RLR V. 4 - 2022

# RLR V. 4 - 2022

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2022-10-03 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2022 Ukwakira, 2022 Law Reports V. 4 - 2022 October, 2022 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 3

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2022 Ukwakira, 2022 Law Reports V. 4 - 2022 October, 2022 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 5

I

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................iii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA .......................................... v IRIBURIRO ............................................................................... ix IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. xi INYITO ...................................................................................... xi AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO ........................................xiii IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................... xv AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xix Re. BYANSI (ADD) ................................................................... 1 Re BYANSI (Fond) .................................................................. 13 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI ................................ 133 UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI ............................ 149 NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA .............................................. 207 IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y'U RWANDA (MININFRA) .......................................................................... 219 i

## Page 6

II

## Page 7

III

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

RWAYITARE Eric

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

iii

## Page 8

IV

## Page 9

V

II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Perezida wa Komite, Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite, Umwarimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

NDAHAYO Xavier : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza w’ Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. SEZIRAHIGA Yves :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`Amategeko v

## Page 10

VI

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

BUNYOYE Grace : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

TASHOBYA Benon : Perezida w’Urukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 11

VII

BAGABO Faustin :

GAPARAYI Idi :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

RWIGEMA Royck :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University of Kigali

Umwarimu muri ULK

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ibanze KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

## Page 12

VIII

## Page 13

IX

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 4 [2022]. Nk’uko mubizi, tubahitiramo imanza zikubiyemo bimwe mu bisubizo by’ibibazo muhura nabyo kenshi, haba mu mirimo yanyu ndetse no mu buzima bwa buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza zitandatu (6) zikurikira: imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’ibirego bisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’imbonezamubano, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’ubucuruzi, n’imanza ebyiri (2) zerekeranye n’imiburanishirize y’imanza. Nk’uko mumaze kubimenyera imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

ix

## Page 14

X

## Page 15

XI

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki Cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2022] 4 RLR

xi

## Page 16

XII

## Page 17

XIII

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015; ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38……………………3 Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano, ingingo ya 156,157,194,218 n’iya 251………………..3 Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo kuwa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 72…………………………………………………3 ingingo ya 62 n’iya 63……………………………………157 ingingo ya 52………………………………………………209 Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 85, igika cya 5………………………………..134 ingingo ya 3, 12,14, 81, 83, 111, 129, 161 n’iya 176….157 ingingo ya 75………………………………………………221 Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru, ingingo ya 5 n’iya 8……………………………...3 Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3……………………..157 Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa, ingingo ya 23……..157

xiii

## Page 18

XIV

b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryagengaga imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28 n’iya 34……………………………………134 ingingo ya 29 agace ka 12………………………………..209 Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 11, 12, 37 n’iya 38………………………...157 Itegeko N° 51/2009 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 ryagengaga ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 178………………………………………...135 Itegeko N 12//2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ingingo ya 75 na 101………………………………………..221 Itegeko ryo ku wa 20 Nyakanga 1920 ryerekeye imitungo itimukanwa, ingingo ya 34………………………………………..157

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 19

XV

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Busoro na Busoro n’abandi, RS/INJUST/RCOOO22/2018/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21 Kamena 2019……..157 Harerimana na Sebukayire, RCAA 0018/13/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/12/2014………………………157 Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 0003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021………………3 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019……………..19 Rutabayiru na Batamuliza, RCAA 0013/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03 Kamena 2016………………..158 Rutabayiro n’abandi na Mukamabano, RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0023/16/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/09/2019………………………………………………………….135 Ubushinjacyaha na Uwinkindi, RPA/GEN/0004/16/CS rwaciwe ku wa14/10/2016……………...…………………………………...135 Urubanza Ubushinjacyaha na Uwinkindi, RPA 0020/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 04/04/2014…………………………………......135 Urubanza Aubrey v Vice-Versa (1998) 1 RCS 25………………..19 Urubanza Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne, n° 39954/08), 07/02/2012…………………………………………………………...19 Urubanza Bernstein and Others v Betsr and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC), igika cya 77………………………………….19 Urubanza Cour de cassation 1re chambre civile, 20 décembre 2000, Bull. 2000, I, n° 341………………………………………….19 xv

## Page 20

XVI

Urubanza E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012.......………….19 Urubanza Handyside c. Royaume Uni, n°5493/72, 7/12/1976, igika cya 49…………………………………………………………..19 Urubanza Galella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973)…….20 Urubanza Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014….…………………………….20 Urubanza MEC for Health, Mpumalanga yaburanaga na M-Net (MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v M-Net 2002 (6) SA 714 (T))……………………………………………………………………20 Urubanza n° RCOMAA 00023/2017/SC,Bralirwa v. Gisa, rwaciwe ku wa 06/10/2017, igika cya 16…………………………19 Urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, Re Mugisha, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019…………………………………………19 Urubanza n° RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS; Re Democratic Green Party of Rwanda v Leta y’ u Rwanda rwasomewe mu ntebe ku wa 29/07/2015…………………………………………………………...19 Urubanza R & M v SABC TV 3, JOL 22643 (2008)…………......19 Urubanza Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare, K. Gyasi Company Limited, Assembly of God Church, n°. J6/04/2017, 28/02/ 2018…………………………………………………………..19 Urubanza rubanziriza urundi n° RPA 0061/11/CS; Ubushinjacyaha v Uwimana Nkusi et al rwaciwe ku wa 17/02/2012…………………………………………………………...19 Urubanza Shulman v Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal. 4th 200, Supreme Court of California, June 1, 1998………………………20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 21

XVII

Urubanza The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC)…………………………………………………………………..19 Urubanza White v Sweden, n° 42435……………………………..20

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE

## Page 22

XVIII

## Page 23

XIX

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Kwishyuza ingwate yo kurangiza neza imirimo – Rwiyemezamirimo wahawe isoko ryo gukurikirana imirimo (Supervising works) ntiyakwitwaza ko igihe cyari kiri mu masezerano cyo gukora akazi cyarangiye ngo yake gusubizwa ingwate mu gihe atagaragaza imirimo yakozwe IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y'U RWANDA (MININFRA)…………………………….219 2. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ubwigarike – Mu gihe umuburanyi agaragarije urukiko ko atavuga rumwe n’umwunganizi we urukiko rukabirengaho, afatwa nk’aho atari yunganiwe UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI…………….133 3. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Inzitizi yatuma urubanza rutaburanishwa mu mizi – Mu kirego gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego ntigarukira ku nzitizi yo kwibeshya ku bihe byo gutanga ikirego gusa, mu gihe iyo nzitizi ari indemyagihugu ishobora kubyutswa n’umuburanyi cyangwa Urukiko rubyibwirije igihe icyo ari cyo cyose UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI…………..149 4. Amategeko agenga ububasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Imanza zivuruzanya – Ibibazo birebana no kuvuguruzanya kw’imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, biri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA………………………207 xix

## Page 24

XX

5. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Umutungo utimukanwa – Ibisabwa kugirango witwe nyirumutungo – Kugira icyemezo cy’umutungo ntibihagije kugirango hemezwe ko umutungo ari uw’ umuntu hashingiwe gusa ku kuba icyemezo cy’umutungo kimwanditseho, ahubwo agomba kugaragaza aho yawukomoye UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI…………..149 6. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu z’utanga ikirego – Nubwo inyungu igomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse, ikareberwa mu burenganzira bw’abasaba ko ingingo z’Itegeko runaka zivaho kuko zituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa, uwatanze ikirego afite inshingano zo kugaragaza umwihariko w’inyungu we ku giti cye aharanira mu rubanza hirindwa ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kubangamira imikorere y’inkiko Re. BYANSI (ADD)……………………………………1 Imbibi ku burenganzira n'ubwisanzure biteganywa n'Itegeko Nshinga – Imibereho bwite – Ubwisanzure bw'itangazamakuru – Uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo – Uburenganzira bwo guhabwa amakuru – Ubudahangarwa bw'umunyamakuru – Itegeko Nshinga rishyira ku munzani uburemere bw’ingaruka zikomoka ku kutubahiriza imibereho bwite kubera gushaka kubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, n’izikomoka ku kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kubera gushaka kurengera imibereho bwite – Ingaruka zo kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru nizo nke ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 25

XXI

– Umunyamakuru ntabwo yemerewe kwinjirira ubuzima bwite bw’abandi Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….13 Imbibi ku burenganzira n'ubwisanzure biteganywa n'Itegeko Nshinga – Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntabwo ari ndakumirwa – Agaciro n’icyubahiro by’umuntu bibuza uwo ari we wese harimo n’umunyamakuru kugira icyo akora agambiriye gutesha agaciro cyangwa kwambura umuntu icyubahiro cye.– Kuba umunyamakuru asabwa kugaragaza ko imvugo, ifoto cyangwa amashusho yatangaje bitandukanye n’umwimerere kandi agasabwa kubikora ku bw’ineza sibyo byafatwa nk’ibibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….13 Imbibi ku burenganzira n'ubwisanzure biteganywa n'Itegeko Nshinga – Ubwisanzure bw'itangazamakuru – Icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha rubanda Leta y'u Rwanda, – Inkuru itari iy'ukuri igamije kwangisha Leta y'u Rwanda – Amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha Leta bisenya demokarasi – Amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha Leta ntibyafatwa nk’ibigize ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwo bugamije kubaka igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….13 Inshingano z’abanyapolitiki zibahindura abantu ba rubanda (personage public/public figures), niyo mpamvu basabwa kwihangana no kwitwararika kurusha umuturage usanzwe AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 26

XXII

– Umunyapolitiki nawe arengerwa n’amategeko mu gaciro ke, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa mu buryo buburizamo ibiganiro bigamije inyungu rusange – Irengayobora riteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga ntirikwiye kwagurwa cyane ngo hagire abayobozi bahabwa umwihariko w’umurengera, utuma badakorwaho inkuru zibanenga bitewe gusa n’imyanya barimo cyangwa inshingano zabo hatitawe ku kamaro k’iyo nkuru Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….13 Ubutabera buboneye – Umuntu ntabwo akwiye kuryozwa icyaha atakoze kandi buri wese afite inshingano zo kugaragaza ikorwa ry’ibyaha cyane cyane ibyaha bikomeye n’iby’ubugome.– Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntibwarutishwa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye ku buryo umunyamakuru yakwemererwa kurebera abantu b’inzirakarengane bakurikiranweho ibyaha batakoze kugeza ubwo babihaniwe kandi afite ibimenyetso byatuma barenganurwa cyangwa ngo yemererwe kutagaragaza ikorwa ry’ibyaha yamenye Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….13

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 27

XXIII

## Page 28

XXIV

## Page 29

XXV

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

## Page 30

XXVI

## Page 31

XXVII

IBIREGO BISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO NSHINGA

## Page 32

XXVIII

## Page 33

1

Re. BYANSI (ADD) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza na Kalimunda, J.) 24 Ukuboza 2021] Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu z’utanga ikirego – Nubwo inyungu igomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse, ikareberwa mu burenganzira bw’abasaba ko ingingo z’Itegeko runaka zivaho kuko zituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa, uwatanze ikirego afite inshingano zo kugaragaza umwihariko w’inyungu we ku giti cye aharanira mu rubanza hirindwa ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kubangamira imikorere y’inkiko. Incamake y’ikibazo: Byansi yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 ndetse n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Avuga ko nk’umunyamakuru w’umwuga izo ngingo zimubangamiye mu kazi ke kandi zibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru nk’uko buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Uhagarariye Leta avuga ko izo ngingo zitanyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko hari ibikorwa by’umunyamakuru nk’umuntu usanzwe n’ibikorwa bye nk’umunyamakuru, bivuze ko ubuzima bwe bwose ataba ari mu bikorwa by’itangazamakuru, bityo ibyo abandi bantu basanzwe bakora nawe akaba ashobora kubikora ndetse n’ibyo bakwiye kubazwa nawe akaba yabibazwa. 1

## Page 34

2

Muri uru rubanza habanje gusuzumwa niba Uwatanze ikirego abifitemo inyungu, aho avuga ko izo ngingo zavuzwe haruguru zibangamiye akazi ke k’umunyamakuru ukora inkuru zicukumbuye, bivuze ko afite inyungu ku giti cye akagira n’inyungu rusange zo gutanga ikirego kuko ubwisanzure bwo gutanga amakuru bufite aho buhurira n’inyungu rusange bitewe n’uko ashobora kudatangaza inkuru atinya gukurikiranwa n’ingingo mpanabyaha aregera. Muri uru rubanza, Uhagarariye Leta avuga ko Urega afite inyungu zo gutanga iki kirego, hashingiwe k’umwuga w’itangazamakuru akora no ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga n’iya 72 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Nubwo inyungu igomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse, ikareberwa mu burenganzira bw’abasaba ko ingingo z’Itegeko runaka zivaho kuko zituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho kandi kigomba kurengerwa, uwatanze ikirego afite inshingano zo kugaragaza umwihariko w’inyungu we ku giti cye aharanira mu rubanza hirindwa ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kubangamira imikorere y’inkiko. 2. Umunyamakuru akora umwuga we wo gutara amakuru agamije kwigisha rubanda, guteza imbere ibikorwa bifitiye rubanda akamaro no guteza imbere umwuga w’itangazamakuru aharanira ubwisanzure bwawo. 3. Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ni uburyo umunyamakuru agaragaza ibitekerezo ndetse n’uburyo atara, yakira, atanga kandi atangaza amakuru n’ibitekerezo hakoreshejwe uburyo bunyuranye bw’itangazamakuru. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 35

3

Urega afite inyungu mu rubanza. Iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38. Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano, ingingo ya 156,157,194,218 n’iya 251. Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 72. Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru, ingingo ya 5 n’iya 8. Imanza zifashishijwe: Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 0003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021. Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 02/05/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 ndetse n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Re. BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 36

4

[2] Asobanura ko asanzwe ari umunyamakuru w’umwuga ufite ikarita y’akazi nimero 17/726-1, ko yibanda cyane ku nkuru zicukumbuye (investigative journalism) ndetse n’izo hanze y’igihugu kuva mu mwaka wa 2015 kugeza ubu, ko nyuma yaho Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ritangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta, yasanze ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’iryo Tegeko zimubangamiye mu kazi ke kandi zibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru nk’uko buteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [3] By’umwihariko avuga ko: - ingingo ya 156 ibuza gutangaza ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho ba nyirabyo batabitangiye uruhushya, nyamara hari amafoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho bifatirwa ahantu hahuriye abantu benshi ku buryo bitakoroha kubona uruhushya rwa buri wese mbere yo gutangaza ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho. - ingingo ya 157 ibuza gutangaza amagambo, amafoto n’amashusho byahinduwe nyamara mu gihe cyo gukora inkuru, umunyamakuru nk’umunyamwuga ashobora kubihindura kugira ngo inkuru yumvikane vuba kandi inyure abayumva. Asobanura ko hari igihe inkuru ishobora kuba ishingiye ku guhindura amashusho cyangwa amafoto, aribwo buryo bwitwa caricature kandi ko nk’ikinyamakuru cyitwa Charlie Hebdo kimaze imyaka 200 gikora gusa inkuru za caricature. - ingingo ya 194 ibuza umuntu wese gukwiza amakuru atariyo cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 37

5

kwangisha rubanda cyangwa amahanga Leta y’u Rwanda. Avuga ko kuba muri iyi ngingo hakoreshwa interero umuntu wese bihonyanga uburenganzira bw’umunyamakuru kubera ko afatwa nk’undi wese kandi afite inshingano yihariye yo gutangaza ibitekerezo bishobora kutakirwa kimwe n’abantu bose, ubundi akaba yatangaza inkuru yabwiwe n’umuntu utamubwije ukuri. Byongeye kandi, kuba iyo ngingo idatanga ibisobanuro by’ijambo icengezamatwara bishobora gutuma buri rukiko rurisobanura uko rubyumva, umunyamakuru akabirenganiramo. - ingingo ya 218 ibuza gusebya cyangwa gutuka abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga cyangwa abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda mu gihe bari mu kazi, ibi bikaba birimo ivangura ry’abo ingingo irengera ndetse ikaba ibangamiye ubwisanzure bwo gutara no gutangaza amakuru n’ubwo gutanga ibitekerezo. - ingingo ya 251 ihana umuntu wamenye akarengane k’undi, wamenye ikorwa ry’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye ntabimenyeshe inzego zibishinzwe cyangwa uwanze gutanga ubuhamya mu nzego z’ubutabera, nyamara kandi umunyamakuru afite inshingano zo kutavuga aho yakuye amakuru, kubihanirwa bikaba bibangamiye uburenzira bwo gutanga ibitekerezo. [4] Me Mbonigaba Eulade na Me Habumuremyi Prosper, bahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa Re. BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 38

6

30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zitanyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 ndetse n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 kubera ko hari ibikorwa by’umunyamakuru nk’umuntu usanzwe n’ibikorwa bye nk’umunyamakuru, bivuze ko ubuzima bwe bwose ataba ari mu bikorwa by’itangazamakuru, bityo ibyo abandi bantu basanzwe bakora nawe akaba ashobora kubikora ndetse n’ibyo bakwiye kubazwa nawe akaba yabibazwa. [5] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 13/12/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yunganiwe na Me Gakunzi Musore Valéry na Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée, naho Leta y’u Rwanda iburanirwa na Me Mbonigaba Eulade ndetse na Me Habumuremyi Prosper. Habanje gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu mu rubanza.

II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO 1. Kumenya niba Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu muri uru rubanza [6] Byansi Samuel Baker na Me Gakunzi Musore Valéry na Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée bamwunganira bavuga ko afite uburenganzira bwo kurengera inyungu ze kuko nk’umunyamakuru w’umwuga, ingingo aregera kuba zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zimubangamira mu kazi ke ka buri munsi. Basobanura ko uretse kuba ingingo aregera zimubangamiye ku giti cye, zibangamiye na rubanda (société) bitewe n’uko inkuru zikorwa mu nyungu rusange. Basobanura ko umurongo watanzwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza rwa Me Mugisha ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 39

7

Richard,1 ari uko inyungu y’umuburanyi igomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse, hakitabwa no ku nyungu rusange urega afite mu gusaba ko ingingo z’Itegeko zemezwa ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko muri urwo rubanza ikirego cyari cyatanzwe n’umunyamategeko, uru Rukiko rusanga atari ngombwa ko ategereza ko itegeko riregerwa ribanza kumugiraho ingaruka mbere y’uko ariregera. [7] Bavuga ko Byansi Samuel Baker, nk’umunyamakuru, asanga ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zibangamiye akazi ke k’umunyamakuru ukora inkuru zicukumbuye, bivuze ko afite inyungu ku giti cye akagira n’inyungu rusange zo gutanga ikirego kuko ubwisanzure bwo gutanga amakuru bufite aho buhurira n’inyungu rusange bitewe n’uko ashobora kudatangaza inkuru atinya gukurikiranwa n’ingingo mpanabyaha aregera. [8] Me Mbonigaba Eulade na Me Habumuremyi Prosper, bahagarariye Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta, bavuga ko hashingiwe ku mwuga w’itangazamakuru Byansi Samuel Baker akora no ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 n’iya 72 y’Itegeko nNo 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, bigaragara ko Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu muri uru rubanza.

1 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019. Re. BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 40

8

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Ingingo ya 72 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyungu. […] [10] Ingingo ya 38, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 igira iti: ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buremewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. [11] Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko N° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru ivuga ko umunyamakuru afite inshingano z’ingenzi zikurikira: 1° kumenyesha amakuru; 2° kwigisha abaturage no guteza imbere imyidagaduro; 3° guharanira ubwisanzure mu gutangaza amakuru, mu kuyasesengura no mu kugira icyo ayo makuru avugwaho. Naho ingingo ya 8, igika cya gatatu y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko buri munyamakuru afite ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo; ubwo burenganzira bukubiyemo ubwisanzure bwo gutara, kwakira, gutanga no gutangaza amakuru n’ibitekerezo hakoreshejwe uburyo bunyuranye bw’itangazamakuru. [12] Iyo izi ngingo z’amategeko zisomewe hamwe zumvikanisha ko umunyamakuru akora umwuga we wo gutara amakuru agamije kwigisha rubanda, guteza imbere ibikorwa bifitiye rubanda akamaro no guteza imbere umwuga w’itangazamakuru aharanira ubwisanzure bwawo. Itegeko rikaba ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 41

9

rivuga ko ubwisanzure bugomba kumvikana nk’uburyo umunyamakuru agaragaza ibitekerezo ndetse n’uburyo atara, yakira, atanga kandi atangaza amakuru n’ibitekerezo hakoreshejwe uburyo bunyuranye bw’itangazamakuru. Bivuze ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 72 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko yibukijwe haruguru umunyamakuru afite inyungu zo kugaragaza ko hari Itegeko ryaje rinyuranya n’uburenganzira cyangwa inshingano ahabwa n’ibisanzwe bimuteganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’andi mategeko. [13] Ku bijyanye n‘aho inyungu z’utanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’Itegeko runaka zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga ziva zikagera, uru Rukiko rwabisuzumye mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwa Me Mugisha Richard, aho rwasanze nubwo ari ngombwa gukumira ibirego bitangwa n’abagamije kwimenyekanisha, kumenyekanisha ibikorwa byabo cyangwa guheshwa uburenganzira bugenewe abandi ndetse akaba ari ngombwa gusigasira amikoro make y’inkiko hirindwa kurangarira mu bibazo bidahari, ku bireba ibirego bijyanye n’Itegeko Nshinga inyungu igomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse, ikareberwa mu burenganzira bw’abasaba ko ingingo z’Itegeko runaka zivaho kuko zituma icyari kigamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga kitagerwaho nyamara kigomba kurengerwa.2 [14] Urukiko rurasanga uyu murongo ariwo wagarutsweho mu rubanza rwa Byansi Samuel Baker rwaciwe ku wa 10/12/2021, ariko Urukiko rwongeraho ko mu rwego rwo kwirinda ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kubangamira imikorere y’inkiko, uwatanze ikirego afite inshingano zo kugaragaza umwihariko

2 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019, ibika bya 19’22. Re. BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 42

10

w’inyungu we ku giti cye aharanira mu rubanza.3 Ku bireba uru rubanza, bikaba bigaragarira Urukiko ko Byansi Samuel Baker nk’umunyamakuru ukorera imirimo ye mu Rwanda afite inyungu bwite muri uru rubanza kuko ibivugwa mu ngingo asaba ko Urukiko rwemeza ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga bireba ku buryo bw’umwihariko umurimo wo gutangaza amakuru. Ikindi kandi, Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange rireba buri wese uri ku butaka bw’u Rwanda harimo n’abanyamakuru, bityo ingingo zaryo avuga ko zikwiye kuvaho kuko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga zikaba zishobora kumubangamira ubu cyangwa mu bihe bizaza. [15] Urukiko rurasanga rero ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zifite aho zihuriye n’inshingano z’abanyamakuru, bikaba byumvikana ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga koko zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko Byansi Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira babivuga, icyo cyemezo cyaba kimufitiye akamaro, bityo akaba afite inyungu yo gutanga ikirego gisaba kuvanaho ingingo z’Itegeko avuga ko zimwambura uburenganzira ahabwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [16] Rwemeje ko Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu muri uru rubanza yo kuregera kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa

3 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 0003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021, igika cya16. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 43

11

30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga. [17] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza ku wa 14/02/2022. Re. BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 44

12

## Page 45

13

Re BYANSI (Fond) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza na Karimunda, J.) 20 Gicurasi 2022] Itegeko Nshinga – Imbibi ku burenganzira n'ubwisanzure biteganywa n'Itegeko Nshinga – Imibereho bwite – Ubwisanzure bw'itangazamakuru – Uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo – Uburenganzira bwo guhabwa amakuru – Ubudahangarwa bw'umunyamakuru – Itegeko Nshinga rishyira ku munzani uburemere bw’ingaruka zikomoka ku kutubahiriza imibereho bwite kubera gushaka kubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, n’izikomoka ku kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kubera gushaka kurengera imibereho bwite – Ingaruka zo kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru nizo nke – Umunyamakuru ntabwo yemerewe kwinjirira ubuzima bwite bw’abandi. Itegeko Nshinga – Imbibi ku burenganzira n'ubwisanzure biteganywa n'Itegeko Nshinga – Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntabwo ari ndakumirwa – Agaciro n’icyubahiro by’umuntu bibuza uwo ari we wese harimo n’umunyamakuru kugira icyo akora agambiriye gutesha agaciro cyangwa kwambura umuntu icyubahiro cye – Kuba umunyamakuru asabwa kugaragaza ko imvugo, ifoto cyangwa amashusho yatangaje bitandukanye n’umwimerere kandi agasabwa kubikora ku bw’ineza sibyo byafatwa nk’ibibangamiye 13

## Page 46

14

ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. Itegeko Nshinga – Imbibi ku burenganzira n'ubwisanzure biteganywa n'Itegeko Nshinga – Ubwisanzure bw'itangazamakuru – Icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha rubanda Leta y'u Rwanda, – Inkuru itari iy'ukuri igamije kwangisha Leta y'u Rwanda – Amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha Leta bisenya demokarasi – Amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha Leta ntibyafatwa nk’ibigize ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwo bugamije kubaka igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. Itegeko Nshinga – Inshingano z’abanyapolitiki zibahindura abantu ba rubanda (personage public/public figures), niyo mpamvu basabwa kwihangana no kwitwararika kurusha umuturage usanzwe – Umunyapolitiki nawe arengerwa n’amategeko mu gaciro ke, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa mu buryo buburizamo ibiganiro bigamije inyungu rusange – Irengayobora riteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga ntirikwiye kwagurwa cyane ngo hagire abayobozi bahabwa umwihariko w’umurengera, utuma badakorwaho inkuru zibanenga bitewe gusa n’imyanya barimo cyangwa inshingano zabo hatitawe ku kamaro k’iyo nkuru. Itegeko Nshinga – Ubutabera buboneye – Umuntu ntabwo akwiye kuryozwa icyaha atakoze kandi buri wese afite inshingano zo kugaragaza ikorwa ry’ibyaha cyane cyane ibyaha bikomeye n’iby’ubugome – Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntibwarutishwa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye ku buryo umunyamakuru yakwemererwa kurebera abantu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 47

15

b’inzirakarengane bakurikiranweho ibyaha batakoze kugeza ubwo babihaniwe kandi afite ibimenyetso byatuma barenganurwa cyangwa ngo yemererwe kutagaragaza ikorwa ry’ibyaha yamenye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Byansi Samuel Baker yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Avuga ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, itari ikwiye gufata umunyamakuru nk’undi muntu uwo ariwe wese ngo imuhanire kumviriza cyangwa gutangaza amagambo abantu bavugiye mu muhezo, gufata cyangwa gusakaza ifoto, amajwi, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite nyirabyo atabitangiye uruhushya. Avuga ko kubihanirwa bituma umunyamakuru adakora inkuru zicukumbuye zizwi nka investigative journalism na undercover journalism nyamara ubwo buryo bw’itangazamakuru bushobora gufasha mu itahura ry’ibyahac yangwa indi mikorere ifutamye y’abantu bafite ubushobozi. Avuga kandi ko kuba umunyamakuru ashobora kubihanirwa binyuranyije n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga na none ko ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itari ikwiye guhana umunyamakuru wahinduye amagambo uko atavuzwe, amafoto cyangwa amashusho hanyuma ntavuge ko byahinduwe kuko umwuga w’itangazamakuru ushingiye ahanini ku buryo bwa editing. Avuga ko guhanirwa editing biburizamo inkuru zikozwe mu buryo bwa caricatures, bigatuma itangazamakuru rigarukira ku Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 48

