Human Security Centre Human Rights and International Security Research
8 July, 2024
by Sam Biden, Junior Fellow
President Paul Kagame’s re-election for a third term in August 2017 solidified the extension of the Rwandan government’s authoritarian and censorious regime. Media owners, journalists and even citizens are required to demonstrate loyalty to the government, with many being coerced into acceding to authority. Decades of repression stemming from the harrowing events of the 1994 Rwandan genocide have decimated Rwanda’s media landscape, making it one of the weakest in Africa. Television, online forums and media outlets are tightly controlled by the government or owned by shareholders loyal to the ruling party.
While defamation has been officially decriminalized, various kinds of other legislation allow for a seemingly tyrannical imposition of excessive fines, custodial sentences and public humiliation at the hands of the Rwandan government. Rwanda employs numerous methods to restrict journalists’ activities, including surveillance, espionage, enforced disappearance and alleged murder. Since 1996, nine journalists have been killed or reported missing with an additional 35 being forced into exile.
Censorship in Rwanda
The Rwandan government heavily restricts access to online content to maintain their own narrative, with material that describes the state as anything against their own official stance being deemed criminal. In 2022, 15 websites and online radio stations alongside various independent news sources were blocked by the Rwandan government, with internal access to their material becoming difficult. Alongside manually controlling access and traffic to critical outlets, forcefully deleting content deemed harmful has become a common practice.
Reliable sources suggest that the Office of the Government Spokesperson (OGS) has administrative control over some nominally independent newspaper websites, with employees allegedly removing content regularly. This occurs both directly/indirectly, with journalists being forced to remove critical content or news outlets having access to their content removed entirely, with allegations of news-editors being coerced to not publish critical content by Rwandan officials. This hostile environment for the media has forced many to act anonymously and focus on self-censorship to protect their identity and interests. On social media, many accounts are operated anonymously when being critical of the Rwandan government, with the disappearances and murders of opposition members acting as a secure motivation to maintain this anonymity.
For those who choose to not self-censor, if identified, they can face serious criminal charges and civil issues under the Law on Prevention and Punishment of Cyber Crimes. Sentences range from 5-20 years for various charges, including ‘inciting fear, insurrection or violence’ and ‘establishing, publishing or using a site for a terrorist group’, which Rwandan critics are incorrectly categorized as. Heavy fines align with these charges, ranging from 1-50m francs (upwards of £38,000), depending on the severity of the alleged crime. In particular, criticism of President Kagame remains the most contentious charge, having direct reference in the penal code of Rwanda. ‘False information’ and ‘harmful propaganda’ that are allegedly aimed to create hostility against the Rwandan government is a direct provision, with the most egregious offenses allowing for lifetime imprisonment. Alongside this, the ‘humiliation of national authorities’, although not strictly defined, allows for similar charges to be brought under defamation, yet has not been effectively used since 2019 due to its utility being overturned by the Supreme Court.
Pro-government actors frequently target journalists and ordinary users on social media who post content critical of the authorities, with Youtubers and independent journalists being among the most affected.
Surveillance of Critics
The rampant use of surveillance, including notorious spyware ‘Pegasus’, a piece of software that can remotely gather information from devices to spy on critics, is widespread, yet the true scope of its use in Rwanda is unknown. Amnesty International suggests 3,500 phones belonging to activists, journalists and critics were compromised by the Rwandan government, although the real figure is likely much higher.
There are two key pieces of legislation that allows the Rwandan government to exert covert surveillance over their critics. First, the 2013 Law Relating to the Interception of Communications (IOC) expanded government surveillance authority on the grounds of national security and public interest, allowing security officials within the Rwandan government to tap communications of anyone they deemed a threat to the prior grounds. There are several safeguards in place to ensure the law is used accordingly, such as the requirement of a warrant to use the legislation. However, warrants are issued by the national prosecutor who is appointed internally by the justice minister, lacking a level of impartiality, often leading to unofficial warrants that are verbal and not officially signed off. The second safeguard enforces the use of inspectors to ensure the legislation is being used within its means, yet these inspectors are directly appointed by the President, annulling any genuine form of accountability. Second, a 2018 law extended surveillance powers to the civilian Office of the Ombudsman for investigating corruption-related crimes. While the law is intended to be used for crime-prevention, it broadened the powers of key Rwandan public authorities, including the police, military and Rwandan Investigative Bureau (RIB). The wording of the law itself is vague about which communications can be intercepted and under what grounds, heightening concerns that journalists have now become more susceptible than ever to their freedom of expression being halted. These concerns were later validated as private conversations that were obtained through surveillance have been used in criminal trials of critics.
Targeting of Critics/Dissenters
The translation of online surveillance and censorship into the real life targeting of critics, including alleged killings, torture, arbitrary detainment and enforced disappearances underlie a more pressing issue. In a major Human Rights Watch (HRW) report titled ‘Join Us or Die’, they bring the stories of those targeted to the forefront.
