Economic experts simplify defining a country’s annual budget as proposals on how the government intends to levy taxes so as to spend on a wide array of projects within a financial year.
Indeed, the whole concept of the budget as a fiscal tool, taken to Parliament for approval is based on the age-old dictum that there shall be no taxation without representation. Money –and how it is raised- is so central to a country’s governance that all the processes for its accrual must be as widely consultative and transparent as is practically possible. Governments rely on the media to simply and correctly explain to the public the entirety of the budget.
It is for this reason that media houses take seriously the budget coverage wing of the business desk. In most newsrooms, the ultimate punch is obtained by bringing together business and parliamentary reporters because finance ministers release figures about the budget on either or both beats. Those covering the estimates must be widely knowledgeable about the current realities in the country’s economy. They must also strive to crunch the budget figures as to disclose to the public who are the winners and losers. To achieve this, they must correctly analyze and project how the government’s tax-and-spend plans are likely to directly affect the public and different sectors of the economy.
On August 15, 2025, Kigali-based New Times published a story on Rwanda’s current budget in which the government hopes to harvest a windfall by bringing back the tax on the sales of mobile phone handsets.
“The government aims to generate Rwf15 billion from the 18% valued added tax (VAT) levied on the sale of mobile phones in the 2025/26 fiscal year, according to Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA).” The story was done by Titus Manzi and titled, ‘Revenue Authority to collect Rwf15bn in VAT on mobile phones’. It explained the “reintroduction of the VAT on mobile phones” as one in a raft of recent tax reforms approved by President Paul Kagame’s Cabinet in February.
For the story, New Times quoted Roy Gasangwa, acting Assistant Commissioner in charge of Planning, Research and Statistics Division at RRA, as saying that the tax, suspended in 2010, had served its purpose and was no longer necessary. “When examining the penetration of mobile phones among citizens, the rate has remained steady at 74 per cent over the past three years. In fact, smartphone penetration is even lower, at less than 25%. Today, VAT exemption is not the proper solution for the penetration.”
What was the RRA official’s parting shot? “The government decided to reintroduce the tax on mobile phones and look for other means to cater for the remaining 26% that does not have mobile phones.” This sounded like literally throwing this cadre of citizens under the bus, but the reporter gave no details.
The story was wanting in many aspects. One, its title was definite and categorical, stating that RRA is “to collect Rwf15bn in VAT on mobile phones.” No. A tax is an estimated income. It should correctly have read as, ‘RRA projects to collect’ that amount of money from the piece of reform.
Two, it didn’t disclose what was the VAT on sold mobile phones before its discontinuation in 2010 as to help readers know whether its reintroduction is an increase or a decrease. Remember, the national budget is about winners and losers.
Three, New Times published a self-contradicting para which was attributed to RRA’s Roy Gasangwa that must have confused readers. It bandied percentages but failed to translate them into real numbers: that the penetration of mobile phones among citizens had remained at 74 per cent over past three years, and that only 25 per cent owned the smart version of the gadgets. How possible is this constant level of ownership, and what explains it? How many mobile phones are sold in Rwanda every year? What is the ownership pattern in demographic terms, and why? In a country that has a high youth population, what explains the low number of smart phones in fewer hands?
Lesson learnt? Journalists covering the national annual budget must strive to put a human face on numbing numbers.
