Download Report

1
Promoting Free, Responsible and Accountable Media
DECISSION BY RWANDA MEDIA COMMISSION (RMC) ON THE APPEAL
FILED BY RWANDAPAPARAZZI.RW
APELLANT: RWANDAPAPARAZZI
COMPLAINANT: HUSSEIN NZEYIMANA NA RADJU NIYONKURU
DEFENDANT: RWANDAPAPARAZZI.RW
CASE: DEFAMATION
RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTION: RWANDA MEDIA COMMISSION (RMC)
I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE
On March 13, 2015, NZEYIMANA Hussein and NIYONKURU Radju filed a
complaint with Rwanda Media Commission (RMC) accusing an online media
outlet known as RwandaPaparazzi.rw of tarnishing and defaming them in a story
which it published describing them as “Gigolos”. The story had a Kinyarwanda
title “Biryogo: Abasore ba 2 baratungwa agatoki n’abakobwa batari bake mu
biryogo ko ari abapfubuzi b’ abagore bakuze: AMAFOTO” which can be translated
to “Biryogo: Two young men accused by many girls in Biryogo of sleeping with
older women: PHOTOS” which was published on March 12, 2015 by a one
Kawera Ronald.
In their filed complaint NZEYIMANA Hussein and NIYONKURU Radju appealed
to Rwanda Media Commission to intervene and put Rwanda Paparazzi.rw to task
because they feel their names were tarnished by the aforementioned article.
The duo further said that wherever they go today they are seen as gigolos yet
there is no evidence produced by the website to prove that they indeed sleep with
older women. They both insist that they do not sleep with older women.
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
2
The duo requested Rwanda Media Commission to take action against the website
Rwandapaparazzi.rw if it is found that it violated the Rwanda Journalists and
Media Practitioners Code of Ethics.
On March 18, 2015, Rwanda Media Commission summoned all concerned
parties so that the complaint is handled and an amicable solution reached.
Rwanda Media Commission established an ethics committee to handle the
matter which was comprised of Commissioner Prince BAHATI, Commissioner Dr
NKAKA Raphael and Commissioner Me Donatien MUCYO. The panel convened at
2pm and work to assess the problem commenced.
On March 23, 2015, the Ethics Committee found the website
Rwandapaparazzi.rw guilty of defaming the persons of the complainants and
ordered Rwandapaparazzi.rw to apologize to NIYONKURU Radjou and
NZEYIMANA Hussein and also serve a one month suspension.
On March 30, 2015, Rwanda Media Commission (RMC) accepted the appeal filed
by Rwandapaparazzi.rw against the decision that was made earlier.
II. SUBMISSIONS BY BOTH SIDES IN THE APPEAL HEARING
On April 16, 2015, the appeals committee established by Rwanda Media
Commission (RMC) brought together all sides involved in this issue and heard
the reasons behind Rwandapaparazzi’s appeal.
The appeals committee was made up of commissioners Cleophas BARORE,
INGABIRE Marie Immaculée and Emma Claudine NTIRENGANYA.
On that day, present was MUGISHA Frank, the owner of Rwandapaparazzi.rw
accompanied by Me HAKIZIMANA John while Hussein NZEYIMANA and Radjou
NIYONKURU did not show up despite being notified earlier to attend.
The committee resolved that the fact that the complainants who filed the primary
complaint were not available could not stop the committee’s work since the focus
was the appeal filed by Rwandapaparazzi.rw.
The appeals committee assessed each of the points raised by Rwandapaparazzi
in its appeal and made decisions on each one of them.
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
3
On the issue of point of Rwandapaparazzi.rw having no doubt that the article
was published with enough evidence including voices of the source of the story,
the appeals committee said that having voices of the source does not exonerate
them from giving the right to respond to the other party because the voices they
have were one-sided.
The committee said that the article was based on the voices of one person yet it
is not easy to verify if what that person was saying was the truth. The appeals
committee also reminded MUGISHA Frank that in the first appearance, he
admitted that the article was not factual but speculative.
In its appeal, Rwandapaparazzi.rw that only person was interested in correcting
the first story instead of two and the committee assessed this argument, noting
that the clarification of the article should have been looked at before publication,
adding that clarification article did not include any of the issues raised by the
complainant.
On the claim that Rwandapaparazzi.rw called the second person in the case
Hussein NZEYIMANA and he refused to say anything to add into the clarification
because it would make no sense, the committee said that this issue can be well
understood if NZEYIMANA is summoned to explain why he made such a
decision.
On the argument that a one Donatien MUYO (Instead of MUCYO) is not on the
lists of advocates in the country, the Appeals committee dismissed it, noting that
there could be an error in typing but that is not enough to quash the earlier
decision made by the ethics committee.
On the point that Rwandapaparazzi looked for the two individuals who are
mentioned in the initial article but could not find them, the committee asked
Frank MUGISHA why they could not wait until when they find and he said that
given the nature of their website, they could not wait any longer because any
other website would have published the article. He said that they published it in
a hurry in a bid to be the first to do so.
