On February 9, The East African published an article titled “Covid, human rights record could disrupt Kigali meetings”. The article elicits recurrent questions on the role of the media in Africa, especially on how the media on our continent has struggled to redefine itself in ways that advance the interests of Africans. This deficit is the main reason why instead of informing Africans on the geopolitical power dynamics affecting their lives, “our” media sometimes chooses to give a veneer of legitimacy for victimising Africa. Consider this story. First, the idea that “the country [Rwanda] suffered a major setback with the second wave of infections” is a misrepresentation in as far as it fails to contextualize the data available and comprehend the strategy adopted by the Rwandan government since the beginning of this global pandemic. Otherwise, one should be able to understand that the first restrictions, including a nationwide lockdown, gave time to the government to build the needed infrastructure to cope with future waves while allowing a gradual reopening of activities. Although the increase in infections rate remains factual, it must be read in tandem with the government’s increased capacity to test, trace and treat patients, which allows Rwanda to have an overall view of the spread of the virus countrywide and to impose targeted restrictions, including lockdowns, based on scientific data. Surprisingly, where the World Health Organization and other countries rate Rwanda’s strategy as one of the most efficient in the world, The East African contends that Rwanda has “suffered a major setback,” which is verifiably false and serves no purpose beyond legitimizing UK’s political decision to ban travellers from Rwanda, which, as argued by Rwanda, has no basis in science. If it is not science, then it’s politics. Second, an “African” newspaper should question the basis on which the UK government “urges” Rwanda to “model Commonwealth values of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights”. Most importantly, a factual analysis by the East African of the developments in Rwanda and UK relations, should have noted that there is something fishy in the air when the UK government behaves as if Rwanda is burning but keeps a deafening silence in the face of the daily atrocities committed next door, in Uganda. As a result, the UK’s selective promotion of commonwealth values in the region has raised many questions that need clarifications from the UK government. Are the interests of Uganda’s leadership and those of the UK aligned? Is the former seeking abroad the legitimacy it lost at home while lobbying for support towards its belligerent attitude towards Rwanda? What could the UK government want from Uganda to the extent of supporting these schemes targeting a country which has more pressing duties to do with improving the lives of the people and maintaining an impeccable record at containing the spread of Covid-19? The East African is expected to defend the interests of our region not to promote this selective application of values; it should be pressuring the UK, not Rwanda, to walk the tightrope of explaining its decisions and its attitude towards that appear to be the result of lobbying by a hostile neighbour.
