IREX
International Research & Exchanges Board

MSI Africa 2008

Bookmark and Share

rwanda

Introduction

Overall Country Score: 2.40

Journalists in Rwanda have experienced relative freedom compared to 2007. The number of media practitioners and journalists increased in 2008 as a result of new media training institutions being founded. New media houses, both print and electronic, have begun operations as well. In addition, other journalists moved in from neighboring countries, some of them simply searching for greener pastures and others who were hired as editors and trainers.

Although the increase in journalists is a positive sign, the change is actually the industry recovering its numbers after the 1994 genocide, in which Rwanda lost almost all its journalists. They were among the roughly one million Tutsi and moderate Hutu Rwandans killed by Interehemwa, the extremist armed militia, in a period of about 100 days. During the genocide, the media stood accused of acting as a tool of hate. Some local radio stations and print media encouraged neighbors to turn against one another. Hutu extremists used radio to mobilize the Hutu majority, coordinate killings, and try to ensure that the Tutsi were systematically eliminated.

Some journalists who are believed to have actively participated in the genocide were investigated by international human-rights groups and were arrested and charged by the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Other journalists chose to go into exile. Among those convicted of genocide, incitement and crimes against humanity were Hassan Ngeze, the owner of Kangura newspaper; and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Ferdinand Nahimana, Valerie Bemeriki and Belgian journalist Georges Ruggiu Omar, of Radio Television des Mille Collines (commonly known as “Hate Radio” in 1994). The U.N. tribunal sentenced them to terms ranging from 12 years to life.

With the current development of the media industry and the improvement in professionalism, journalists have begun to regain the trust of the public and the government.

However, Rwandan authorities repeatedly caution journalists against violation of laws in the name of press freedom. Legal instruments that were enacted to prevent any recurrence of the media’s actions during the genocide remain in place. In addition, lawmakers have proposed a comprehensive new media bill. Among its provisions is a prohibition of the media using any public information accessed through “illegal” (non-official) channels. If passed by parliament, the bill could pose a threat to the existing relative press freedom. However, the MSI panelists expressed confidence that government will consider the media’s view on the new bill, and they hope that collaboration will result in a fair law.

Developments over the past year contributed to a small gain in Rwanda’s overall score of 0.11, up from 2.29 in 2006/2007. This improvement came from higher scores for Objectives 1 (Freedom of Speech), 2 (Professional Journalism), and 5 (Supporting Institutions). Objectives 3 (Plurality of News) and 4 (Business Management) remained the same as last year.

Objective 1: Freedom of Speech

Score: 2.69

According to panelists, there are clear signs of improvement, provided that the proposed media bill passes and the government follows through on its proposed reforms. The small improvement of 0.16 compared to last year resulted from increased scores in several indicators, notably Indicators 2 (broadcast licensing), 4 (crimes against journalists), 5 (legal advantages for state media and its guaranteed editorial independence), and 7 (access to information). The rest of the indicators improved slightly or remained essentially the same. All of the indicators scored within a half point of the objective average, except for Indicator 8, media access to international news sources, which was about two-thirds of a point higher.

Over the past decade, the Rwandan government has put in place a framework to support freedom of speech and press freedom and has promised to do more in the near future. However, implementation of good laws is lacking, some damaging laws remain on the books, and old conventions remain regarding the role of the press and treatment of the media and journalists. These issues are exacerbated by the memories of how some media members acted during the tragedy of 1994.

Provisions in Rwanda’s constitution guarantee press freedom and freedom of speech. However, other laws contradict the constitution and rights are enjoyed neither by the Rwandan media nor the general public. The government has continued with the process of reviewing some of these laws, including the Press Law of 2002, which it has used in the past to impede press freedom and harass journalists. The panelists expressed concern about the length of time that the government has taken to complete the process of reviewing the law, and said that the outcome will depend on members of both the Senate and Parliament, who are conducting the review.

The new media bill is poised to bring major reform to the Rwandan media sector. Panel members expressed support for the provision that sets a minimum capital of RWF 6 million (about $10,800) for any party to set up a media house. They said that they felt that it will help weed out media outlet owners who employ journalists but do not pay them.

