The end of an era at East Africa’s most influential newsroom

On June 28, security forces drove up to the headquarters of Nation Media Group-Uganda and blocked the entrance. Uganda's largest independent daily newspaper, The Daily Monitor, and the broadcaster NTV Uganda were ordered to shut down. 

Since then, the security forces’ presence has stopped the newspaper from being printed, and regular radio and television programmes from being broadcast. The media outlets are continuing their work, but have gone fully digital.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the chief of Uganda’s defence forces and the president’s son, announced the shutdown on X and wrote “I DO NOT believe in a free press!” in a since-deleted post. 

For decades, Nation Media Group has been one of East Africa’s most influential news publishers, reaching millions through its newspapers, television stations and digital platforms.

Its ownership by the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (AKFED), a philanthropic arm of the Aga Khan Development Network, was widely seen as a buffer against political and commercial pressure. The Aga Khan IV, Prince Karim Al-Hussaini, the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslim community, led the network for nearly seven decades until his death in February 2025. Under his stewardship, AKFED invested billions of dollars in businesses and development projects across Africa and Asia, while Nation Media Group was often viewed as a public-interest enterprise rather than a purely commercial asset. That arrangement is now ending.

In mid-March, the fund agreed to sell its controlling stake in Nation Media Group (NMG) to Taarifa Ltd, owned by Rostam Aziz, a Tanzanian businessman with extensive commercial interests and political ties across East Africa. The deal ends 66 years of Aga Khan involvement and raises questions about the future of editorial independence at the region’s largest independent media house. In announcing the sale, the fund said the company was poised to expand its digital operations and that new ownership would build on its tradition of public interest journalism.

The takeover has sparked debate among journalists, editors and media freedom advocates across East Africa. At the center of the discussion is whether Nation Media Group can maintain the editorial independence that helped define its reputation under Aga Khan ownership, or whether new political and commercial pressures could reshape one of the region’s most influential news organizations. The sale also comes at a moment when media companies across Africa are grappling with financial strain, raising broader questions about who owns journalism and what those ownership structures mean for press freedom.

Sadibou Marong, the sub-Saharan Africa director at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), described the acquisition as one of the most significant media developments in East Africa in decades. While cautioning that it was too early to draw firm conclusions, he said, the concerns raised since the announcement are “legitimate,” particularly given Aziz’s business interests and political ties.

The sale comes at a difficult moment for news organisations across Africa, as advertising declines, digital transitions falter and political pressure intensifies. In Kenya, where media ownership has long been tied to business and political elites, the deal has raised concern about whether Nation can maintain its watchdog role.

“For businessmen, media is just a tool to achieve their business objectives,” said Dr. Dorothy Njoroge, a senior lecturer in media and communications at United States International University-Africa in Nairobi. 

“Independent journalism becomes a side issue,” she added.

Njoroge said the influence of ownership is rarely crude. It does not typically arrive as a phone call ordering an editor to spike a story. It operates through subtler mechanisms, shaping which journalists get hired, which beats attract resources, which voices are treated as credible sources and which lines of coverage are quietly deprioritised. 

As business interests moved into media ownership, “the priority shifted from the editorial function to the business function,” she added.

Such concerns are not unique to Kenya. In South Africa, the acquisition of Independent Media by businessman Iqbal Survé’s Sekunjalo Independent Media Consortium in 2013 was followed by allegations of editorial interference and the departure of senior journalists from newsrooms that had long prided themselves on independent and critical reporting. While every ownership transition is different, such cases illustrate why media observers closely watch changes in ownership structures.

The debate has also revived interest in alternative ownership models. Across Africa, public-interest news organisations such as amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, Daily Maverick and Kenya’s The Elephant have experimented with non-profit, donor-supported and membership-funded approaches designed to reduce dependence on politically connected owners or advertisers. Whether such models can match Nation Media Group’s scale and reach remains uncertain, but they offer alternative ways of balancing editorial independence with financial sustainability.

