Rashan’s Story in Context: Let Us Avoid the Journalism of Silence

Al-Muslami Al-Bashir Al-Kabashi
Be patient, colleague Rashan Oshi. Undoubtedly, you are enduring the harshness of imprisonment and the loneliness of a prison cell. Yet your case places everyone—those in authority, politicians, journalists, and the public alike—at a crossroads where the choice made will help determine the future of this country: between repression and freedom, between integrity and corruption, between the promise of a brighter future and the darkness of grim possibilities, between a straight path and a crooked one.
We shall not question the integrity of our judiciary, which enjoys a well-earned reputation for competence and fairness. It remains an institution upon which we place great trust in a country whose people love it and are willing to sacrifice for its sake. Yet we must also remember that a free press is the judiciary’s partner in uncovering the truth. It is the instrument that illuminates the dark corners where corruption festers, and its eyes extend across the broad horizons of public oversight.
We trust in the fairness of the courts, but we also hope for a measure of appreciation for a free press, even when it makes mistakes. There is a vast difference between one who aims for what is right but misses the mark and one who deliberately seeks wrongdoing and succeeds in it. One would expect, even without presuming to instruct the judiciary, that the nature of the penalty should differ between the two.
We are not asking for privileges that place anyone above justice. Rather, we seek an approach that corrects mistakes while strengthening the role of responsible journalism in cleansing the national environment and promoting moderation and balance within it.
Our concern extends beyond individual journalists and their personal hardships. When journalism is dragged into the arena of harsh criminal prosecution, we fear the creation of a climate of fear and apprehension. Experience has taught us that this has been a recurring temptation for many politicians across successive eras of governance in our country. Yet while such an approach may be a recipe for political failure, it also runs directly counter to journalism’s role in uncovering facts. This role necessarily requires a safe space for freedom.
When a journalist is subjected to excessive punishment for a procedural mistake, a critical opinion, or even professional shortcomings, the implicit message to society is that the press should remain silent and bow its head whenever circumstances demand that it be raised. Such a message inevitably suppresses the truth and weakens public oversight, for which journalism serves as the first line of defence.
The primary mission shared by both journalism and the judiciary is the search for truth. Journalism is, in many respects, the extended hand of justice, uncovering truths hidden in places that judicial investigations—necessarily constrained by procedural requirements and standards of fairness—may not always reach. Journalism, driven by courage and sometimes even by risk-taking, ventures into these spaces not in pursuit of confrontation, but unable to avoid occasional collisions.
A perception of excessive severity in judicial or administrative actions against media institutions and content creators inevitably weakens investigative journalism. Society then finds itself left with a pale and timid media landscape, capable only of cheering and applauding. Such media neither builds nations nor shapes the future; instead, it creates an environment in which corruption flourishes without fear of scrutiny or accountability.
This is precisely why many judicial systems around the world have reconsidered the manner and scope of legal actions against the press, moving many press-related disputes from the criminal sphere into the civil sphere. They have done so in the interest of justice and in recognition of the twin partnership between journalism and the judiciary in the pursuit of truth.
A fair judiciary and a free press are the twin pillars upon which the state stands. The rule of law rests fundamentally upon the independence and neutrality of both institutions. Each has a role in safeguarding the other’s independence. A free press derives part of its independence from judicial protection—not as a form of favouritism, but out of recognition of its role and an enabling of its mission.
International standards consistently affirm that the relationship between the judiciary and the press is one of partnership, interdependence, and complementarity. Judicial independence is the true guarantee of freedom of expression and the continued existence of a free press. Conversely, a free and objective press serves as a bulwark defending the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
This is precisely the equation our country needs if it is to rise upon the shoulders of an independent and respected judiciary, alongside a free press that shines a bright light upon the entire social landscape, armed with rigorous professionalism and uncompromising ethical standards. Through this balance, both journalism and the judiciary become guardians of the state’s very meaning.
Because confronting corruption—whatever its form and whatever its source—must be the central idea upon which the state is built, we must recognise that the true catastrophe is not merely the existence of corruption. No state is entirely free of it. The greater danger lies in tolerating corruption and in the absence of those willing to challenge it. This does not mean, of course, that either the judiciary or the press in any country is immune from corruption finding its way into its ranks.
To strengthen these guardians of public meaning—the judiciary and the press alike—two levels of reform are required.
The first is legal reform: revisiting the laws governing journalism regulation and adjudication. Such reforms must deter violations of others’ rights while simultaneously enabling journalists to perform their duties without facing an overwhelming arsenal of laws every time they seek to fulfil their role, fearful that a legal mine may explode beneath their feet.
The second is professional reform within journalism itself: training and guiding journalists to master the highest standards of professional practice, while grounding them in ethical principles that prevent journalism from being used in battles far removed from its core mission. Such a reform would establish a moral immunity rooted in the profession’s conscience.
Personally, I have significant disagreements with my colleague Rashan Oshi. Yet I greatly respect her well-known role in standing with her country’s armed forces during the Battle of Dignity, and one of the most admirable manifestations of that commitment has been her persistence in exposing corruption and uncovering its hidden networks. Like all people, however, she is capable of making mistakes.
As the poet said:
If there is but one deed that has displeased us,
There are thousands of deeds that have brought us joy.
Whatever the final outcome of Rashan’s case, history shows that the imprisonment of journalists often strengthens them personally, despite the heavy price they pay. Yet on a broader level, it can inflict lasting harm upon journalism itself.
We appreciate the efforts being made and hope that Rashan’s story concludes with a pardon that spares her a year behind bars. Such acts of clemency have long been among the most effective Sudanese traditions for achieving reconciliation, resolving disputes, and easing tensions.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=14395