MUGISHA Frank was asked if they take any precautions in order not to enter
into people’s private lives and he said that while they take caution sometimes, it
is not in their practice to cover up anyone.
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
4
The Appeals Committee asked MUGISHA what their wish is and he said that the
website was brought before the ethics committee in an unfair manner because
the complainants had information that Rwandapaparazzi.rw was previously
involved in a case with INGABIRE Victoire and their intent was to tarnish the
image of the website completely, a thing he said was deliberate.
In doing so, MUGISHA said that his website was portrayed as a media outlet that
publishes rumors or falsehoods, publicly tarnishing its image. For that matter,
MUGISHA said that the decision to temporarily suspend the website should be
reversed.
Me HAKIZIMANA John, who was accompanying MUGISHA, said that they filed
an appeal because Rwanda Media Commission did not attach credibility to the
proof provided by the website and that the panel did not consider the fact that
one of the individuals in the case accepted the decision of correcting the initial
article while the other one refused.
The committee said that there is a need to find out if the complainants were
content with the decision to make a correction or if they were not satisfied by
that decision.
MUGISHA Frank was asked what he thinks can be done to resolve this matter
and he said that they would like to see the duo come and make clarifications to
the initial article but without the publication apologizing.
The appeals committee adjourned the session and said that it is important that
the duo who filed the complaint should be summoned to make a few
submissions before a decision is reached.
The committee resolved that the hearing would resume on Thursday April 23,
2015.
On Thursday, April 23, 2015, the appeals committee did not convene because
the commissioners who made up the committee had other commitments that
could not allow them to meet.
On Friday May 8, 2015, the appeals committee resumed the hearing of the
appeal filed by the website Rwandapaparazzi.rw.
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
5
The committee began its work by verifying if the summoned parties were all
present. On the side of Rwandapaparazzi, MUGISHA Frank, the owner of
Rwandapaparazzi.rw was present, accompanied by Me John HAKIZIMANA, his
lawyer. On the side of the complainant, NZEYIMANA Hussein and Radjou
NIYONKURU were present in person.
The panel commenced by explaining to the parties what has so far been assessed
in the appeal and added that it was important to summon NZEYIMANA Hussein
and Radjou NIYONKURU who filed the initial complaint to hear their views on
the issues raised by Rwandapaparazzi in its appeal, the reason the two were
recalled.
On the issue of Rwanda Paparazzi publishing a one sided erratum with the name
of only one of the complainants appearing while NIYONKURU Radjou’s name is
not seen anywhere in the article, the appeals committee asked NIYONKURU
what he had to say on the matter.
NIYONKURU from the onset said that he still has an issue with
Rwandapaparazzi because in the first place there was no basis to publish the
first article and the clarification itself was unfounded. He said that there were
efforts to put things right before filing the complaint but it was all for nothing.
NIYONKURU Radjou said that he called MUGISHA Frank before bringing a
complaint to Rwanda Media Commission (RMC) and asked him why he was
publishing defamatory articles about him and his colleague.
At the time, MUGISHA Frank told him that the information was given to them by
their close friends. NIYONKURU told him that he is a professional footballer who
earns a living on the pitch and has nothing to do with sleeping with old women.
At this point, MUGISHA asked NIYONKURU to make a comment on the
allegations being made against his name and NIYONKURU said that it does not
make sense to react on unfounded information because either way it will still
tarnish his name whether he makes a comment or not.
NIYONKURU Radjou further observed that during the first hearing, MUGISHA
Frank offered to make a correction on the first story but they were still not
content because they believed the damage done by the online publication was so
bad that a mere correction or clarification would not help matters.
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
6
The Appeals Committee read the article Rwandapaparazzi says it published
correcting the first one and found that it was similar to the one which was
complained about, with a journalist inserting a few additional statements.
The ‘clarification’ article had a headline “Biryogo: One young man is accused by
many girls in Biryogo of sleeping with older women: PHOTOS”
Me HAKIZIMANA representing RWANDAPAPARAZZI said that they would like to
know if a story published online can be altered several times and the committee
informed him that while it is true that an article can be tampered with online,
there is nothing to show that the website corrected the first article.
To prove that Rwandapaparazzi did not publish an erratum, the committee
indicated that the dates of the first article and the alleged correction are the
same and the ‘link’ which allegedly leads to the clarifying article is the same link
leading
to
the
original
story
which
was
complained
about
(http://rwandapaparazzi.rw/biryogoabasore-ba-2-baratugwa-agatoki-nabakobwa-batari-bake-mu-biryogo-ko-arabapfubuzi-ba-bagore-bakuzeamafoto/)
hence Rwandapaparazzi.rw is deliberately misleading the committee and causing
unnecessary difficulties in handling this matter.
The Appeals Committee asked the owner of the website if he is willing to correct
or clarify the initial article since he admitted that it was not factual and Mugisha
Frank said that what they wanted was to give the aggrieved parties the right to
respond to include their views in the article.
The panel reminded MUGISHA that to clarify or correct a story that has already
been published is very different from giving a party the right to respond. The
right to reply is given before the article is published while correcting, clarification
and rectification is done after a story is published but it is found to contain
information which is not true.
