About a decade ago, the government of Rwanda unleashed a multi-pronged strategy to bring to heel its pesky newspapers. They weren’t many. And they weren’t even half as professional or vocal as, say, the Kenyan press. But all the same, the government didn't like those headlines. Sometimes, the papers carried exposés from deep within the military, which is the bedrock of President Paul Kagame’s dictatorship.
Journalists began disappearing without trace. Some were found murdered in mysterious circumstances. Others were hit with long jail terms under politically motivated charges. The lucky ones were tipped off about planned elimination and fled into exile. They weren’t safe even there. They were often trailed by shadowy figures.
There was another tactic. Rwanda is a small donor-fed economy dominated by public investment and a tiny private sector owned by tycoons with strong connections to the rulers. To survive, private media houses have no option but to rely on government, the biggest advertiser. The government decided to starve the troublesome papers of advertising.
It was a deadly blow. Within a short time, many of the papers folded. Today, you can’t talk of a free media in Rwanda.
In July 2015, the government of Kenya announced creation of a new agency to centralize state advertising. Treasury CS Henry Rotich said the Government Advertising Agency would manage public sector advertising.
Creation of the GAA was greeted with suspicion within the media industry. President Uhuru Kenyatta talks about democracy all the time, but he has never hidden his disdain for a free media. He is on record dismissing newspapers as “meat wrappers”. Under his rule, the media has suffered some of the worst repression in the country’s history.
The state’s claim that it was spending way too much on advertising and wanted to cut costs sounded less like prudence than a strategy to hit back at a vibrant media that sometimes gives the government a bloody nose.
Three years after formation of the GAA, these fears linger. The agency owes the media Sh2.5 billion in advertising debts. This is a huge sum. Media houses are struggling to stay alive. Hiring and expansion have all but come to a halt. Journalists are staring at job losses while fresh graduates from the
growing number of media schools have no realistic chance of getting a job.
The government sings about job creation at every opportunity. It is well aware of the unemployment crisis in the country. Bureaucrats never tire talking about the private sector as one of the key engines of Kenya’s development. One often hears high-sounding rhetoric about making Kenya an attractive investment destination, etcetera.
Yet the same government is frustrating the media industry by refusal to honour advertising contracts. Media houses have spoken out openly about this frustration.
Principal secretary for Broadcasting and Telecommunications Fatuma Hirsi announced the government would start clearing its advertising debts. That is certainly good news - although she gave no details.
Hirsi stated that since creation of the GAA, government ad spend has dropped from a high of Sh7 billion to about Sh2 billion. But the GAA is far from clean. The DCI is investigating suspected loss of funds at the agency.
Critics have questioned the manner in which the GAA was put together and how it has performed in the three years of its existence. If, indeed, the GAA was set up to improve efficiency in government expenditure on advertising, how come the agency owes media houses so much money? Where is the efficiency? If government has saved money by centralizing advertising, why has it been unable to pay what it owes?
The government must pay its media debts as soon as possible, not just because that is the decent thing to do but also as a show of its commitment to supporting private investment. Or what is the point of globetrotting in search of foreign investors while frustrating those who are already in business here?
Moreover, the state must demonstrate its obligation to uphold media freedom — or else it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the government wants to weaponise advertising to destroy the media, as in the Rwandan case.