Under AKFED, Nation operated within a structure that balanced commercial demands with a broader institutional mission. It was never immune to pressure, but the ownership was often seen as providing insulation from direct political interference.

That protection was tested in 2005, when Kenya’s then-first lady, Lucy Kibaki, stormed the Daily Nation newsroom late at night with a security detail. She slapped a cameraman, seized reporters’ notebooks and demanded arrests over coverage of her conduct. The paper reported the attack in detail, a decision that spoke not only to newsroom resolve but to the institutional protection behind it. Under the Aga Khan’s ownership, Nation could publish the story of its own assault. The question now is whether that protection will endure.

Kalonzo Musyoka, a former vice president, called for scrutiny of the deal, describing NMG as part of Kenya’s democratic fabric. The independence of the press, he said, “can never be compromised.” He called on the new majority shareholder to explain how he intended to guarantee the editorial independence of the group. 

“It is a very important instrument in terms of communication in this country,” he said.

Nation Media Group’s reach across the region gives the sale its weight. In Kenya, it publishes Daily Nation and Business Daily and operates NTV and Nation FM. In Uganda, it owns the Daily Monitor and runs several television and radio stations, including NTV Uganda, Spark TV and KFM. It also publishes The East African, a regional weekly, while its Tanzanian subsidiary, Mwananchi Communications, publishes The Citizen and Mwananchi. Across four countries, its titles reach millions, making it the most expansive independent media operation in East Africa.

Pressures on independence

Dr. Patrick Mutahi, head of media and protection at ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, described the risks as layered, including direct editorial interference and agenda-setting pressures. He added that journalists may anticipate what politically connected owners want and avoid subjects that touch on those interests. 

“Ownership ties also intersect with advertising and business interests,” Mutahi added, “compounding pressure on editorial decisions.”

According to Mutahi, ARTICLE 19 has tracked that pattern across the region for years, warning that blurred lines between politics, media ownership and business pose a systemic threat to press freedom. Mutahi noted the danger compounds when concentrated ownership intersects with restrictive laws, including defamation provisions that already constrain what journalists can safely report. 

“Across East Africa,” he said, “politicians invest in media as instruments of influence rather than public-interest institutions.”

For some observers, the sale was not a surprise. 

“It was obvious they were going to sell,” said Dr. Denis Galava, a former managing editor at Nation, pointing to earlier corporate restructuring as a sign that an exit was coming. He also noted that all media owners operate within political and economic networks and that the key question is how they manage that relationship. 

“All media owners engage with power,” Galava said. “The issue is whether they can protect journalists while doing so.”

The timing of the sale is striking. The Aga Khan IV died on February 4, 2025, in Lisbon at 88. For an institution whose identity was so closely tied to a single figure, the future of its media assets became difficult to separate from the broader question of succession inside the Aga Khan network. For AKFED, which holds extensive interests in hospitality, finance and energy, the exit may reflect a reassessment of where media fits within its portfolio under new leadership.

Galava sees the sale as part of a retreat from a media ecosystem the Aga Khan’s successors no longer considered important or fully understood. 

He suggested the decision was driven by a desire to step away from the complications of the media business, to “cut all this trouble” and sell the asset.

Mutuma Mathiu, who spent over 15 years at Nation rising to group editor-in-chief, raised a different set of questions. Writing on social media after the announcement, he asked whether the new owner might be “a fig leaf for other background investors” and what the sale would mean for press freedom across Kenya and the region.

His deeper concern was about institutional identity. He questioned whether the values long associated with the Aga Khan’s stewardship, among them democracy, free markets, East African integration and respect for minorities and human rights, would survive the transition. 

“Will Mr. Aziz protect these values,” he wrote, “with the same zeal and fortitude?”

Aziz has stepped in to resolve the shutdown of Nation Media’s Ugandan outlets, travelling to meet General Muhoozi Kainerugaba. Muhoozi had accused Nation Media Group-Uganda of hostility and bias against the Ugandan government. According to a statement released after Aziz and Muhoozi’s meeting, the new owner committed to “patriotic, balanced and objective” journalism.

