Niyonambaza blackmail saga: Did we get the whole picture?

Can our senior editors make the difference between an opinion and a piece of news? Are they able to deliver a balanced and impartial report? Should anyone have asked these very questions a couple of years back, there is no telling as to what my reaction would have been. Let’s just say that the experience would not have been pleasant for the one asking the questions. So what brings me to be the one asking these questions today, you might ask? The answer is quite simple. What I used to quickly brush off as the expected missteps of a baby carefully trying to stand on his own two feet is now more than ever appearing to me as a real and serious threat to the credibility of the media fraternity in Rwanda. Case in point, two articles recently printed in this very publication concerning the alleged blackmailing case involving media practitioners that one could commonly refer to as the Rugali case. As a media practitioner and avid consumer of news myself, it is of my humble opinion that these two articles should have never made it in your publication…at least not as articles of news. They are quite obviously a reflection of the opinions of their authors. What interest would any media outlet have in pushing for a given opinion in an ongoing case that begs for more than one question? Having personally followed this case every step of the way as it unfolds, allow me to share some of my reflections and observations. At this stage of the tale I am confident that we are all familiar with the different actors involved in this saga, including those who sought to keep this “affair” so to speak on the low down. What is less obvious though, as highlighted in court, is the actual chronology of how this whole saga unfolded and what part the alleged blackmailers played in them. Yet none of the scenarios envisaged in court were even remotely mentioned in these articles. Why is that? Are we trying to push for a guilty verdict by influencing public opinion and decision makers? Allow me to get more specific. Everything I am about to mention is according to what transpired from the court hearings. To respect the ethical rules of the court about the anonymity of some of the actors, I will be referring to the victim of the alleged blackmailing as “X”, the person who “contracted” Rugali (according to the author of the article) as “Y”, and the third party in this saga as “Z”. The accused will however not get the same courtesy as their identities have now been paraded all over media outlets at great extent. We have now learned in court that X complained to the police to have been harassed by Niyonambaza Assoumani way before these events. Subsequent to this complaint, the police invited the journalist to discuss it and released him immediately after. There was at that point no harassment to speak of. It is now of public knowledge that Rutagwenda and X are close friends. It was by virtue of this friendship that X enlisted the help of Rutagwenda after Niyonambaza’s discussions with the Police. Rutagwenda in turn enlisted the help of Kalisa whom he thought knew Niyonambaza to serve as a facilitator. He eventually became the messenger who reported to Rutagwenda that Niyonambaza was ready to “sell” the story in order to settle the case for two hundred thousand RWF. Rutagwenda eventually reported to X that Niyonambaza was ready to kill the story for only “Five” hundred thousand RWF. His reasons for inflating the amount remain unclear. What is clear however, is Kalisa’s desire to be kept out of this affair after having brought the different actors together. His mission as requested by his friend was then accomplished. Everything goes downhill from this point. X allegedly reports the case as corruption. She was then apparently advised, by the police, not to pay Niyonambaza in his bank account but to use “her close friend” as bait to be caught red-handed. Why wasn’t she asked to contact Niyonambaza directly? It remains unclear up to this point. After all she had received so many calls and SMS from him that she had his contact information. Eventually Rutagwenda gets “caught” with 500,000 RWF disposed of by the police services. According to Rutagwenda, he was summoned by the Police to contact Kalisa who would be used in turn as bait to attract Niyonambaza. Again the same question comes to mind…Why did he not contact Niyonambaza directly? He had his contacts too and had been in touch with him through his “friend’ Kalisa. And so Kalisa finds himself once again involved in a case he had clearly retired from. It is then made clear to him by the Police forces that cooperating with them to catch Niyonambaza red-handed was his civic duty (inyungu z’igihugu). And here is how those enlisted to help found themselves accused of blackmailing and corruption. Amongst the questions that we cannot omit to ask are the following. Why did X ask Rutagwenda to help her with her problem and then reported it “to be” a corruption case to the authorities without telling him, her “friend”? Why didn’t the police or X, after masterminding the operation, persuade Rutagwenda to collaborate. It would have been prevention rather than arrest. After all, Rutagwenda only came into the picture to follow X’s instructions to cover up her story. What arguments were used by the Police to get him to go along with their plan? How about Kalisa? Both accused speak of being forced by the Police to go along with the plan, alleging that the target was Niyonambaza Assoumani. What are the differences between X and her two links to Niyonambaza? What makes her status in this case different from the others? According to the police it is because she “reported” the case and was ready to collaborate to “catch a criminal” red-handed. Why didn’t she mention that maybe her links were also ready to join forces? Hadn’t she asked her “friend” for help and support? What would have been the reaction of the Police if Kalisa or Rutagwenda reported the case to the police, as the latter claims they should have done? Would the police then have trapped X and Niyonambaza? The way this case has been handled makes me feel very sorry for different reasons. Amongst the lessons that we can learn from this story I think are the following: As members of the media fraternity, everything in our power must be done to prevent anyone in our midst to misuse their position as a media practitioner to blackmail any given individual for personal gain. It is however also our duty to report on facts while respecting the rights of everyone involved, including those who face prosecution for an alleged crime before the court case has started. Trying to influence the outcome of a trial, one way or the other is not only unethical, it is also immoral. We must never allow our personal opinions about individuals take us from our primary mission, which is to inform the public the best we can and leave it up to them to form their own opinions. The same goes to the Police whom I believe had the best of intentions in trying to prevent a crime to be carried out. The communication around this case however was so poorly handled that the primary intention of protecting the alleged victim’s privacy failed miserably. By now, a great majority of people know who and what was involved in the not so secret story. This case also highlights the public’s misconception of what really constitutes corruption. If we are to fight it, we have to first define it and understand it. I am deeply sorry for the people who are involved and for whom they never expected it would take this type of proportion. Each of them at their level of guilt and innocence must be affected severely by this little domestic anecdote that turned to become a police, judiciary and a media “case”. Finally, I am wondering what kind of media do we, members of this “would be” honorable fraternity, advocate to be building. What level of service quality are we willing and ready to deliver? To what level of excellence are we willing to elevate our industry? We still have a young child in our hands, “igiti kigororwa kikiri gito”; we can influence its growth by aiming for the best. The author is the Director Contact FM and President of Press House