16

nkuru zishimishije gusa, nyamara inkuru zaciye igikuba, zifite abo zibangamiye cyangwa ziteye inkeke nazo zirengerwa n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. Ku bireba ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, avuga ko abanyamakuru ubwabo nta makuru bagira kuko bayakura mu bantu bashobora kubabwiza ukuri cyangwa kubabeshya. Avuga ko amagambo “umuntu wese” atangira iyo ngingo adaha umunyamakuru umwihariko akwiriye ahubwo amwitiranya n’undi uwo ariwe wese bikaba byatuma umunyamakuru azira gusa kuba uwakozweho inkuru atayishimiye. Avuga ko amagambo “icengezamatwara” nayo ari muri iyo ngingo atatangiwe ibisobanuro n’itegeko, bikaba bituma iryo jambo riba rigari cyane ku buryo inkiko zishobora kurisesengura mu buryo bugenekereje, nyamara mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi, umuntu atari akwiye guhanirwa icengezamatwara. Ku bireba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, avuga ko nta mpamvu ihari yatuma abayobozi bayivugwamo badakorwaho inkuru mu bwisanzure. Kuri we, ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo bisubiza inyuma intambwe igihugu cyari kimaze gutera mu kurengera uburenganzira bwa muntu kuko yimakaza ivangura ikanabangamira ubwisanzure bwo gutara no gutangaza amakuru n’ubwo gutanga ibitekerezo. Avuga ko umunyamakuru atari akwiye gufungirwa gusebanya, ko aramutse yabikoze yakurikiranwa hashingiwe ku mategeko agenga umwuga we cyangwa amategeko mbonezamubano. Ku bijyanye n’ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, avuga ko umunyamakuru afite inshingano zo kurinda abamuha amakuru n’ubwo bitabujije ko akorana n’izindi nzego. Asanga umunyamakuru atakagombye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 49

17

gushyirirwaho inshingano zo kuvuga aho yakuye inkuru kuko bishobora kubangamira uburenganzira bwe bwo gutanga ibitekerezo. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Itegeko Nshinga rishyira ku munzani uburemere bw’ingaruka zikomoka ku kutubahiriza imibereho bwite kubera gushaka kubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, n’izikomoka ku kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kubera gushaka kurengera imibereho bwite. Bigaragara ko ingaruka zo kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru arizo nke, bityo umunyamakuru akaba atemerewe kwinjirira ubuzima bwite bw’abandi kuko gusa atekereza ko yabonye inkuru. 2. Kuba umunyamakuru asabwa kugaragaza ko imvugo, ifoto cyangwa amashusho yatangaje bitandukanye n’umwimerere kandi agasabwa kubikora ku bw’ineza sibyo byafatwa nk’ibibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. 3. Amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara rigamije kwangisha Leta bisenya demokarasi, ntibyafatwa rero nk’ibigize ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwo bugamije kubaka igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. 4. Inshingano z’abanyapolitiki zibahindura abantu ba rubanda, niyo mpamvu basabwa kwihangana no kwitwararika kurusha umuturage usanzwe. Umunyapolitiki nawe arengerwa n’amategeko mu gaciro ke, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa mu buryo buburizamo ibiganiro bigamije inyungu rusange. Ku bw’ibyo, irengayobora riteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 50

18

ntirikwiye kwagurwa cyane ngo hagire abayobozi bahabwa umwihariko w’umurengera, utuma badakorwaho inkuru zibanenga bitewe gusa n’imyanya barimo cyangwa inshingano zabo hatitawe ku kamaro k’iyo nkuru. 5. Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntibwarutishwa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye ku buryo umunyamakuru yakwemererwa kurebera abantu b’inzirakarengane bakurikiranweho ibyaha batakoze kugeza ubwo babihaniwe kandi afite ibimenyetso byatuma barenganurwa cyangwa ngo yemererwe kutagaragaza ikorwa ry’ibyaha yamenye. Ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga; Ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga; Ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga; Ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo ikaba nta gaciro ifite; Ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 51

19

Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza n° RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS; Re Democratic Green Party of Rwanda v Leta y’ u Rwanda rwasomewe mu ntebe ku wa 29/07/2015. Urubanza rubanziriza urundi n° RPA 0061/11/CS; Ubushinjacyaha v Wimana Nkusi et al rwaciwe ku wa 17/02/2012. Urubanza n° RCOMAA 00023/2017/SC, Bralirwa v. Gisa, rwaciwe ku wa 06/10/2017, igika cya 16. Urubanza Cour de cassation 1re chambre civile, 20 décembre 2000, Bull. 2000, I, n° 341. Urubanza Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n° 40660/08 na n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012, igika cya 96. Urubanza Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne, n° 39954/08), 07/02/2012. Urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, Re Mugisha, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019, igika cya 65. Urubanza Handyside c. Royaume Uni, n°5493/72, 7/12/1976, igika cya 49. Urubanza Aubrey v Vice-Versa (1998) 1 RCS 25. Urubanza Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare, K. Gyasi Company Limited, Assembly of God Church, n°. J6/04/2017, 28/02/ 2018, urupapuro rwa 4. Urubanza Bernstein and Others v Betsr and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC), igika cya 77. Urubanza The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), igika cya 15 n’icya 16. Urubanza Von Hannover v Germany n° 40660/08 na n° 60641/08, 07/02/2012, igika cya 96. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 52

20

Urubanza Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014, igika cya 135, 136 n’icya 137. Urubanza R & M v SABC TV 3, JOL 22643, igika cya 37 (2008). Urubanza MEC for Health, Mpumalanga yaburanaga na M-Net (MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v M-Net 2002 (6) SA 714 (T)) Urubanza E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, igika cya 57, 58 n’icya 71. Urubanza Shulman v Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal. 4th 200, Supreme Court of California, June 1, 1998. Urubanza n° Galella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973). Urubanza White v Sweden, n° 42435, Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation of Foreign State Leaders In Times of Globalized Media And Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, vol 9, no 1, p. 52, 56-57. BBC Africa Eye documentary, “Sex for Grades: undercover inside Nigerian and Ghanaian universities”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we-F0Gi0Lqs byasomwe ku wa 11/03/2022. BBC Africa Eye documentary, “The Baby Stealers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ix5jbCmiDU byasomwe ku wa 11/03/2022. Bernard Dubuisson na Paul Jadoul (sous la dir), La responsabilité civile liée à l'information et au conseil: questions d’actualité, Bruxelles, Presses Universitaires Saint Louis, 2019, p.235. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 53

21

https://www.justifit.fr/b/guides/droit-propriete- intellectuelle/droit-image-atteinte-vie-privee/ Jo Samanta and Ash Samanta, Medical Law, London, Palgrave, 2015, p. 76 Jonathan Herring, Medical Law and Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 231 and 241. Tarlach McGonagle, Minority Rights, Freedom of Expression and of the Media: Dynamics and Dilemmas, Cambridge, Intersentia, Research Series, Volume 44, 2011, p.272. Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p.1-2 and 3. OSCE, Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, March 2017, p.16 William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.377 and 448. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Ku wa 02/05/2021, BYANSI Samuel Baker yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 ndetse n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. [2] Asobanura ko asanzwe ari umunyamakuru w’umwuga ufite ikarita y’akazi no 17/726-1 kuva mu mwaka wa 2015, ko yibanda cyane ku nkuru zicukumbuye (investigative journalism) Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 54

22

ndetse n’izo hanze y’igihugu. Avuga ko nyuma yaho Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ritangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta, yasanze ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’iryo Tegeko zimubangamiye mu kazi ke kandi zibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru nk’uko buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [3] By’umwihariko avuga ko: i. Ingingo ya 156 ibuza umuntu wese kwinjirira ubuzima bwite bw’undi yumviriza, atangaza cyangwa asakaza ku bw’inabi ifoto, amajwi, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko ba nyirabyo batabitangiye uruhushya nyamara hari amafoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho bifatirwa ahantu hahuriye abantu benshi ku buryo bitakoroha kubona uruhushya rwa buri wese mbere yo gutangaza ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho. ii. Ingingo ya 157 ibuza gutangaza ku bw’inabi amagambo, amafoto n’amashusho byahinduwe hanyuma umunyamakuru ntavuge ko ibyatangajwe bitandukanye n’umwimerere, nyamara mu gihe cyo gukora inkuru, umunyamakuru nk’umunyamwuga ashobora guhindura amagambo, amafoto cyangwa amashusho kugira ngo inkuru yumvikane vuba kandi inyure abayumva. Asobanura ko hari igihe inkuru ishobora kuba ishingiye ku guhindura amashusho cyangwa amafoto, aribwo buryo bwitwa caricature kandi ko nk’ikinyamakuru ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 55

23

cyitwa Charlie Hebdo kimaze imyaka 200 gikora gusa inkuru za caricature. iii. Ingingo ya 194 ibuza umuntu wese gukwiza amakuru atariyo cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije kwangisha rubanda cyangwa amahanga Leta y’u Rwanda. Avuga ko kuba muri iyi ngingo hakoreshwa interuro “umuntu wese” bibangamiye uburenganzira bw’umunyamakuru kubera ko afatwa nk’undi wese kandi afite inshingano yihariye yo gutangaza ibitekerezo bishobora kutakirwa kimwe n’abantu bose, ubundi akaba yatangaza inkuru yabwiwe n’umuntu utamubwije ukuri. Byongeye kandi, avuga ko kuba iyo ngingo idatanga ibisobanuro by’ijambo “icengezamatwara” bishobora gutuma buri rukiko rurisobanura uko rubyumva, umunyamakuru akabirenganiramo. iv. Ingingo ya 218 ibuza gusebya cyangwa gutuka abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga cyangwa abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda mu gihe bari mu kazi, ibi bikaba birimo ivangura ry’abo ingingo irengera ndetse ikaba ibangamiye ubwisanzure bwo gutara no gutangaza amakuru n’ubwo gutanga ibitekerezo. v. Ingingo ya 251 ihana umuntu wamenye akarengane k’undi, wamenye ikorwa ry’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye ntabimenyeshe inzego zibishinzwe cyangwa uwanze gutanga ubuhamya mu nzego z’ubutabera, nyamara kandi umunyamakuru afite inshingano zo kutavuga aho Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 56

24

yakuye amakuru, kubihanirwa bikaba bibangamiye uburenzira bwo gutanga ibitekerezo. [4] Me Mbonigaba Eulade na Me Habumuremyi Prosper, bahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 ndetse n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 kubera ko hari ibikorwa by’umunyamakuru nk’umuntu usanzwe n’ibikorwa bye nk’umunyamakuru, bivuze ko ubuzima bwe bwose ataba ari mu bikorwa by’itangazamakuru, bityo ibyo abandi bantu basanzwe bakora nawe akaba ashobora kubikora ndetse n’ibyo bakwiye kubazwa nawe akaba yabibazwa. [5] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 13/12/2021, Byansi Samuel Baker yunganiwe na Me Gakunzi Musore Valéry na Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée, naho Leta y’u Rwanda iburanirwa na Me Mbonigaba Eulade ndetse na Me Habumuremyi Prosper. [6] Habanje gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Byansi Samuel Baker afite inyungu mu rubanza. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 24/12/2021, Urukiko rwasanze Byansi Samuel Baker, nk’umunyamakuru ukorera imirimo ye mu Rwanda afite inyungu bwite muri uru rubanza kuko ibivugwa mu ngingo asaba ko Urukiko rwemeza ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga bireba ku buryo bw’umwihariko umurimo wo gutangaza amakuru. Ikindi kandi, ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange asaba ko zikurwaho, zifite aho zihuriye n’inshingano z’abanyamakuru kandi zireba buri wese uri ku butaka bw’u Rwanda harimo n’abanyamakuru, bityo akaba afite inyungu zo gusaba ko zivaho kuko zishobora ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 57

25

kumubangamira ubu cyangwa mu bihe bizaza. Iburanisha ku mizi y’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 14/02/2022. [7] Uwo munsi iburanisha ryabereye mu ruhame, Byansi Samuel Baker yunganiwe nka mbere, Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Mbonigaba Eulade. Urukiko rwabanje gusuzuma ubusabe bwa Centre for Rule of Law Rwanda (CERULAR), ihagarariwe na Me Sebusandi Moses, bwo kuba inshuti y’Urukiko, ikaba yaravugaga mu rwandiko rwayo rwo ku wa 19/01/2022, ko ifite inararibonye yasangiza Urukiko kuko isanzwe ikora ubushakashatsi ku burenganzira bwo gutanga ibitekerezo n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ndetse ko inabarizwa mu mahuriro atandukanye y’imiryango iharanira uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu. [8] Nyuma yo gusuzuma inyandiko zatanzwe na CERULAR, Urukiko rwasanze hashingiwe ku murongo rwatanze mu rubanza rwa Democratic Green Party of Rwanda iburana na Leta y’ u Rwand1 ndetse n’urwo Uwimana Nkusi Agnès na Mukakibibi Saidati baburanaga n’Ubushinjacyaha2 w’uko, n’ubwo ubufasha bw’inshuti y’Urukiko ari ingirakamaro kuko ishobora kurufasha gusuzuma amategeko n’ibibazo biri mu rubanza bikeneye ubumenyi budasanzwe cyangwa bikeneye ubushakashatsi Urukiko cyangwa ababuranyi batakwikorera mu buryo bworoshye, kuba inshuti y’Urukiko byemezwa n’Urukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo kandi kugira ngo byemerwe bisaba ko iba ifite ubumenyi bukwiriye, itavuga mu yandi magambo cyangwa idasubiramo ibyavuzwe n’ababuranyi. Rwasanze

1 Reba urubanza n° RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS rwasomewe mu ntebe ku wa 29/07/2015. 2 Reba urubanza rubanziriza urundi n° RPA 0061/11/CS rwaciwe ku wa 17/02/2012 Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 58

26

ubunararibonye CERULAR ivuga ko ifite n’ubushakashatsi ivuga ko ikora itarabitangiye ibimenyetso bihamya ko yaba ifite ubumenyi bukwiriye ku bibazo bisuzumwa ku buryo haba hari igishya iri buzane muri uru rubanza, rwanzura ko itemerewe kuba inshuti y’Urukiko, urubanza rukaba rugomba gukomeza itarurimo. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO. II.1. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [9] Byansi Samuel Baker avuga ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibuza umuntu uwo ari we wese kumviriza cyangwa gutangaza amagambo abantu bavugiye mu muhezo, gufata, gutangaza cyangwa gusakaza ifoto, amajwi, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko nyirabyo atabitangiye uruhushya. Avuga ko hari igihe inkuru iba igamije gucukumbura imikorere y’abantu bafite ubushobozi (powers) cyangwa bakekwaho ibyaha bikaba bitashoboka ko ubasaba uburenganzira bwo kubakoraho inkuru. Atanga urugero rw’uko gukora inkuru isanzwe (open source journalism) ku muntu ucuruza urumogi cyangwa wijandika mu byaha bya ruswa bidafite ingaruka zimwe no kumukoraho inkuru icukumbuye (investigative cyangwa undercover journalism) hakoreshejwe uburyo bwo kumviriza, gufata amafoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho. Asobanura ko muri iki gihe gukora inkuru kuri bene abo bantu bisaba kwinjira muri telefoni cyangwa mudasobwa byabo kuko aribyo bisigaye bibika amakuru kandi ko iyo byakozwe neza bifasha n’izindi nzego harimo n’iz’ubutabera ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 59

27

kubona ibimenyetso byaherwaho hatangira inzira y’ikurikiranacyaha. [10] Byansi Samuel Baker avuga ko akamaro ka investigative journalism cyangwa undercover journalism atari ugushyira umunyamakuru hejuru y’amategeko, gushaka kumusimbuza inzego z’iperereza n’ubugenzacyaha cyangwa kumuha ububasha bwo kugenzura itumanaho. Avuga kandi ko iyo umunyamakuru amenye ko hari ikintu kigiye gukorerwa ahantu runaka, ahatanga ba nyir’ubwite, agategura ibikoresho bye, akiyoberanya kugira ngo agere ku ntego ye yo gutara inkuru. Yongeraho ko ubwiye abakekwaho gukora ibyaha ko ugiye gushyiraho camera kugira ngo ubafate amajwi n’amashusho batabyemera, ariyo mpamvu rimwe na rimwe bisaba kwinjira mu bikoresho by’ikoranabuhanga (hacking) by’aho inkuru igiye gutarirwa cyangwa hagakoreshwa cameras na microphones zihishe kugira ngo inkuru itarwe neza. [11] Avuga ko uburyo bw’itangazamakuru bwa investigative journalism na undercover journalism bumenyerewe mu bindi bihugu. Atanga urugero rwa Ghana na Kenya, aho bwatanze umusaruro ku bibazo by’abarimu ba kaminuza basambanya abanyeshuli b’abakobwa kugira ngo babahe amanota (Sex for Grades : undercover inside Nigerian and Ghanaian universities)3 n’iby’abana b’impinja bibwaga ba nyina ku mihanda cyangwa mu mavuriro ya Nairobi bakagurishwa abagore b’ingumba cyangwa bakicwa kugira ngo ibice byabo bikoreshwe mu

3 Reba BBC Africa Eye documentary, “Sex for Grades: undercover inside Nigerian and Ghanaian universities”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we- F0Gi0Lqs byasomwe ku wa 11/03/2022. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 60

28

mihango gakondo (The Baby Stealers).4 Avuga ko kuri bene ibi byaha hamwe n’ibyaha byo gucuruza urumogi cyangwa gutanga no kwakira ruswa, bigoranye kubikorera inkuru hakoreshejwe uburyo bwa open source journalism bumenyerewe mu Rwanda kuko bidakorerwa ku karubanda nko muri gare aho abanyamakuru bashobora gufata amafoto, amajwi n’amashusho ntawe ubanje kubisabira uruhushya. [12] Me Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée na Me Gakunzi Musore Valéry, bunganira BYANSI Samuel Baker, bavuga ko impamvu ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga ari uko umushingamategeko yirengagije ko hari igihe amafoto afatirwa ahantu hahuriye abantu benshi ku buryo bitakoroha kubona uruhushya rwa buri wese. Bavuga ko hari amahame rusange atatu uru Rukiko rukwiye gusuzuma, rwasanga atarubahirijwe rukemeza ko ingingo iregerwa inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ayo mahame ni aya akurikira: kumenya niba ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ari ngombwa mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi; kumenya niba ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo bireba n’amafoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho by’ibyamamare no kumenya niba bikwiye ko umunyamakuru ahanirwa kuba yafashe ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho akabitangaza. [13] Bavuga ko guhanira umunyamakuru gufata no gutangaza ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho ari ukwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ndetse ko amagambo “ku bw’inabi”

4 Reba BBC Africa Eye documentary, “The Baby Stealers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ix5jbCmiDU byasomwe ku wa 11/03/2022. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 61

29

yashyizwe mu ngingo ya 156 yavuzwe haruguru ashobora guhabwa ibisobanuro byagutse, nyamara ingingo z’amategeko mpanabyaha zisomwa uko zakabaye. Bavuga ko n’ubwo byafatwa ko abanyamakuru bakora inshingano zabo ku bw’ineza, uwo inkuru itashimishije ashobora kuvuga ko yakozwe ku bw’inabi. Basobanura ko amagambo “ku bw’inabi” amenyerewe mu manza mbonezamubano, bityo igikwiye akaba ari uko umuntu utanyuzwe n’inkuru yamutangajweho agana inkiko mbonezamubano akabisabira indishyi, aho kuregera inkiko mpanabyaha. [14] Basobanura ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru ibarizwa mu byaha bibangamira imibereho bwite y’abantu (offences against privacy), kandi ko ntaho iryo tegeko ritanga igisobanuro cy’imibereho bwite y’umuntu ndetse ko n’ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga igarukira gusa ku kurengera imibereho bwite itayitangiye igisobanuro.5 Kuri bo, igisobanuro cy’imibereho bwite gitangwa n’ingingo ya 3, agace ka 6° y’Itegeko no 058/2021 ryo ku wa 13/10/2021 ryerekeye kurinda amakuru bwite n’imibereho bwite by’umuntu, ivuga ko imibereho bwite y’umuntu ari “uburenganzira bw’ibanze bw’umuntu bwo kwemeza undi muntu ushobora kubona amakuru bwite ye, igihe n’ahantu yayabonera, impamvu yayabona, uburyo akoresha ayabona n’uburyo bwakoreshwa kugira ngo agerweho”. Bavuga kandi ko ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo bihura n’umurongo wafashwe

5 “Imibereho bwite y’umuntu, iy’umuryango we, urugo rwe cyangwa ubutumwa yohererezanya n’abandi ntibishobora kuvogerwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko; icyubahiro n’agaciro ke bigomba kubahirizwa. Urugo rw’umuntu ntiruvogerwa. Ntihashobora gukorwa isakwa mu rugo cyangwa kurwinjiramo kubera impamvu z’igenzura nyirarwo atabyemeye, keretse mu bihe no mu buryo biteganyijwe n’amategeko. Ibanga ry’amabaruwa n’iry’itumanaho ntirishobora kuzitirwa keretse mu bihe no mu buryo biteganywa n’amategeko.” Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 62

30

n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza GISA Frediane yaburanaga na BRALIRWA Ltd,6 aho rwemeje ko ikirego cya GISA Frediane gisaba indishyi gifite ishingiro kuko sosiyete yitwa EXP Rwanda yahaye BRALIRWA Ltd amafoto ye batabyumvikanyeho, nayo ikayakoresha mu kwamamaza ikinyobwa cya Heinken. Bavuga ndetse ko ibyo bitandukanye n’ifoto yafashwe kandi igatangazwa n’umunyamakuru. Basobanura ko inkiko z’ibindi bihugu nk’Urukiko Rusesa Imanza mu Bufaransa zavuze ko gutangaza ifoto y’umuntu wakomerekeye mu gitero cy’iterabwoba ntaho bibangamiye agaciro ka muntu kuko umunyamakuru ataba agamije amakabyankuru (sensationnel) cyangwa gutesha agaciro uwahohotewe.7 [15] Bavuga ndetse ko Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu narwo rwibukije ko uburenganzira ku buzima bwite bukubiyemo umwirondoro w’umuntu harimo izina n’ifoto bye no kwishyira ukuzina ku bijyanye n’umubiri cyangwa ubwenge, ko ku bijyanye n’amafoto cyangwa amashusho, rwasobanuye ko ari bimwe mu by’ingenzi biranga umuntu kuko bigaragaza umwimerere we kandi bikamutandukanya n’abandi, ari nayo mpamvu buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo kugena uburyo ifoto cyangwa amashusho bye bikoreshwa harimo no kwanga ko bitangazwa.8 Bavuga ko nabo bemera ko ubwo

6 Reba urubanza no RCOMAA 00023/2017/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 06/10/2017, igika cya 16. 7 “c'est ainsi que la publication de la photo d'une victime, ensanglantée, de l'attentat du RER Saint Michel n'a pas été jugée contraire à la dignité humaine étant dépourvue de « recherche du sensationnel et de toute indécence”. Reba urubanza Cour de cassation 1re chambre civile, 20 décembre 2000, Bull. 2000, I, n° 341. 8 “la Cour rappelle que la notion de vie privée comprend des éléments se rapportant à l’identité d’une personne, tels que son nom, sa photo, son intégrité physique et morale…“la Cour a souligné que l’image d’un individu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 63

31

burenganzira bugomba kubahwa n’abandi ndetse inkiko zikaburinda, ariko bigahuzwa na none n’uburenganzira bw’umunyamakuru ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, guhabwa amakuru no kugaragaza ibitekerezo nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ingingo ya 199 y’Itangazo Mpuzamahanga ku Burenganzira bwa Muntu ryo mu mwaka wa 1948 n’iya 19 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku Burenganzira mu by’Imbonezamubano na Politiki yo mu mwaka wa 1966, byose bigaragaza ko nta tegeko cyangwa ingingo yaryo bikwiye kunyuranya n’iryo hame. [16] Basobanura ko mu rubanza Axel Springer AG yaburanaga n’igihugu cy’Ubudage, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwahuje ubwisanzure mu gutanga ibitekerezo n’uburenganzira ku buzima bwite, rusanga ingingo esheshatu (6) zikurikira zigomba kugenderwaho kugira ngo ubwo burenganzira bwombi bwuzuzanye: Gusuzuma niba inkuru igamije gutanga umusanzu mu biganiro cyangwa impaka bigamije inyungu rusange; gusuzuma ikigize inkuru no kumenya niba uwakozweho inkuru ari icyamamare; gusuzuma imyitwarire isanzwe iranga uwakoze inkuru; gusuzuma uburyo bwakoreshejwe mu gutara inkuru; gusuzuma ukuri kw’ibivugwa mu nkuru, ibigize inkuru, uburyo yatangajwe ndetse n’ingaruka

est l’un des attributs principaux de sa personnalité, du fait qu’elle exprime son originalité et lui permet de se différencier de ses pairs. Le droit de la personne à la protection de son image constitue ainsi l’une des conditions essentielles de son épanouissement personnel. Elle présuppose principalement la maîtrise par l’individu de son image, laquelle comprend notamment la possibilité pour celui-ci d’en refuser la diffusion.” Reba urubanza Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n° 40660/08 na n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012, igika cya 96. 9 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo bugizwe no gutanga ibitekerezo ntacyo umuntu yikanga, n’uburenganzira bwo gushaka, kubona no gukwirakwiza amakuru n’ibitekerezo aho ariho hose”. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 64

32

zayo; no gusuzuma ibijyanye n’ibihano amategeko yateganyirije icyo cyaha.10 [17] Bongeraho ko mu rubanza Re Mugisha Richard, uru Rukiko narwo rwemeje ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta ariko ko hari ibyo butagomba kubangamira,11 ndetse ko uyu murongo ushimangirwa n’inkiko zitandukanye zavuze ko ubwisanzure bw’umunyamakuru butagarukira gusa ku nkuru cyangwa ibitekerezo byakiriwe neza, ahubwo ko bireba n’izakanze cyangwa izaciye igikuba muri Leta cyangwa igice kimwe cy’abaturage.12 [18] Bavuga nanone ko ubwo Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwasesenguraga ingingo ya 10 y’Amasezerano y'Ibihugu by'i Burayi y'uburenganzira bwa muntu,13 rwasanze irengayobora ku bwisanzure

10 “In order to balance the right to freedom of expression against the right to private life, the Court uses six criteria: the contribution to a debate of general interest; how well known the person being reported on is and the subject of the report; the person’s prior conduct; the method used to obtain the information; the veracity, content, form and repercussions of the report; and the penalty imposed”. Reba urubanza Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne, n° 39954/08), 07/02/2012. 11 Urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, Re Mugisha, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019, igika cya 65 12“ vaut non seulement pour les "informations" ou "idées" accueillies avec faveur ou considérées comme inoffensives ou indifférentes, mais aussi pour celles qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent l'État ou une fraction quelconque de la population.” Reba urubanza Handyside c. Royaume Uni, n°5493/72, 7/12/1976, igika cya 49. 13 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “1. Toute personne a droit à la liberté d’expression. Ce droit comprend la liberté d’opinion et la liberté de recevoir ou de ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 65

33

bw’itangazamakuru ryemerwa iyo hubahirijwe ibi bikurikira: 1) kuba iryo rengayobora cyangwa imbogamizi biteganyijwe n’amategeko, 2) kuba intego yaryo yumvikana (but légitime), 3) kuba ari ngombwa kwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi (si l'ingérence était nécessaire dans une société démocratique). Kuri bo uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu n'ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bigomba kubahirizwa ku buryo bungana, ibyo bikaba bisaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari ngombwa mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi kabone n’ubwo haba hatangajwe inkuru idashimishije cyangwa ifite uwo ibangamiye, irengayobora kuri iryo hame ry’ubwisanzure bw’itanganzamakuru rikaba ridakwiye gusesengurwa mu buryo bugenekereje. Bavuga ko Urukiko rwemeza irengayobora iyo riri ngombwa kandi rikenewe n’abaturage, ari naho Urukiko ruhera rusuzuma niba ukwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru guhura n’intego irengerwa, harebwe imiterere y’ikirego rwashyikirijwe. [19] Banasobanura ko Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwasuzumye ikibazo nk’iki, aho rwari

communiquer des informations ou des idées sans qu’il puisse y avoir ingérence d’autorités publiques et sans considération de frontière. Le présent article n’empêche pas les États de soumettre les entreprises de radiodiffusion, de cinéma ou de télévision à un régime d’autorisations. 2. L’exercice de ces libertés comportant des devoirs et des responsabilités peut être soumis à certaines formalités, conditions, restrictions ou sanctions prévues par la loi, qui constituent des mesures nécessaires, dans une société démocratique, à la sécurité nationale, à l’intégrité territoriale ou à la sûreté publique, à la défense de l’ordre et à la prévention du crime, à la protection de la santé ou de la morale, à la protection de la réputation ou des droits d’autrui, pour empêcher la divulgation d’informations confidentielles ou pour garantir l’autorité et l’impartialité du pouvoir judiciaire”. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 66

