By
Tom Rhodes
 |
|
A screenshot
of the BBC Two documentary Rwanda's Untold Story, which led to the BBC's
Kinyarwanda radio service being suspended in Rwanda.
|
When
the BBC released its televised documentary "Rwanda's Untold Story" in
early October, which questioned official accounts of the 1994 genocide, a
massive outcry inside and outside Rwanda's borders ensued.
Locals
and foreigners alike protested the documentary's findings,
parliamentarians demanded a ban and legal action, and authorities
summarily suspended BBC's vernacular Kinyarwanda news service
indefinitely on October 24.
While some local journalists denounced and others
applauded the BBC's conclusions, few supported the ban on the nationwide news
service.
"So
us journalists are very much outraged given [the documentary's] complete lack
of balance," Gonzaga Muganwa, from the privately owned news magazine Rwanda
Dispatch, told me. "However, this doesn't mean the suspension of the
BBC is right either."
The
main bone of contention raised by locals and foreigners alike was the
documentary's exclusive focus on the research of two American academics that claim far more
Hutus died in the genocide than Tutsis.
Those
who experienced the horrors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, including
journalists and academics who cited
killings of an estimated 800,000 predominantly Rwandan Tutsis in just 100 days,
were understandably upset by the BBC's television documentary.
The documentary
"opens old wounds, spit(s) on the memories of over a million dead,"
an editorial in the pro-government English daily, The New Times, said. "Would BBC give a platform to Nazi sympathizers
to rewrite the history of the Holocaust in the name of free speech? Not in our
lifetime."
Rwandan
students, widows of the genocide, and civil society groups called
on lawmakers to act, demanding a ban on the BBC and an apology. Prominent
foreign academics, among others, co-signed a protest letter to BBC headquarters claiming the documentary's
findings were "absurd" and played into the narrative of genocide
deniers. The BBC's detractors, however, did not challenge other delicate issues cited by the
documentary, such as the ruling party's poor record in human
rights.
On
October 22, Rwandan parliamentarians and senators approved a resolution to charge the documentary makers with genocide denial, and
revoke the BBC's license to broadcast in the country, according to news
reports. The state-run telecommunications and broadcast regulator, the Rwanda Utilities
Regulatory Authority accused the BBC of "re-writing Rwandan
history" and banned BBC's Kinyarwanda radio service two days later, news
reports said.
A
BBC spokeswoman reacted the same day, arguing that the documentary contributed
to the understanding of the history of the country and refuting accusations of
bias. She said the BBC made repeated requests for comment from the Rwandan
government that were turned down, news reports said.
Whichever
side of the issue one takes, banning the BBC's Kinyarwanda Great Lakes
Service is not only illogical, but illegal too. Last year, Rwanda passed a
new media law that moves responsibility for regulation from the state to the Rwanda Media Commission, an
independent regulator.
While the head of the commission, Fred Muvunyi, considered the BBC program "insulting," he also
told me the government had overstepped its mandate. "Parliament's
recommendations to revoke the license should have come first to the
commission," Muvunyi said. "If RURA received the complaints; they
should have referred them to the commission as they did before to complaints
raised against Christian and Muslim radios."
President
Kagame does not appear to support the ban either. Kagame told parliament earlier this month that the BBC has chosen
to "tarnish Rwandans, dehumanise them." But he also said in a speech given this month to international think-tank Chatham House, based in
London, that "the BBC can say whatever they want to say. They don't have
to say or do whatever they do or say because that is right. They say or do
whatever they say or do because they can."
The
ban on BBC's Kinyarwanda Great Lakes Service for a contentious television
documentary misses the target. "The Kinyarwanda service was suspended but
we all know that the documentary was on BBC Two," Muvunyi said. "If
they have reasons to suspend BBC Kinyarwanda; they should indicate the basis of
their decision."
The
BBC told CPJ that the now-banned Great Lakes Service had no part in making the
documentary.
Public
criticism of the Great Lakes Service made by Rwandan officials through speeches
took place long before the documentary was released, local journalists told me.
The same sources suspect the controversial documentary simply gave authorities
a pretext to silence the service. After the documentary was broadcast, a
columnist in The
New Times claimed, without providing any detail, that the BBC Great
Lakes Service was partly made up of non-journalists, even suspected
perpetrators of the genocide--an accusation that staff members have denied.
This
is not the first time Rwandan authorities have suspended the service. In 2009,
Rwanda banned BBC's Kinyarwanda service for two months over alleged biased
reports concerning the genocide. The former information minister, Louise
Mushikiwabo, warned that the BBC would likely be "definitively and
unconditionally" banned if it did not reconsider its editorial approach to
the genocide, according to news reports.
Anastase
Shyaka, head of the Rwanda Governance Board, a parastatal organization charged
with implementing national media policy, said the suspension of the Kinyarwanda
radio programs was an effective measure against the BBC since the Kinyarwanda
service had the greatest reach across the country, news reports said.
Banning
the BBC service assists no one. The public, once again, are denied access to an
important national news source while the government, by failing to reply to its
critics and simply banning them, inadvertently appears as if it has something
to hide.
"The suspension of the BBC doesn't hold any national interest at
all," Charles Kabonero, the exiled
former chief editor of the critical weekly Umuseso, told CPJ. "The
national interests would be in the regime facing the documentary and clearing
the air on the issues raised."
Tom Rhodes is CPJ's East Africa representative, based in Nairobi.
Rhodes is a founder of southern Sudan’s first independent newspaper. Follow him
on Twitter: @africamedia_CPJ
Source: www.cpj.org
CPJ is an
independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom
worldwide.
Contact:
Sue Valentine
Africa Program
Coordinator
Peter Nkanga
West Africa
Representative
Email: pnkanga@cpj.org
Tom Rhodes
East Africa
Representative
Email: trhodes@cpj.org
No comments:
Post a Comment