The complaints had issues with photographs that was taken at a concert and used on two pages in the Kigali Sun magazine. As per procedure, the complainants were asked to provide a copy of the photo in question but they could not.
Outcome: The complainants withdrew the case because they could not produce the photo in question for their case to proceed.
The complaints had issues with photographs that was taken at a concert and used on two pages in the Kigali Sun magazine. As per procedure, the complainants were asked to provide a copy of the photo in question but they could not.
Outcome: The complainants withdrew the case because they could not produce the photo in question for their case to proceed.
In this case registered by on December 5, 2013, Rugeyo Jean, a lawyer of a complainant argued that a photo of MUNENE Natasha Michelle, daughter of the complainant, carried in a TIGO advert on IGIHE.com was illegal because the news website did not have a contract with the complainant to use his daughter’s image in advertisements. Upon investigation by the ethics committee, it was found that although there was an initial contract between TIGO and the complainant to use his daughter’s image in advertising TIGO products, it has expired in August 2013. However, TIGO had a three year contract with IGIHE.com starting 2012, to advertise TIGO products on their website, based on advert materials submitted by TIGO. This implied that it was the primary responsibility of TIGO, not IGIHE.com, to ensure that the materials it submitted to IGIHE.com within the terms of their advertising contract, were legally tenable.
Outcome: The ethics committee decided to advise the complainant to solve the confusion over contracts with TIGO.
This case was reported by MUHIRE MUNANA who argued that an article carried by ISHEMA Newspaper was actually his article lifted wholesomely out of his blog. He claimed this amounted to plagiarism.
Outcome: The Ethics Committee talked to both parties and the the management of ISHEMA newspaper admitted that that “copy and paste”of Muhire’s article amounted to plagiarism. The committee asked the newspaper to correct the article by crediting its origin.
This rear case of a one newspaper filing a complaint against another was recorded on Dec 24, 2013. It was filed by the Managing Director of Umusingi newspaper, about an article in Ishema newspaper. UMUSINGI complained that ISHEMA ran an article rebutting an earlier article in UMUSINGI. In the said article, Makuza Berthe of Rwandaform, who felt he was unfairly treated in an article in UMUSINGI, decided to seek the right of reply through another newspaper, in this case in ISHEMA newspaper. UMUSINGI argued that it was unethical for ISHEMA to carry a rebuttal contradicting their article. They also argued that if Makuza Berthe wanted a right of reply, he would have sought it through UMUSINGI, not another newspaper.
Outcome: The Ethics Committee felt that the said article was an advert, and agreed with the defence of the MD of ISHEMA that a company has a right to seek the right of reply in any media where they feel they have the best opportunities of restoring their reputation. This therefore, may not necessarily be in the original media outlet whose publication was contentious.
On December 26, 2013, Top Tower Hotel complained about an article in Indatwa newspaper entailed: Hotel Top Tower yaraje ubusa aitabiriye youth connect dialogue”. The article implied that Top Tower Hotel had starved the youth who had attended the dialogue, by arguing that the Hotel went against the terms of its tender with the Ministry of Youth to provide food for participants. This, the article argued, amounted to poor customer care. The hotel denied existence of such tender, or any record of poor customer care, and argued that the article was baseless and only intended to defame them. The Hotel asked for an apology from Indatwa Newspaper, as well as publishing of a correction of the article on its front page.
Outcome: Since the journalist could not provide evidence of about the veracity of the article, he was asked by the Ethics Committee to issue a correction as well as an apology. He showed RMC a copy of the apology and correction which he sent by email to Top Tower Hotel bosses, who did not react on it.
This case was recorded on July 22, 2013, in which the Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB) cited breach of contract and unfair, biased and false information by Focus Media in their issue of 10 – 16 December 2012. RSSB complained that the Focus Media article “RSSB drives Thomas & Piron to the edge of bankruptsy”, was in breach of an advertising contract between RSSB and Focus Media, especially article 5 of the contract which talks about the relationship between the two parties. The article states that Focus Media “warrants that it has a duty of good faith towards RSSB and as a result shall always act in the best interest of RSSB. Furthermore, Focus Media and all its employees shall not act in any manner which may directly or indirectly damage the good name and or reputation of RSSB”.
Outcome: The Ethics committee interpreted this article as having committed Focus Media against any critical stories about RSSB, virtually acting as a public relations arm of RSSB. RMC advised Focus Media to engage lawyers when negotiating such contracts. The Committee advised the two parties to reach a consensus. The two parties amicably resolved their issues.
On July 22, 2013, the two complainants filed a case about an article in INGEZI newspaper issue No.44. The contention was about the statement “Umwimukira w’umucikacumu abatwarira umutango batazi aho awujyana”which the complainants said they never uttered.
Outcome: Since the journalist couldn’t prove that the said statement was actually uttered and could neither produce his notes, the Ethics Committee ruled that the journalist shall issue a correction in his next issues.
On July 22, 2013, the two complainants filed a case about an article in INGEZI newspaper issue No.44. The contention was about the statement “Umwimukira w’umucikacumu abatwarira umutango batazi aho awujyana”which the complainants said they never uttered.
Outcome: Since the journalist couldn’t prove that the said statement was actually uttered and could neither produce his notes, the Ethics Committee ruled that the journalist shall issue a correction in his next issues.