34

rwaregewe n’abantu bafashwe amafoto bari mu muhanda, agasohoka mu binyamakuru. Abafotowe basabye Inkiko z’Ubudage guhagarika ikwirakwiza ry’iyo nkuru zirabyanga, bituma barega Igihugu cy’Ubudage mu Rukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu, bavuga ko itangazwa ry’amafoto yabo mu binyamakuru ryabangamiye imibereho bwite yabo, urwo Rukiko rusanga ayo mafoto ntacyo yari atwaye ku buryo itangazwa ryayo ryahagarikwa14. Bongeraho ariko ko Urukiko rwahise rushyiraho amahame remezo akurikira: 1) kuba mu nshingano ze za buri munsi, umunyamakuru afata amafoto, amashusho n’ibiganiro akabitangaza nk’umusanzu we mu biganiro bifitiye akamaro rubanda kandi mu nyungu rusange (la contribution à un débat d’intérêt général), 2) kuba gufata amafoto, amashusho n’ibiganiro by’abantu b’ibyamamare ntaho bibangamiye imibereho bwite yabo iyo bagereranyijwe n’abaturage basanzwe (la notoriété de la personne visée et l’objet du reportage), kuba umunyamakuru akora inshingano kinyamwuga kandi ku neza ya bose. [20] Basoza basaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko guhana umunyamakuru watangaje ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho byafashwe nyirabyo atabitangiye uruhushya ari ukwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru (une ingérence dans le droit à la liberté d’expression) kandi ko atari ngombwa mu Rwanda nk’Igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi, bityo rukanzura ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018

14 « la Cour note au demeurant, comme l’a relevé la Cour fédérale de justice, que les photos montrant les requérants en pleine rue à Saint-Moritz en hiver n’étaient pas en elles-mêmes offensantes au point de justifier leur interdiction”. Reba urubanza Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n°40660/08 na n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012, igika cya 123. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 67

35

riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [21] Me Mbonigaba Eulade, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko ibyo Byansi Samuel Baker avuga ko akwiye kwemererwa gukoresha camera zihishe birenze ibyo gutangaza inkuru kuko izo ari inshingano z’ubugenzacyaha cyangwa z’abashinzwe ubutasi, ndetse kuba bikorwa ahandi akaba ataribyo byaherwaho hemezwa ko ibibujijwe n’amategeko y’u Rwanda binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko bishoboka ko aho bikorwa Itegeko Nshinga ryabo ri bibemerera. [22] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 8, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko rigenga itangazamakuru ivuga ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta iyo bukoreshejwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, naho ingingo ya 9 y’iryo Tegeko ikavuga ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru butagomba kubangamira ubwa rubanda, aricyo cyatumye mu ntangiriro y’ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, Umushingamategeko akoresha amagambo “ku bw’inabi”, kandi ko aya magambo ahura neza n’imbibi zashyizwe ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nshinga. [23] Avuga ko impungenge Byansi Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bafite z’uko hari ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho bishobora gufatirwa ahantu hahuriye abantu benshi ku buryo bitakoroha kubona uruhushya rwa buri wese, nabyo bitashingirwaho hemezwa ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko iyo ibyo bikorwa bibaye bene byo babibona, babizi kandi bafite ubushobozi bwo kubyamagana Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 68

36

ntibabikore, bifatwa nk’aho babyemeye. Naho ku bijyanye no kumenya niba kubuzwa kumviriza bibangamiye imikorere y’umunyamakuru, avuga ko ataribyo kuko uburenganzira umunyamakuru ahabwa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga buzitirwa n’ituze n’umudendezo bya rubanda, ndetse akaba ari ngombwa gusobanukirwa ko ubwisanzure n’uburenganzira bitavuze kurengera iby’abandi bantu, ahubwo ko ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko Nshinga15 iteganya ko ubwisanzure bugarukira aho amategeko atabuza. [24] Akomeza avuga ko abahanga mu mategeko bahamya ko uburenganzira bw’undi bwagutse, hakaba hakubiyemo uburenganzira kuri kamere (personnalité), ku bunyangamugayo n’icyubahiro (integrité morale, honneur), uburengazira bwo kugira no kugirirwa ibanga16 kandi ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda. Atanga urugero rwo mu Bufaransa,

15 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “mu gukoresha uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure, buri wese azitirwa gusa n’itegeko rigamije kwemera no kubahiriza uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure by’abandi ndetse n‟imyitwarire iboneye, ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imibereho myiza muri rusange biranga Igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi.” 16 la catégorie “droit d’autrui est large; elle recouvre les droits de personnalité entre autres , le droit à l’integrité morale ou droit d’honneur, le droit au secret et au respect de la vie privée, y compris le droit de l’oubli, le droit au nom, le droit à l’image et à la voix, le droit à la dignité” Reba Bernard Dubuisson na Paul Jadoul (sous la dir), La responsabilité civile liée à l'information et au conseil: questions d’actualité, Bruxelles, Presses Universitaires Saint Louis, 2019, p.235. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 69

37

aho ingingo ya 226, igika cya mbere17 n’icya 2,18 y’Itegeko rigenga ibyaha n’ibihano ihana ifatwa n’itangazwa ry’ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho y’abantu byabereye mu muhezo ba nyirabyo batabanje kubitangira uburenganzira. Asobanura ko n’ingingo ya 179 bis y’Itegeko rigenga ibyaha n’ibihano mu Busuwisi nayo iteganya ko umuntu wese wifashisha ibyuma akumviriza cyangwa agashakira indonke mu kumviriza amajwi y’abandi yabereye mu muhezo batabimwemereye, uzaba yabitse ayo majwi cyangwa akayasangiza undi kandi azi cyangwa ashobora kumenya ko yafashwe mu buryo bwo gukora icyaha, iyo biregewe, azahanishwa igifungo kitarenze imyaka itatu cyangwa ihazabu.19 Avuga kandi ko n’abahanga mu mategeko bemeza ko ntawe ushobora gufotora umuntu ifoto ifitanye isano n’imibereho ye bwite atabanje kubimwemerera,20 bityo akaba

17 le fait, au moyen d'un procédé quelconque, volontairement de porter atteinte à l'intimité de la vie privée d'autrui en captant, enregistrant ou transmettant, sans le consentement de leur auteur, des paroles prononcées à titre privé ou confidentiel (article 226-1 du code pénal). 18 « le fait de conserver, porter ou laisser porter à la connaissance du public ou d'un tiers ou d'utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit tout enregistrement ou document obtenu à l'aide de l'un des actes prévus par l'article 226- 1 » (article 226-2 du code pénal). 19 “Celui qui, sans le consentement de tous les participants, aura écouté à l’aide d’un appareil d’écoute ou enregistré sur un porteur de son une conversation non publique entre d’autres personnes, celui qui aura tiré profit ou donné connaissance à un tiers d’un fait qu’il savait ou devait présumer être parvenu à sa propre connaissance au moyen d’une infraction visée à l’al. 1, celui qui aura conservé ou rendu accessible à un tiers un enregistrement qu’il savait ou devait présumer avoir été réalisé au moyen d’une infraction visée à l’al. 1, sera, sur plainte, puni d’une peine privative de liberté de trois ans au plus ou d’une peine pécuniaire”. 20 En raison du droit à l’image propre à chaque individu, toute personne doit donner son accord avant d’être photographiée dans un endroit privé. Ainsi, si elle ne s’y oppose pas, on considère immédiatement qu’elle est consentante. En revanche, il est possible de photographier des personnes sans pour autant Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 70

38

asanga ntaho ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 rigenga ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [25] Asoza avuga ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 rigenga ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange kimwe n’izindi ngingo zaryo ziregerwa muri uru rubanza ari nshya mu mategeko y’u Rwanda. Asobanura ko n’ubwo atabashije kubona impaka zazigiweho mu gihe cyo kuzitora, zashyizweho mu rwego rwo gushyiraho umurongo itangazamakuru rigomba kugenderaho hagamijwe gukumira ko ryakongera kugwa mu mutego ryaguyemo ubwo ryakoreshwaga mu gutegura jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga igira iti: “Ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buremewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uko ubwo bwisanzure bukoreshwa n’iyubahirizwa ryabwo biteganywa n’amategeko.”

risquer de porter atteinte à leur vie privée”. Si la photo montre un élément à caractère privé de l’individu concerné, une autorisation est requise avant de la prendre.” Byasomwe kuri https://www.justifit.fr/b/guides/droit-propriete- intellectuelle/droit-image-atteinte-vie-privee/. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 71

39

[27] Ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ivuga ko “Umuntu wese, ku bw’inabi, mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, wivanga mu mibereho bwite y’undi akoresheje:1º kumviriza cyangwa gutangaza amagambo abantu bavugiye mu muhezo atabiherewe uruhushya; 2º gufata ifoto, amajwi cyangwa amashusho cyangwa kubitangaza nyirayo atabitangiye uruhushya; aba akoze icyaha. Umuntu wese uhamijwe n’urukiko gukora kimwe mu bikorwa bivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo, ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’amezi atandatu (6) ariko kitarenze umwaka umwe (1) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda atari munsi ya miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw) ariko atarenze miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) cyangwa kimwe gusa muri ibyo bihano. Iyo ibikorwa bivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo byabaye bene byo babibona kandi babizi, ntibabyamagane kandi bashoboraga kubyamagana, bifatwa nk’aho babyemeye. Ibihano bivugwa mu gika cya 2 cy’iyi ngingo ni byo bihabwa umuntu, ku bw’inabi, usakaza hakoreshejwe uburyo ubwo ari bwo bwose, ifoto, amajwi n’amashusho, ifatamajwi cyangwa inyandiko yabonywe hakoreshejwe igikorwa kimwe mu bivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo.” [28] Mu rubanza Re Mugisha Richard, rwibukijwe haruguru na BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira, uru Rukiko rwasanze ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga ishyiraho ihame ry’uko ubwisanzure bw’itanganzamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru byemewe kandi bigomba kubahirizwa na Leta, bityo icyo aricyo cyose harimo n’Itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo zinyuranye n’iryo hame zikaba zikwiye gufatwa nk’izinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.21 Ibivugwa n’ingingo ya 38

21 Reba urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019, igika cya 65 Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 72

40

y’Itegeko Nshinga bihura kandi n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira mbonezamubano na poliki yo ku wa 19/12/1966 u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono ku wa 12/02/1975,22 nayo ivuga ko mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru hakubiyemo ubwisanzure bwo gutanga ibitekerezo ntacyo umuntu yikanga n’uburenganzira bwo gushaka, kubona no gukwirakwiza ibitekerezo aho ariho hose. [29] Igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga gishyiraho ibintu bikurikira ubwisanzure n’uburenganzira bivugwa mu gika cya mbere bitagomba kubangamira: i. Ituze rusange rya rubanda; ii. Imyifatire mbonezabupfura; iii. Kurengera urubyiruko n’abana; iv. Uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro; v. Uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho bwite ye n’iy’umuryango we. [30] Naho igika cya gatatu cy’iyo ngingo kivuga ko uko ubwisanzure bukoreshwa n’iyubahiriza ryabwo biteganywa n’amategeko. Ibiteganywa n’igika cya kabiri n’icya gatatu by’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga binagarukwaho n’ingingo ya 19, igika cya gatatu (a) na (b) y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano na politiki ivuga ko

22 Reba Itegeko-Teka n° 8/75 ryo ku wa 12/02/1975. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 73

41

mubyo amategeko ashyiraho ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru atagomba kurenga harimo agaciro n’icyubahiro cy’undi, kurengera umutekano w’igihugu, ituze rusange, ubuzima ndetse n’uburere mbonezabupfura. Muri ayo mategeko avugwa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’ingingo ya 19, igika cya gatatu (a) na (b) y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano na politiki, harimo n’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru. [31] Icyo BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira basaba uru Rukiko ni ukwemeza ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari uburenganzira buri hejuru (primacy/primauté) y’uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite, bityo ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru irengera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite iburizamo uburenganzira bw’umunyamakuru ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, bavuga ko ibyo aribyo bituma iyo ngingo inyuranya n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [32] Uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu n’iy’umuryango busanzwe buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga ivuga ko imibereho bwite y’umuntu, iy’umuryango we, urugo rwe cyangwa ubutumwa yohererezanya n’abandi bidashobora kuvogerwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko; ndetse ko icyubahiro n’agaciro ke bigomba kubahirizwa. Ubu burenganzira buteganyijwe kandi mu ngingo ya 17 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira mbonezamubano na poliki yo ku wa 19/12/1966 ivuga ko “Nta muntu uzavogerwa mu buzima bwe bwite, ubw’umuryango we, urugo rwe cyangwa ubutumwa ahererekanya n’abandi cyangwa ngo akorerwe ibikorwa binyuranyije n’amategeko bimutesha agaciro kandi bimusebya. Umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 74

42

kurengerwa n’Itegeko kugira ngo iryo vogera cyangwa ibyo bikorwa binyuranyije n’amategeko bitabaho.”23 [33] Kuba ingingo ya 38, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko Nshinga igaruka ku burenganzira bwo kutavogerwa mu mibereho bwite y’umuntu ku giti cye n’umuryango we, ni uko Itegeko Nshinga ryashatse gushyira ku munzani (balance) uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite n’uburenganzira ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. Bwombi burengerwa kimwe n’Itegeko Nshinga. Kubahiriza bumwe ntibivanaho inshingano zo kubahiriza ubundi. Bivuze ko uwumviriza, ufata cyangwa utangaza amajwi, amafoto cyangwa amashusho y’abandi azitirwa n’uburenganzira itegeko riteganyiriza abo abikorera. N’iyo iryo tegeko ritariho, azitirwa n’imyitwarire iboneye, ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imibereho myiza muri rusange. Izi mbibi (limitations) zateganyijwe n’ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’ingingo ya 19, igika cya gatatu, y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku burenganzira mbonezamubano na poliki yo ku wa 19/12/1966. Bityo, uwumviriza, ufata amajwi, amafoto cyangwa amashusho kabone n’ubwo yaba ari umunyamakuru, ntiyakwitwaza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, ngo avuge ko uburenganzira bwe budafite gitangira. [34] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 9, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iteganya ko ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza

23 “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 75

43

ibitekerezo n’ubwo kumenya amakuru butagomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire iboneye, uburenganzira bwa buri muntu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro mu maso y’abandi n’ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we; bwemerwa kandi iyo butabangamiye irengerwa ry’abana. Naho ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko n° 04/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryerekeye kubona amakuru ivuga ku bwoko bw’amakuru atemewe gutangazwa aho igira iti: “amakuru afitwe n’urwego rwa Leta cyangwa urw’abikorera rurebwa n’iri tegeko ntiyemewe gutangazwa, iyo ashobora: 1. 1° guhungabanya umutekano w’Igihugu; 2. 2° kubangamira iyubahirizwa ry’amategeko cyangwa ubutabera; 3. 3° gutera ukwivanga mu buzima bwite bw’umuntu bitari mu nyungu rusange; 4. 4° kubangamira ukurindwa kw’amabanga y’ubucuruzi cyangwa ubundi burenganzira bw’umutungo mu by’ubwenge kwemewe n’amategeko; 5. 5° kubangamira mu ikurikiranwa n’ubutabera k’ubuyobozi bw’urwego rwa Leta cyangwa igihe riteganyijwe.” [35] Iyo ingingo ya 9, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru isomewe hamwe n’iya 4 y’Itegeko n° 04/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryerekeye kubona amakuru, zumvikanisha ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 76

44

guhabwa amakuru bufite aho bugarukira, imbibi zabwo akaba ari ahanini kurengera inyungu rusange n’imibereho bwite y’abandi. [36] Ubwo mu rubanza Lohé Issa Konaté yaburanaga na Burkina Faso, Urukiko Nyafurika rushinzwe Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’Abaturage (African Court on Human and People’s Rights) rwasesenguraga uburenganzira ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru buteganywa mu ngingo ya 9 y’Amasezerano Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’Abaturage yemejwe ku wa 27/06/1981,24 rwasanze n’ubwo ntaho iyi ngingo iteganya mu buryo bweruye imbibi ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru nk’uko bimeze mu yandi masezerano mpuzamahanga, isesengura ry’amagambo “within the law” asoza igika cya kabiri rigomba gushingira ku mahame mpuzamahanga ashyiraho aho ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bugomba kugarukira, rwanzura ko ubwo bwisanzure buzitirwa no kurengera inyungu bwite z’abantu nk’uburenganzira ku gaciro n’icyubahiro byabo, inyungu rusange, umutekano, ubuzima rusange ndetse n’umuco mbonezabupfura. [37] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya igisobanuro cy’imibereho bwite n’aho uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite bugarukira, Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga idatanga ibisobanuro birambuye, ingingo ya 3, agace ka 6 y’Itegeko n° 058/2021 ryo ku wa 12/10/2021 ryerekeye kurinda amakuru bwite n’imibereho bwite by’umuntu itangira isobanura ko imibereho bwite ari uburenganzira bw’ibanze bw’umuntu butuma

24 “1. Every individual shall have the right to receive information. 2. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 77

45

agira uruhare mu gutuma amakuru ye bwite amuvaho akagera ku bandi. [38] Inkiko z’ibindi bihugu nazo zasobanuye akamaro n’uburemere by’uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu. Mu rubanza Aubry yaburanaga na Vice-Versa, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwagize ruti: “Uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu ni ishingiro ry’uburenganzira mu bihugu by’iki gihe. Bushingiye ku gaciro n’ubudahungabanywa bw’ikiremwamuntu. Mubyo burengera harimo n’ahantu umuntu aba ari wenyine, akaba afite uburenganzira bwo gukora amahitamo bwite (La notion de la vie privée est au coeur de la liberté dans un Etat moderne et se fonde sur la notion de dignité et d’intégrité de la personne. Le droit à la vie privée protège entre autres choses, la sphère limitée d’autonomie personnelle où se fondent des choix intrinsèquement privés”.)25 [39] Mu rubanza Raphael Cubagee yaburanaga na Michael Yeboah Asare rwaciwe ku wa 28/02/2018, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Ghana, ubwo rwasuzumaga ikibazo cyo kumenya niba umuntu wafashe amajwi y’uwo bavuganaga kuri telefoni atabimwemereye yayakoresha nk’ikimenyetso mu rubanza afitanye n’undi, rwasanze: “N’ubwo ibikubiye mu burenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu n’umuryango we bitarondowe byose n’Itegeko Nshinga, bikwiye kumvikana ko ubwo burenganzira bukubiyemo ubwo kureka umuntu akabaho uko abyumva, ntawumuvogereye, ntawumukurikirana, nta n’umwamamaza. Ni uburenganzira bwemerera buri wese kwivana mu bandi, kugira amabanga, kutimenyekanisha

25 Reba urubanza Aubrey v Vice-Versa (1998) 1 RCS 25. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 78

46

muri rubanda no kugira ububasha bwo kumenya ibishaka kwinjirira imibereho ye bwite. Ni uburenganzira bw’ingenzi kandi ku kiremwa muntu kuko ari bwo butuma aba uwo ariwe, akagira irangamimerere rye bwite ndetse agaharanira no kugera ku ntego zihuje na kamere ye. Nibwo burenganzira butuma umuntu yigenga kuko bitabaye bityo abayobozi bakoresha icyo bashatse imibereho y’abaturage ndetse bakabangamira n’ukwishyira ukizana kwabo. Muri ibi bihe isi igezemo by’inkuru n’ikoranabuhanga byoroshya uburyo bwo kwinjirira imibereho bwite y’abaturage, uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite nibwo bukenewe cyane kurusha ubundi. Nicyo cyatumye ibihugu hafi ya byose bishyiraho amategeko n’amabwiriza arambuye arengera imibereho bwite …”.26

26 “Privacy is so broad a constitutional right that it defies a concise and simple definition. It comprises a large bundle of rights some of which have been listed in the article as privacy of the home, property, and correspondence or communication. This list is not exhaustive and the full scope of the right of privacy cannot possibly be set out in the text of the Constitution. However, under the right to privacy is covered an individual's right to be left alone to live his life free from unwanted intrusion, scrutiny and publicity. It is the right of a person to be secluded, secretive and anonymous in society and to have control of intrusions into the sphere of his private life. Privacy is a very important human right that inheres in the individual and ensures that she can be her own person, have self identity and realise her self worth. It guarantees personal autonomy for the individual and, without it, public authorities would easily control and manipulate the lives of citizens and undermine their liberty. It is one of the most widely demanded human rights in today's world for the simple reason that advancements in information and communication technology have made it extremely easy to interfere with privacy rights. As a result, almost all states have passed laws and detailed regulations to protect privacy rights and prescribe circumstances under which public authorities, private organisations and, in some countries, individuals may be permitted to ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 79

47

[40] Ku bijyanye n’aho uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite bugarukira, Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga rwa Afurika y’Epfo rwabisobanuye mu rubanza Bernstein and Others baburanaga na Bester and Others, rusanga iyo umuntu ari ahiherereye, imibereho bwite ye igomba kurengerwa cyane, icyo gihe nta rengayobora rishoboka kuri ubwo burenganzira, kereka mu gihe nyir’ubwite atangiye gusabana n’abandi bantu hanze y’ahiherereye.27 Naho mu rubanza The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences And Others yaburanaga na Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd And Others, rwongeraho ko kubahiriza uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite ari ngombwa n’ubwo abantu baba bari mu biro, mu modoka cyangwa kuri telefoni zabo. Icyo gihe ntawemerewe kuvogera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ko bikwiye gufatwa ko buri gihe umuntu afite ubushobozi bwo gufata icyemezo cyo kwigaragariza rubanda, yaba atabikoze icyo cyemezo kikubahwa kuko kiba gishyira mu bikorwa uburenganzira bwe ku mibereho bwite.28

interfere with privacy rights.” Reba Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare, K. Gyasi Company Limited, Assembly of God Church, n°. J6/04/2017, 28/02/ 2018, urupapuro rwa 4. 27 “A very high level of protection is given to the individual’s intimate personal sphere of life and the maintenance of its basic preconditions and there is a final untouchable sphere of human freedom that is beyond interference from any public authority. So much so that, in regard to this most intimate core of privacy, no justifiable limitation thereof can take place. But this most intimate core is narrowly construed. This inviolable core is left behind once an individual enters into relationships with persons outside this closest intimate sphere; the individual’s activities then acquire a social dimension and the right of privacy in this context becomes subject to limitation.” Bernstein and Others v Betsr and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC), igika cya 77. 28 “The right, however, does not relate solely to the individual within his or her intimate space. Ackermann J did not state … that when we move beyond this established “intimate core”, we no longer retain a right to privacy in the Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 80

48

[41] Urukiko rurasanga rero mu bigize imibereho bwite y’umuntu harimo n’amajwi, amafoto, amashusho n’ubutumwa bwite kuko ari bimwe mu bintu by’ingenzi biranga nyirabyo kandi bimutandukanya n’abandi. Niyo mpamvu muri iki gihe buri wese afite uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana uburyo amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite bye byafashwe, bibikwa cyangwa bitangazwa. Ubwo burenganzira bukubiyemo no kuba nyirabyo yakwanga kumvirizwa, kwanga ko amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa ubutumwa bwite bifatwa, bibikwa, bitangazwa, bisakazwa cyangwa bivanwamo kopi nyinshi. Bitabaye bityo, haba hari ikintu cy’ingenzi cy’umuntu kigenzurwa n’undi kandi nyir’ubwite akaba adafite ububasha bwo gukurikirana icyo kumviriza, amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite bye byakoreshwa. Ibi kandi bihura n’amahame yagarutsweho mu rubanza Von Hannover yaburanaga n’Ubudage,29 BYANSI Samuel n’abamwunganira nabo bashingiraho mu myanzuro yabo. [42] Iyo ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru bifatiwe hamwe n’ibiteganywa n’igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, igika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 9, y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru ndetse n’ingingo ya 4

social capacities in which we act. Thus, when people are in their offices, in their cars or on mobile telephones, they still retain a right to be left alone by the state unless certain conditions are satisfied. Wherever a person has the ability to decide what he or she wishes to disclose to the public and the expectation that such a decision will be respected is reasonable, the right to privacy will come into play.” Reba The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), igika cya 15 n’icya 16. 29 Reba urubanza Von Hannover v Germany n° 40660/08 na n° 60641/08, 07/02/2012, igika cya 96. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 81

49

y’Itegeko n° 04/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryerekeye kubona amakuru, byumvikanisha ko kumviriza, gufata cyangwa gutangaza amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite mu buryo bwivanga mu mibereho bwite ya nyirabyo bishoboka gusa nibura mu bihe bikurikira: i. Iyo bene byo babyemeye; ii. Iyo byabaye bene byo babibona

kandi babizi, ntibabyamagane kandi bashoboraga kubyamagana; iii. Iyo bikozwe ku bw’inyungu rusange. [43] Mu gika cya kabiri cy’ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, Umushingamategeko yafashe ko iyo bene kumvirizwa, gufatwa cyangwa gutangarizwa amajwi, amafoto cyangwa amashusho babyemeye cyangwa byakozwe babibona kandi babizi ntibabyamagane, nta cyaha kiba cyabaye. Mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, icyo cyaha kibaho ku bw’impamvu ebyiri zikurikira kandi zibangikanye (cumulative): 1) iyo kumviriza, amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite byako byafashwe cyangwa byatangajwe ba nyiri ubwite batabyemeye cyangwa batazi ko ibyo bikorwa birimo gukorwa; 2) iyo kumviriza, amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite byafashwe cyangwa byatangajwe “ku bw’inabi”. [44] Guhana abumvirije, abafashe cyangwa abatangaje amajwi, amafoto cyangwa amashusho bagambiriye ikibi ndetse ba nyiri ubwite batabyemeye cyangwa batabizi nibyo biha igisobanuro gikwiye uburenganzira bwo “kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho bwite n’iy’umuryango” buvugwa mu ngingo ya 23 n’iya 38, igika cya kabiri z’Itegeko Nshinga. Gushyira imbibi ku Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 82

50

burenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga si umwihariko w’u Rwanda. Ubwo rwasuzumaga niba Burkina Faso yararengereye ubwo yateganyaga ingingo z’amategeko zihana abantu bavogera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite, Urukiko Nyafurika rushinzwe Uburenganzira bwa Muntu n’Abaturage, rwasanze ingingo ya 109, iya 110, n’iya 111 z’Itegeko rigenga itangazamakuru muri Burkina Faso zigamije kurengera agaciro n’icyubahiro cy’umuntu n’umwuga we, naho iya 178 y’Itegeko Mpanabyaha rya Burkina Faso igamije kurengera agaciro n’icyubahiro by’abakozi b’inkiko igihe bari mu nshingano zabo, bityo imbibi zishyizweho n’ayo mategeko ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru zikaba zigamije impamvu zumvikana kandi zihuje neza n’ibiteganywa n’amahame mpuzamahanga kuri iyo ngingo.30 Icy’ingenzi ni uko ingaruka ziterwa n’imbibi zashyizweho n’Umushingamategeko zitagomba kurusha uburemere inyungu zirengerwa.31