Two men have reportedly been killed by Rwandan officials in Mozambique. On September 13th 2021, Révocat Karemangingo, a refugee in Mozambique, was shot dead outside a pharmacy in Matola. Karemangingo served as a lieutenant in the Rwandan army before the Rwandan genocide in 1994, yet fled to Mozambique after the fact, gaining a well-respected position in the Rwandan refugee community. Allegedly, Karemangingo was warned of the potential danger awaiting him by Mozambique intelligence, learning he was on a list of Rwandans to be killed, forcing him to travel to South Africa but returning to Mozambique shortly after. Rwandan officials reportedly used his death to intimidate others into abandoning opposition activities, including First Secretary Francis Kagame, the man who is supposedly behind many of the criminal ongoings, who allegedly told one interviewee they would end up dead like Karemangingo if they did not comply. In 2022, Seleman Masiya, a vocal critic of the Rwandan government and a pivotal figure in the Rwandan community in Nampula, was killed, with allegations that he was being pressured to work for the Rwandan government before he died. Around this time, the Rwandan High Commissioner, Claude Nikobisanzwe, was in South Africa, with people claiming he had been responsible for multiple ‘missions’ in the country, eventually in his expulsion from South Africa in 2014. These missions include alleged involvement in the killing of Patrick Karageya and attacks on Kayumba Nyamwasa who were both key figures in rival opposition group Rwanda National Congress (RNC), with the timing of his visit leads to suspicion regarding his potential involvement in the death of Karemangingo.
A further two men have been reportedly killed by Rwandan officials in South Africa. On February 21st 2021, businessman and opposition leader, Seif Bamporiki, was shot dead in Cape Town. According to relatives, he went to his office where a client requested the urgent delivery of a bed, to which Bamporiki agreed. When he arrived, he was immediately shot and his car was stolen. This was followed by local police forces warning those close to Bamporiki to stop trying to find answers surrounding his death or they may be killed as well. Another man, Theogène Bikorimana, a refugee living in Cape Town, was shot and stabbed to death at Gallo restaurant in Milnerton. Bikorimana was a former soldier under assassinated President Habyarimana’s regime before its collapse in 1994, fleeing to South Africa in 2006 due to being coerced into joining the military under President Kagame. On March 25th, hooded and masked men entered Gallo restaurant where he worked as a guard, shooting and stabbing him. Both relatives and HRW made enquiries into his suspicious death, especially since none of his valuables were taken, alongside frequent break-ins and threats by alleged Rwandan actors months before his death. Unfortunately, South African authorities have not responded to any requests made by the parties.
Three days after the Rwanda-Uganda border officially reopened following years of political tension, Emmanuel Munyaneza was found dead in Kampala. Munyaneza was involved in the early days of the RPF and was a founding member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP). Eventually he fled to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), later immigrating to Uganda due to threats he received in DRC. Official conclusions on how he died remain murky, with witnesses claiming he was beaten before he was killed while the postmortem team claiming he had no physical injuries that would’ve caused his death. Munyaneza’s opposition role and Rwanda’s track record of targeting dissidents in Uganda may point to a targeted attack. HRW pressed for answers, yet the Inspector General of Police for Uganda reiterated the conclusions of the postmortem examiner.
Among those that are killed are also those who have been tortured and deprived of their basic human rights. Most notably, the cases of Dieudonné Niyonsenga and Aimable Karasira. Niyonsenga was arrested in April 2020 after covering the impact of COVID-19 guidelines on vulnerable populations, being charged with forgery, impersonating journalists and hindering public works. He was officially acquitted on March 12th the following year, but an appeal by the prosecution resulted in him being arrested again later that year. At the time, the court was informed that Niyonsenga had personal documents confiscated prior to the trial and was further denied access to them. On January 10th 2024, Niyonsenga reported to a Kigali court that he’d been held in solitary confinement with little access to food, water or natural light and was a victim of assault at the hands of Rwandan forces. As a result of the violence, Niyonsenga claims that both his hearing and eyesight have been permanently affected by the attacks during his 3-year nightmare. Throughout Niyonsenga’s detention, HRW corroborated the claims that Niyonsenga had wounds on his face and body that indicated he was being tortured.
Karasira is a popular YouTube commentator, commentating on all things political in Rwanda. He lost family members to the Hutu extremists that were prevalent in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide. In the months leading up to his arrest he was harassed online by Rwandan officials, targeting his negative views on the Rwandan Defence Forces. He was arrested in 2021 and charged with genocide denial and justification as well as divisionism, having his first major court hearing in 2022. During the hearing, Karasira claimed that he had been tortured during his incarceration, including sleep deprivation and that he had been denied medical treatment for his injuries as well as underlying health conditions, such as diabetes and mental health issues. Considering these issues potentially being raised, Rwandan officials attempted to coerce Karasira and others to appear on public television and claim that they were not being subject to anything illegal.
Conclusion
The ongoing situation in Rwanda underscores the persistent and severe challenges faced by journalists and critics under an authoritarian regime that stifles dissent while restricting freedom of expression. The consolidation of power under President Kagame resulted in heightened control over media and rigorous enforcement of loyalty to the government, being further overshadowed by the events of the 1994 genocide that continues to shape the country’s political landscape.
