The highly awaited ministerial orders to back the Access to Information Act have been passed but fears have emerged that, in its current form, the law could deal a heavy blow to investigative journalism in a country where it is already lacking.

The law was passed in March with media practitioners welcoming it with the hope that it would compel opaque government institutions to open up. But it was incomplete.

Some of the articles, including one on sensitive information that could destabilise national security, awaited ministerial orders to define what such information would be.

READ: Rwanda’s information law faces acid test

Last Wednesday, the Cabinet approved five ministerial orders defining the sort of information that could destabilise national security, private entities that are affected by the law, time limits in which information should be provided, as well as the charges on obtaining information.

However, it appears the optimism within the media fraternity will now be diminished with the ministerial orders determining the type of information considered sensitive as stipulated by Article 5 of the Access to Information law.

The ministerial order puts information held by government institutions in various classifications and categories that determine whether it can or cannot be published, depending on the “harm” it could cause. But journalists say this could be used by different government entities to refuse to divulge vital information.

Fred Muvunyi, the newly elected head of the Rwanda Media Self-Regulation Committee, says some of the “fears” were raised during the consultation process, warning that the draft orders could weaken the law itself since they are more “definitive” and powerful.

“When Rwanda Governance Board was consulting media stakeholders on these decrees, we raised some of the concerns,” Mr Muvunyi said, citing some of the articles in the decree defining restricted information which are likely to reduce the importance of the law.

“If the ministerial orders are restricting journalists from investigating information related to foreign relations and certain tenders, this could encourage the officials involved in such to become corrupt.”

Added Mr Muvunyi, who recently dragged the Ministry of Sports and Culture to the Ombudsman’s Office for failing to disclose its expenditure: “I think the government needs to be specific on which tenders should be classified or not because institutions could use this opportunity to classify everything.”

In what proved to be the first litmus test for the Access to Information law, Mr Muvunyi, who works with a local vernacular newspaper, challenged the Ministry of Sports and Culture to disclose the amount of public money spent on football.

At first the ministry was hesitant but it eventually buckled and opened up, revealing exorbitant sums of money spent on the national team, which has been underperforming for the past couple of years.

READ: Under pressure, Rwandan ministry releases budget to journalist

Fresh fears

The development was seen as a triumph for the Rwandan media but fresh fears now indicate that that was before the ministerial orders. It is feared that government entities could now use the law to cover up deals gone sour.

Mr Muvunyi, whose committee will also be arbitrating between journalists and other entities, cited the example of the recent Westgate Mall terror attack in Kenya, which he cites as an instance when the media made its duty to expose what went wrong.

“If you look at what has happened in the Westgate saga in Kenya, people had earlier suspected that high corruption within the military intelligence apparatus could have seen some officers give in to bribes and this cost Kenya many lives,” he said. “The media took it upon itself to investigate these claims.

“If this [attack] happened in Rwanda, no one would risk looking into this because it is considered ‘sensitive’. The media and public in Rwanda will have only PR information.”

He pointed out that the vagueness of the ministerial decree will lead to journalists fearing to investigate stories concerning military activities or Rwanda’s international relations.

The government has however dispelled fears on the law crippling investigative journalism, stating that there should be “mutual trust” between the media and the government.

According to Ignatius Kabagambe, the co-ordinator of Rwanda Media Sector Reforms at RGB, there is another ministerial order that compels government institutions to give out information and what type of information they should give out.

“Of course institutions have the powers to classify information according to what they deem ‘top secret’ or ‘restricted,’ but again, you have another ministerial order that compels the same institutions to give out information,” he said. “This order should be able to address the fears.

Mutual trust

“I agree that these concerns are genuine, but there is a principle that we all need to agree on: That not all information is for public consumption, given the sensitivities surrounding it.”

Mr Kabagambe however said mutual trust should prevail between all the parties involved.

“In my view, the government has put in place these ministerial orders to facilitate journalists and they should be taken advantage of,” he said. “It will also not be right for government or private entities to use the decrees to sit on information.”