30 “In the instant case, the aim of Articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Information Code of BurkinaFaso is to protect the honour and reputation of the person or a profession; that of Article 178 of the Criminal Code of Burkina Faso is more specicifically to protect the honour and reputation of Magistrates, jurors and assessors in the performance of their duties or in the course of perming the duty. The Court is of the view that this is a perfectly legitimate objective and therefore the limitation thus imposed on the right to freedom of expression by the Burkinabé legislation is consistent with international standards in this area.” Reba urubanza Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014, igika cya 136 n’icya 137. 31 “Though in the African Charter, the grounds of limitation to freedom of expression are not expressly provided as in other international and regional human rights treaties, the phrase “within the law” under Article 9 (2) provides a leeway to caustiously fit in legitimate and justifiable individual, collective and national interests as grounds of limitation. Here the phrase “within the law” must be interpreted in reference to international norms which can provide grounds of limitation on freedom of expression. A restriction to be acceptable, … it must serve a legimate purpose… the Court is of view that the ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 83

51

[45] Iby’uko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru , ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bufite aho bugarukira byibukijwe na none n’Urukiko rushinzwe ibijyanye n’itangazamakuru mu gihugu cya Afurika y’Epfo (Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa), ubwo rwasesenguraga uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite buteganywa n’ingingo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nshinga ya Afurika y’Epfo32 n’uburenganzira ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru nabwo buteganywa n’ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko Nshinga ya Afurika y’Epfo,33 rusanga: “mu by’ukuri uburenganzira bw’abaturage bwo kubona amakuru bushingiye ahanini ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ariko itangazamakuru ntiryemerewe gutangaza inkuru ivogera imibereho bwite y’umuntu hatabanje kugaragazwa ko byakozwe mu nyungu rusange.” 34 Mu yandi magambo

reasons for possible limitations must be based on legitimate public interest and the disadvantages of the limitation must be strictly proportionate and absolutely necessary for the benefits to be gained…the legitimate purpose of a restriction …consists in respecting the rights and reputation of others or the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.” Reba urubanza Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014, kuva ku gika cya 129 kugeza ku cya 135. 32 Section 14 reads as follow: “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have— (a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed” 33 33 Section 16 (1) reads as follow: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes— (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.” 34 “It is true that the freedom of the public to receive information is supported significantly by the freedom of the media, but the media are not free to convey information that intrudes upon the privacy of a person without a legitimate public interest being present.” Reba urubanza R & M v SABC TV 3, JOL 22643, igika cya 37 (2008). Uyu murongo wafashwe mu mwaka wa 2008 waje Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 84

52

uburenganzira bwa rubanda bwo guhabwa amakuru ntabwo bwemerera umunyamakuru kurengera ngo akore n’ibidakwiye cyangwa ibitemewe n’amategeko. [46] Uyu murongo uhura n’uwemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu mu rubanza E.S. yaburanaga na Suwede,35 w’uko ibihugu bifite inshingano zo gufata ingamba zirengera ubuzima bwite kabone n’ubwo byaba ari hagati y’abantu ku giti cyabo, bikaba bigomba gushyiraho amategeko akumira ihohotera rikozwe n’abantu ku giti cyabo. Rusanga n’ubwo amategeko ahana atari cyo gisubizo cyonyine, ari ngombwa gushyiraho ingingo z’amategeko ahana ziremereye mu rwego rwo kuburizamo ibikorwa bikomeye bishobora kubangamira indangagaciro z’ingenzi n’ibintu by’ibanze mu mibereho bwite y’umuntu.36 Rusanga kandi iterambere

ukosora uwari warafashwe mu mwaka wa 2002 mu rubanza MEC for Health, Mpumalanga yaburanaga na M-Net (MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v M-Net 2002 (6) SA 714 (T)) aho Urukiko rwari rwaravuze ko gukoresha kamera zihishe mu bitaro, abarwayi ndetse n’ibitaro bitabizi hagamijwe kugaragaza serivisi mbi zihabwa abagore n’abakobwa bavanamo inda byari mu nyungu rusange kuko byari bigamije kugaragaza imikorere y’abayobozi n’abanyapolitiki bashinzwe ibyo bitaro. 35 Urwo rubanza rwakomokaga ku kuba inkiko za Suwede zarasanze guhisha camera icanye mu bwogero bw’umwana w’umukobwa ntaho biteganyijwe nk’icyaha mu mategeko, ndetse nta n’ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko hari amashusho y’umwana watanze ikirego yafashwe kuko nyina yari yatse umugabo we iyo camera, ashwanyaguza filme yarimo. Inkiko zanzuye ko ntaho zahera zemeza ko habayeho ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina (sexual molestation) cyangwa ubwinjiracyaha ku cyaha cy’amashusho y’urukozasoni ku bana (attempted child pornography), bituma uregwa agirwa umwere. 36 These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves …The states are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals... While recourse to the criminal law is not necessarily the ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 85

53

ry’ikoranabuhanga mu by’amafilime, amafoto n’itumanaho rishimangira ko ari ngombwa kurushaho kurengera imibereho bwite.37 Umuhanga William A. Schabas avuga ko hari ibihugu by’Iburayi byahise bishyira mu mategeko ahana ibikorwa bijyanye no gufata abantu amashusho rwihishwa cyangwa mu buryo butemewe cyane cyane iyo byakozwe mu buryo bubangamiye imibereho bwite.38 [47] Urukiko rurasanga no mu rubanza Shulman yaburanaga na Group W. Productions, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa California rwarasanze umunyamakuru watangaje kuri televiziyo amashusho n’ikiganiro umurwayi yagiranye n’abaganga baje kumutabara bari mu mbangukiragutabara, akabikora atabyemerewe na nyiri ubwite, atakwitwaza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru nk’impamvu imuvanaho uburyozwe kubera ko yavogereye imibereho bwite y’umurwayi yuririye ku ihungabana n’intege nke yari afite. Rwasanze kandi itangazamakuru iyo ritara inkuru, nta budahangarwa (immunity) rigira ku ikoreshwa ry’amategeko, bityo amategeko asanzwe arengera inyungu rusange akaba

only answer, effective deterrence against grave acts where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake requires efficient criminal law provisions.” Reba urubanza E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, igika cya 57 n’icya 58. 37 The Court also observes the technical developments in the sphere of filming and photography and reiterates that increased vigilance in protecting private life is necessary to contend with new communication technologies which make it possible to store and reproduce personal data.” Reba urubanza E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, igika cya 71. 38 “In some European States, measures have been considered in order to address the phenomenon of illicit or covert filmining of indviduals, including criminalization where personal integrity is compromised.” Reba William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, p.377. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 86

54

ashobora gukumira ubwisanzure bwaryo kuko ntaho ivugurura rya mbere ry’Itegeko Nshinga rya Amerika riteganyiriza umunyamakuru uburyo budasanzwe bwo gutara inkuru butandukanye n’ubwo rubanda isanzwe ibonamo inkuru.39 [48] Mu rubanza Galella yaburanaga na Onassis,40 Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwa Amerika (2nd Circuit) narwo rwasanze Donald Galella wari umufotozi w’umunyamwuga, umenyereye gufotora ibyamamare akagurisha amafoto mu binyamakuru adashobora kwitwaza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru buteganywa n’ivugurura rya mbere ry’Itegeko Nshinga rya Amerika (1st amendment) ngo yinjirire imibereho bwite y’abantu kuko ibyaha n’amakosa bitarengerwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Urukiko rwasanze n’ubwo inyungu rusange zishobora kurutishwa imibereho bwite, kurengera inyungu rusange ntibigomba kurenga ibikenewe. Rwasanze n’ubwo Onassis yari icyamamare, ibikorwa bya Galella byararenze imbibi zo gutara inkuru, rwanzura ko gusaba abanyamakuru kubahiriza amategeko ntaho bibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. [49] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite atari inkomyi ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru nta shingiro bifite. Kurengera imibereho bwite ntibigarukira gusa ku bantu basanzwe n’ubwo aribo bakeneye kurengerwa cyane kurusha ibyamamare n’abanyapolitiki. Icyakora kandi, inkuru ireba ibyo byamamare ntiyavogera imibereho bwite yabo hatagamijwe

39 Reba urubanza Shulman v Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal. 4th 200, Supreme Court of California, June 1, 1998. 40 Reba urubanza n° Galella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 87

55

kurengera inyungu rusange. Mbere yo kumviriza, gufata cyangwa gutangaza amajwi, ifoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite y’icyamamare cyangwa umunyapolitiki, umunyamakuru agomba iteka kwibaza niba biri mu nyungu rusange gusembura amatsiko ya rubanda kuri iyo ngingo, yasanga ibyo yari agiye gukora biri mu rwego rw’amabanga y’imibereho bwite, akabireka. [50] Kuri iyi ngingo, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwasobanuye ko urugero rw’inyungu rusange ari nk’igihe inkuru igamije itahurwa ry’ikorwa ry’ibyaha, ishaka kugaragaza ibitekerezo bya politiki by’uwakozweho iyo nkuru kugira ngo bisembure ibiganiro bishingiye kuri demokarasi cyangwa ifitanye isano n’imikino n’imyidagaduro.41 Naho inkuru ivuga ku kuba umuntu runaka akekwaho gukora icyaha, igaruka ku bibazo by’amafaranga ku muhanzi runaka cyangwa iyinjira mu bibazo by’urushako ku munyapolitiki runaka ntabwo yafatwa nk’igamije inyungu rusange.42 Ibi kandi bihura na none n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko n° 04/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryerekeye kubona amakuru ivuga ko inyungu rusange ari ikintu gifitiye abaturage akamaro hashingiwe ku bibazo byugarije ubuzima bwabo cyangwa ikigamije kugaragaza uburyo urwego runaka rusohoza inshingano zarwo, uburyo ingengo y’imari ya Leta ikoreshwa cyangwa se kwimakaza ibiganiro mpaka bifite ireme. [51] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru byumvikanisha ko kuba umunyamakuru akeneye gutara inkuru ubwabyo bitamuha ubudahangarwa. Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko

41 Reba urubanza White v Sweden, n° 42435, 19/09/2006, igika cya 29. 42 42 Reba urubanza Standard Verlags Gmbh V Austria (n°2), n° 21277/05, 04/06/2009, igika cya 48 Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 88

56

Nshinga igomba kumvikana nk’iyashyize ku munzani uburemere bw’ingaruka zikomoka ku kutubahiriza imibereho bwite kubera gushaka kubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, n’izikomoka ku kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kubera gushaka kurengera imibireho bwite. Bigaragara ko ingaruka zo kutubahiriza ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru iyo umunyamakuru abujijwe kuvogera imibereho bwite y’abantu arizo nke, bityo umunyamakuru akaba atemerewe kwinjirira ubuzima bwite bw’abandi kuko gusa atekereza ko yabonye inkuru. Umuhanga Manuel Molina abivuga neza muri aya magambo: “la liberté qui lui (le journaliste) est reconnue par la Constitution a dû être inscrite par la loi dans les limites nécessaires pour le maintien de la justice et de l’ordre social… C’est dire combien doivent être prudents les journalistes comme les éditeurs et les diffuseurs qui ne doivent pas croire que tout leur est permis au nom de cette liberté solennellement proclamée et oublier que des limites sont imposées pour éviter que la liberté des uns ne dégénère en dommages pour autrui.”43 [52] Urukiko rurasanga ntaho mu rubanza Axel Springer AG yaburanaga n’Ubudage, bivugwa ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari ndakumirwa (absolute) ku buryo amahame atandatu BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko yashyizweho muri urwo rubanza,44 yafatwa

43 Reba Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p.3. 44 kuba inkuru igamije inyungu rusange, kuba inkuru yarakozwe ku muntu w’icyamamare wari ukurikiranweho icyaha, imyitwarire y’umunyamakuru, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 89

57

nk’akumira burundu uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite. Ikigaragarira Urukiko ni uko mu gika cya 110 cy’urwo rubanza, Urukiko rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu mu Burayi rwasanze ahubwo uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite ari imbibi (limitation) ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ariko mu gushyira mu bikorwa bumwe muri ubwo burenganzira hakaba gushyira ku munzani (proportionality) kugira ngo hatagira ikiremerera ikindi mu buryo buburizamo inyungu irengerwa.45 Urukiko rwabigezeho rumaze kwibutsa umurongo rwatanze mu rubanza Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) yaburanaga n’Ubufaransa, narwo BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bashingiraho, w’uko uburenganzira ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru n’ubwo ku mibereho bwite bigomba gufatwa kimwe.46 [53] Urukiko rurasanga kandi uburyo bwo gutara inkuru buzwi nka investigative journalism cyangwa under cover journalism bufitiye igihugu n’abaturage akamaro kanini. Bushobora gutuma amakuru ajyanye n’uburyo inzego zigenga n’iza Leta zifata ibyemezo amenyekana, bigafasha gutahura ikorwa ry’ibyaha cyane cyane ibikorwa mu ibanga nka ruswa, ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina, kunyereza umutungo wa rubanda, ubuhemu. Bushobora gutuma n’imikorere mibi cyangwa ibyemezo bifutamye bitahurwa. Icyakora izo nyungu zose ntizarutishwa uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite, kuko ubwisanzure na none buvuze gukora ikitabangamiye abandi.

uburyo inkuru yatawe, ukuri kuyivugwamo n’ibihano biteganyirijwe icyo cyaha. 45 Reba urubanza Axel Springer AG v. Germany, n° 39954/08, 7/02/2012, igika cya 110. 46 “Indeed, as a matter of principle these rights deserve equal respect.” Reba urubanza Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, n°. 12268/03, 23/07/2009, igika cya 41. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 90

58

Henri Ader yibutsa ko umunyamakuru wese, yaba uwandika, ufotora, ukora iperereza, ukorera radio cyangwa televiziyo, agomba kwibaza buri gihe niba mu gushyira mu bikorwa ubwisanzure bwe, ntaho arengereye uburenganzira bw’undi cyangwa imbibi zashyizweho n’itegeko.47 [54] Urukiko rurasanga muri uru rubanza BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko amagambo “ku bw’inabi” nayo akumira ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru kuko abanyamakuru batara kandi bagatangaza inkuru ku mpamvu z’inyungu rusange, ko biramutse bibayeho ko umunyamukuru abikora ku bw’inabi yabibazwa n’inkiko mbonezamubano aho kuba inkiko nshinjabyaha. [55] Akamaro ko kugira ingingo zirengera imibereho bwite y’abantu mu mategeko mpanabyaha kasobanuwe bihagije haruguru kandi byagaragajwe ko uretse kuba atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda, ntaho binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ikibazo cy’amagambo “ku bw’inabi” n’icyo kumenya niba ayo magambo ari ngombwa mu ngingo ya 156 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru.

47 “La liberté consiste à faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui… Et du journaliste qui écrit ou dicte l’article qui doit paraitre tout à l’heure, du photographe qui vqa saiasir et figer l’instant fugitive qui deviendra, à cause de lui ou grace à lui, image sans fin reproduite, de l’nqueteur qui, pour la radio ou la television va amplifier aux limites de notre monde la parole fugace ou le geste éphèmere, chancun de se demander s’il demeure se faisant, dans les limites de la liberté de la presse ou s’il est n’est pas coupable de nuire à autrui et de ne pas respecter ces bornes (de la loi)” Reba Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p.1-2. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 91

59

[56] Urukiko rurasanga amagambo “ku bw’inabi” ariyo agaragaza ubushake bwo gukora icyaha (élément moral/intent), umushingamategeko akaba yarashyize ubwo bushake ku rwego rwo hejuru (dol spécial/special intent). Aya magambo ashyira inshingano ku Bushinjacyaha zo kugaragaza mu buryo budashidikanywaho (beyond reasonable doubt) ko ibikorwa bibujijwe n’itegeko byakozwe hagambiriwe ikibi. Yongera kandi impamvu zatuma ibyo bikorwa bidahanwa hashingiwe kuri iyi ngingo iyo kumviriza, gufata, gutangaza cyangwa gusakaza amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite byakozwe ku bw’impanuka cyangwa nta kibi kigambiriwe. Kuyavana muri iyo ngingo byakongera rero ubugari bwayo, ingaruka zabyo zikaba no kuyishingiraho hahanwa abakoze ibyo bikorwa ku bw’impanuka cyangwa abatari bagambiriye ikibi, harimo n’ababikoze mu nyungu rusange. Ibi ahubwo nibyo byaba binyuranyije n’uburenganzira ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [57] Urukiko rurasanga kandi amagambo “ku bw’inabi” ahubwo aha akarusho Itegeko ry’u Rwanda mu kurengera ababa bakurikiranyweho kutubahiriza ingingo ya 156 kuko ihana uwakoze ibikorwa biyivugwamo atabanje guhabwa uruhushya n’abo bireba, kandi akabikora agamije kugira nabi. Ingingo ya 226- 1 y’Itegeko Mpanabyaha ry’ubufaransa Me MBONIGABA Eulade, uburanira Leta, yibukije haruguru, nayo igaragaza ko ari ngombwa kwita ku cyo uwumvirije, uwafashe, uwatangaje cyangwa uwasakaje amafoto, amajwi, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite yari agambiriye. Iyo ngingo igira iti: “Est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 45.000 Euros d’amende le fait, au moyen d’un procédé quelconque, volontairement de porter Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 92

60

atteinte à l’intimité de la vie privée d’autrui…”48 Ndetse n’ingingo ya 162.1. (1) y’Itegeko Mpanabyaha rya Canada nayo igaragaza ko ari ngombwa ko ukurikiranweho icyo cyaha aba yagikoze abizi. Igira iti: “Quiconque sciemment publie, distribue, transmet, vend ou rend accessible une image intime d’une personne, ou en fait la publicité, sachant que cette personne n’y a pas consenti ou sans se soucier de savoir si elle y a consenti ou non, est coupable …”49 [58] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 156, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru rihanisha “igifungo kitari munsi y’amezi atandatu (6) ariko kitarenze umwaka umwe (1) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda atari munsi ya miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw) ariko atarenze miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw) cyangwa kimwe gusa muri ibyo bihano” uwahamijwe ibyaha byavuzwe mu gika cya mbere cyangwa uwifashishije uburyo ubwo aribwo bwose agasakaza ku bw’inabi, ifoto, amajwi , , amashusho, ifatamajwi cyangwa inyandiko yabonye hakoreshejwe igikorwa kimwe mu bivugwa mu gika cya mbere nk’uko biteganywa n’igika cya gatatu cy’iyo ngingo. [59] Ku bijyanye n’ibihano biteganywa n’iyo ngingo, Urukiko rurasanga Komisiyo Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu, ubwo yasuzumaga ikibazo cyari hagati ya Constitutional Rights Project na Nigeria, yarasanze iyo impamvu irengerwa ikenewe kandi yumvikana, ikigomba gusuzumwa ari ukureba niba

48 Reba Code pénal Français, modifié par par la loi n°2020-936 du 30 juillet 2020. 49 Reba Code criminel L.R.C. (Loi Révisée du Canada) (1985), ch. C-46 (À jour au 4 avril 2022, dernière modification le 16 janvier 2022). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 93

61

ingamba zashyizweho ziri mu rugero rukwiye (proportional). Yabivuze neza muri aya magambo: “The only legitimate reason(s) for limitations of the rights and freedoms of the African Charter are … is that the rights of the Charter ‘shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. The justification for limitation must be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages which follow. Most important, a limitation may not erode a right such that the right itself becomes illusory.”50 [60] Urukiko rurasanga ibihano biteganyijwe n’ingingo ya 156, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru biri mu rugero rukwiye ugereranyije n’uburenganzira burengerwa, byongeye kandi iyo ngingo iteganya ko inkiko zidasabwa byanze bikunze gukomatanya igihano cy’igifungo n’icy’ihazabu. Ibi byumvikanisha na none ko icyo gice cy’ibihano kiri muri iyo ngingo kidahindura imburamumaro (illusory/illusoire) uburenganzira ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [61] Ku birebana n’ibyo BYANSI Samuel Baker avuga ko kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano inyuranyije n’iya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga byatuma abanyamakuru boroherwa gukora mu buryo bwa investigative cyangwa under cover journalism, Urukiko rurasanga ntaho ingingo iregerwa

50 Constitutional Rights Project and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 227 (ACHPR 1999). Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 94

62

ibuza abanyamakuru kwiyambaza ubwo buryo. Ikibujijwe ni ukwinjira mu imibereho bwite y’abantu kandi ku bw’inabi. Ahubwo bigaragarira Urukiko ko ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iteganya ko “umunyamakuru afite uburenganzira busesuye bwo kugera aho ari ho hose yakura inkuru, ubwo guperereza mu bwisanzure ku bintu birebana n’imigendekere y’Igihugu, kandi akanabitangaza hubahirizwa ibiteganywa n’iri tegeko n’andi mategeko.” Uburenganzira busesuye bwo kugera aho ariho hose no gukora iperereza mu bwisanzure bivuze ko inkuru ishobora no gukorwa mu buryo ubwo aribwo bwose, umunyamakuru akaba adakwiye kurenga imbibi yemererwa n’amategeko. [62] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. II. 2. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [63] BYANSI Samuel Baker avuga ko akazi k’umunyamakuru gashingiye kuri editing, mu nkuru zicukumbuye bikaba byasaba ko umunyamakuru yitarura amategeko asanzwe kandi ko ibimenyetso bishingiye ku nkuru yataye bishobora kwifashishwa n’izindi nzego harimo n’iz’ubutabera. Avuga ko ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ifata umunyamakuru nk’umuntu uwo ariwe wese bigatuma ihonyora ubwisanzure bwe. Asobanura ko mu gihe cyo gukora inkuru, umunyamakuru ashobora kuyihindura (editing/interpretation/analyze), guhindura ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 95

63

amashusho, ifoto cyangwa kwifashisha ibishushanyo byo mu bwoko bwa caricature kugira ngo inyure abo igenewe cyangwa bayumve vuba kuko ashobora gushyiramo urwenya cyangwa agakabiriza bimwe mu biranga umuntu nk’ikigereranyo cy’igitekerezo. [64] Asobanura ko ikinyamakuru cyitwa Charlie Hebdo cyo mu Bufaransa kimaze imyaka 200 gikoresha caricature nk’uburyo bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo, bityo kuba ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ihana umuntu wese harimo n’abanyamakuru bihabanye n’ibiteganyijwe n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko bibangamiye ubwisanzure bwo gutanga ibitekerezo hakoreshejwe uburyo ubwo aribwo bwose umunyamakuru yakoresha mu mwuga we. [65] Avuga ko uburenganzira bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo mu buryo bwa caricature bwemejwe n’inkiko z’ahandi nk’aho mu rubanza Charlie Hebdo yarezwemo na Société des Habous des Lieux Saints de l’Islam na l’Union des Organisations Islamiques de France kuba icyo kinyamakuru cyaratutse abayoboke b’idini rya Islam kuko cyashushanyije Intumwa Muhamed, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwa Paris, rusanga ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru butagarukira gusa ku nkuru zishimishije, ahubwo ko bureba n’inkuru zaciye igikuba, zagize abo zibangamira cyangwa ziteye inkeke,51 bityo ko ibishushanyo

51 “la liberté d’expression vaut pour les informations ou idées accueillies avec faveur ou considérées comme inoffensives ou indifférentes dans une société déterminée, mais aussi pour celles qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent … les caricatures litigieuses ont participé au débat d’intérêt général sur la liberté d’expression”. Reba urubanza rwaciwe na Cour d’Appel de Paris, 11è chamber, section A, 12 mars 2008, dossier no 07/02873. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 96

64

(caricature), rimwe na rimwe bikorwa nkana mu rwego rwo gusembura ibiganiro mu bantu, ko niyo ibyo bishushanyo byaba ubwabyo biteye impaka, bikwiye kumvikana nk’ibitanga umusanzu mu bwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ibyiyumviro bifitiye akamaro inyungu rusange. [66] Me MUSORE Gakunzi Valéry, umwunganira, avuga ko guhana umunyamakuru watangaje amagambo cyangwa amashusho binyuranye n’uko byafashwe ari ukwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kandi atari ngombwa mu Rwanda nk’Igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi, bityo ko ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Asobanura ko iyo harebwe uburyo itangazamakuru rikorwa n’uburyo abanyamakuru bakora ubusesenguzi, bagabanya iminota y’ibiganiro bakoranye n’abo babajije, cyangwa bahindura amafoto, ubwabyo bitakagombye kuba icyaha. Avuga ko ikinyamakuru cya Charlie Hebdo gishimisha abantu ku isi hose kubera ibishushanyo byacyo, urwo akaba ari urugero u Rwanda rwagenderaho kuko atari ikirwa kandi ko nta kibuza ko ibibera ahandi bibera no mu Rwanda. Avuga ko habaye hari udashimishwa n’imikorere y’umunyamakuru, yagombye kuregera inkiko mbonezamubano akabisabira indishyi. [67] Me MBONIGABA Eulade, uburanira Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko ntaho ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibuza gukora editing, interpretation cyangwa analyse, ko ikibujijwe ari ukubikora ku bw’inabi cyangwa gukora editing ntugaragaraze ko ibyo wakoze ari editing bikaba byatuma abantu bakeka ko ibyakozwe n’umunyamakuru ari umwimerere. Avuga ko akamaro k’iyi ngingo ari ugukumira abantu bashobora guhindura inkuru, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 97

65

abaturage bakagira ngo iyo bahawe niyo y’ukuri. Atanga urugero rw’amajwi yafashwe Apotre Gitwaza Paul aho yitiriwe kuba yaravuze ko abadasengera mu itorero rye batazajya mu ijuru, ko iyo umuturage abifashe atyo yibwira ko aribyo, nyamara uwabikoze yari agambiriye inabi, bityo akaba ari ngombwa ko umunyamakuru aba yiteguye kugaragaza umwimerere iyo bibaye ngombwa. [68] Avuga kandi ko imikorere y’ikinyamakuru Charlie Hebdo atariyo yashingirwaho mu gushyiraho amategeko y’u Rwanda, bityo ibyo BYANSI Samuel Baker avuga ko ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryibukijwe haruguru ibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, nta shingiro bifite kuko ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko ubwo bwisanzure bufite aho bugarukira, bivuze ko iyo umunyamakuru akoze ibyo atemerewe, nta kibuza ko, nk’undi wese, abihanirwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [69] Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga yibukijwe haruguru ishyiraho ihame ry’uko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Icyakora ubwo bwisanzure ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uburyo bushyirwa mu bikorwa ndetse bwubahirizwa biteganywa n’amategeko. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 98

66

[70] Ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ivuga ko “Umuntu wese utangaza ku bw’inabi hakoreshejwe uburyo ubwo ari bwo bwose, amagambo yahinduwe agatangazwa uko atavuzwe cyangwa amashusho n’amafoto by’umuntu byagaragajwe uko bitafashwe, ntagaragaze ko binyuranyije n’uko byafashwe, aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamijwe n’Urukiko ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’amezi atandatu (6) ariko kitarenze umwaka umwe (1) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda atari munsi ya miliyoni imwe (1.000.000 Frw) ariko atarenze miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000 Frw).” [71] Ingingo imaze kuvugwa ireba uwo ari we wese watangaje amagambo, amafoto cyangwa amashusho azi ko binyuranyije n’umwimerere wabyo ntagaragarize ababitangarijwe ko ibyatangajwe byahinduwe. Mu yandi magambo, iyi ngingo ihana ikinyoma cy’uwatangaje amagambo, amafoto cyangwa amashusho byagaragajwe uko bitari, rubanda cyangwa ababitangarijwe bagafata ko ari umwimerere nyamara ataribyo. Uhanwa ariko ni uwabikoze ku bw’inabi. [72] Byansi Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko umunyamakuru adakwiye gufatwa nk’ “umuntu wese” uvugwa mu ngingo ya 157. Igisobanuro cy’umunyamakuru gitangwa n’ingingo ya 2, agace ka 19, y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru igira iti: “umunyamakuru w’umwuga (ni) umuntu ufite ubumenyishingiro mu by’itangazamakuru kandi akora itangazamakuru nk’umurimo we w’ibanze. Agomba kuba akora nibura umwe mu mirimo ikurikira: a. gutara inkuru, b. kunononsora inkuru, c. gutangaza inkuru mu gitangazamakuru iki n’iki agamije gukwirakwiza amakuru cyangwa ibitekerezo muri rubanda.” Amagambo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 99