Churchill Otieno, president of the Africa Editors Forum and a former Nation editor, framed the sale as a question larger than ownership. Writing after the announcement, he said the deal goes to “the heart of what journalism represents in society today, and who ultimately safeguards the public’s right to know.”

For decades, he argued, Nation Media Group functioned not only as a media company but as part of East Africa’s “democratic infrastructure.” News organisations like Nation, he suggested, occupy an uneasy space between commercial imperatives and civic obligation. That role is now under strain. Across Africa, legacy news organisations are navigating a difficult transition as advertising shifts to digital platforms, technology companies shape public discourse and audiences fragment.

In that environment, Otieno warned, media groups are increasingly exposed to capital that may not share journalism’s long-term public interest. 

“The question is larger than one company,” he wrote. “It is about whether societies treat credible journalism as expendable or as essential infrastructure for democratic life.”

To understand why the sale happened, it helps to look at the numbers. The company, once the most profitable independent media house in East and Central Africa, has endured four consecutive years of shrinking revenues and mounting losses. Turnover fell from 7.6 billion Kenyan shillings (about $67 million then) in 2021 to 6.2 billion (about $48 million then) in 2024 . Over the same period, the group swung from a profit of 700 million shillings to two consecutive annual losses. Shareholders who received dividends in 2021 and 2022 have received nothing since.

In 2023, the group made a decision that read less like an accounting adjustment and more like a declaration. It reduced the book value of its printing press in Kenya and recognized an accelerated depreciation charge of 291.4 million Kenyan shillings (about $48 million). Management described the move as part of a plan to accelerate the transition to digital, but such decisions carry a broader significance. They reflect a judgment that an asset once central to the business no longer holds future value.

The cross-border question

The pressures on Nation extend beyond the balance sheet. Mutahi acknowledged that cross-border ownership is not inherently corrosive, but it becomes problematic when ownership structures are opaque and regulatory safeguards are weak, conditions that critics say now apply to Nation. 

Issues can arise when regulatory standards differ significantly between neighboring countries, he explained. In such cases, owners may be able to exercise influence across multiple markets while facing limited oversight or transparency requirements. The concern, he said, is that large regional media groups can shape coverage of elections, governance issues or security crises across borders without the accountability mechanisms that typically apply within a single national jurisdiction. 

Those dynamics are one reason Aziz’s acquisition has unsettled press-freedom observers. Tanzania’s media environment is far more restrictive than Kenya’s. Outlets have been suspended, journalists arrested, and self-censorship is widespread. The country ranked 117th out of 180 in the 2026 press freedom index by Reporters Without Borders. Uganda is even lower, in the 131st place, with journalists there regularly facing intimidation and violence, as well as attacks by the security services.

Nation’s Tanzanian subsidiary, Mwananchi Communications, publisher of The Citizen and Mwananchi, as well as the sports-focused Mwanaspoti, has twice faced suspensions by authorities. In February 2019, the government suspended The Citizen for seven days, accusing it of publishing misleading information about the depreciation of the Tanzanian shilling. In October 2024, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority ordered a 30-day suspension of all of Mwananchi Communications’ online platforms, saying the company had published content that threatened national unity and social peace. The trigger was an animation posted on The Citizen’s social media accounts depicting a cartoon figure with features resembling President Samia Suluhu Hassan, set against images of families affected by a wave of abductions and disappearances. The Citizen later took down the posts. 

“The political environment and the governance structure in Tanzania is very restrictive, very oppressive,” Njoroge said. “One has to wonder whether that kind of culture, that way of doing things, is going to be transferred to Kenya.”

She acknowledged that the answer is not foreordained. Kenya has a more robust tradition of press freedom, a more active civil society, and a media landscape in which mainstream outlets no longer fully control the public agenda. 

Still, she did not dismiss the risk. “It is still concerning,” she said, “because that heart of media repression might actually come to people, which would really be a significant hit to the country.”

