. Many of the mourners at Ingabire’s funeral told Bagala they lived in the outskirts of Kampala and feared the city center because of the heavy presence of agents there.
Rwanda Focus (Kigali)
Rwanda: I Jailed the New Times MD for Disrespect – Police Chief
Shyaka Kanuma
5 December 2011
Inspector General of Police Emmanuel Gasana has let it be known that he locked up The New Times Managing Director and Editor in Chief Joseph Bideri because the latter “did not respect us (the Police).”
In an interview with this newspaper in his office at Police Headquarters at Kacyiru, Gasana said, “the Director of The New Times came in here and when we asked him a few questions he became very abusive.” Gasana continued, “When he came in here we had absolutely no intention of locking him up, but he was abusive (yaratukanye biratinda!) and we could not allow him to disrespect us like that.”
Mid last month the Police locked up Bideri at Kicukiro Police station for a couple of hours and later had The New Times boss released with no charges, but not after Bideri had a detour through the King Faisal Hospital where medics were checking his health.
The chain of events that led to Bideri’s run-in with the Police began earlier this year when it was revealed that the Rukarara hydro power dam in Southern Province, whose construction has cost the Government of Rwanda over US$ 23 million, was producing only a fraction of its installed capacity of 9.5 megawatts.
It has been disclosed to The Rwanda Focus that during a cabinet meeting someone raised the concern that Rukarara was producing only 2 megawatts of power. President Kagame is said to have stared with incredulity at former State Minister for Energy and Water Colette Ruhamya when she said indeed the station was producing only two megawatts and that that was all it could ever produce.
Ruhamya was wrong, according to inquiries by this newspaper from people knowledgeable about Rukarara. When a Sri Lankan firm Eco Power carried out a feasibility study, a source in EWSA, the national water and power utility, whom we will not disclose because he isn’t authorised to speak on record, told us: part of its (Eco Power) findings was that the least amount of power Rukarara could ever produce was 2 megawatts, even under the most adverse conditions of draught. In good conditions the station should be easily producing well between 7 to 9 megawatts.
Apparently Ruhamya had no understanding of this, or that a new power station will always have hitches in its machinery before going full blast. The junior minister’s displayed lack of knowledge she should have off the top of her head was one of the reasons she lost her job, we are told.
Confusion continued to reign when a member of a parliamentary ad hoc committee said one of the turbines at Rukarara was not working properly. Something was seriously wrong, the deputy alarmed. It was around this time that the Police too got involved into the investigation. President Kagame was steaming with anger about the project and asking for accountability.
Police would not reveal to this newspaper precisely how they got involved in the investigation in the first place. Were they supplementing the parliamentary ad hoc committee’s efforts? Police Spokesman Deus Badege could only tell The Rwanda Focus vaguely that “the matter is of interest to the public and it should not be surprising that the National Police would investigate it.”
In our interview with Gasana, the Police chief intimated the reason he had Bideri summoned was because the stories The New Times published seemed to be interfering with the investigation.
CID chief disagreed
Bideri on his part told The Rwanda Focus that Gasana had him summoned more than once to Police Headquarters and that on one occasion the newspaper boss spent the better part of an hour there with no one asking him anything. “We had published stories about Rukarara and we did not think we were in anyway doing anything wrong; we were only doing our job,” Bideri said.
Inquiries by this newspaper reveal that several police officers, including the Commissioner of the Criminal Investigation Department Christophe Bizimungu, were against the arrest of Bideri from the word go. Bizimungu is said to have resisted when Gasana ordered him to lock up the editor. “If we are going to jail Bideri, what charges are we bringing against him?” Bizimungu asked. “What are we going to write on the charge sheet?” The CID chief said he was taking no part in the matter. The Rwanda Focus is informed that when Bizimungu became adamant, Gasana sent in some junior officers who handcuffed Bideri and drove him to Kicukiro Police station where he spent about a couple of hours before they released him to take him to hospital.
According to a Police source we will not disclose so as not to jeopardise his job, Gasana planned an even bigger crackdown on The New Times, intending to lock up two other editors of the paper, Kennedy Ndahiro and James Munyaneza, as well as lead reporter James Karuhanga who too spent some time under Police interrogation. But several senior Police officers pleaded with their chief, saying it would be madness to lock up so many journalists before Gasana relented.
International media rights groups were already gleefully publicising the fact that Rwanda Police had locked up three journalists in one week, although two of the journalists were jailed for reasons that had nothing to do with their work – one for drunk driving and another for allegedly stealing property belonging to her employer after the latter filed a complaint.
Copyright © 2011 Rwanda Focus. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