67

“umunyamakuru w’umwuga” Umushingamategeko yakoresheje yumvikanisha ko bishoboka ko hanabaho umunyamakuru utari uw’umwuga, uwo akaba ari utujuje kimwe cyangwa byinshi mu bisabwa n’ingingo imaze kuvugwa nko kuba atarize iby’itangazamakuru cyangwa kuba itangazamakuru atariwo murimo we w’ibanze. [73] Urukiko rurasanga hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, gukora itangazamakuru, waba wikorera, ukorera ikigo cy’itangazamakuru cyemewe cyangwa uhagarariye igitangazamakuru cy’amahanga bisaba uburenganzira butangwa n’Urwego rw’Abanyamakuru Bigenzura cyangwa urundi rwego rubifitiye ububasha iyo uri umunyamahanga. [74] Ihame rya kabiri mu mahame ngengamyitwarire y’umwuga w’itangazamakuru mu Rwanda yo ku wa 05/04/2014 rigira riti: “Umunyamakuru yirinda ibinyoma. Afite inshingano yo gutangaza uko ibintu byagenze, agashakisha ukuri, kandi azirikana ko rubanda rufite uburenganzira bwo guhabwa amakuru y’impamo. Ntakwiye kwirengagiza amakuru y’ingenzi cyangwa ngo ahindure amagambo yavuzwe cyangwa inyandiko izo arizo zose.”52 [75] Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza Couderc na Hachette Filipacchi Associés baburanaga n’Ubufaransa, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwarasanze amahame y’imyitwarire ndetse n’inshingano z’abanyamakuru

52 Reba Rwanda Media Commission, Amahame Ngengamyitwarire y’Umwuga w’Itangazamakuru mu Rwanda, PGL, Kigali, Amended 5th April 2014. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 100

68

aribyo bigena uburyo bakora umwuga wabo. Rusanga amahame y’imyitwarire ategeka abanyamakuru gusohoza inshingano zabo ku neza, bashingiye ku bintu bifatika kandi by’ukuri, ndetse bagatangaza n’inkuru zizewe kandi zitarimo urujijo. Rwasanze kandi gukora kinyamwuga bivuze ko umunyamakuru agomba kubaha uburyo yabonyemo inkuru, ntateshe agaciro uwo akoraho inkuru. Rusanga inkuru irimo ikinyoma cyangwa ukuri kwayo kwatubijwe hagambiriwe kubeshya abo igenewe igabanya cyane umusanzu w’itangazamakuru ku biganiro bigamije inyungu rusange.53 [76] Uru Rukiko rurasanga nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru atari ndakumirwa, kimwe mu bibukumira harimo agaciro n’icyubahiro by’umuntu bibuza uwo ari we wese harimo n’umunyamakuru gukora ikintu icyo aricyo cyose agambiriye gutesha agaciro cyangwa kwambura umuntu icyubahiro. Ubwo bwisanzure bushobora gukumirwa kandi n’inyungu yo kurengera umuntu wabeshyerwa, akaba yabiryozwa biturutse ku kuba imvugo, amafoto cyangwa amashusho bye

53 “131…le respect par les journalistes de leurs devoirs et de leurs responsabilités ainsi que des principes déontologiques qui encadrent leur profession. À cet égard, elle rappelle que l’article 10 protège le droit des journalistes de communiquer des informations sur des questions d’intérêt général dès lors qu’ils s’expriment de bonne foi, sur la base de faits exacts, et qu’ils fournissent des informations “fiables et précises” dans le respect de l’éthique journalistique… 132. La loyauté des moyens mis en œuvre pour obtenir une information et la restituer au public et le respect de la personne faisant l’objet d’une information … sont aussi des critères essentiels à prendre en compte. Le caractère tronqué et réducteur d’une publication est donc susceptible, lorsqu’il est de nature à induire les lecteurs en erreur, de limiter considérablement l’importance de la contribution de cette publication à un débat d’intérêt général.” Reba Couderc Et Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France, n° 40454/07, 10/11/2015, igika cya 131 n’icya 132. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 101

69

byatangajwe mu buryo budahuye n’ukuri. Ku bireba ibishushanyo bya caricature, BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko nabyo birebwa n’ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, uru Rukiko rwemeranya n’umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu aho rwavuze ko ibishushanyo byo mu bwoko bwa caricature, n’ubwo nabyo biri mu buryo bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo, ubwabyo n’amagambo abiherekeje bigengwa n’amahame y’ubunyamwuga bw’itangazamakuru, bityo bikaba bitagomba kurengera ngo byinjire mu mibereho bwite y’uwashushanyijwe cyangwa bimwandagaze.54 [77] Uru Rukiko rurasanga n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwaragarutse ku nshingano z’abanyamakuru ku gukora kinyamwuga, aho mu rubanza Grant y aburanaga na Torstar Corporation, rwagize ruti: “Ubwisanzure ntibuvanaho inshingano. Ni ngombwa ko ibinyamakuru bikora inshingano zabyo bizi ko bishobora kubibazwa kugira ngo biharanire gukora uko bishoboye ngo byubahirize amahame y’umwuga w’itangazamakuru.”55 [78] Mu gitabo cyitwa Style Book: Bestselling Guide for Writing and Editing cyanditswe na The Canadian Press, havugwamo ko amafoto buri gihe agomba kuvugisha ukuri, akagaragaza ibyo uwayafashe yabonye, ko ifoto ishobora gukosorwa hifashishijwe uburyo butandukanye bwa burning,

54 Reba urubanza Palomo Sanchez et Autres v Espagne n° 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 na 28964/06, 2/09/2011, igika cya 66 55 Freedom does not negate responsibility. It is vital that the media act responsibly in reporting facts on matters of public concern, holding them- selves to the highest journalistic standards…” Reba urubanza Grant v Torstar Corp. [2009] 3 S.C.R., igika cya 52. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 102

70

dodging, colour balancing na cropping ariko ko ukosora agomba kwirinda gukabya kuko mu mwuga w’itangazamakuru bitemewe gufata iby’ingenzi ku ifoto ngo biburizwemo n’ibidafite umumaro, bityo ko gukosora bigarukira gusa ku koza hagamijwe kuvanaho umukungugu, ibishwarature n’utundi tuntu duto, naho guhuza amabara bigakorwa ku buryo bworoheje cyane hirindwa guhindura umwimerere w’ifoto.56Ibyo The Canadian Press ivuga ku mafoto nta mpamvu bitakoreshwa no ku magambo cyangwa amashusho, byose byumvikanisha ko umunyamakuru utangaje ifoto, imvugo cyangwa amashusho yahinduye ntabigaragaze, aba anyuranyije n’amahame amaze kuvugwa kuko aba ashaka kugaragaza ko ibyo yatangaje ari umwimerere kandi ataribyo. [79] Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo cyo kutagaragaza ibyo inkuru ishingiyeho byaba byahinduwe cyangwa bitahinduwe, gishingiye ahanini ku bunyangamugayo bw’umunyamakuru. Byongeye kandi, ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ntirengera gusa nyiri ifoto, amagambo cyangwa amashusho byatangajwe bimaze guhindurwa, uwabitangaje ntagaragaze ko bitandukanye n’umwimerere. Iyo ngingo ikumira ahubwo ikibi uwabihinduye yari agambiriye gishobora kugira ingaruka zirenze nyiri ifoto, amagambo cyangwa amashusho byahinduwe uwabihinduye ntavuge ko bitandukanye n’umwimerere. Amagambo “ku bw’inabi” yakoreshejwe n’umushingamategeko areba ikibi cyari kigambiriwe n’uwatangaje ifoto, amagambo cyangwa amashusho. [80] Buri burenganzira bwa muntu bufite akamaro kabwo, buri bumwe bugamije kwimakaza no kubaha agaciro ka muntu. Nta

56 Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p. 356 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 103

71

burenganzira bwa muntu rero bugomba kuniga ubundi ngo bububurizemo, ahubwo bwose bugomba guhuriza hamwe (synergie) kugira ngo agaciro ka muntu kagire ireme. Ibi byumvikanisha ko kuba buri wese, harimo n’umunyamakuru, asabwa kugaragaza ko imvugo, ifoto cyangwa amashusho yatangaje bitandukanye n’umwimerere kandi agasabwa ku bikora ku bw’ineza, atari byo byafatwa ko bibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. Byongeye kandi, gusaba umunyamakuru kurangwa n’ubunyangamugayo no gukora kinyamwuga, ntagire ibyo akora agamije ikibi ndetse n’ibyo yahinduriye umwimerere akabigaragaza, ntaho bibangamiye demokarasi cyangwa iby’ibanze byatuma demokarasi ubwayo cyangwa abaturage batera imbere. [81] Ibimaze kuvugwa bigaragaza ko ibyo Byansi Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavugisha urubanza Handyside yaburanaga n’Ubwongereza ataribyo, kuko ahubwo muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu mu Burayi rwasanze uwo ari we wese ushyira mu bikorwa ubwisanzure bwe bw’itangazamakuru aba yemeye n’umutwaro ndetse n’inshingano zijyana nabyo. Rwanasobanuye ko uburenganzira bwe buzitirwa n’uburyo ibintu byifashe ndetse n’ibikoresho yahisemo kwiyambaza, ko ndetse Urukiko rutakwirengagiza uwo mutwaro n’izo nshingano mu gihe cyo gusuzuma niba imbibi n’ibihano byashyizweho ari ngombwa mu kwimakaza uburere mbonezabupfura mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi.57

57 “whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes "duties and responsibilities" the scope of which depends on his situation and the technical means he uses. The Court cannot overlook such a person's "duties" and "responsibilities" when it enquires, as in this case, whether "restrictions" or Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 104

72

[82] Urukiko rurasanga kandi uburenganzira burengerwa n’ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko Nshinga ari bumwe mu burenganzira ku mibereho bwite, ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryayo rikaba ribanzirizwa n’ikirego cya nyiri ifoto, amagambo cyangwa amashusho nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 162 y’iryo Tegeko. Bivuze ko mu gihe nyirabyo atatanze ikirego, Ubushinjacyaha butemerewe kumusimbura ngo bwibwirize kugitanga. Ibi bituma hatangwa ibirego ba nyiri ifoto, amagambo cyangwa amashusho byatangajwe bimaze guhindurwa bifuje ko bikurikiranwa gusa, nabyo akaba ari inkomyi iburizamo ibirego bitari ngombwa. [83] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. II.3. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo za 15 na 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga. [84] BYANSI Samuel Baker avuga ko ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kuko abanyamakuru ubwabo nta makuru bagira, ko bayakura mu bantu bashobora kubabwiza ukuri cyangwa kubabeshya. Asobanura ko ubundi itangazamakuru ricukumbuye (investigative journalism) ari ryo rifasha abanyamakuru gusuzuma niba ibyo babwiwe ari impamo, bityo umunyamakuru akaba adakwiye guhanirwa kuba yatangaje inkuru, nyuma bikagaragara ko atari impamo. Avuga ko mu mwuga wabo iyo bigaragaye ko hakozwe amakosa,

"penalties" were conducive to the "protection of morals" which made them "necessary" in a "democratic society". Reba urubanza Handyside v. The United Kingdom, n° 5493/72, 7/12/1976, igika cya 49. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 105

73

umunyamakuru ahanishwa gusiba inkuru cyangwa kuyisubiramo, akaba asanga ibyo bihagije. [85] Me RURAMIRA Bizimana Zébédée, umwunganira, avuga ko guhanirwa inkuru yatangajwe bikaza kugaragara ko atari impamo binyuranyije n’amategeko. Asobanura ko amagambo “umuntu wese” atangira ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 rigenga ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange anyuranyije n’ibitegaywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga kuko nta mwihariko iha umunyamakuru, ndetse ko inirengagiza ko inshingano z’umunyamakuru ari ugutanga ibitekerezo rimwe na rimwe bidashobora kwakirwa kimwe n’abantu bose. Avuga ko umunyamakuru atangaza inkuru yizeye ko ari ukuri bitewe n’aho yayikuye ariko ko nyuma bishobora kugaragara ko ya nkuru yari ikinyoma, kubihanirwa bikaba bibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru. Avuga kandi ko Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rw’Ubufaransa ubwo rwasesenguraga ingingo ya 10 y’Amasezerano y’i Burayi y’uburenganzira bwa muntu, rwasanze gutangaza inkuru itari impamo nta cyaha kirimo,58bityo umunyamakuru utangaje inkuru itariyo akaba ahubwo yasabwa kuyigorora, kuyikosora cyangwa uwayikozweho agahabwa umwanya wo gusubiza nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 21 y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo kuwa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru.59

58 “Viole par fausse application l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, la cour d'appel qui interdit la reproduction de propos litigieux sur un site internet au motif que ceux-ci revêtent un caractère mensonger, alors que la liberté d'expression est un droit dont l'exercice ne revêt un caractère abusif que dans les cas spécialement déterminés par la loi, et que les propos litigieux reproduits, fussent-ils mensongers, n'entrent dans aucun de ces cas;” France, Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 10 avril 2013, 12-10177 59 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “umuntu wese, amashyirahamwe, inzego za Leta n’imiryango yemewe n’amategeko bifite uburenganzira bwo gusaba gukosora, Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 106

74

[86] Naho ku bijyanye n’icengezamatwara, asobanura ko ntawe ukwiye kurihanirwa mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi, ko mu bihugu nk’Ubufaransa, umunyamakuru ashobora kwandika agaragaza ko ashyigikiye ishyaka ritavuga rumwe n’ubutegetsi ntafatwe nk’uwangishije abaturage Leta. Avuga ko mu gihe ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko n’iya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ndetse ikaba iha umwihariko ibijyanye no kugaragaza no guhabwa amakuru, andi mategeko nayo akwiye guha umwihariko umunyamakuru ndetse akamurinda. Avuga ko iyo bitabaye ibyo, biba binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, kuri we iyo ngingo ikaba ibuza umunyamakuru gutangaza ibitekerezo mu bwisanzure. [87] Avuga ko ntaho itegeko risobanura ijambo “icengezamatwara”, ibi bikaba byatuma urubanza rucibwa ku buryo bugenekereje nyamara bibuzwa n’ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri

gusubiza cyangwa kugorora inyandiko cyangwa inkuru yatangajwe mu gitangazamakuru. Gusaba gukosora, gusubiza cyangwa kugorora bishyikirizwa Umuyobozi w’igitangazamakuru mu rwandiko rushinganye, urwandiko rutanzwe urwakiriye akarutangira icyemezo cy’iyakira cyangwa inyandiko y’ikoranabuhanga ifite gihamya ko yakiriwe. Urwego rw’Abanyamakuru Bigenzura rugena uburyo gukosora, gusubiza no kugorora bikorwa. Mu gihe uwasabye gukosora, gusubiza cyangwa kugorora atanyuzwe n’imyanzuro, ashobora kwitabaza Urwego rw’Abanyamakuru Bigenzura. Mu gihe binaniranye, ashobora kuregera Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 107

75

rusange. Atanga ingero z’abashakashatsi60 n’inkiko z’ahandi,61 aho bahuriza ku kuba ijambo icengezamatwara ari rigari, rikaba risobanura uburyo butandukanye bwo gutanga ibitekerezo buhinduka bitewe n’ibigize inkuru, uburyo isobanurwa, uburyo yatangajwe ndetse n’ingaruka zayo. [88] Avuga ko mu rubanza Sabuncu n’abandi baburanaga na Turikiya, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwaregewe n’abanyamakuru bo muri Turikiya bavugaga ko Ubushinjacyaha bubaryoza inkuru yabo bwitiriraga gutiza umurindi imitwe ya politiki irimo n’uwitwa PKK irwanya Leta. Asobanura ko icyo gihe bafunzwe bazizwa gucengeza amatwara (propaganda) y’iyo mitwe, noneho batanga ikirego bagamije kunenga igihugu cyabo kuba cyarahisemo kubafunga aho kwiyambaza itangazamakuru kigasubiza ibitekerezo by’abakinengaga, kuri bo ibyo bikaba byari bibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru. Asobanura ko urwo Rukiko rwasanze koko gufunga umunyamakuru by’agateganyo kubera umwuga we ari ukwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru.62

60 “propaganda is a sufficiently broad notion to cover a range of different types of expression which vary in terms of the harmfulness of their content, the sophistication of their presentation and strategies of dissemination and the gravity of their effects.” Reba Tarlach McGonagle, Minority Rights, Freedom of Expression and of the Media: Dynamics and Dilemmas, Cambridge, Intersentia, Research Series, Volume 44, 2011, p.272. 61 “the right to freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the community.” Reba urubanza rwa Handyside v. the United Kingdom, n° 5493/72, 7/12/1976, igika cya 49. 62 “la Cour estime que la détention provisoire qui a été imposée aux requérants dans le cadre de la procédure pénale engagée contre eux pour des crimes sévèrement réprimés et directement liée à leur travail journalistique consiste en une contrainte réelle et effective, et qu’elle constitue donc une « Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 108

76

[89] Me MUSORE Gakunzi Valéry nawe uburanira BYANSI Samuel Baker avuga ko hari amahame y’ingenzi agomba kwitabwaho mbere yo kwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru harimo no kubanza kureba niba koko mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi ari ngombwa kwivanga muri ubwo bwisanzure no gusuzuma niba ikigenderewe nta bundi buryo cyagerwaho. Avuga ko Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rugomba gusuzuma niba uburyo inkuru yakozwemo bunyuranyije n’amategeko no gusuzuma niba ibangamiye rubanda, bityo umunyamakuru akaba atahanishwa gufungwa biturutse ku kuba hari ibyo yanenze, ko ahubwo habaye hakozwe amakosa, yakosorwa binyuze mu nzira ziteganywa n’Itegeko rigenga abanyamakuru cyangwa amategeko mbonezamubano. [90] BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira basoza bavuga ko basaba uru Rukiko gushingira ku bisobanuro batanze rukemeza ko ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga. [91] Me MBONIGABA Eulade, Uburanira Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko impungenge z’uko umunyamakuru yahanirwa inkuru yakoze nta shingiro zifite kubera ko iyo inkuru ikozwe neza igatangazwa ndetse umunyamakuru akagaragaza aho yayikuye biba bigaragara ko nta bushake yagize bwo gutangaza ibihuha bityo akaba atabihanirwa kuko uburyozwe bw’amakosa ari gatozi. Asobanura ko umunyamakuru asabwa kumenya niba inkuru ntacyo itwaye kandi akaba azi ko kuba afite aho

ingérence » dans l’exercice par les requérants de leur droit à la liberté d’expression garanti par l’article 10 de la Convention.” Reba urubanza SABUNCU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE, n° 23199/17, 10 /11/ 2020, igika cya 226. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 109

77

ayikomora bitamuvanaho inshingano z’ubushishozi ku buryo nk’umuntu ufite uruhare runini muri sosiyete, iyo abonye iyo nkuru yakwangiza, akwiye kureka kuyitangaza. Asobanura ko mu byo dukora byose iyo habayeho ubuteganye buke cyangwa kudashishoza, nyirabayazana yirengera ingaruka zabyo. Avuga ko ibyo abanyamakuru batangaje rubanda ibifata nk’ukuri, akaba asanga uru Rukiko rukwiye gushimangira ko nta tegeko rihari ritegeka umunyamakuru gutangaza inkuru yose yabonye, bityo rukemeza ko asabwa ubushishozi mu nshingano ze. [92] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ireba abantu bose, ikaba ishyira mu bikorwa ihame riteganywa n’Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo ikaba nta mwihariko ikwiye gutanga ku munyamakuru cyangwa ku wundi uwo ari we wese kuko ibyo iteganya bigamije kurengera ubusugire bw’u Rwanda n’umudendezo wa rubanda. Avuga ko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru budasobanura kuvuga ibitemewe, ko ahubwo ubwisanzure, kugaragaza ibitekerezo no guhabwa amakuru bikwiye kuba byemewe n’amategeko yose y’igihugu nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko Nshinga63 ndetse n’iya 9 igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko no 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru. [93] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 38 igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya irengayobora (exception) aho ivuga ko ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa

63 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “mu gukoresha uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure, buri wese azitirwa gusa n’itegeko rigamije kwemera no kubahiriza uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure by’abandi ndetse n’imyitwarire iboneye, ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imibereho myiza muri rusange biranga Igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi”. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 110

78

amakuru butagomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda, imyifatire mbonezabupfura, no kutivanga mu mibereho bwite y’umuntu n’iy’umuryango we, ibyo bikaba bihura n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 ryavuzwe, bityo ko iyi ngingo itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga kandi ko ntaho ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga ibuza umunyamakuru gutangaza inkuru icukumbuye, ko ahubwo ibuza gutangaza ibinyoma cyangwa amakuru abonye yose hatitawe ku ho yaba yabikuye, ko n’ubwo ingingo ya 21 n’iya 22 z’Itegeko no 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru zigaruka ku bafite uburenganzira bwo gusaba gukosora, gusubiza cyangwa kugorora inyandiko cyangwa inkuru yatangajwe mu gitangazamakuru, ubwo busabe n’iryo kosora bidakuraho ibibazo cyangwa ingorane byatewe n’ayo makuru atariyo yari yatangajwe, bityo ko ntacyo gukosora byamara mu gihe umudendezo wa rubanda wahungabanye. [94] Me MBONIGABA Eulade akomeza avuga ko ingingo iregwa ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko icengezamatwara rihanirwa ari irigamije kwangisha rubanda Leta y’u Rwanda cyangwa iryatera cyangwa rishobora gutera rubanda cyangwa amahanga kwanga Leta y’u Rwanda, bityo ko iryo jambo atari ngombwa kurishakira ibindi bisobanuro hisunzwe abahanga cyangwa imanza zaciriwe mu mahanga. Yongeraho ko niyo icyaha giteganywa n’iyo ngingo cyakoroshywa, bitaba bireba umunyamakuru kubera ingaruka z’inkuru yatangaje, kuko abenshi bazifata nk’ukuri bitewe n’uko abo zigenewe baba bumva yakoze ubushakashatsi bucukumbuye, bigatuma izo nkuru zisomwa ndetse zikanumvwa na benshi. [95] Avuga ko n’amategeko mpuzamahanga ashyira imbibi ku burenganzira bwa buri wese, urugero akaba ari ingingo ya 19, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 111

79

igika cya 2, y’Amasezeramo mpuzamahanaga yerekeranye n’uburenganzira mbonezamubano n’ubwa politiki ivuga ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gushaka no gukwirakwiza amakuru n’ibitekerezo mu buryo yihitiyemo, ariko ubwo burenganzira bukagarukira ku gaciro n’icyubahiro by’abandi hashingiwe ku mategeko ya buri gihugu64 naho ingingo ya 9 y’Amasezerano Nyafurika arengera uburenganzira bwa muntu n’abaturage igateganya ko buri muntu wese yemerewe kuvuga no gutangaza ibitekerezo bye atarenze imbibi z’amategeko n’amabwiriza biriho, bikaba byumvikana ko n’umunyamakuru adafite uburenganzira bwo gutangaza inkuru cyangwa inyandiko abonye zose.65 Asoza asaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko ntaho ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga.

64 “Toute personne a droit à la liberté d’expression ; ce droit comprend la liberté de rechercher, de recevoir et de répandre des informations et des idées de toute espèce, sans considération de frontières, sous une forme orale, écrite, imprimée ou artistique, ou par tout autre moyen de son choix”. Naho igika cya 3 cyo kikavuga ko “l'exercice des libertés prévues au paragraphe 2 du présent article comporte des devoirs spéciaux et des responsabilités spéciales. Il peut en conséquence être soumis à certaines restrictions qui doivent toutefois être expressément fixées par la loi et qui sont nécessaires : a) Au respect des droits ou de la réputation d'autrui; B) A la sauvegarde de la sécurité nationale, de l’ordre public, de la santé ou de la moralité publiques” Reba ingingo ya 19, y’Amasezeramo mpuzamahanaga yerekeranye n’uburenganzira mbonezamubano n’ubwa politiki. 65 “ toute personne a le droit d’exprimer de diffuser ses opinons dans le cadre des lois et des reglements”. Reba ingingo ya 9 y’Amasezerano Nyafurika arengera uburenganzira bwa muntu n’abaturage. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 112

80

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [96] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga igira iti: “Abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe.” [97] Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga yibukijwe haruguru ishyiraho ihame ry’uko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Icyakora ubwo bwisanzure ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uburyo bushyirwa mu bikorwa ndetse bwubahirizwa biteganywa n’amategeko. [98] Ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iteganya ko: “Umuntu wese ukwiza amakuru atari yo cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije kwangisha rubanda Leta y’u Rwanda cyangwa ayo makuru cyangwa icengezamatwara byatera cyangwa bishobora gutera rubanda cyangwa amahanga kwanga Leta y’u Rwanda, aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamije n’urukiko, ahanishwa, mu gihe cy’intambara, igifungo cya burundu. Mu gihe cy’amahoro, ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka irindwi (7) ariko kitarenze imyaka icumi (10).” [99] Ingingo ya 194 ihana “umuntu wese” wakwije amakuru y’ibinyoma cyangwa icengezamatwara: i. bigamije kwangisha rubanda Leta y’u Rwanda ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 113

81

ii. byatera cyangwa bishobora gutera rubanda cyangwa amahanga kwanga Leta y’u Rwanda. Mu yandi magambo igihanwa n’iyi ngingo si inkuru y’ikinyoma cyangwa icengezamatwara ubwabyo ahubwo ni ikigenderewe n’uwakwije amakuru yo kwangisha abaturage Leta cyangwa ingaruka ayo makuru yagize cyangwa ashobora kugira mu mibanire abaturage cyangwa amahanga bafitanye na Leta y’u Rwanda. [100] Urukiko rurasanga ikindi kigaragazwa n’iyi ngingo ari uko ivuga “gukwiza amakuru atariyo”, ayo magambo akaba atakwitiranywa no “gutangaza inkuru itariyo”. Nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 2, agace ka munani, y’Itegeko n° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru, “inkuru ni inyandiko, amajwi, amashusho cyangwa amajwi n’amashusho bikozwe mu rwego rw’itangazamakuru”. Gukwiza amakuru byumvikanisha ko ari ihererekanya ry’amakuru mu bantu benshi cyangwa muri rubanda ridakozwe kinyamwuga. [101] BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko mu ngingo ya 194 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, umunyamakuru atari akwiye kwitiranywa n’umuntu wese, ko kuba itegeko rimwitiranya n’undi uwo ari we wese binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga ishyiraho uburenganzira bwo kureshya umbere y’amategeko. Icyakora ntibagaragaza uburyo amagambo “umuntu wese” atera ubusumbane. Ahubwo bigaragarira Urukiko ko ayo magambo areshyeshya abantu bose baba abanyarwanda cyangwa abanyamahanga batubahirije ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo. Kuvangura abanyamakuru mu bandi bashobora gukora ibyaha nkabo nta mpamvu zifatika zagaragajwe nibyo ahubwo byatuma iyo ngingo iba inyuranyije n’iya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Uru Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 114

82

Rukiko rwabigarutseho mu rubanza rwa Uwinkindi Jean aho rwibukije ko “gushyira abantu mu byiciro bigomba gukorwa hagamijwe kugera ku ntego yumvikana, igaragarira buri wese kandi ishingiye ku mategeko kandi ibyashingiweho bikaba bifite ireme mu nyungu rusange.”66 [102] Urukiko rurasanga kandi icyo ingingo igamije atari uguhana ikinyoma cyangwa icengezamatwara ubwabyo nk’uko BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira babivuga. Amagambo “bigamije/with intent to/avec l’intention de” agaragaza ko icyaha kibaho iyo amakuru y’ibinyoma cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije kwangisha abaturage Leta, byatera cyangwa byashobora gutera abaturage cyangwa amahanga kwanga Leta. Ikigenderewe (mobile) n’uwakwije ayo makuru cyangwa iryo cengezamatwara nicyo itegeko rishaka guhashya. Ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ntabwo ireba amakuru y’ibinyoma cyangwa icengezamatwara byakwijwe n’umuntu utagamije kwangisha abaturage Leta cyangwa bitarimo ikintu cyaherwaho n’abaturage cyangwa amahanga banga Leta. [103] Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba guhana abantu bangisha u Rwanda mu baturage cyangwa mu mahanga bifashishije amakuru atari ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara bibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 9 y’ Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iha abanyamakuru inshingano zo kutabangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda, naho ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko n° 04/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 ryerekeye kubona amakuru ibuza abanyamakuru gutangaza inkuru, kabone n’ubwo yaba itari iy’ikinyoma