A new owner with old ties

Rostam Aziz is not new to the media business. He was a founding investor of Mwananchi Communications and in 2003 invited the Aga Khan to become a partner in that venture. Now, more than two decades later, he is acquiring the region’s most influential news organisation.

In his first remarks after the announcement, Aziz emphasised continuity, praising the Aga Khan’s legacy and asserting that “strong journalism is built on credibility, professionalism and responsible editorial leadership.” He said he would focus on ensuring the company had the resources and stability to continue serving the public.

That assurance is now central to how the takeover will be judged. RSF’s Marong said the key question is whether Aziz’s decisions will ultimately align with his public rhetoric. 

“What will he choose,” Marong asked, “between the independence of his media group and the development of his commercial interests?” The answer, he suggested, will emerge over time through editorial decisions rather than statements.

But Aziz’s reassurances are inseparable from the political reality surrounding him. His business empire spans gas, telecommunications and mining across Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. The relationships of Nation’s new owner with political leaders are well-known, and he acknowledged them openly. Aziz noted that former president Uhuru Kenyatta had facilitated his investments in Kenya and that a former Kenyan prime minister, the late Raila Odinga, was a guest at his daughter’s wedding in Tanzania. 

“Be assured that Ruto [President of Kenya] is not my first leader in Kenya to be friends with,” Aziz said. “I believe in relationships.”

At the press conference, a journalist pressed him directly on his ties to the Tanzanian and Kenyan governments, and on claims that a senior government official was involved in facilitating the deal. Aziz’s response was measured. “I do not want to dignify that question with an answer other than that, this is a business of ours,” he said. “We have invested because we have seen an opportunity.”

What Comes Next

Aziz has signalled a willingness to invest and an awareness of the company’s challenges. He noted that Nation’s audience skews older and has struggled to capture Kenya’s youthful population. The media, he said, must adapt to reach that constituency. He framed the acquisition as part of a longer story, calling Nation “deeply woven” into East Africa’s history and positioning the takeover as the start of a new chapter.

The deal has been announced but not yet completed, leaving the company in a period of transition where assurances have been made but few decisions tested. It remains subject to regulatory approvals and is expected to take several months to close.

“The day I will know that the direction has changed is when we see who he appoints to the board,” Galava said. If strong defenders of editorial independence are replaced, he added, the direction will be clear.

Press freedom advocates say the warning signs to watch include shifts in editorial tone on political coverage, a retreat from investigative reporting on sensitive topics and turnover among senior editors who have historically defended the newsroom’s independence.

Mutahi said the integrity of institutional safeguards, including independent editorial boards, functional complaints mechanisms at media councils, and enforcement of ownership transparency rules, will determine whether NMG’s independence survives the transition or erodes within it. 

“If large media institutions lose independence,” he said, “the consequences are far-reaching” for press freedom, public trust and democratic accountability.”

Otieno, writing from the perspective of someone who helped shape Nation’s editorial identity over two decades, did not frame the sale as cause for alarm alone. Moments of transition, he argued, can also open space for renewal. With clarity of purpose, the debate around Nation could prompt new thinking about ownership models that balance commercial sustainability with strong editorial safeguards.

Such approaches, Otieno suggested, might include hybrid structures that combine private investment with philanthropic support and clearer governance protections for editorial independence. The outcome, he argued, will depend on whether stakeholders treat journalism as a public trust worth preserving or simply another asset to be restructured.

A clearer picture may emerge as Kenya approaches its general election in August 2027. Election periods, Marong said, often provide the most revealing test of a newsroom’s independence, and his organisation will be watching closely for signs of interference or self-censorship.

Nation Media’s significance extends beyond its own balance sheet or ownership register. The company has long been a training ground for generations of reporters who have held power to account across the region. The fear, among journalists and readers alike, is that the Nation brand could become another instrument of political influence, its voice shaped to suit the interests of its new owner.

Nation’s sale is shaping to be a test of whether one of Africa’s most storied media institutions can remain independent as traditional media weakens and ownership moves closer to political and commercial power.

The question hanging over the newsroom now is whether the next chapter will bring renewal or compromise.