In the face of torture, decency can’t be media’s first concern

When human rights activists Boniface Mwangi and Agather Atuhaire recounted their harrowing ordeal at the hands of Tanzanian security agents, they did not flinch from the brutal details.

Their testimonies exposed beatings and sexual assault—acts typically committed in secret, with perpetrators banking on silence and shame to shield them.

By their own account, the agents threatened to release recordings of the abuse if they spoke out. But instead of cowering, the activists turned that shame back on their tormentors.

And, in a powerful show of solidarity and journalistic courage, most media platforms chose to publish or broadcast their stories in full.

The reports drew a mixed reaction. Some readers and viewers questioned whether the graphic details were necessary. “Where is the media’s sense of decency?” they asked. “Isn’t this supposed to be a family newspaper?”

It’s a fair question—and one that speaks to the heart of responsible journalism. The Media Council of Kenya’s Code of Conduct allows the publication of offensive or distressing content only if there is overriding public interest.

Read: Activist Rose Njeri, detained over anti-Finance Bill website, battles anaemia in police custody

In this case, the brutal honesty served a vital purpose: exposing gross human rights violations and holding powerful actors to account.

A handbook for journalists covering torture—developed by human rights advocacy organisations—describes torture as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

It dehumanises victims, strips them of dignity and erodes the moral fabric of society. Reporting it with integrity and courage is not just justified—it is essential.

***** *****

The incident also starkly revealed the state of press freedom in Tanzania. Not a single Tanzanian outlet reported the activists’ torture—not even as an unverified claim.

Read: Nyambura, the student who took on KU over missing marks and won

Previously, the same media had reported the activists’  “arrest” and subsequent release, but drew a firm line at any mention of abuse.

When asked why, one Tanzanian journalist offered a grim explanation: “Legacy media can’t touch it. Even human rights-focused media start-ups have avoided it.”

There’s no official gag order, they said—but everyone understands the unspoken rule. Publishing such a story could trigger regulatory backlash. 

Indeed, the country’s media regulator reportedly ordered outlets to pull down stories quoting the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party MP who condemned the abductions.

The government also suspended the operations of Kawe MP Josephat Gwajima’s Glory of Christ Church, accusing the politician of delivering messages that could “endanger peace and national stability”.

Moreover, framing the deportation of Kenyan activists as a Kenya–Tanzania standoff has further discouraged local coverage. Any reporting that criticises Tanzanian authorities risks being seen as unpatriotic, with dire consequences.

And looming over all of this is the memory of Azory Gwanda, a journalist who disappeared in 2017 while investigating a spate of local killings. He has never been found, and all his colleagues can do is hold a vigil annually on the date he disappeared. His case remains a chilling reminder of the danger journalists face in Tanzania.

Who’s muffling Cotu boss?

Meanwhile, another storm has been brewing back home. Cotu Secretary-General Francis Atwoli’s office has raised concerns about what he describes as a deliberate attempt to muffle dissenting views on the deportation saga.

A statement from Cotu claims that some editors at Nation Media Group are too closely aligned with human rights activists and opposition politicians, affecting their editorial judgement.

The trigger for the complaint was a statement by Mr Atwoli accusing human rights advocates like Martha Karua and Willy Mutunga of stirring political tensions in Tanzania, to the detriment of Kenyan workers. He said some Kenyans were now facing non-renewal of work permits as a result.

NTV Jioni aired Mr Atwoli’s statement, but it was noticeably absent from NTV Tonight and the following day’s Daily Nation, though Taifa Leo ran the story.

Editor-In-Chief Joe Ageyo says Mr Atwoli’s accusations lack credence, and provides the following response: 

“On Monday, the Cotu Secretary-General invited our reporter for an exclusive interview, whose outcome was a story indicating that Tanzania had withdrawn a work permit from a Cotu staffer, ostensibly due to the deportation saga.

The Secretary-General also mentioned that he had been receiving calls from Kenyans employed in Tanzania who had been informed that their work permits would not be renewed because of the deteriorating relations caused by the activists. 

“We convened for our 2pm editorial meeting and identified the following gaps in the story: Atwoli did not provide the reporter with a written document proving the claims of work permit refusal or withdrawal. We noted the online altercation he had with Hanifa Adan, one of the activists deported, and thought he likely saw an opportunity for retaliation.

To clarify matters, I instructed the reporter to request documentation from the SG. Secondly, the reporter was advised to independently contact the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tanzania Immigration and Kenya Immigration for comments.

The reporter attempted to gather evidence but was unsuccessful. The story was shelved.”

As stated in the Q&A on the role of the Public Editor, published last week, decisions on what to publish are the mandate of the platform editors, and the Editor-in-Chief takes overall responsibility.

On the allegations that some editors are allowing their political affiliations to influence editorial judgment, the Public Editor requests Mr Atwoli to provide evidence to support a formal investigation.

Have a complaint or concern about published content? Contact the Public Editor to raise ethical concerns or request a review of published material.

Reach out: [email protected].