66 Reba urubanza n° RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS rwaciwe ku wa 22/02/2013, igika cya 16. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 115

83

ishobora guhungabanya umutekano w’igihugu ndetse no kubangamira iyubahirizwa ry’amategeko cyangwa ubutabera. Izi ngingo zivuze na none ko umutekano w’igihugu, iyubahirizwa ry’amategeko n’ubutabera ari bimwe mu mbibi ku burenganzira buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko Nshinga. [104] Urukiko rurasanga BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko u Rwanda rukwiye gufatira urugero ku bindi bihugu harimo n’Ubufaransa kuko ho umunyamakuru ashobora kuba ari mu ishyaka ritari ku butegetsi agakora inkuru itavuga neza ubutegetsi ariko ntakurikiranwe. Nyamara, nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru, icyaha ntigishingiye ku nkuru yaba iy’ukuri cyangwa itari iy’ukuri, ahubwo gishingiye ku makuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije kwangisha cyangwa bifite ubushobozi bwo kwangisha Leta muri rubanda cyangwa mu mahanga. Kuva ku wa 29/07/1881, Ubufaransa bwashyizeho Itegeko rihana icyitwa “délit de fausse nouvelle”, iryo Tegeko ryaje kuvugururwa ku wa 06/05/1944 hongerwamo impamvu nkomezacyaha, ubwa nyuma ryavuguruwe akaba ari ku wa 19/09/2000.67 Muri rusange, iryo tegeko rihana amakuru atari ay’ukuri, yaba yahimbwe cyangwa atahimbwe yahungabanyije cyangwa ashobora guhungabanya umutekano rusange.68 Rihana kandi uwakwije ayo makuru ku nabi bigatera imyitwarire mibi mu ngabo, bikazica intege cyangwa bikabangamira ubufasha buhabwa igihugu mu gihe

67 Reba Ordonnance n°2000-916 du 19 septembre 2000 - art. 3 (V) JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002 68 “La publication, la diffusion ou la reproduction, par quelque moyen que ce soit, de nouvelles fausses, de pièces fabriquées, falsifiées ou mensongèrement attribuées à des tiers lorsque, faite de mauvaise foi, elle aura troublé la paix publique, ou aura été susceptible de la troubler, sera punie d'une amende de 45 000 euros.” Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 116

84

cy’intambara.69 Ubufaransa bwarenze n’ibyo amategeko yavuzwe haruguru yateganyaga, bushyiriraho ibihano abantu babeshya ko hari igikorwa cy’iterabwoba kigiye kuba,70 cyangwa abakwiza ibinyoma bagamije guzamura cyangwa kumanura agaciro k’amadevize.71 Nanone kandi, icyaha cyo gukwiza amakuru y’ibinyoma bigamijwe cyangwa bishobora gutuma abaturage batubahiriza amategeko y’igihugu, bacika intege cyangwa hagamijwe gutesha agaciro inzego za Leta gihanwa n’ingingo ya 255 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahano cya Sénégal.72

69 “Les mêmes faits seront punis de 135 000 euros d'amende, lorsque la publication, la diffusion ou la reproduction faite de mauvaise foi sera de nature à ébranler la discipline ou le moral des armées ou à entraver l'effort de guerre de la Nation.” 70 “Le fait de communiquer ou de divulguer une fausse information dans le but de faire croire qu'une destruction, une dégradation ou une détérioration dangereuse pour les personnes va être ou a été commise est puni de deux ans d'emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d'amende. Est puni des mêmes peines le fait de communiquer ou de divulguer une fausse information faisant croire à un sinistre et de nature à provoquer l'intervention inutile des secours.” Reba ingingo ya 3, Ordonnance n°2000-916 du 19 septembre 2000, JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002 71 “Est puni des peines prévues au premier alinéa de l'article L. 465-1 le fait, pour toute personne, d'exercer ou de tenter d'exercer, directement ou par personne interposée, une manoeuvre ayant pour objet d'entraver le fonctionnement régulier d'un marché réglementé en induisant autrui en erreur. Est puni des peines prévues au premier alinéa de l'article L. 465-1 le fait, pour toute personne, de répandre dans le public par des voies et moyens quelconques des informations fausses ou trompeuses sur les perspectives ou la situation d'un émetteur dont les titres sont négociés sur un marché réglementé ou sur les perspectives d'évolution d'un instrument financier admis sur un marché réglementé, de nature à agir sur les cours.” Reba ingingo ya 30, Loi n°2005-842 du 26 juillet 2005, JORF 27 juillet 2005. 72 Reba Loi de base b° 65-60 du 21 Juillet 1965 portant code penal. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 117

85

[105] Urukiko rurasanga gukwiza amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije kwangisha Leta bisenya demokarasi, bitafatwa rero nk’ibigize ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwo bugamije kubaka igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. N’ubwo kandi intego yo gukumira ikwirakwiza bene ayo makuru cyangwa icengezamatwara yagerwaho hakoreshejwe ubundi buryo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwasobanuye ko ari iby’ingenzi cyane kwiyambaza amategeko y’ubwoko bwinshi ngo hagaragazwe ko bitemewe ndetse bice intege abantu baba bifuza kubyishoramo.73 Umuhanga William Schabas nawe asobanura ko kuva amasezerano mpuzamahanga arengera uburenganzira bw’ikiremwa muntu yajyaho, hashyizweho ingamba zibuza icengezamatwara cyana cyane y’ubuhezanguni74. Mu rubanza rwa James Keegstra, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwasobanuye ko impamvu umushingamategeko yateganyije guhana icengezamatwara rigamije ikibi zihagije kugira ngo zikumire ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. Rwasanze icengezamatwara rigamije ikibi ntacyo rimariye Canada n’abanya Canada haba mu gushakisha ukuri, mu kwiteza imbere cyangwa mu kubaka no gushyigikira demokarasi ishikamye kandi igizwemo uruhare na bose.75

73 “…bien qu’il existe d’autres moyens, non pénaux, de lutte contre la propagande haineuse, il est éminemment raisonable de recourir à plus d’un type d’instrument législatif pour chercher à empêcher la diffusion de l’expression raciste et le préjudice qui en résulte.” Reba urubanza R. v KEEGSTRA [1990] 3 R.C.S, urupapuro rwa 700 h. 74 William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford Unversity Press, 2015, p. 448. 75 “L’objectif visé par le législateur de prévenir le mal causé par la propagande haineuse est d’une importance suffisante pour justifier la supression d’une liberté garantie par la Constitution…La propagande Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 118

86

[106] Uyu murongo kandi wongeye kugarukwaho n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu mu rubanza SÜREK yaburagana na Turikiya. Urwo rubanza rukomoka ku kuba SÜREK yari yatangaje mu kinyamakuru inkuru zinenga ibikorwa by’igisirikare cya Leta mu kurwanya inyeshyamba za PKK,76 ndetse n’ibikorwa by’inzego za Leta mu kurwanya abatavuga rumwe nayo. Urukiko rwasanze n’ubwo ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru ari ingenzi mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi ndetse bukaba bunarengera inkuru n’ibitekerezo bidashimishije cyangwa biteye inkeke, kuba SÜREK yarahanwe byari bifite ishingiro kuko byari bigamije kurengera inyungu zikomeye z’igihugu.77 [107] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange irengera inyungu zifatika kandi zumvikana z’ituze rusange n’umutekano w’igihugu, bityo uru

haineuse apporte peu aux aspirations des Canadiens et du Canada, que ce soit dans la recherche de la vérité, dans la promotion de l’épanouissement personnel ou dans la protection et le dévelopment d’une démocratie dynamique qui accepte et encourage la participation de tous.” Reba urubanza R. v KEEGSTRA [1990] 3 R.C.S, urupapuro rwa 699 e na 701 a. 76 Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan (The Kurdistan Workers' Party). 77 “La liberté d’expression constitue l’un des fondements essentiels d’une société démocratique, l’une des conditions primordiales de son progrès et de l’épanouissement de chacun. …, elle vaut non seulement pour les « informations » ou « idées » accueillies avec faveur ou considérées comme inoffensives ou indifférentes, mais aussi pour celles qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent : ainsi le veulent le pluralisme, la tolérance et l’esprit d’ouverture sans lesquels il n’est pas de « société démocratique »…(Néanmoins) la sanction infligée au requérant en sa qualité de propriétaire de la revue peut raisonnablement être considérée comme répondant à un « besoin social impérieux », et que les motifs avancés par les autorités pour justifier la condamnation de l’intéressé sont « pertinents et suffisants ». Reba urubanza SÜREK v. TURQUIE (n° 1), n° 26682/95), 8/07/1999, ibika bya 58 kugeza kuri 65. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 119

87

Rukiko narwo rukaba rubona ko ari irengayobora ry’ingenzi kandi riri mu rugero rukwiye k’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, ariyo mpamvu iyo ngingo itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. II.3. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga. [108] BYANSI Samuel Baker avuga ko nta mpamvu ihari yatuma abayobozi bavugwa mu ngingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange badakorwaho inkuru mu bwisanzure. Me MUSORE Gakunzi Valéry na Me RURAMIRA Bizimana Zébédée bamwunganira bavuga ko ibivugwa muri iyi ngingo bisubiza inyuma intambwe igihugu cyari kigezeho mu bijyanye no kubahiriza uburenganzira bw’ikiremwa muntu kuko izana ivangura, ikabangamira ubwisanzure bwo gutara no gutangaza amakuru n’ubwo gutanga ibitekerezo. Basobanura ko n’ubwo gusebanya no gukoza isoni umuntu uwo ariwe wese bidakwiye gushyigikirwa, uwabikoze adakwiye gukurikiranwa imbere y’inkiko mpanabyaha kuko amategeko arengera abanyamakuru n’amategeko mbonezamubano ateganya izindi nzira zo kurenganura uwasebejwe cyangwa uwatutswe. [109] Bavuga ko kuba abavugwa mu ngingo ya 21778 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, batemerewe kugira ibyo bavugwaho,

78 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “umuntu wese ugirira nabi mu buryo bubabaza umubiri : 1º umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga ; 2º abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu gihe bari mu Rwanda mu rwego rw’akazi ; aba akoze icyaha”. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 120

88

binyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kuko rirengera abantu bamwe. Basobanura ko umunyamakuru mu kazi ke ashobora gukoresha ijambo rigafatwa ko ryasebeje umuntu bitewe n’uwabyumvise. Bavuga ko mu rubanza rwa Uj v. Hungary, Urukiko rushinzwe kurengera uburenganzira bw’ikiremwa muntu mu Burayi rwasobanuye ko gukoresha amagambo yandagaza ubwabyo bitafatwa nko gusebanya kandi gukoresha ayo magambo nabyo biri mu buryo bwo gutanga ibitekerezo.79 Bavuga ko mu rubanza rwa Mugisha Richard, uru Rukiko rwasanze ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, bagasaba ko impamvu zashingiweho muri urwo rubanza zanashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko ingingo ya 218 inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyane cyane mu ngingo ya 15 n’iya 38.80 [110] Bongeraho ko mu gihe umunyamakuru ari gukora akazi ke, ashobora gutangaza inkuru ishobora gufatwa nko gusebya cyangwa gutuka umwe mu bayobozi bavuzwe haruguru, ko rero aramutse ahanwe, byaba bibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, bigaragaza ko ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kandi atari ngombwa mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi cyane cyane ko gusebanya cyangwa gutukana bishingira ku marangamutima kandi bikaba

79 “The use of vulgar phrases in itself is not decisive in the assessment of an offensive expression as it may well serve merely stylistic purposes. For the Court, style constitutes part of the communication as the form of expression and is as such protected together with the content of the expression” reba urubanza rwa UJ v. HUNGARY, Application n° 23954/10, rwaciwe ku wa 19/07/2011, n’Urukiko rushinzwe kurengera uburenganzira bw’ikiremwa muntu mu Burayi, igika cya 20. 80 Mu rubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, Re MUGISHA Richard, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 121

89

biri hafi cyane yo kunenga (les notions d'outrage et d’injure sont en partie subjectives et parfois d'appréciation difficile car tres proches du droit de critique). Basaba uru Rukiko kuzashingira ku bika bya 56, 62, 63, 65 na 68 by’urubanza Colombani na bagenzi be baburanaga n’Ubufaransa,81 aho urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko umunyamakuru adakwiye guhanirwa gusebanya. [111] Me MBONIGABA Eulade, uhugarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, avuga ko nta muntu wari ukwiye gusaba kwemererwa gusebanya, ko nta na hamwe ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga zemerera umunyamakuru gukora ibyo ashaka ku buryo ibyari ibyaha ku bandi kuri we byahinduka uburenganzira. Avuga ko ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itabuza abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga cyangwa abahagarariye imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda kugira ibyo bavugwaho, ko ahubwo ikibujijwe ari ukubasebya no kubatukira mu ruhame. [112] Asobanura ko ibisabwa n’ababuranira BYANSI Samuel Baker ko impamvu zashingiweho mu rubanza rwa Mugisha Richard hemezwa ko ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018, inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ari nazo zashingirwaho mu kwemeza ko ingingo ya 218 y’iryo tegeko ivanwa mu gitabo cy’amategeko ahana ibyaha mu Rwanda, nta shingiro byahabwa. Avuga ko ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko no 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018, yahanaga abakoza isoni abayobozi b’igihugu n’abashinzwe umurimo rusange w’igihugu ndetse ko yari rusange, bityo ko ntaho ihuriye n’iya 218 isabirwa kuvanwaho ubu kuko yo ihana icyaha cyo gusebanya no gutukana, ikaba inihariye kubera ko ireba Umukuru w’igihugu

81 Reba urubanza Colombani et Autres c. France, n° 51279/99, 25/06/2002. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 122

90

cy’amahanga, abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu gihe bari mu Rwanda mu rwego rw’akazi, hakiyongeraho no kuba izo ngingo zombi zitanganya uburemere. [113] Avuga ko gukurikirana gusebanya mu nkiko mbonezamubano bidahagije, ahubwo ko byaza nk’inzira y’inyongera hasabwa indishyi mu rubanza nshinjabyaha cyane cyane ko gusebanya bishobora kugira uburemere butandukanye. Avuga ko hari igihe isebanya rishobora guhungabanya ituze rusange, icyo gihe rikaba ryaba icyaha. Asaba Urukiko ko rwabifataho umwanzuro mu bushishozi bwarwo. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya igihe isebanya rishobora kugira ingaruka ku ituze rusange, avuga ko umunyamakuru aramutse abeshyeye umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga cyangwa undi muyobozi uvugwa mu ngingo isabirwa kwemezwa ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga bishobora kugumura rubanda kandi kubera ko ntawateganya mbere uburyo igisebo kizaba kimeze, bikaba byatuma abayobozi bafite ububasha bashobora kugirira nabi abandi bayobozi mu gihe bari muri icyo gihugu cyamusebeje. [114] Asoza avuga ko ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange idakwiye gufatwa nk’ishyiraho ivangura kuko icyo igamije ari ukurengera imikoranire n’ubwubahane hagati y’ibihugu n’abayobozi babyo (diplomatie), kutabikora bikaba byagira ingaruka ku Rwanda n’abayobozi barwo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [115] Ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga ishyiraho ihame ry’uko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi akabarengera mu buryo bumwe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 123

91

[116] Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga yibukijwe haruguru ishyiraho ihame ry’uko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwemewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Icyakora ubwo bwisanzure ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uburyo bushyirwa mu bikorwa ndetse bwubahirizwa biteganywa n’amategeko. [117] Ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange igira iti: “Umuntu wese usebya cyangwa utuka mu ruhame, umwe mu bavugwa mu ngingo ya 217 y’iri tegeko, aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko, ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka itatu (3) ariko kitarenze imyaka itanu (5).” [118] Ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange yibukijwe haruguru ihanisha igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka itatu (3) ariko kitarenze imyaka itanu (5) uwo ari we wese usebya cyangwa utukira mu ruhame, umwe mu bayobozi bavugwa mu ngingo ya 217 y’iri tegeko. [119] Ingingo ya 29 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga y’i Vienne ku mibanire y’ibihugu (les relations diplomatiques) yo ku wa 18/04/1961 n’ingingo ya 40 y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga y’i Vienne yo ku wa 24/04/1963 agenga imibanire y’ibihugu mu bijyanye na consulats (Convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires), ziteganya ko ibihugu byakira abanyacyubahiro bayavugwamo bifite inshingano zo kubaha icyubahiro bakwiye, bigashyiraho n’ingamba zikwiye Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 124

92

ziburizamo impamvu zose zatuma bahohoterwa, batisanzura cyangwa batakarizwa icyubahiro.82 Ibi bihura kandi n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ya New York ku butumwa bwihariye yo ku wa 8/12/1969.83 [120] Ingingo ya 2 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ya New York yo ku wa 15/10/1975 akumira akanahana ibyaha byakorewe abantu bafite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga igira iti: “1. Igikorwa gikozwe ku bushake: a) Cyo kwica, gushimuta cyangwa irindi hohotera ku muntu cyangwa ubureganzira bikorewe umuntu ufite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga; b) Cy’urugomo ku nyubako zikorerwamo, inzu zituwemo n’uburyo bwo kugendamo ku buryo bishyira mu kaga umuntu cyangwa uburenganzira bw’umuntu ufite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga; c) Gushaka gukora ibyo bikorwa;

82 “…L’Etat accréditaire … traite (la personne de l’agent diplomatique) avec le respect qui lui est dû, et prend toutes les mesures appropriées pour empêcher toute atteinte à sa personne, sa liberté et sa dignité.” 83 “La personne des représentants de l’Etat d’envoi dans la mission spéciale ainsi que celle des membres du personnel diplomatique de celle-ci est inviolable …L’Etat de réception les traite avec le respect qui leur est dû et prend toutes mesures appropriées pour empêcher toute atteinte à leur personne, leur liberté et leur dignité.” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 125

93

d) Kugerageza gukora ibyo bikorwa; e) Kugira uruhare nk’icyitso muri ibyo bikorwa Bifatwa na buri gihugu cyashyize umukono kuri aya masezerano nk’icyaha hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko bwite yacyo. 2. Buri gihugu cyashyize umukono kuri aya masezerano gishyiraho ibihano bikwiye hagendewe ku buremere bw’ibyo byaha. 3. Igika cya 1 n’icya 2 by’iyi ngingo ntaho bibangamiye inshingano z’ibihugu mu mategeko mpuzamahanga zo gufata ibyemezo bikwiye byose kugira ngo bikumire ibindi byaha byakorerwa umuntu, ubwisanzure cyangwa agaciro k’umuntu ufite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga.”84

84 “Article 2 1. Le fait intentionnel: a) De commettre un meurtre, un enlèvement ou une autre attaque contre la personne ou la liberté d’une personne jouissant d’une protection internationale; b) De commettre, en recourant à la violence, contre les locaux officiels, le domicile privé ou les moyens de transport d’une personne jouissant d’une protection internationale une attaque de nature à mettre sa personne ou sa liberté en danger; c) De menacer de commettre une telle attaque; d) De tenter de commettre une telle attaque; ou e) De participer en tant que complice à une telle attaque; est considéré par tout Etat partie comme constituant une infraction au regard de sa législation interne. 2. Tout Etat partie rend ces infractions passibles de peines appropriées qui prennent en considération leur gravité. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 126

94

U Rwanda rwashyize umukono kuri ayo masezerano ku wa 04/10/1977.85 [121] Ingingo ya 217 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ihana uwagiriye nabi mu buryo bubabaza umubiri umwe mu bamaze kuvugwa mu gika kibanza cyangwa uwateje umutekano muke, uwangije abigambiriye amazu abo bayobozi bakoreramo, ayo batuyemo cyangwa ibyo bagenderamo. Bigaragara ko iyi ngingo ishyira mu bikorwa igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri by’amasezerano mpuzamahanga amaze kuvugwa. Naho ingingo 218 ihana gusebya cyangwa gutukira mu ruhame umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga cyangwa abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu gihe bari mu Rwanda mu rwego rw’akazi, bikaba byafatwa ko iganisha ku bivugwa mu gika cya gatatu cy’ingingo ya kabiri y’ayo masezerano. [122] N’ubwo ingingo ya 218 itangira yibutsa ingingo ya 217, ariko nta kibazo BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bafite ku ngingo ya 217. Ingingo baregeye kuba itubahirije ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru ni iya 218. Iyi ngingo ya 218 ishingiye ahanini ku gika cya 3 cy’ingingo ya 2 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ya New York yo ku wa 15/10/1975 akumira akanahana ibyaha byakorewe abantu bafite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga. Iki gika

3. Les paragraphes 1 et 2 du présent article ne portent en rien atteinte aux obligations qui, en vertu du droit international, incombent aux Etats parties de prendre toutes mesures appropriées pour prévenir d’autres atteintes à la personne, la liberté ou la dignité d’une personne jouissant d’une protection internationale.” 85 Reba Itegeko-Teka n° 31/77 ryo ku wa 04/10/1977. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 127

95

gisaba ibihugu gushyiraho amategeko mu buryo bwubahiriza inshingano zabyo mu mategeko mpuzamahanga. Ikibazo ariko gisuzumwa n’uru Rukiko si ukumenya niba ingingo ya 218 yubahirije cyangwa itubahirije inshingano z’u Rwanda mu mategeko mpuzamahanga, ahubwo igisuzumwa mu rwego rw’ibirego byerekeranye no kwemeza ko ingingo y’Itegeko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ni ukumenya niba ingingo yaregewe inyuranyije cyangwa itanyuranyije n’ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga zavuzwe haruguru. [123] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga isobanura ko ariryo Tegeko risumba ayandi mu gihugu. Itegeko, icyemezo cyangwa igikorwa cyose kinyuranyije naryo nta gaciro kiba gifite. Muri ayo mategeko avugwa harimo n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga. Aya aza ku mwanya wa gatatu ku rutonde rw’ubusumbane bw’amategeko ruteganywa n’ingingo ya 95 y’Itegeko Nshinga.86 Bivuze ko ibyo Me MBONIGABA Eulade uburanira Leta y’u Rwanda avuga by’uko gusebya cyangwa gutuka umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga cyangwa uhagarariye igihugu cy’amahanga biramutse bivuye mu mategeko mpanabyaha byatera imibanire mibi hagati y’ibihugu (international relations) atari byo byagenderwaho hemezwa ko ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange igomba kuguma mu mategeko y’u Rwanda. Igikwiye kuyigumishamo ni ukuba itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga bitewe n’uko indangagaciro, amahame n’imirongo bikubiye mu Itegeko Nshinga aribyo Abanyarwanda, nk’abaturage bigenga, bahisemo ko bibagenga, ibindi byose bidahuje nabyo bikaba nta gaciro bifite.

86 “Amategeko asumbana mu buryo bukurikira: 1° Itegeko Nshinga; 2° Itegeko Ngenga; 3° Amasezrano Mpuzamahanga yemejwe n’u Rwanda; 4° Itegeko risanzwe; 5° Amateka. Nta tegeko rivuguruza iririsumba…” Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 128

96

i. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga [124] Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga ishyiraho uburenganzira bwo kureshya imbere y’amategeko, BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko ingingo ya 218 isubiza igihugu inyuma kuko yimakaza ivangura ndetse ku bayobozi bayivugwamo, ikabuza abanyamakuru gusohoza inshingano zabo kuri bo nk’uko babikora ku bandi. [125] Uru Rukiko ubwo rwasuzumaga ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ingingo ya 233 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange yahanaga gukoza isoni bamwe mu bakozi ba Leta inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, rwasanze ingingo ya 233 irengera gusa abayobozi b’igihugu n’abashinzwe umurimo rusange w’igihugu, rusanga ntacyo iyo ngingo ivuga ku gukoza isoni abandi bantu batari muri icyo cyiciro cyangwa abadakorera Leta. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko nta mpamvu yo gushyiraho ingingo ituma igikorwa kimwe kiba icyaha kuri bamwe ntikibe icyaha ku bandi bitewe gusa n’ubwoko bw’umurimo bakora cyangwa urwego barimo muri uwo murimo. Uru Rukiko rwibukije ko gutandukanya abantu ubwabyo atari ivangura, kuko bishobora gukorwa hari impamvu zifatika, za ngombwa kandi zumvikana nko kurengera abanyantege nke, ariko ibyo bikaba bigomba kugaragazwa, rusanga kuba izo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 129

97

mpamvu ntazagaragajwe bituma ingingo ya 233 inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga.87 [126] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano ireba abakuru b’ibihugu n’abahagarariye ibihugu by’amahanga cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda mu gihe bari mu kazi. Icyo ubwacyo ni icyiciro cy’abayobozi b’ibihugu by’amahanga kigengwa n’Amasezerano Mpuzahamahanga y’i Vienne yo ku wa 18/04/1961 agenga imibanire y’ibihugu mu bya diplomasiya (Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques) yashyizweho umukono n’u Rwanda ku wa 17/02/1964,88 Amasezerano mpuzamahanga y’i Vienne yo ku wa 24/04/1963 agenga imibanire y’ibihugu mu bijyanye na consulats (Convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires) yo ku wa 24/04/1963 yashyizweho umukono n’u Rwanda ku wa 22/04/1974,89 n’amasezerano y’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku budahangarwa, inzego zihariye n’Ikigo Mpuzamahanga mu bijyanye n’ingufu za kirimubuzi (Conventions sur les privilèges et immunités des Nations-Unies, des Institutions Spécialisées et de l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie Atomique) byemejwe n’Umuryango w’Abibumbye ku wa 13/02/1946 no ku wa 21/11/1947, byemezwa n’u Rwanda ku wa 17/02/1964.90 [127] Urukiko rurasanga ubwo rwasuzumaga ibyo kumenya niba ingingo ya 236 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange yateganyaga gutuka cyangwa gusebya Perezida wa

87 Reba urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019, ibika bya 87-91. 88 Reba Itegeko ryo ku wa 17/02/1964. 89 Reba Itegeko-Teka ryo ku wa 22/04/1974. 90 Reba Itegeko ryo ku wa 17/02/1964. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 130

98

Repubulika inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, rwasanze ibihano by’igifungo kiva ku myaka itanu kugeza kuri irindwi byateganyirizwaga icyo cyaha ari ngombwa ko inzego zibishinzwe zibihuza n’igifungo kitari munsi y’iminsi cumi n’itanu ariko kitarenze amezi abiri giteganywa n’ingingo ya 161 y’iryo Tegeko ku muntu watutse uwo ari we wese mu ruhame.91 Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba ingingo ishyiraho icyaha cyo gutuka cyangwa gusebya Perezida wa Repubulika inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga, mu gika cya 113 cy’urubanza rwa Mugisha uru Rukiko rwasanze “Gusebya Perezida wa Repubulika no gusebya abakuru b’ibuhugu by’amahanga cyangwa abahagarariye imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda (ari)byo byonyine bihanwa mu Rwanda. Gusebya abandi uretse abo bamaze kuvugwa si icyaha, ahubwo uwasebejwe ashobora gutanga ikirego cyo gusaba indishyi.”92 [128] Muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko rwasanze agace karebana no gusebanya kari mu ngingo ya 236 gatandukanya Perezida wa Repubulika n’abandi bantu, ariko iryo tandukaniro rikaba ubwabyo atari ikibazo kuko rifite icyo rishingiyeho, rusanga uburemere bw’inshingano za Perezida wa Repubulika cyane cyane izo gusigasira ubumwe bw’abenegihugu, butuma afatwa nk’ishusho y’ubwo bumwe, ku buryo kumusebya byagira ingaruka kuri ubwo bumwe, zimwe mu ngaruka zabyo zikaba gucamo abaturage ibice biturutse ku byamutangajweho, bityo ko inkuru zimureba zikwiye kwirinda kumusebya kugira ngo zitayobya rubanda. Uru Rukiko rwanzuye ko kuba Perezida wa Repubulika agengwa n’ingingo zihariye mu ishyirwaho rye,

91 Reba urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019, igika cya 112. 92 Reba urubanza n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 24/04/2019, igika cya 113. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 131

99

ivanwaho rye, ubudahangarwa kwe, uburyo akurikiranwa n’inkiko nshinjabyaha, ibyo bimutandukanya n’abandi, hakiyongeraho uburemere bw’inshingano ze, bigatuma ishyirwaho ry’amategeko yihariye amugenga cyangwa amurengera ryumvikana. [129] Urukiko rurasanga ariko nyuma y’urwo rubanza Umushingamategeko yarasanze nta mpamvu, ku bijyanye n’icyaha cyo gusebanya, y’uko Perezida wa Repubulika yashyirirwaho ingingo y’Itegeko yihariye; bituma mu ngingo ya 10 y’Itegeko nº 69/2019 ryo ku wa 08/11/2019 rihindura Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, yemeza ko ingingo ya 236 ivanweho. [130] Ku bireba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riregerwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga igisuzumwa ari ukumenya niba hari impamvu zatuma abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga, abahagarariye ibihugu by’amahanga mu Rwanda cyangwa abahagarariye imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda bahabwa umwihariko ku buryo kubasebya cyangwa kubatuka byaguma mu mategeko nshinjabyaha y’u Rwanda. Bigaragara ko ingingo ya 29 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga y’i Vienne yo ku wa 18/04/1961 agenga imibanire y’ibihugu mu bya diplomasiya (Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques), ingingo ya 40 y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga y’i Vienne yo ku wa 24/04/1963 agenga imibanire y’ibihugu mu bijyanye na consulats (Convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires) yo ku wa 24/04/1963, ingingo ya 29 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ya New York ku butumwa bwihariye yo ku wa 16/12/1968 cyangwa ingingo ya 2 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ya New York yo ku wa 15/10/1975 akumira akanahana ibyaha byakorewe abantu bafite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 132

100

mpuzamahanga, ntaho zivuga mu buryo bweruye ko zigamije gusaba ibihugu gushyiraho amategeko ahana gusebya cyangwa gutukira mu ruhame abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga, abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu gihe bari mu kazi. [131] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko rwabyibukije mu rubanza rwa Uwinkindi Jean, gushyira abantu mu byiciro ubwabyo ntabwo ari ukubavangura cyane cyane iyo ibyo byiciro byashyizweho hagamijwe kugera ku ntego yumvikana, igaragarira buri wese, ishingiye ku mategeko kandi ibyashingiweho bikaba bifite ireme mu nyungu rusange.93 Ku bireba uru rubanza, bigaragara ko abayobozi bavugwa mu ngingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange bari mu cyiciro cyihariye cy’abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga n’abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda. Icyo cyiciro ntigishobora kubarirwa mu cy’abantu bafite intege nke cyangwa, ku bijyanye n’icyaha cyo gusebanya, ngo kibarirwe mu cyiciro cy’abakeneye cyane kurengerwa n’amategeko kurusha abandi, aricyo gituma kuba iyo ngingo itareshyeshya abayivugwamo n’abandi bituma inyuranya n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko, ko itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe.