The High Council of the Press, which advises the government on media matters, will be granted the responsibility of enforcing that provision. The council has increased from five members to nine, who come from across Rwandan society. The government appoints the executive secretary plus two other council members, three members are nominated by the private media through their professional association, one is nominated by the state/public media, one by the media training institutions and one by Rwandan citizens.

The council helps regulate the media by reporting and making recommendations on disciplinary actions to the president, but it can take no further action. Its influence has been waning recently as well, as the government has ignored its input and undertaken actions without consulting the council. The new media bill proposes that the council have powers to sanction and withdraw the licenses of media outlets. That provision is opposed by the media.

A department in the Ministry of Information oversees the licensing of broadcast and print media. Its director has final decision-making authority. The panelists agreed that licensing has remained fair and very transparent, as was reported in the 2006/2007 MSI. They indicated that anyone who wishes to start a radio and television station or newspaper is free to apply for a license, and that the license takes only a few days to be issued. But they said that the fee for acquiring a frequency is too high (RWF 5 million; about $9,000), as compared to the charge to register a newspaper (RWF 35,000; $60).

Market entry and tax structure for the media remain fair and no different from any other sector. The government has waived taxes on all imported media equipment and newsprint.

Panel members said that there are isolated cases of violent crimes against journalists, but the cases are not government-motivated. Panelist Mark Ramba Akankwatsa, chief editor of Umuseke, said that individuals from the security department commit them, and once the crimes are reported, action is taken. In several cases, the government has investigated and successfully prosecuted suspects. In one case, photojournalist George Baryamushaki and freelance reporter Ignatius Ssuuna were beaten by police constables. The authorities arrested the culprits, who were charged and later jailed.

The panel reported that although the public media are guaranteed editorial independence by law, this is not observed in practice. Editors are appointed by the government and have to protect their jobs by publishing or airing what they think favors their employers—the state.

No laws favor or give a competitive edge to public media at the expense of private media. All journalists are invited to attend the president’s monthly press conference, for example. And when U.S. President George W. Bush visited Rwanda last year, some journalists from the private media were allowed to attend his press conference, panelists noted.

However, in practice, state media generally have an advantage over private media in accessing public information. The government tends to supply information that it wants the public to receive to its own media. When private media manage to access public documents that are not considered secret, they do not have any problems, but if the documents are secret, the media outlet may be exposed to sanctions by the government. Some government officials have granted interviews to private media in the past, but they are very selective in choosing the media outlet.

Panelists were hopeful that these barriers to freedom of information would end if the proposed media law is passed, as it guarantees access to public information.

Libel is treated as a criminal offense and the burden of proof is on the defendant. However, the panelists agreed that the judiciary in Rwanda has maintained its independence, as evidenced by a number of cases in which journalist defendants have won against the state, individuals and politicians. When media members win their cases, they are acquitted by the courts; when media members lose, they are both fined and ordered to issue an apology. The panelists reported that they have not seen incidents in which journalists have been held liable for publishing critical statements against the president.

The panel stated that there is no restriction on accessing foreign news sources by media outlets, and that the Internet can be used freely by those who can afford access (typically those in urban areas). Some media depend on international news agencies and the Internet as their primary sources of international news, and they are free to publish or air this information in a language of their choice.

Panelists said that entry into, and exit from, the journalism profession remains free as long as the journalist is able to write or report. Media outlets provide their reporters with press cards, which are presented to organizers of government functions and press conferences. But under the new media bill, a journalist will be required to have a National Press Card in order to work. The High Council of the Press will be charged with the responsibility of issuing the cards to journalists, on the recommendation from their media house employers. (Freelance journalists will receive recommendations from their professional association.) The panelists said that journalists fear that the council might abuse its powers by denying them these cards, thus blocking them from practicing their profession.

Objective 2: Professional Journalism

Score: 2.30

This objective experienced a slight improvement of 0.13 compared to last year. Most indicators remained the same as last year, although Indicators 1 (reporting is fair and well-sourced) and 5 (pay levels for journalists) improved noticeably. On the other hand, increased commercial pressure resulted in a modest drop in Indicator 3, self-censorship. All indicators scored close to the overall objective except indicator 5; despite its improvement this year, it still lagged behind the objective average by about two-thirds of a point.

