Ouagadougou: The credibility of Human Rights Watch's (HRW) latest report on the human rights situation in Burkina Faso has been called into question following revelations of a network of corrupt researchers with alleged ties to Western intelligence circles and direct collaborators of terrorists. These findings suggest that the report might be misleading, with intentions to tarnish Burkina Faso's image and obstruct its path toward sovereignty. According to Burkina Information Agency, the HRW report dated April 2, 2026, equates the Burkinabe army and terrorists in terms of responsibility for civilian killings, sparking outrage among knowledgeable observers. Pan-African activist Nathalie Yamb delivered a comprehensive analysis on April 9, 2026, examining HRW's origins, the report authors' compromises, and the report's intended effects on the international scene. Yamb's analysis scrutinizes the authors of the report, which accuses both terrorists and the Burkinabe Combatant Forces of civilian deaths between 202 3 and 2025. A central figure in the criticism is Philippe Bolopion, executive director of HRW since late 2025. Bolopion temporarily left HRW between 2023 and 2025 to lead the "Liberty Fund" at financial firm TOBAM, which profits from countries' repression indices. "The Liberty Fund makes money by financially betting against countries considered authoritarian," explains Yamb. Her analysis, supported by the fund's statutes, suggests that the more a country is labeled a dictatorship, the more the fund profits. This presents a significant conflict of interest, as HRW's reports potentially influence TOBAM's investments. Yamb also criticizes the research team's lack of field access, relying on second-hand testimonies and remote documentation. Lead researcher Ilaria Allegrozzi, a former Italian diplomat, is accused of producing unverifiable narratives without direct access to Burkina Faso. Yamb argues that equating the responsibilities of Combatant Forces and terrorists demonstrates bias, especially when claiming that the former are more violent. She also implicates Jean-Baptiste Galopin for attempting to involve the International Criminal Court against Burkina Faso. The HRW report allegedly lacks neutrality due to contributors like Wassim Nasr, linked to terrorist figures and facing legal action by the Confederation of Sahel States for criminal conspiracy. Additionally, Yamb points out the bias of Newton Ahmed Barry, a Burkinabè journalist opposed to Burkina Faso's sovereignist policies. Yamb criticizes Binta Sidi Begascon, whose association Kizal is linked to the Citizens' Coalition for the Sahel, which includes organizations like HRW and George Soros' Open Society Foundations. Yamb suggests this reflects a "mercenary coalition" rather than a scientific team, united against revolutionary Sahel governments. In conclusion, Yamb urges the AES region's people to stand by their leaders despite the report's implications. She emphasizes the need to counteract the report's effects and regain control from those wielding i nfluence.