93 Reba urubanza n° RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/02/2013 , igika cya 16. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 133

101

ii. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga [132] Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo gutanga ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru, Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza Jam yaburanaga n’Ubuholandi, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubuholandi rwarasanze gusebya umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga mu itangazamakuru bimutesha agaciro, ariko icyo kikaba cyafatwa gusa nko kutubahiriza inshingano zo kurengera agaciro ke kuko ntaho mu masezerano mpuzamahanga biteganyijwe ko bihinduka icyaha cyo gusebanya cyangwa gutukana.94 [133] Umuhanga Alexander Heinze,95 nawe avuga ko isesengura ry’ingingo z’amasezerano mpuzamahanga zagaragajwe haruguru zumvikanisha ko ntaho ibihugu bisabwa gushyiraho ingingo ihana gusebya no gutuka abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga mu mategeko mpanabyaha yabyo. Kuri we, kuba ahubwo ingingo ya 2, igika cya 3 y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ya New York yo ku wa 15/10/1975 akumira akanahana ibyaha byakorewe abantu bafite ubudahangarwa hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko mpuzamahanga iteganya ko ishyirwa mu bikorwa hubahirizwa inshingano z’ibihugu hashingiwe ku mategeko mpuzamahanga, bisobanuye

94 Reba urubanza JAM v Public Prosecutor, Netherlands Supreme Court, 21 January 1969, YBIL 222-273 (1970). 95 Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation Of Foreign State Leaders In Times Of Globalized Media And Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Intertainment Law, Vol 9, n° 1, p. 56. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 134

102

ko ibihugu byavanyeho nkana inshingano zo kurengera agaciro k’umukuru w’igihugu muri ayo masezerano mpuzamahanga, bityo muri ayo masezerano hakaba nta gitegeka igihugu gushyiraho itegeko rihana gusebanya cyangwa gutukana.96 [134] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba mu gihe ntaho gusebanya cyangwa gutukana bisabwa mu masezerano mpuzamahanga, haba hari umuco w’ibihugu (international customary law) ubiteganya nk’icyaha, Urukiko rurasanga hari ibihugu byavanye mu mategeko mpanabyaha yabyo ingingo zijyanye n’icyaha cyo gusebya cyangwa gutuka umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga, uhagarariye igihugu cyangwa umuryango mpuzamahanga. Urugero ni Ubudage bwavanyeho ingingo ya 103 y’Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana yahanishaga igifungo kuva ku mezi atatu kugeza ku myaka itanu umuntu wese usebeje umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga, uhagarariye igihugu cyangwa umu diplomate

96 “(It) is at least sufficiently plausible to conclude that an obligation to specifically sanction the defamation of state representatives cannot be deducted from article 29 (VCDR)… The same holds true for the Protection of Internationally Protected Persons Convention, specifically regarding its Article 2. Article 2 Paragraph 1, however, only refers to attacks on the person and liberty of protected persons and omits any dignity protection. Only Article 2 Paragraph 3 states that obligations derived from this convention do not in any way derogate from other existing obligations under international law “to take all appropriate measures to prevent other attacks on the person, freedom or dignity of an internationally protected person” (emphasis added). Since Article 2 Paragraph 3 explicitly attributes the protection of dignity to other international treaties, it can be concluded that the contracting parties deliberately excluded the obligation to protect dignity from this Convention and that, consequently, no obligation to enact any type of libel law can be derived from it.” Reba Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation Of Foreign State Leaders In Times Of Globalized Media And Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, vol 9, no 1, pp. 56-57. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 135

103

woherejwe mu Budage.97 Mu gusobanura impamvu y’ivanwaho ry’iyo ngingo, bamwe mu bagize Inteko Nshingamategeko y’icyo gihugu bavuze ko iyo ngingo ihana icyaha cya lèse-majesté ari igisigisigi cy’ingoma ya cyami (relic from time when Germany was still a monarchy), abandi bavuga ko itera urujijo mu myumvire y’imikoranire hagati y’ibihugu kuko itegeka umuturage kubahiriza inshingano zagombye kubahirizwa n’igihugu (anachronistic cooperationist understanding of states which even burdens individual citizens with fulfilling the state’s duties).98 [135] Urukiko rurasanga Ubufaransa nabwo bwarahanaga umuntu wasebeje cyangwa watutse abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga, abakuru ba guverinoma z’amahanga n’aba minisitiri b’ububanyi n’amahanga b’ibindi bihugu hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo 36 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 29/07/1881 ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru.99 Mu rubanza Colombani na

97 “Whosoever insults a foreign head of State, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine, in case of a slanderous insult to imprisonment from three months to five years.” Reba ingingo ya 103 ya Strafgesetzbuch. 98 Reba Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation of Foreign State Leaders in Times of Globalized Media and Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, vol. 9, n° 1, p. 52 99 “§ 4-Délits contre les chefs d’Etats et agents diplomatiques étrangers Art. 36. - L'offense commise publiquement envers les chefs d'Etat étrangers sera punie d'un emprisonnement da trois mois à un an et d'une amende de 100 fr, à 3,000 fr., ou de l'une de ces deux peines seuement. Art. 37. - L'outrage commis publiquement envers les ambassadeurs et ministers plénipotentiaires, envoyés, chargés d'affaires ou autres agents diplomatiques accrédités près du Gouvernement de la République, sera puni Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 136

104

bagenzi be baburanaga n’Ubufaransa, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bw’Ikiremwamuntu rwemeranyijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Paris rwemeje ko guhanirwa gusebya cyangwa gutuka umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga binyuranyije n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, rusanga kubihana biha abo itegeko rirengera ubudahangarwa bukabije, bituma batanengwa nk’abandi biturutse gusa ku mwanya barimo, hatitawe ku nyungu z’iryo nenga, ibyo bikaba bitakijyanye na politiki y’iki gihe. Urukiko rwanzuye ko n’ubwo byumvikana ko buri gihugu gifite inyungu zo kurengera ubucuti gifitanye n’ibindi bihugu, ibyo guhana abasebeje cyangwa abatutse abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga cyangwa ababihagarariye birenze ibikenewe kugira ngo ubwo bucuti bugerweho.100 [136] Uru rubanza rwatumye mu Bufaransa habanza gutorwa itegeko rivugurura ingingo 36 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 29/07/1881

d'un emprisonnement de huit jours à un an et d'une amende de 50 fr. à 2. 000 fr ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement.” Reba Journal Officiel de la République Française n° 206 du 30/07/1881. 100 “La Cour rélève par ailleurs que depuis un jugement du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris du 25 avril 2001, les juridictions internes commencent à reconnaitre que le délit prévu par l’article 36 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 et son interpretation par les tribunaux constituent une atteinte à la liberté d’expression garantie par l’article 10 de la Convention… La Cour observe que l’application de l’article 36 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 portant sur le délit d’offense tend à conférer aux chefs d’Etats un régime exorbitant du droit commun, les soustrayant à la critique seulement en raison de leur function ou statut, sans que soit pris en compte son intérêt. Elle considère que cela revient à conférer aux chefs d’Etats étrangers un privilège exorbitant qui ne saurait se conciliar avec la pratique et les conceptions politiques d’aujourd’hui. Quel que soit l’intérêt evident, pour tout Etat, d’entretenir des rapports amicaux et confiants avec les dirigeants des autres pays, ce privilège dépasse ce qui est nécessaire pou atteindre un tel objectif.” Reba urubanza Colombani et Autres c France, n° 51279/99 rwaciwe ku wa 25/06/2002, ibika bya 67 na 68. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 137

105

ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, icyaha yateganyaga kivanirwaho igihano cy’igifungo, gisigara gihanishwa ihazabu y’ama Euros 45.000.101 Icyakora mu mwaka wa 2004, hatowe ingingo ya 52 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 09/03/2004 rivanaho burundu icyaha cyateganywaga n’ingingo ya 36 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 29/07/1881 ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru.102 [137] Urukiko rurasanga mu gihugu cya Suwede, muri rusange icyaha cyo gusebanya gihanishwa ihazabu gusa. Ku bireba abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga n’abahagarariye ibihugu byabo, ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha iteganya ko ibyo birego bikurikiranwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ku busabe bwa Guverinoma.103 Icyakora, inyandiko yitwa Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study igaragaza ko mu Burayi ibihugu nk’Ububiligi, Ubugereki, Ubuholandi na Monaco bigihana gusebya abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga bishingiye ku

101 “L'offense commise publiquement envers les chefs d'Etats étrangers, les chefs de gouvernements trangers et les ministres des affaires étrangères d'un gouvernement étranger sera punie d'une amende de 45 000 euros.” Reba Ordonnance n°2000-916 du 19 septembre 2000 - art. 3 (V) JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002. 102 “L'article 36 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 précitée est abrogé.” 103 “A person who identifies someone as being a criminal or as having a reprehensible way of life, or otherwise provides information liable to expose that person to the contempt of othersis guilty of defamation and is sentenced to a fine… If, in committing an offence referred to in Sections 1–3, a person insults a foreign power by abusing its head of state who is in Sweden or one of its representatives in Sweden, a prosecution for the offence maybe brought by a prosecutor notwithstanding the first paragraph. However, a prosecution may not be brought without authorisation by the Government or whoever is empowered by the Government to give such authorisation.” Reba Chapter 5, Section 5 ya Act 2018:540, amending The Swedish Criminal Code (brottsbalken, SFS 1962:700). Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 138

106

mategeko ashaje cyane (archaic laws) ashyiraho icyaha cya lèse- majesté.104 [138] Ikigaragarira Urukiko ni uko imikorere y’ibihugu idahuye kabone n’ubwo bishinzwe gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano mpuzamahanga amwe. Niyo mpamvu mu rubanza Aziz yaburanaga na Aziz, rwagobotsemo Sultan wa Brunei, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubwongereza rwasanze uretse kuba ntaho amasezerano mpuzamahanga ahatira ibihugu gushyiraho uburyo bwo gukumira igikorwa kibangamiye agaciro k’umukuru w’igihugu, nta n’umuco mpuzamahanga (international customary law) urajyaho utegeka ibihugu gushyiraho ingamba zibuza gusebya abakuru b’ibihugu iyo batari iwabo.105 [139] Urukiko rurasanga ku bijyanye n’ingingo z’amasezerano mpuzamahanga zibukijwe haruguru, inshingano z’ibihugu byayashyizeho umukono harimo n’u Rwanda ari uguha agaciro n’icyubahiro gikwiye abakuru b’ibihugu by’amahanga, abahagarariye ibihugu byabo n’abahagarariye imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda mu gihe bari mu nshingano zabo. N’ubwo rero agaciro k’igihugu kagira ingaruka no ku baturage bacyo ndetse abayobozi bamaze kuvugwa bakaba nabo bagomba kurengerwa mu gaciro kabo, uru Rukiko ruremeranya n’isesengura ryakozwe mu rubanza rwa Colombani rwavuzwe

104 OSCE, Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, March 2017, p.16. 105 “What matters is that the obligation is not an absolute one to prevent an attack on the dignity of a head of state… far from convinced of the existence of a rule of customary international law requiring states to take steps to prevent individuals from insulting foreign heads of state abroad.” Reba urubanza Aziz v. Aziz and Others, Sultan of Brunei Intervening [2007] EWCA Civ 712.

## Page 139

107

haruguru106, ry’uko inshingano z’abanyapolitiki zibahindura abantu ba rubanda (personage public), bigatuma abanyamakuru n’abaturage bakurikiranira hafi ibikorwa n’imyifatire yabo ku buryo hari igihe bigorana kumenya imbibi z’ibikwiye kubavugwaho n’ibidakwiye kubavugwaho. Niyo mpamvu umunyapolitiki asabwa kwihangana kurusha umuturage usanzwe ndetse akanitwararika cyane iyo agiye kuvuga cyangwa gufata ibyemezo ku bintu bitavugwaho rumwe. Umunyapolitiki afite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa n’amategeko mu gaciro ke, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa mu buryo buburizamo ibiganiro ku bibazo bya politiki cyangwa ibibazo biri mu nyungu rusange, ariyo mpamvu irengayobora ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru riteganywa n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko Nshinga ridakwiye kwagurwa cyane. [140] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ntaho mu ngingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange cyangwa mu Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha hateganyijwe ibisabwa kugira ngo ikurikiranacyaha ritangire. Nyamara hari ibindi bihugu bisaba ko ibyaha byo gusebya abakuru b’ibihugu cyangwa abahagarariye ibihugu cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga bikurikiranwa ari uko nibura abo byakorewe babisabye kandi hari imibanire mu bya diplomasi hagati y’ibihugu byombi. Urugero n’ingingo ya 104 a) y’Itegeko Mpanabyaha ry’Ubudage igira iti: “Ibyaha biteganyijwe muri uyu mutwe bizakurikiranwa ari uko Ubudage bugifitanye imibanire mu bya diplomasi

106 Reba urubanza Colombani et Autres v France, n° 51279/99 rwaciwe ku wa 25/06/2002, igika cya 56.

## Page 140

108

n’icyo gihugu, icyo gihugu nacyo cyari gifite icyo cyaha mu mategeko yacyo igihe icyaha cyakorwaga mu Budage, hari ubusabe bwa Guverinoma y’amahanga kugira ngo habe ikurikiranacyaha, Guverinoma y’Ubudage ihaye Ubushinjacyaha uruhushya rwo gutangira ikurikiranacyaha.”107 [141] Urukiko rurasanga rero mu gihe nta ngingo y’Itegeko yihariye ihari iteganya uburyo icyaha giteganywa n’ingingo 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange gikurikiranwa, bituma buri kantu kose n’akatari ngombwa gashobora gukurikiranwa nk’icyaha, ndetse bigashoboka ko Umukuru w’Igihugu cy’u Rwanda, uhagarariye u Rwanda mu mahanga cyangwa umunyarwanda uhagarariye umuryango mpuzamahanga, ari mu mahanga, akorerwa ibikorwa bisa n’ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo, ariko uwabikoze ntabihanirwe n’inkiko mpanabyaha z’icyo gihugu kuko cyo kidafata ibyo bikorwa nk’ibigize icyaha. [142] Urukiko rurasanga rero ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iha umwihariko w’umurengera umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga n’abahagarariye ibihugu cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda, ikaba ituma badashobora gukorwaho inkuru zibanenga bitewe gusa n’imyanya barimo cyangwa inshingano zabo hatitawe ku kamaro k’iyo nkuru, ibyo bikaba bituma iyo ngingo

107 “Offences under this chapter shall only be prosecuted if the Federal Republic of Germany maintains diplomatic relations with the other state, reciprocity is guaranteed and was also guaranteed at the time of the offence, a request to prosecute by the foreign government exists, and the Federal Government authorizes the prosecution.” Reba Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code), former article 104 a. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 141

109

inyuranya n’ihame ry’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru riteganywa n’ingingo ya 38, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nshinga. [143] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga. II.3. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [144] BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga ko umunyamakuru afite inshingano zo kurinda abamuha amakuru n’ubwo bitabujijwe ko akorana n’izindi nzego. Basobanura ko akazi k’umunyamakuru gafite umwihariko wo kubika amakuru bityo ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ikaba idakwiye kumufata nk’undi uwo ariwe wese, ko kumushyiraho inshingano zo kuvuga aho yakuye inkuru bishobora kubangamira uburenganzira bwe bwo gutanga ibitekerezo. Bashingira ibisobanuro byabo ku byemezo by’inkiko bavuga ko zemeje ubudahangarwa bw’abanyamakuru mu gutanga ubuhamya. Batanga urugero rw’urubanza Branzburg yaburanaga na Hayes, aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika rwasanze abanyamakuru bafite ubudahangarwa iyo basabwa gutanga ubuhamya.108

108 Reba urubanza Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 142

110

[145] Bavuga ko ibyemejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Amerika bihura n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko no 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru mu Rwanda riha umunyamakuru uburenganzira bwo kutavuga aho yakuye amakuru mu rwego rwo kubahiriza ihame ku ibanga rye.109 Bavuga ko gukurikirana no gukora iperereza ku munyamakuru kubera ko yanze gutanga amakuru bibangamiye ubwisanzure yemererwa n’Itegeko Nshinga hamwe n’Itegeko rigenga Itangazamakuru. Bongeraho ko kutavuga isoko y’aho umunyamakuru yakuye inkuru ari ingenzi, bikaba bigomba kurindwa nka bumwe mu buryo bumufasha gusohoza inshingano ze. [146] Bakomeza bavuga ko ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko n° 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iteganya ko “umunyamakuru afite uburenganzira busesuye bwo kugera aho ari ho hose yakura inkuru, ubwo guperereza mu bwisanzure ku bintu birebana n’imigendekere y’Igihugu, kandi akanabitangaza hubahirizwa ibiteganywa n’iri tegeko n’andi mategeko”. Bavuga ko iyi ngingo atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda kuko nko muri Canada hari itegeko ririnda ibanga ry’isoko y’amakuru “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques”,110 ingingo yaryo ya 39.1 (2) ikaba iteganya ko umunyamakuru ashobora kwanga

109 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “ibanga ry’umunyamakuru rigomba kubahirizwa ku birebana n’aho yataye inkuru, aho yakuye ibyo yanditse, ibyo yafashe mu majwi cyangwa mu majwi n’amashusho cyangwa ibyo yafotoye, kimwe n’inkuru yataye akayibika ku buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga. Icyakora, urukiko rushobora gutegeka umunyamakuru kuvuga aho yakuye amakuru, igihe bibaye ngombwa ko hakorwa iperereza cyangwa ikurikiranabyaha”. 110 Reba L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18, riboneka kuri https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/loisa/lc- 2017-c-22/derniere/lc-2017-c- 22.html. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 143

111

kugaragaza isoko y’inkuru ye,111 akayigaragaza gusa iyo byasabwe n’Urukiko nabwo ari uko ayo makuru adashobora kuboneka mu bundi buryo, biri mu nyungu z’ubutabera ku kibazo cy’ingenzi mu rubanza ruburanwa kandi hamaze gusuzumwa ingaruka zo kugaragaza isoko y’inkuru ku watanze iyo nkuru.112 [147] Bavuga kandi ko ibyo bigaragaza ko mu Gihugu cya Canada, umunyamakuru avuga aho yakuye amakuru gacye kandi ko usaba ko hagaragazwa isoko y’amakuru ari we werekana ko ibisabwa byagenwe n’itegeko byuzuye.113 Bavuga ko umurongo nk’uyu wemejwe kandi n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe ikiremwa muntu aho mu rubanza SANOMA UITGEVERS B.V. yaburanaga n’Ubuholandi rwavuze ko

111 “Sous réserve du paragraphe (7), un journaliste peut s’opposer à divulguer un renseignement ou un document auprès d’un tribunal, d’un organisme ou d’une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements pour le motif que le renseignement ou le document identifie ou est susceptible d’identifier une source journalistique”. Reba ingingo ya 39.1 (2), ya “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” (L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18). 112 “le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ne peut autoriser la divulgation du renseignement ou du document que s’il estime que les conditions suivantes sont réunies: 1) le renseignement ou le document ne peut être mis en preuve par un autre moyen raisonnable; 2) l’intérêt public dans l’administration de la justice l’emporte sur l’intérêt public à préserver la confidentialité de la source journalistique, compte tenu notamment : (i) de l’importance du renseignement ou du document à l’égard d’une question essentielle dans le cadre de l’instance, (ii) de la liberté de la presse, (iii) des conséquences de la divulgation sur la source journalistique et le journaliste”. Reba ingingo ya 39.1 (7), ya “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” (L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18). 113 Il incombe à la personne qui demande la divulgation de démontrer que les conditions énoncées au paragraphe (7) sont remplies. Reba ingingo ya 39.1 (9), ya “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” (L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18). Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 144

112

uburenganzira bw’umunyamakuru bwo kurinda isoko y’inkuru ari kimwe mu bikumira ukwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru.114 Bavuga kandi ko muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rwemeje ko kurinda inkomoko y’inkuru ari ingenzi mu bihugu bigendera kuri demokarasi kuko kwivanga mu bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bihabanye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 10 y’Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Iburayi areba uburenganzira bwa muntu, uko kwivanga kukaba kwakwemerwa gusa ku mpamvu zikomeye z’inyungu rusange.115 [148] Bavuga ndetse ko amahame agenga ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru no kubona amakuru muri Afurika (Déclaration de Principes sur la Liberté D’expression et l’Accès à l’Information en Afrique yo muri 2019) yemejwe na Komisiyo Nyafurika y’Uburenganzira bwa Muntu (Commission Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples), atanga umurongo ngenderwaho. Bavuga ko ihame rya 25 rigamije kurengera isoko y’inkuru n’ibikoresho by’abanyamakuru (la protection des

114 Le droit pours les journalistes de protéger leurs sources fait partie de la liberté de « recevoir ou de communiquer des informations ou des idées sans qu'il puisse y avoir ingérence d'autorités publiques » consacrée par l'article 10 de la Convention et il en constitue l'une des garanties essentielles. Il s'agit là d'une pierre angulaire de la liberté de la presse, sans laquelle les sources pourraient se montrer réticentes à aider la presse à informer le public sur des questions d'intérêt général. La presse pourrait alors être moins à même d'assumer son rôle vital de chien de garde, et sa capacité à fournir des informations précises et fiables au public pourrait s'en trouver amoindrie. Reba urubanza Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas, n° 38224/03, 14 /09/2010. 115 “Eu égard à l'importance de la protection des sources journalistiques pour la liberté de la presse dans une société démocratique, une ingérence ne peut être jugée compatible avec l'article 10 de la Convention que si elle est justifiée par un impératif prépondérant d'intérêt public … », Reba urubanza Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays- Bas, n° 38224/03, 14/09/2010, igika cya 54. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 145

113

sources et autres matériels journalistiques) riteganya ko abanyamakuru badategetswe kugaragaza isoko y’inkuru cyangwa ikindi kintu icyo aricyo cyose babitse ku bw’impamvu z’umurimo wabo keretse bisabwe n’Urukiko nabwo bikaba ari ngombwa ku bw’impamvu z’iperereza ku byaha bikomeye, bikaba bitaboneka hakoreshejwe ubundi buryo kandi biri mu nyungu rusange. Bavuga ko iryo hame rinongeraho ko Leta itagomba guca inyuma ihame ry’ibanga ku isoko y’amakuru ngo igenzure itumanaho rikoreshwa n’abanyamakuru itabiherewe uburenganzira n’Urukiko kandi hagashyirwaho n’ingamba zikwiriye kugira ngo ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru bwubahirizwe.116 [149] Basoza kuri iyi ngingo bavuga ko guhana umunyamakuru wanze gutanga ubuhamya cyangwa ibimenyetso afite ku ikorwa ry’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye mu nzego z’ubutabera, bibangamira ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru harimo no kutavuga aho yakuye amakuru, bityo ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018

116 “1. Les journalistes et autres professionnels des médias ne sont pas obligés de révéler leurs sources d’informations confidentielles ou de révéler tout autre matériel détenu à des fins journalistiques, sauf lorsque cette révélation a été ordonnée par un tribunal, après une audience publique complète et équitable. 2. La révélation de ces sources d’information ou matériels journalistiques telle qu’ordonnée par un tribunal, ne peut intervenir que lorsque : a. l’identité de la source est nécessaire à l’enquête ou à l’instruction concernant un crime grave ou à la défense d’une personne accusée d’une infraction pénale ; b. l’information ou les informations similaires menant au même résultat ne peuvent pas être obtenues ailleurs ; et c. dans le cas de la révélation des sources, l’intérêt public prime sur l’entrave à la liberté d’expression. 3. Les États ne contournent pas la protection des sources d’informations confidentielles ou des matériels journalistiques par la surveillance des communications, sauf lorsque cette surveillance est ordonnée par un tribunal impartial et indépendant et est soumise à des garanties appropriées”. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 146

114

riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ikaba inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [150] Me MBONIGABA Eulade, uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko ibibujijwe cyangwa ibisabwa abandi bibujijwe cyangwa bisabwa n’abanyamakuru, ariko by’umwihariko abanyamakuru bakaba basabwa gufasha mu kurwanya no gukumira ibyaha by’ubugome no kutabangamira ikurikiranacyaha. Avuga ko ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko no 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru ntaho ibuza umunyamakuru gutanga ubuhamya, ndetse ko kugira ibanga bitavuze kudatanga ubuhamya mu nzego zibishinzwe, cyane cyane ko n’izo nzego zigira ibanga ku buhamya bwatanzwe ndetse n’uburyo zirindamo uwatanze ubwo buhamya ntamenyekane. [151] Avuga ko ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko “Abantu bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko kandi ko Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe”, naho ingingo ya 41, iya 43 n’iya 48 z’Itegeko Nshinga zigateganya ko ubwisanzure bw’umuntu buzitirwa n’ubw’abandi bantu hamwe n’imyitwarire iboneye, bivuze ko kuba umunyamakuru ataravanguwe mu bandi ahubwo bituma ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange yubahiriza Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga ko inkiko nk’umurinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, arizo zisuzuma niba koko kudatanga ubuhamya cyangwa kutagaragaza ibimenyetso byafatwa nk’icyaha. [152] Asobanura ko ingingo ya 83 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iteganya ko icyaha kiryozwa uwagikoze, naho iya 9 y’Itegeko no 02/2013 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 147