NZEYIMANA Hussein also wanted to know if one is given an opportunity to
respond before the story is published or after. He said that they turned down
MUGISHA’s request to make comments on the allegations because they believed
the allegations were too serious and commenting about them would only make
matters worse. He further added that Rwandapaparazzi should be punished if
the committee finds that it committed professional and ethical mistakes.
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
7
The committee reminded all parties that in the previous hearing, it was agreed
that a concerned person is asked questions before the article is published and
not after the article is already out. The committee further observed that it was
agreed that the story was not so urgent that it could not wait for the other
parties to respond to the allegations being made against their names.
The Appeals Committee read Article 3 of the Rwanda Journalists and Media
Practitioners Code of Ethics which talks about social responsibility;
“A journalist shall keep in mind his/her social responsibility. He/she, therefore,
distribute or publish only information for which He/she has established the origin,
veracity and accuracy. They shall abstain or express necessary reservations in
required professional forms for any doubt however slight it may be”.
In light of the above, the Appeals Committee found that the journalist failed to
observe ethical and professional responsibility before publishing the
aforementioned article.
The Appeals Committee gave all sides the opportunity to express what they
wished could be done.
On behalf of Rwandapaparazzi.rw, Me HAKIZIMANA asked the appeals
committee to make a fair assessment of the submissions made by both sides in
contrast with the requests of the appealing side and come up with a decision.
Hussein NZEYIMANA said that while he did not appeal the earlier decision, they
were not satisfied because they felt Rwandapaparazzi.rw was given a light
punishment.
Radjou NIYONKURU said that his wish is to see the website Rwandapaparazzi.rw
banned completely and that they are ready to proceed to courts of law if they feel
the decision by Rwanda Media Commission (RMC) is not satisfactory.
The appeals committee dismissed the two parties and went into a closed session
to come up with a decision which would be communicated to the parties on
Monday May 11, 2015 at 4:30Pm
III.
DECISSION BY RMC APPEALS COMMITTEE
The Appeals Committee established by Rwanda Media Commission (RMC) based
on provisions of Law No 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating the media in
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
8
Rwanda and based on the Rwanda Journalists and Media Practitioners Code of
Ethics and the directives on resolving media-related disputes as adopted
Rwanda Media Commission; accepted the appeal filed by Rwandapapazzi.rw
because it was filed in a manner that met all legal standards.
Based on the submissions made by all sides involved in the issue and based on
the provisions of the Rwanda Journalists and Media Practitioners Code of Ethics
especially in its Articles 2, 3, 5 and 14, the Appeals Committee ruled that the
website Rwandapaparazzi.rw committed professional and ethical mistakes which
include defamation, circulating falsehoods and failure to accord concerned
parties the right to reply.
Considering that a journalist should be aware that he/she shall not publish lies
and should have the obligation to respect facts and search for truth, keeping in
mind the public’s right to true information. In no way shall he/she suppress
essential information or distort any kind of remarks, texts and documents.
He/she shall consider slander, abuse, libel, defamation and groundless
accusations against individuals, groups of individuals, businesses, associations,
organizations and nations as the most dangerous professional misconduct as
indicated in Article 2 of the Code of Ethics;
Considering that it is not the first time the website Rwandapaparazzi has been
found guilty of defamation/slander before the complaint filed by Hussein
NZEYIMANA and NIYONKURU Radjou, during which it concocted, concealed of
failed to provide evidence and also tried to disregard the decisions earlier made
by the Ethics Committee in the initial hearing;
Considering the fact that Rwandapaparazzi, despite being found culpable of
committing professional and ethical mistakes at different times, continued to
commit the same ethical mistakes that contravene the Rwanda Journalists and
Media Practitioners Code of Ethics as seen in the media monitoring report
conducted by Rwanda Media Commission on a daily basis;
Based on Article 29 of Rwanda Journalists and Media Practitioners Code of
Ethics, the Appeals Committee agreed that a request to suspend the website
Rwandapaparazzi.rw for three months be made.
The appeals committee also ordered the website Rwandapaparazzi.rw to
apologize in writing to Hussein NZEYIMANA and Radju NIYONKURU as provided
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda
9
for in Article 29 of the Rwanda Journalists and Media Practitioners Code of
Ethics.
The Appeals Committee, based on the Memorandum of Understanding between
Rwanda Media Commission and Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) of
September 12, 2013, in Article 4, Clause 6, ordered Rwanda Media Commission
(RMC) to request RURA to implement this decision to suspend the website.
As agreed on May 8, 2015.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
-
Commissioner Cleophas BARORE (President) (Sé)
-
Commissioner Emma Claudine NTIRENGANYA (Sé)
-
Commissioner Marie Immaculée INGABIRE (Sé)
P.O.BOX: 2136 Kigali, RWANDA
E-mail: [email protected]
TEL: (+250) 280078888
www.rmc.org.rw
TOLL FREE: 3536
Twitter: @RMC_Rwanda