Panel members agreed that remarkable improvement has been made in professionalism. Many journalists are returning to school for training, which has contributed to the good quality of stories being published and aired. Panelist Sulah Nuwamanya, chief Rwanda correspondent for Uganda’s Weekly Observer, said that even the facilities used in newsrooms and newsgathering have improved.

Panelists said that the few cases of lack of objectivity are related to poor pay levels that tempt journalists into accepting gifts and payments in exchange for favorable coverage. But they emphasized that many journalists live up to the standards of the profession. The panel members also raised the issue of media owners whose editorial policies suit their own interests at the expense of objectivity. Nuwamanya emphasized the need for more training in ethical issues as well as in investigative journalism and interviewing skills.

While discussing ethics, panelists referred to the 2005 journalist code of conduct developed by the Association of Rwanda Journalists. The code is on par with other international codes, such as those followed in the United Kingdom, United States, Germany and Uganda. The association has been involved in promoting the code through workshops and seminars in Kigali. In 2008, with some funding from donor agencies and NGOs, the association held a seminar for journalists working from upcountry areas. The seminar was a great success, according to the panel. Some media managers also worked to enforce the code of ethics among their staff members.

Panelists said that a new body, the Rwanda Media Ethics Commission, is charged with ethics monitoring. They spoke highly of the commission and its efforts to encourage the public to report cases of corruption within the media. The commission has recommended that the code of ethics should be amended to suit the situation, and that all stakeholders should be consulted on changes.

As in 2006/2007, self-censorship was a serious issue in 2008. The panelists said that the main cause for self-censorship, especially among public media journalists, is the fear of losing their jobs. Panelists said that some editors force reporters to kill certain stories related to sensitive political or security matters, as these may cause problems for the media outlet.

Panelists also said that self-censorship is a result of poor remuneration of journalists. Some media outlets do not pay their staff reporters, and freelance journalists are paid even less frequently. The few highly-compensated journalists at the reporter level are paid RWF 300,000 ($540) a month and editors are paid RWF 600,000 ($1,100). Poorly-paid journalists get RWF 50,000 ($90) per month.

Poor pay also leads to elevated levels of corruption in the media. Many journalists will accept bribes from their sources to kill or sit on stories. Panelists said that even some well-paid journalists take bribes to report on certain people or organizations, but the panelists attributed this to individual character. An example is Godwin Agaba, a journalist with Newsline. Early in 2008 he went to the Impala Hotel in Kigali to offer to write a promotional story of the hotel, but he blackmailed the manager into paying a bribe of $100. The police were tipped off, and Agaba was caught red-handed, arrested, and charged.

Self-censorship is less of a problem among the most respected newspapers, such as The New Times and in the private media in general.

Journalists have been trying to address the compensation issue through their association. The panelists said that they believe that when a journalists’ union is formed, it will be able to strongly advocate for fair working conditions and better salaries for all journalists in the country.

The media have had no problems covering key events and issues, provided that they are invited. However, panelists said that certain media outlets are excluded from some events—sometimes because their policies are not in line with the organizers, and sometimes because the organization is selective with its media coverage providers.

Allocation of time for news and entertainment at radio and television stations has continued to depend on the individual outlet’s policy. Panelists said that the Rwandan audience is more interested in entertainment and music than news. Media houses that wish to remain in the market must adhere to that trend.

Thanks to the tax waiver that the government has placed on imported media equipment, media houses are able to use modern equipment in gathering and disseminating news. However, panel members agreed that better equipment must go hand in hand with skills development if the media sector is going to benefit. They emphasized that any assistance in procuring journalists’ equipment (cameras, recorders, and computers) should be channeled through professional associations and that print equipment would be better managed through private media houses.

Quality investigative journalism exists, and a few specialized journalists report on health, education, and business in consultation with the proper experts. The panelists agreed, however, that certain media outlets do a better job than others in covering niche topics. Some companies have invested in training their staff members in specialized reporting and editing, while others have done little toward this end.

Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources

Score: 2.78

The score for this objective remained nearly identical compared to last year. Most indicators did not change, and nearly all scored close to the overall objective score. However, Indicator 4, independent news agencies, scored lower than last year; Indicator 5, private media produce their own news, improved compared to last year and also scored about three-quarters of a point higher than the overall objective score.

