---

Read about the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo and you will see Rwanda, M23, Uganda and—to some extent—Andrew Mwenda featuring prominently in the headlines.

For Rwanda and Uganda, their role is well known, as is the role of M23, the rebel group named after an agreement they signed on March 23, 2009.

But for Mr Mwenda, there is confusion. Ugandan television and radio presenters hosting him on their shows often describe him as a veteran journalist. Of course, there is no denying the fact that Mr Mwenda has worked as a journalist.

Consequently, discerning news consumers expect him to play a purely journalistic role in the DRC conflict. But he does much more, and it raises serious questions about his ethical behavior as a journalist.

Journalists in some places already have trust and reputation issues, and if all of them behaved like Mr Mwenda, journalism would be a very discredited profession, maybe even dead.

No one would sit up and pay attention to what the media is reporting. It is mainly because of the code of ethics that journalism still retains credibility—at least in countries where journalists act professionally.

So what is the real problem with Mr Mwenda’s journalistic ethics? He wants to be called a journalist and still do the very things professional journalists are not allowed to do. It probably would not matter if he rejected any description of him as a journalist, but he does not.

Some good examples to illustrate Mr Mwenda’s terrible professional ethics. In June 2024, UN experts on the DRC said in their report that Mr Mwenda provided support (PDF) to M23 rebels in approaching several embassies in Kampala to contest sanctions imposed on their leaders.

To their credit, the experts called Mr Mwenda a public figure, not a journalist. That is partly because journalists, at least where these experts come from, maintain a respectable professional distance from those they cover.

No professional journalist working for a respected, well-established news organisation would help rebels to promote their interests and keep their job. 

Think about this: Mr Mwenda’s friend, Allan Kasujja, works for the BBC. Just imagine the backlash if it emerged that, besides covering the conflict in the DRC, he is also helping M23 rebels to export coltan.

Another example is Mr Mwenda’s involvement with Rwanda. To be fair, he is free to work with any country, but if he says he is a journalist and is the same man introducing investors to Rwandan leaders and acting as a PR/communications advisor for the government, there is a problem.

These examples clearly demonstrate the potential for conflict of interest, which undermines public interest in impartiality.

Mr Mwenda clearly enjoys being part of power while also pretending to make “independent” analyses for the public. And he gets away with it because he works in Uganda. Would he still be called a journalist if he worked, for example, in the US or the UK? The answer is no.

The western media is not perfect, but it does better when it comes to ethics. And ethics build credibility. 

If Mr Mwenda went to Rwanda to interview Mr Kagame about M23, many discerning news consumers would just laugh. But if CNN’s Larry Madowo interviews Mr Kagame, as he did recently, the interview feels real. We know Mr Madowo has no vested interest in Rwanda.

Mr Kagame may say he does not know if Rwanda has troops in the DRC (as he said in the interview)—which is a bit like saying he does not know if he has a wife and children—but that is another matter.

---

🔴 I submitted this article to Daily Monitor (for which I write a weekly column) for publication on February 4 and on Saturday, February 8, a day before it was to be published, I received an email telling me it could not be published because it “focused on Mwenda the person and not the issue of ethics in journalism”. It is published on this website because I strongly believe it is in public interest.