RSF’s Narrative on Rwanda: A Misleading Interpretation
Opinion of Regine AKALIKUMUTIMA
The report by RSF presents a biased and misleading picture of Rwanda by redefining press freedom and freedom of expression in a way that does not reflect the country’s reality. It portrays Rwanda as a place where journalists are restricted and controlled, yet this claim does not align with what is actually happening on the ground.
Rwanda has never forbidden journalists from doing their job or from denouncing wrongdoing in the country. Like anywhere else, there are professional and legal frameworks that guide media practice, but these should not be confused with a lack of freedom. Presenting them as such distorts the truth and misinforms the international community.
RSF is also looking at Rwanda through an unclear lens by attempting to compare it with countries that have completely different historical backgrounds. Such comparisons ignore the fact that Rwanda went through the Genocide against the Tutsi, where media played a central role in spreading hate and inciting violence. This history cannot be overlooked. Rwanda has spent many years rebuilding and sensitizing its population, particularly through media, to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. The same media that once fueled division has the potential to do so again if not handled responsibly.
What RSF describes as authoritarianism and censorship is, in reality, a misunderstanding of Rwanda’s efforts to maintain stability and unity. The claim that media owners must pledge allegiance to the government or that journalists are forced into patriotism programmes or ruling party membership is not true. Journalists, like all citizens, are free to choose their political affiliations. Joining a party such as the RPF is a personal decision, not an obligation.
The economic argument presented by RSF is equally misleading. It links challenges in the media industry directly to political control, suggesting that markets are dominated by the ruling party. This oversimplifies a much broader reality. Poverty and economic constraints are not unique to Rwanda—they exist across many countries, including those with very different political systems. It is inaccurate to claim that journalists cannot earn a decent living, as there are media professionals in Rwanda who receive good salaries and are satisfied with their work. At the same time, Rwanda’s geographic and economic context must be considered. As a small, landlocked country in Central Africa with no direct access to the ocean, doing business is inherently more difficult. The country’s current level of development has required significant effort from the government, especially considering how severely it was devastated during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. Ignoring these factors leads to conclusions that do not reflect the full picture.
It can also be argued that RSF’s portrayal contributes to undermining Rwanda’s image and reputation, built over more than three decades since the Genocide against the Tutsi. Rwanda is today recognized as one of the safest and cleanest countries in the world, with a rapidly growing economy. These achievements did not come easily—they are the result of sustained effort, discipline, and the commitment of the government and its leadership to rebuild a nation from nothing. Presenting a one-sided narrative risks overshadowing this progress and the resilience that has defined Rwanda’s recovery.
By ignoring these realities, RSF is misleading the world about Rwanda. A fair assessment would require an honest understanding of the country’s history, its progress, and the context in which its media operates, rather than imposing generalized standards that fail to capture its unique situation.
If you want to read the RSF full report click here Rwanda | RSF