Several news sources exist within Rwanda, but their degree of objectivity varies greatly, according to the panelists. Radio, television, newspapers and the Internet provide information to citizens, but mainly for city residents. All parts of the country receive radio signals. State-owned Radio Rwanda reaches the entire country, but television is available only in towns. Rwandan citizens also receive some news and information from neighboring countries, through radio stations with signals that reach some parts of Rwanda.

The government is continuing its project of setting up community radio stations and newspapers through the provision of seed money and media equipment.

The panel said that the majority of citizens depend on radio and television for information. The Internet is not restricted by government, and Rwandans with sufficient funds and access use the Internet to acquire their information. Other citizens subscribe to foreign television channels, such as CNN and BBC. Foreign stations are relayed by local television stations without any interference from the state, but most of these facilities are centered in urban areas. Newspapers are available for those who can afford them.

Control of the state media remains similar to last year, except that the would-be opposition officially joined the government, as part of the “Government of National Unity” initiative. Editors and senior management positions in state media are appointed by the government and enjoy little editorial independence. But panel members pointed out that although the state media focus on government activities, they also serve citizens by producing educational shows and other useful programs that are not aired by private media.

Rwanda has only one local news agency, the government-run Rwanda News Agency. Panelists said that the agency is not run efficiently, and in most cases, media houses have more information on a story than the agency. Some media outlets also depend on foreign news agencies such as Reuters, AP, AFP, and MENA.

Private broadcast media produce most of their own programs, which are typically of high quality. They also air purchased news and entertainment programs. Private broadcast news is different from state news, which is mainly one-sided in favor of the government.

Media ownership is not a secret to the public. According to the panel, it is very easy to learn who owns radio stations and newspapers by noting those who have an interest in the outlet.

Social issues, including women’s interests and minority interests, are covered widely and without restriction in all media. Minority languages are not used in Rwanda. All people speak Kinyarwanda, while some speak French and, recently, English.

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 2.04

The overall objective score remained nearly the same as last year and most indicators did not show significant change. Indicator 3, the advertising market, did show some modest improvement. Further, most indicators received scores similar to the overall objective score. However, Indicator 5 (government subsidy of private media) scored nearly a point higher; Indicator 7 (audience and circulation measurement) scored close to a point lower.

The panelists agreed that private media are run purely as profit-making businesses and are managed generally in an efficient way. A few media outlets have been mismanaged by their bosses and hence find it difficult to compete. Nuwamanya proposed that media owners seek out training in management skills.

Panel members agreed that the different media outlets have common sources of revenue, ranging from sales of their products and advertising to sponsorship and loans from financial institutions. Advertising comes from companies, the government, and individuals who may need advertising space. Some big companies have taken advantage of advertising in order to influence editorial policies—which results in certain media not reporting objectively on those advertisers. Panelists agreed that private media do not receive direct subsidies from the government, but some of them are seen as loyal in order to receive government advertisements. This compromises editorial independence of these media outlets, since they fear losing this revenue.

The advertising sector is not well-developed. Until recently, Rwanda has not had advertising agencies, apart from public relations firms that work for big companies. But advertising agencies including Creative Communications, Data Pro, Creaxio, GR8 and Rusororo have now emerged. These firms are new and do not have any relationship with media outlets at the moment, and how effective they will be remains to be seen.

Most media outlets, especially electronic media, allocate more time to running commercials than news items because advertising is a major source of revenue. Even print media sometimes sacrifice news story space for advertisements; however, print outlets maintain a better balance than other media.

Rwanda has no professional market research companies. The panelists said that no media outlet has ever carried out research to quantify what their readers or listeners want. They do not know which of their programs or columnists are the most popular. Reliable figures for newspaper circulation or broadcasting ratings are difficult to come by, and as a result, every electronic and print outlet regularly claims that it is the most popular.

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions

Score: 2.19

Although Objective 5 improved modestly, by 0.24 points, compared to last year, the improvement was limited to a few indicators: most remained the same and also scored close to the objective score. Indicator 1, trade associations, improved somewhat but still fell three-quarters of a point short of the overall objective score. Indicator 3, the work of NGOs, also improved. Indicator 4, academic journalism programs, improved and exceeded the score by more than half a point.

