Skip to main content

Rwandan media under attack despite new press laws


  Wednesday 20 March 2013 11.42 EDT

Rwandan media under attack despite new press laws

Imprisoned journalists must be released and libel laws reformed before the press can be considered free
Paul KagamePaul Kagame, the president of Rwanda. Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian
Peter Noorlander
Rwandan president Paul Kagame has signed new press laws and a freedom of information act, intended to liberalise the media. Yet at the same time journalists are in prison for simply doing their jobs – holding the government to account.
Two of these, Agnes Uwimana and Saidati Mukakibibi, were jailed for allegedly defaming Kagame and "endangering national security" after writing articles that criticised the government's agricultural policy, its handling of corrupt officials, and the justice system for Rwandans involved in the 1994 genocide. The reporters had been warned by the government-appointed Media Council to "tone down" their criticism, and when they failed to comply they were arrested and charged with genocide denial. Their case has been brought to theAfrican Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, where they say that their right to freedom of expression and a fair trial have been violated.
Under the new laws, which are the result of international pressure and negotiations that lasted many years, the Media Council will stop being a censor and will focus instead on capacity building and promoting professional journalism. The media will be able to introduce a regime of self-regulation, and the freedom of information act will give journalists access to government information ranging from budgets to infrastructure plans.
However, while legislators congratulate themselves on passing these laws, Uwimana and Mukakibibi are not the only Rwandan journalists being persecuted. Radio journalistHabarugira Epaphrodite is being dragged through the criminal courts for mixing up the Kinyarwanda words for "victims" and "survivors" while reading the news about the country's genocide commemorations. It was a clear slip of the tongue and he was acquitted, but the prosecution has lodged an appeal which will not be heard until mid-2014. Until then, no radio station will hire him and Habarugira cannot work as a journalist. 
These are but a few examples of many. Over the past few years, scores of journalists have fled the country, leaving for Uganda, Sweden or the United States, from where they publish their newspapers online. One of them, in exile in Sweden, has tried to get his newspaper back on the streets in Kigali by importing copies by road from Uganda.
But this can be risky. In December 2011, Charles Ingabire, a Rwandan journalist critical of the president, was shot dead in Uganda where he lived as a political refugee. Two months earlier he had been assaulted by unidentified attackers who demanded that he stop publishing his website. A former soldier, Ingabire had written extensively about the Rwandan military and published interviews with other exiled soldiers.
The introduction of a set of new laws, unconnected with the offences for which journalists have been convicted, cannot be called a first step. Journalists have been jailed for criminal libel, alleged national security offences and vague genocide-related laws. If the Rwandan government genuinely wants to liberalise the environment in which the media operates then the real first step is to release the journalists unjustly imprisoned and reform the laws that led to their imprisonment to begin with.
Peter Noorlander is the head of the Media Legal Defence Initiative which is representing Uwimana and Mukakibibi at the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and provides legal aid to several other Rwandan journalists. Follow these cases at www.twitter.com/mldi

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Le Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placé le Rwanda là-bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le déploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   Résumé exécutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de Défense du Rwanda (RDF), imposées par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayées par une pression croissante de l'Union européenne, ont mis à nu une contradiction stratégique de premier ordre. La même force militaire sanctionnée pour son soutien opérationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en République démocratique du Congo est simultanément le principal garant sécuritaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploité par le géant français TotalEnergies à Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse répond à trois questions interconnectées dont les réponses définissent ...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute