The trial involving Rwandan journalist Ndahiro Valens Papy has drawn widespread attention after prosecutors asked the Nyarugenge Primary Court to sentence him to five years in prison and impose a fine of 1.2 million Rwandan francs.
Ndahiro is accused of spreading false information and publicly insulting businessman Ndayisenga Materne through a television report and related media discussions.
The case stems from a 2024 report aired on BTN TV concerning land-clearing activities in Tetero Cell, Muhima Sector. Residents interviewed in the story alleged that the businessman’s construction activities had blocked public pathways, endangered nearby homes, and encroached on state-owned land.
Following the broadcast, the issue became the subject of two televised discussions in which Ndahiro appeared as a guest analyst to explain the findings of his investigation. Prosecutors argued that both the original report and the follow-up discussions contained defamatory language directed at the businessman, including comparisons describing him as a “mole” and other derogatory expressions.
According to the prosecution, the statements damaged Ndayisenga’s public reputation and business interests, particularly because they were circulated through mainstream media and social media platforms.
State prosecutors maintained that the journalist intentionally published misleading claims aimed at tarnishing the businessman’s image. They therefore requested that the court convict Ndahiro and hand down a five-year prison sentence alongside the financial penalty.
Ndahiro rejected all accusations brought against him, insisting that his work was carried out within professional journalistic standards and in the public interest. He told the court that the report included views from residents, local authorities, and the businessman himself, and that the content had passed through BTN TV’s editorial review process before publication.
The journalist also argued that he could not be held personally responsible for comments made by interviewees or participants in televised debates discussing the issue.
“In my 15 years in journalism, I have never insulted anyone,” he told the court, maintaining that the disputed remarks originated from residents and commentators rather than from him personally.
His lawyer, Kalisa Kevin Alphonse, challenged the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that it relied on isolated excerpts selectively taken from longer broadcasts and discussions.
The defense further claimed that the lawsuit reflected a broader trend in which influential individuals increasingly use criminal courts against journalists instead of pursuing complaints through Rwanda’s media self-regulatory bodies such as the Rwanda Media Commission (RMC).
Lawyers representing Ndayisenga countered that the issue was not journalism itself but rather what they described as criminal conduct committed under the cover of press freedom. They insisted that several statements made in the broadcasts clearly amounted to punishable offenses under Rwandan law.
The businessman’s legal team also dismissed claims that he had previously been fined nine million francs because of the issues exposed in the report. Instead, they argued that delays in his construction project resulted from expired authorization documents.
They requested financial compensation amounting to 1.2 million francs should the court find Ndahiro guilty, arguing that the businessman suffered reputational and commercial harm.
The case has attracted strong interest from journalists, digital commentators, and free speech advocates across Rwanda because it touches on the delicate balance between press freedom and protection of individual reputation. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Nyarugenge Primary Court announced that its verdict will be delivered on June 12, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