Rwanda has several professional media associations. They include the Rwanda Journalists Association (ARJ), Press House (set up by PANOS, a regional media development organization), and the Association of Journalists against HIV/AIDS. These associations have been in the forefront of media development in Rwanda, serving their members through training, fighting for their rights and promoting unity. The panelists also said that Rwanda now has NGOs, but most of them are involved in developmental work. A few have ventured into funding media training programs.

Senior editors have floated an idea of starting a forum through which they can address their problems, apart from the existing professional associations that unite journalists and junior editors.

The quality of academic journalism courses offered by the two existing institutions is very good, panelists said. Most graduates prefer to find public relations jobs or to work with electronic media. The training is practical, and students who graduate from these universities are well- trained and ready to start work without further training. Training opportunities abroad are also available but very competitive; some who opt for these programs end up not returning to Rwanda.

Media training has been stepped up by stakeholders, who have supplemented the government’s assistance by setting up modern training facilities. These efforts have positively impacted the journalism profession and quality of work produced in Rwanda. The Great Lakes Media Training Center, a media training institution created by the government with assistance from PANOS, continues to teach practicing journalists without formal qualifications as well as individuals interested in joining the journalism profession.

Panelists also agreed that short-term and in-house training opportunities are available for journalists to upgrade their skills. These programs are sponsored by media outlets and donors such as PANOS, whose programs are well respected and conducted by local and foreign trainers. Panelists did feel that the duration of the courses, between one to two weeks, is too short; they suggested that this should be extended to between one and three months.

Sources of newsprint remain in private hands. Printing facilities have improved due to investor support, which has reduced the cost and risks associated with printing in neighboring countries—something that Rwandan print media previously relied on to a great degree.

Media distribution channels, including kiosks, are in private hands and are managed efficiently. Private broadcasters control their own transmitters, though panelists decried political influence in the government process of determining areas of coverage.

Rwanda At a Glance

General

  • Population: 10,473,282 (July 2009 est., CIA World Factbook)
  • Capital city: Kigali
  • Ethnic groups (% of population): Hutu (Bantu) 84%, Tutsi (Hamitic) 15%, Twa (Pygmy) 1% (CIA World Factbook)
  • Religions (% of population): Roman Catholic 56.5%, Protestant 26%, Adventist 11.1%, Muslim 4.6%, indigenous beliefs 0.1%, none 1.7% (2001 est., CIA World Factbook)
  • Languages (% of population): Kinyarwanda (official) universal Bantu vernacular, French (official), English (official), Kiswahili (Swahili) used in commercial centers (CIA World Factbook)
  • GNI (2007-Atlas): $3.072 billion (World Bank Development Indicators, 2008)
  • GNI per capita (2007-PPP): $860 (World Bank Development Indicators, 2008)
  • Literacy rate: 70.4% (male 76.3%, female 64.7%) (2003 est., CIA World Factbook)
  • President or top authority: President Paul Kagame (since April 22, 2000)

Media-Specific

  • Number of active print outlets, radio stations, television stations: Print: 60 newspapers (High Council of the Press; however, according to survey results by the same body, only 44 newspapers are in circulation); Radio Stations: 17 (including 4 community stations); Television Stations: 1 (state-owned)
  • Newspaper circulation statistics: Top three by circulation: Imvaho Nshya (state-owned bi-weekly, 12,000 circulation), The New Times, (private English newspaper and the only daily publication in Rwanda, 5,000 circulation), Kinyamateka, (Catholic Church-owned weekly, 15,000 circulation)
  • Broadcast ratings: Top radio stations: Radio Rwanda (state-owned), Contact FM (private)
  • News agencies: Rwanda News Agency (private)
  • Annual advertising revenue in media sector: N/A
  • Internet usage: 100,000 (2007 est., CIA World Factbook)

Panel Participants

Mark Ramba Akankwatsa, chief editor, Umuseke newspaper, Kigali
Didas M. Gasana, managing director, Newsline (Rwanda Independent Media), Kigali
Sulah Nuwamanya, chief Rwanda correspondent, Weekly Observer (Uganda), Kigali
Alex Rutareka, journalist, City Radio, Byumba Town
Kim Kamasa Atukuzwe, editor, Izuba Newspaper, Kigali
Willy Rukundo, director, Radio Rwanda-Kanombe, Airport Town

Moderator
James Munyaneza, news editor, The New Times, Kigali