The media landscape in Rwanda has been described as among the poorest in Africa due to decades of oppression.
Local and international media-watching organisations have fingered the Kigali Administration for, among other untoward strategies, exploiting Rwanda’s collective memory of the 1994 genocide – an era when a section of the media fuelled ethnic hatred – to put many hurdles in the path of media freedom and public access to unfettered information.
For example, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) notes in its 2024 report that TV channels in President Paul Kagame’s country of 15 million inhabitants are controlled by the government or through shareholders who are members of the ruling party.
“Most radio stations concentrate on music and sports to avoid having problems … Investigative journalism is not widely practised, and journalists who have tried to circulate sensitive or critical content via YouTube or other online outlets in recent years have received harsh sentences.”
And to prevent journalists from working freely, RSF says, many methods are used in Rwanda, including surveillance, espionage, arrest and enforced disappearance. “Arbitrary arrests and detentions have increased in recent years, and journalists working online also face intense repression. The level of impunity for crimes committed against journalists is significant.”
The United Nations and a host of organisations have accused President Kagame of supporting the rebel March 23 Movement (M23). He has vehemently denied the allegations, even as he – sometimes – trips and insists that Rwandan forces have been mobilised to its borders with the Democratic Republic of Congo for internal security.
The state of the media in Rwanda sharply comes to focus because the practice of journalism has severely been impeded in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, following heightened attacks on the media during the ongoing clash between DRC’s national army (FARDC) and M23. Latest reports, confirmed by RSF, indicate that most journalists in eastern Congo have fled for dear life, leaving inhabitants of the region at the mercy of unverified information from Rwandan media.
A critical content analysis of the Rwandan media on the coverage of the conflict reveals a general decision to openly align to Kigali’s approach to the matter: cagey but implicitly celebrating the country’s military ‘exploits’ on the neighbour’s land mass. Their content is bent in favour of the government, complete with biases and exhibiting unethical practices.
For example, Kigali-based Taarifa has, over a span of three weeks, published four articles that openly toasted the activities of M23 in the eastern DRC conflict.
Article 1: ‘SADC Withdraws from Eastern DRC After Suffering Heavy Military Losses’ (January 31, 2025). Taarifa reported that SADC had announced an immediate withdrawal “following devastating military losses.”
There was more: “From the outset, SADC’s deployment aligned itself with a regime that has systematically persecuted a section of its own population. Instead of acting as a neutral force for stability, SADC troops—alongside white mercenaries from Western countries such as Romania, France and Belarus—found themselves fighting on behalf of the Congolese government, which has long waged war against its own Rwandophone citizens.
“What was meant to be a mission of regional solidarity instead turned into an operation of oppression, reinforcing the suffering of a marginalised people. The fall of Goma soon followed, delivering a humiliating end to Kinshasa’s war efforts … M23’s capture of Goma was executed with remarkable precision—only 100 people were killed, including soldiers, and fewer than 1,000 were injured.”
Article 2: ‘M23 Administration in Goma Acting Very Professional’ (February 13, 2025). Here, Taarifa claimed its editor had taken a whirlwind tour of Goma after the M23 capture and returned the verdict that the city’s future could only be better.
“A week after the capture of Goma the capital of North Kivu Province, DRC, the M23 administration can be described as acting efficient, professional and determined.
“Before Tembo (a roadside food vendor the editor was interviewing) concludes his statement, a military truck emerges with M23 soldiers in desert-like camouflage military gear, black hand gloves holding guns and neatly polished boots. My heart begins pumping as they stop by, they smile a bit and greet in Kinyarwanda, “Mumeze neza,” I respond.
““Foreign cars, especially from EAC countries, may trigger a few angry mobs. Previously it was difficult for a foreign registered car to enter DRC because of the Kinshasha stance against neighbouring Rwanda and other EAC countries but the M23 administration has lifted restrictions,”
Article 3: ‘M23 Captures Bukavu as President Tshisekedi Loses Grip on Security Situation’ (February 16, 2025). On this, Taarifa began the story by announcing that M23 rebels had fully taken control of Bukavu, “seizing key infrastructure, including the airport and the Bukavu-Kamembe border post, despite claims from President Félix Tshisekedi’s office that the city remains under government control.”
The report said President Tshisekedi had “falsely claimed” that his government forces were in charge of the city. “However, as a slap in the face, M23 fighters launched a coordinated assault early Sunday morning, taking over the city’s main government institutions, border posts and the airport, cementing their authority over South Kivu’s capital.”
Story 4: ‘M23/AFC Fighters Finally Enter Bukavu Under Heavy Gunfire’ (February 16, 2025). The paper used the affirmative word, “finally.”
“By 6AM on Sunday morning, the heavily armed M23 fighters buttressed into Bukavu town crashing resistance from DRC-Burundi allied troops … M23/AFC (Congo River Alliance) fighters, backpacks on their backs and weapons slung over their shoulders, walked through the streets and advanced towards the city center.
“President Félix Tshisekedi is reportedly overwhelmed by the advances of the rebels in Bukavu which prompted him to convene a security meeting at the African Union City on Saturday.”
Lesson learnt? Taarifa has conducted itself with utmost bias and unethically in its coverage of the conflict in the eastern Congo. For that, the publication has degenerated to a government propaganda mouthpiece in wartime.