115

ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru ikavuga ko ubwisanzure bwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo kumenya amakuru butagomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire iboneye, bivuze ko impungenge BYANSI Samuel Baker agaragaza zo kuba yabangamirwa n’uko hari ibyo ashobora gutangaza bigafatwa uko bitari, cyangwa akitirirwa amakuru atamuturutseho, ntazo yagakwiye kugira. Asoza avuga ko ingingo ya 8, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko no 02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iteganya ko “ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru n’ubwo kumenya amakuru (bwemewe) kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Ubwo bwisanzure bukoreshwa hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’amategeko”, bivuze ko nawe arebwa n’ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange ndetse n’andi mategeko, byumvikanisha ko iyo ngingo ndetse n’izindi zaregewe ntaho zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [153] Ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga yibukijwe haruguru ishyiraho ihame ry’uko ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buremewe kandi bwubahirizwa na Leta. Icyakora ubwo bwisanzure ntibugomba kubangamira ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imyifatire mbonezabupfura, ukurengera urubyiruko n’abana, n’uburenganzira bw’umwenegihugu bwo kugira icyubahiro n’agaciro, ubwo kutagira uwivanga mu mibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango we. Uburyo bushyirwa mu bikorwa ndetse bwubahirizwa biteganywa n’amategeko. [154] Ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iteganya ko: Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 148

116

“Umuntu wese uzi akarengane k’umuntu ukurikiranywe cyangwa wakatiwe kubera icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye, wanga ku bushake bwe, gutanga ubuhamya mu nzego z’ubutabera, aba akoze icyaha. Iyo abihamijwe n’urukiko, ahanishwa igifungo kitari munsi y’umwaka umwe (1) ariko kitarenze imyaka ibiri (2) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda atari munsi y’ibihumbi magana atatu (300.000 FRW) ariko atarenze ibihumbi magana atanu (500.000 FRW). Umuntu wese ufite ibimenyetso ku ikorwa ry’icyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye, wanga ku bushake bwe gutanga ubuhamya mu nzego z’ubutabera, ahanishwa ibihano bimwe n’ibiteganyijwe mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo.” [155] Ingingo ya 5 y’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iteganya inshingano z’ibanze z’umunyamakuru zikurikira: 1° kumenyesha amakuru; 2° kwigisha abaturage no guteza imbere imyidagaduro; 3° guharanira ubwisanzure mu gutangaza amakuru, mu kuyasesengura no mu kugira icyo ayo makuru avugwaho. Naho ingingo ya 13 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko “ibanga ry’umunyamakuru rigomba kubahirizwa ku birebana n’aho yataye inkuru, aho yakuye ibyo yanditse, ibyo yafashe mu majwi cyangwa mu majwi n’amashusho cyangwa ibyo yafotoye, kimwe n’inkuru yataye akayibika ku buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga. Icyakora, urukiko rushobora gutegeka umunyamakuru kuvuga aho yakuye amakuru, igihe bibaye ngombwa ko hakorwa iperereza cyangwa ikurikiranabyaha.” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 149

117

[156] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange imaze kuvugwa ishyiraho ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye ry’uko nta muntu ugomba kurengana ndetse ko ibyaha by’ubugome n’ibyaha bikomeye bidakwiye guhishirwa ahubwo bikwiye guhanwa. Igika cya mbere kireba umuntu watangiye gukurikiranwa cyangwa warangije gukurikiranwa n’inzego z’ubutabera ku cyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa icyaha gikomeye ariko arengana. Ihana rero umuntu uzi ako karengane ntatange umusanzu wo kukagaragaza kugira ngo ukurikiranywe cyangwa uwarangije gukurikiranwa agirwe umwere. Igika cya kabiri kireba ikorwa ry’icyaha cyaba icy’ubugome cyangwa igikomeye, noneho umuntu ufite amakuru ku ikorwa ryacyo akanga nkana gutanga ubuhamya bwafasha inzego z’ubutabera gukurikirana icyo cyaha cyangwa kugihana mu buryo bukwiye. [157] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 5 n’iya 13 z’Itegeko n°02/2013 ryo ku wa 08/02/2013 rigenga itangazamakuru iyo zisomewe hamwe zumvikanisha ko inshingano nyamukuru z’umunyamakuru ari uguteza imbere inyungu rusange, amenyesha rubanda amakuru, yigisha abaturage, ateza imbere imyidagaduro ndetse aharanira ko umwuga w’itangazamakuru utera imbere kurushaho. Uburyo abonamo ayo makuru n’uburyo ayatara akaba aribyo birindwa n’ibanga ry’umwuga we mu rwego rwo guteza imbere itangazamakuru. Ikibazo akaba ari ukumenya aho iryo banga rigarukira ku bijyanye n’ibyaha by’ubugome cyangwa bikomeye umunyamakuru yakozeho inkuru cyangwa yamenye ari mu nshingano ze. Ikindi cyibazwa n’icyo kumenya niba ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itegeka umunyamakuru gukora ibisabwa nayo hatabanje kugaragazwa icyemezo cy’Urukiko giteganywa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko rigenga itangazamakuru. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 150

118

[158] Urukiko rurasanga mu burenganzira ku butabera buboneye harimo n’ubwo kutaryozwa icyaha umuntu atakoze buteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu rubanza rwa Kabasinga Florida, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye ko ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye rigizwe n’ibice bibiri: ibijyanye n’imigendekere y’urubanza (procedural due process) n’ibijyanye n’uburenganzira n’inshingano by’ukurikiranweho icyaha biteganywa n’Itegeko (substantive due process).117 Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga ni imwe mu zishyira mu bikorwa intego Abanyarwanda bihaye mu iranganshingiro ry’iryo Tegeko yo “kubaka Leta igendera ku mategeko (state governed by the rule of law), ishingiye ku iyubahiriza ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu, ku bwisanzure no ku ihame ry’uko Abanyarwanda bose bareshya imbere y’amategeko n’iry’uburinganire hagati y’abagore n’abagabo”. [159] Urukiko rurasanga ibanga ry’inkomoko y’inkuru rirengerwa n’ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko rigenga itangazamakuru ari irijyanye koko n’umwuga akora. Iby’ibanga ry’akazi ariko si umwihariko w’abanyamakuru. Bireba imyuga yose ihura n’amabanga kubera imiterere yayo nk’ubuvuzi, ubwunganizi mu mategeko, abashinzwe imari n’abandi. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ibanga rya Avoka rimubuza kumenyekanisha ikorwa ry’ibyaha, mu rubanza People yaburanaga na Francis Belge, Robert Garrow yabwiye aba Avoka bamwunganiraga ko uretse umuntu umwe akurikiranyweho kwica, hari n’abandi yishe, abashushanyiriza n’aho yabahambye, bahageze bahasanga koko imibiri yabo ariko banga kubimenyesha inzego zibishinzwe ku bw’ibanga ry’akazi. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa New York rwasanze ibanga hagati ya Avoka n’umukiliya we ritarengera

117 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwaciwe ku wa 4/12/2019, igika cya 13. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 151

119

ibintu byose, ko n’ubwo rigomba kwitabwaho, Avoka afite inshingano hashingiwe ku mahame asanzwe ya kimuntu yo kurengera inyungu z’ubutabera n’umuryango rusange.118 Iri hame ry’uko ibanga ry’akazi atari ndakumirwa ryanagarutsweho mu rubanza Jespers yaburanaga n’Ububiligi, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rusanga gutanga amakuru ku bimenyetso bishobora gufasha uregwa biri mu nyungu z’ubutabera bikaba bigomba gutangwa kare kugira ngo bibyazwe umusaruro ukenewe.119 Naho mu rubanza A na bagenzi be baburanaga n’Ubwongereza, urwo Rukiko rwasanze ibijyanye n’umutekano w’igihugu ari irengayobora ku ibanga ry’umwuga kuko biri mu nyungu rusange.120 [160] Urukiko rurasanga umuhanga Jonathan Herring nawe avuga ko ku bijyanye n’ubuvuzi, ibanga rishobora kumenyekanishwa kugira ngo harengerwe inyungu rusange, icyo gihe hagashyirwa ku munzani uburemere bw’inyungu rusange n’ubw’inyungu bwite z’umurwayi n’iz’imikoranire hagati y’umurwayi n’umuganga.121 Jo Samanta na Ash Samanta nabo bavuga ko kumenyekanisha ikorwa ry’icyaha gikomeye nk’ihohotera rishingiye ku gitsina, ubwicanyi, gukubita no

118 “We note that the privilege (attorney-client) is not all encompassing and that in a given case there may be conflicting considerations. We believe that an attorney must protect his client’s interests, but also must observe basic human standards of decency, having due regard to the need that the legal system accord justice to the interests of society and its individual members.” Reba urubanza People v Belge, 50 AD 2nd 1088, 377 NYS 2d 771 (1975) at 41. 119 Jespers v Belgium n° 8403/78, 16/12/1992. 120 Reba urubanza A and Others v United Kingdom, n° 3455/05, 11/01/2011, igika cya 206. 121 Jonathan Herring, Medical Law and Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 231 and 241. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 152

120

gukomeretsa, guhohotera abana, kugambanira igihugu cyangwa ikindi cyaha cyose gishobora guteza abantu akaga biri mu nyungu rusange. Basobanura ko bene ibyo byaha ari irengayobora rishobora gutuma inzego z’Ubugenzacyaha zihabwa amakuru ubundi yari abitse nk’ibanga.122 Mu rubanza Hunt yaburanaga na Mann, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubwongereza rwasanze umuganga wavuye umuntu wakomerekeye mu mpanuka yo mu muhanda yateje ku bushake, imenyerewe nka hit and run, atakwihisha inyuma y’ibanga ry’akazi ngo yange gutanga amakuru yafasha inzego z’umutekano kuko ayo makuru aba ari mu nyungu rusange.123 [161] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo rero ikorwa ry’ibyaha ndetse n’ikurikirana ryabyo bishobora gukorwaho inkuru, ntabwo inyungu z’ukekwaho gukora icyaha wakozweho inkuru zarutishwa inyungu rusange z’ikurikiranacyaha n’ihanwa ryacyo cyangwa ngo zishyirwe hejuru y’inyungu zo kurenganura ukurikiranyweho icyaha atakoze. Ibimaze gusobanurwa mu bika bibanziriza iki byumvikanisha ko umunyamwuga, yaba umunyamakuru, avoka, umuganga cyangwa undi uwo ari wese adakwiye kugira uwo afasha gukora icyaha cyangwa guhishira ikorwa ryacyo kubera ko ikorwa ry’icyaha ritari mu mabanga agengwa n’amategeko y’umwuga. Nta n’ubwo kandi ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru bwarutishwa uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye ku buryo umunyamakuru yakwemererwa kureka no kurebera abantu b’inzirakarengane bakurikiranweho ibyaha batakoze kugeza ubwo babihaniwe kandi afite ibimenyetso byatuma batarengana.

122 Jo Samanta and Ash Samanta, Medical Law, London, Palgrave, 2015, p. 76 123 Reba urubanza Hunter v. Mann [1974] 1QB 767. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 153

121

[162] Urukiko rurasanga ku bireba itangazamakuru by’umwihariko, mu rubanza Cornellisen yaburanaga n’Ubushinjacyaha hamwe n’uwitwa Zeelie, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Afurika y’Epfo rwarasanze nta budahangarwa abanyamakuru bafite bwatuma badatanga ubuhamya mu nkiko ku makuru babonye mu gihe bari mu kazi kabo.124 Naho mu rubanza Nel yaburanaga na Le Roux, Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga muri Afurika y’Epfo rusobanura ko inyungu zo kurengera uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga harimo n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru zigomba kureberwa hamwe n’iz’Ubushijnajcyaha mu kubona amakuru y’ingenzi yatuma ibyaha bikurikiranwa, aho bishoboka hakagenderwa ku ihame rigezweho mu bindi bihugu nka Amerika aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaho rwemeje mu rubanza rwa Branzburg ko rubanda ifite uburenganzira ku bimenyetso bifitwe n’uwo ari we wese.125 [163] Urukiko rurasanga muri urwo rubanza Branzburg yaburanaga na Hayes, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika rwarasobanuye ko ivugurura rya mbere ry’Itegeko Nshinga ryemeje ihame ry’ubwisanzure

124 “…there is no legal privilege in terms of which journalists have immunity from the compulsory giving of evidence on information which they have obtained in the course of their work.” Reba urubanza S v Corelissen; Cornelissen v Zeelie No en andere 1994 (2) SACR 41 (W). 125 “In balancing these interests (right to equality, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression), regard must be had to both the right asserted and the state’s interest in securing information necessary for the prosecution of crimes- an interest recognized in other democratic societies including the United States, where it is accepted that the investigative authority of the grand jury rests largely on “the long standing principle that ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence (Branzburg v Hayes, 408 U.S. 655, 689-693 (1972)” Reba urubanza Nel v Le Roux No and Others 1996 (1) SACR 572 (CC). Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 154

122

bw’itangazamakuru ntaho ribuza ko umunyamakuru atanga ubuhamya mu Rukiko ku makuru yabonye mu ibanga, rusobanura ko ibyo abanyamakuru basaba byo gusesengura Itegeko Nshinga ku buryo, ibijyanye n’ubuhamya butangwa n’abanyamakuru, byashyirirwaho umwihariko udafitwe n’abandi baturage, nta shingiro bifite.126 [164] Hakurikijwe umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza rumaze kuvugwa, ikigaragara n’uko BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavugisha urwo rubanza ibyo rutavuga kuko ntaho ruvuga ko abanyamakuru bakwiye gushyirirwaho umwihariko utuma badatanga ubuhamya cyangwa batamenyekanisha ibyaha bafitiye amakuru. Byongeye kandi, nyuma y’igihe gito urwo rubanza ruciwe, haje ikindi kirego mu rubanza Zurcher yaburanaga na Stanford Daily nacyo gisaba guha ubudahangarwa abanyamakuru kugira ngo badasakwa n’inzego z’iperereza. Muri urwo rubanza Stanford Daily yakekwagaho kuba ibitse amafoto y’abantu barwanyije Polisi mu myigaragambyo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga na none rwasanze kuba icyo kinyamakuru ubwacyo ataricyo gikurikiranyweho icyaha, bitabuza ko gisakwa mu gihe bikekwa ko ibintu bikwiye gusakwa no gufatirwa aricyo kibibitse.127

126 “We are asked to create another (privilege) by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.” Reba urubanza Branzburg v Hayes, 408 U.S. 655, 689-693 (1972). 127 A State is not prevented …from issuing a warrant to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of the place to be searched is not reasonably suspected of criminal involvement. The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of crime, but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the "things" to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.” Reba urubanza Zurcher v Stanford Daily 436 U.S. 547, 553-560 (1978). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 155

123

[165] Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza Cohen yaburanaga na Cowless Media Co, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Amerika na none rwarasobanuye ko bitafatwa ko ingingo rusange z’amategeko zibangamira ivugurura rya mbere ry’Itegeko Nshinga bitewe gusa n’uko ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryazo rishobora gutuma abanyamakuru badakora neza inshingano zabo zo gutara no gutangaza inkuru.128 Uku kandi ni nako Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Canada rwabisanze mu rubanza National Post yaburanaga n’Ubushinjacyaha aho rwabisobanuye neza muri aya magambo: “…lorsque les circonstances le requièrent, les tribunaux respectent la promesse de confidentialité faite à une source secrète par un journaliste ou un directeur de la rédaction. L'intérêt du public à ce que lui soit communiquée l'information sur des sujets susceptibles de n'être mis au jour qu'avec la collaboration de sources secrètes n'est toutefois pas absolu. Il doit être mis en balance avec d'autres intérêts publics importants, comme la conduite d'enquêtes criminelles. Dans certaines situations, des intérêts publics opposés l'emporteront sur l'intérêt public à protéger la source secrète contre toute divulgation et, en pareil cas, une promesse de confidentialité ne justifiera pas la rétention de la preuve.”129 [166] Umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza rwa National Post ugaragaza ko ibyo BYANSI Samuel Baker n’abamwunganira bavuga by’uko ingingo ya 39.1. (2) ya la Loi sur la protection

128 “generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the Press has incidental effect on its ability to gather and report the news.” Reba urubanza Cohen v Cowless Media Co, 501 U.S. 663 (1991). 129 Reba urubanza R. v. National Post [2010] 1 R.C.S. at p. 480. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 156

124

des sources journalistiques iha abanyamakuru bo muri Canada ubudahangarwa ku buryo batemerewe gutanga ubuhamya bugaragaza isoko y’inkuru bataye cyangwa ngo basabwe kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyaha bafite, nta shingiro bifite. Igika cya karindwi cy’iyo ngingo ahubwo gisobanura uburyo umunyamakuru asabwa gutanga ubuhamya cyangwa kugaragaza ibimenyetso abitse.130 Agace ka b) kavuga ko inyungu rusange z’ubutabera bunoze ziri hejuru y’inyungu rusange yo kurengera ibanga ku nkuru y’umunyamakuru. Ibindi bisobanuro bitangwa n’iyo ngingo n’ibifasha mu gufata icyemezo cyo gutuma ibyari ibanga bimenyekanishwa, muri ibyo harimo akamaro k’amakuru akenewe mu rubanza, gusuzuma niba byarutishwa ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru no gushyira ku munzani ingaruka zo kumena iryo banga kuri nyiraryo n’umunyamakuru waribikijwe. Ibi byose bikaba bitafatwa nk’ibibuza umunyamakuru kuba yatanga ubuhamya cyangwa yagaragaza ibimenyetso by’icyaha cyakozwe ahubwo bishyiraho imirongo y’uburyo gutanga ubuhamya cyangwa kugaragaza ibyo bimenyetso bigomba gukorwa.

130 “Le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ne peut autoriser la divulgation du renseignement ou du document que s’il estime que les conditions suivantes sont réunies: a) le renseignement ou le document ne peut être mis en preuve par un autre moyen raisonnable; b) l’intérêt public dans l’administration de la justice l’emporte sur l’intérêt public à préserver la confidentialité de la source journalistique, compte tenu notamment: (i) de l’importance du renseignement ou du document à l’égard d’une question essentielle dans le cadre de l’instance, (ii) de la liberté de la presse, (iii) des conséquences de la divulgation sur la source journalistique et le journaliste.” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 157

125

[167] Urukiko rurasanga guhanira umuntu icyaha atakoze uretse kuba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 18, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko Nshinga, ntibikwiye kwihanganirwa mu isi tugezemo. Umunyamakuru ntiyasaba rero guhabwa uburenganzira bwo gutanga umusanzu we mu kubaka igihugu kirimo uburenganzira, ubwisanzure kandi kigendera ku mategeko, ngo yongere asabe n’ubwo kutagaragaza ibimenyentso by’uko hari uwimwe ubwo burenganzira n’ubwisanzure ku bw’akarengane. Byongeye kandi, inshingano z’umunyamakuru n’uruhare rwe mu kubaka igihugu kigendera ku mategeko bimutegeka kutinumira mu gihe yabonye amakuru ku ikorwa ry’icyaha gikomeye cyangwa cy’ubugome kuko bibangamiye bwa burenganzira n’ubwisanzure ndetse n’amahame y’igihugu kigendera ku mategeko wa munyamakuru aharanira, abaye atabigaragarije ibimenyetso kandi abifite, byasubiza igihugu inyuma kuko abakoze ibyaha bikomeye batakurikiranwa ngo banaryozwe icyaha bakoze nyamara hari uwari ufite amakuru kuri icyo cyaha n’uruhare rwabo. [168] Urukiko rurasanga inshingano zo gutanga ubuhamya n’izo kugaragaza ibyaha byakozwe bitagarukira ku munyamakuru gusa kuko biri mu nyungu rusange z’ubutabera n’igihugu, ariyo mpamvu irengayobora ryashyizweho n’ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange rikwiye, bityo rikaba ritafatwa nk’irinyuranyije n’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru buteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. III. UMWANZURO RUSANGE [169] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ruhereye ku bisobanuro rwatanze kuri buri ngingo, rurasanga ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 158

126

ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, mu bigize imibereho bwite y’umuntu harimo n’amajwi, amafoto, amashusho n’inyandiko bwite kuko ari bimwe mu bintu by’ingenzi biranga nyirabyo kandi bimutandukanya n’abandi. Buri wese afite rero uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana uburyo byafashwe, bibikwa cyangwa bitangazwa. Ubwo burenganzira bukubiyemo n’ubwo kwanga kumvirizwa, kwanga ko amajwi, amafoto amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite bifatwa, bibikwa, bitangazwa, bisakazwa cyangwa bivanwamo kopi nyinshi. Naho ubundi haba hari ikintu cy’ingenzi cya nyirabyo kigenzurwa n’undi kandi nyir’ubwite akaba adafite ububasha bwo gukurikirana icyo kumviriza, amajwi, amafoto, amashusho cyangwa inyandiko bwite bye byakoreshwa. Ibi bituma uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite buba inkomyi ku bwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. [170] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, umunyamakuru utangaje ku bw’inabi ifoto, imvugo cyangwa amashusho amaze kubihindura ntabivuge aba anyuranyije n’imikorere ya kinyamwuga kandi ashobora gutera akaga nyirabyo kuko rubanda bakeka ko ibyatangajwe ari umwimerere kandi ataribyo. [171] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga. Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, gukwiza amakuru atari ay’ukuri cyangwa icengezamatwara bigamije kwangisha Leta ntibyafatwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 159

127

nk’ibigize ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru kandi bisenya igihugu na demokarasi. Niyo mpamvu hakwiye kwiyambazwa amategeko y’ubwoko butandukanye harimo n’amategeko mpanabyaha kugira ngo hagaragazwe ko bitemewe ndetse bice intege abifuza kubyishoramo. [172] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Inshingano z’ibihugu, hashingiwe ku masezerano no ku muco mpuzamahanga, ni uguha abakuru b’ibihugu, abahagarariye ibihugu byabo cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda iyo bari mu kazi agaciro n’icyubahiro bibakwiye. Umunyapolitiki afite uburenganzira bwo kurengerwa n’amategeko mu gaciro ke, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa mu buryo buburizamo ibiganiro ku bibazo bya politiki cyangwa ibibazo biri mu nyungu rusange. Ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange iha umwihariko w’umurengera umukuru w’igihugu cy’amahanga n’abahagarariye ibihugu cyangwa imiryango mpuzamahanga mu Rwanda, ikaba ituma badashobora gukorwaho inkuru zibanenga bitewe gusa n’imyanya barimo cyangwa inshingano zabo hatitawe ku kamaro k’iyo nkuru, ibyo bikaba bituma iyo ngingo inyuranya n’ihame ry’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. [173] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Nibyo koko ibyaha n’ikurikirana ryabyo bikwiye gukorwaho inkuru. Ariko, ntabwo inyungu z’ukekwaho gukora icyaha wakozweho inkuru zarutishwa inyungu rusange z’ikurikiranacyaha n’ihanwa ryacyo Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 160

128

cyangwa ngo zishyirwe hejuru y’inyungu zo kurenganura ukurikiranweho icyaha atakoze. Umunyamwuga, yaba umunyamakuru, avoka, umuganga cyangwa undi uwo ari wese ntakwiye kugira uwo afasha gukora icyaha cyangwa guhishira ikorwa ryacyo kubera ko ikorwa ry’icyaha bitari mu mabanga agengwa n’amategeko y’umwuga. IV. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [174] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na BYANSI Samuel Baker gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 156, iya 157, iya 194, iya 218 n’iya 251 z’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [175] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 156 y’Itegeko nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga; [176] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 157 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga; [177] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 194 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 z’Itegeko Nshinga; [178] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 218 y’Itegeko n° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 15 n’iya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo ikaba nta gaciro ifite; ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 161

129

[179] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [180] Rutegetse ko uru rubanza rutangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [181] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko nº 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange itanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [182] Rutegetse ko uru rubanza rutangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Re. BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 162

130

## Page 163

131

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 164

132

## Page 165

133

UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/ INJUST/ RP 00001/2019/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Rukundakuvuga na Muhumuza J.) 23 Ukuboza 2020] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza – Ubwigarike – Mu gihe umuburanyi agaragarije urukiko ko atavuga rumwe n’umwunganizi we urukiko rukabirengaho, afatwa nk’aho atari yunganiwe. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Ubushinjacyaha burega Habinshuti icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana witwa U.H wari ufite imyaka 17 y'amavuko. Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko uregwa ahamwa n’icyaha, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 10. Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. Uregwa yarongeye ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ubujurire bwe burakirwa mu ibanzirizasuzuma, nyuma y’ivugururwa ry’inzego z’ubucamanza n’amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko, dosiye yoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. Uru Rukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwe butari mu bubasha bwarwo hashingiwe rushingiye ku kuba mu rubanza rujuririrwa uregwa atarahawe igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu, akaba ataragaragaje ko habayemo kwica amategeko ku buryo bukomeye cyangwa ko hakozwe amakosa mu buryo bukomeye byateye akarengane. Nyuma y’aho urwo rubanza ruciriwe, uregwa yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane maze nyuma yo gusuzuma ikibazo yagejejweho, 133

## Page 166

134

Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeza ko rwandikwa mu bitabo byabugenewe kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. Muri Uru Rukiko uregwa akaba yaraburanye avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rutagombaga gusuzuma iyakirwa ry’ubujurire kubera ko bwoherejwe muri urwo rukiko bwaramaze kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kandi ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwaciye urubanza uregwa yigaritsemo umwunganizi we rutabanje gusuzuma ibyerekeranye n’ubwo bwigarike. Ubushinjacyaha bwo baburanye buvuga ko nta kosa Urukiko rwakoze kuko rwahereye ku nzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yari yatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha kandi ko nubwo uregwa yigaritse umwunganizi we, yamwigaritse nta mpamvu agaragaje. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu gihe umuburanyi agaragarije urukiko ko atavuga rumwe n’umwunganizi we urukiko rukabirengaho, afatwa nk’aho atari yunganiwe. Urubanza RPAA00342/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ruvanyweho, rukaba rusimbuwe n’uru; Ubujurire bwa kabiri bwakozwe n’uregwa ntibugomba kwakirwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 85, igika cya 5 Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryagengaga imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 28 n’iya 34. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 167

135

Itegeko N° 51/2009 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 ryagengaga ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 178. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha na Uwinkindi, RPA 0020/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 04/04/2014, igika cya 13. Ubushinjacyaha na Uwinkindi, RPA/GEN/0004/16/CS rwaciwe ku wa14/10/2016, igika cya 21. Rutabayiro et al vs Mukamabano, RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0023/16/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/09/2019. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Ubushinjacyaha burega Habinshuti Eric icyaha cyo gusambanya umwana witwa U. H wari ufite imyaka 17 y'amavuko. [2] Ku wa 18/07/2017, urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza RP00465/2016/TGI/NYGE, rwemeza ko Habinshuti Eric ahamwa n’icyaha aregwa, rumuhanisha igifungo cy’imyaka 10. [3] Habinshuti Eric yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza RPA00701/17/HC/KIG ku wa 30/11/2017, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite. [4] Habinshuti Eric yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 20/12/2017, ubujurire bwe burakirwa mu ibanzirizasuzuma, UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI

## Page 168

136

nyuma y’ivugururwa ry’inzego z‘ubucamanza n’amategeko agenga ububasha bw’inkiko, dosiye yoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. [5] Ku wa 07/11/2018, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwaciye urubanza RPAA00342/2018/CA, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Habinshuti Eric butari mu bubasha bwarwo hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igice cya 2, agace ka 9, y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga1, rushingiye ku kuba mu rubanza rujuririrwa Habinshuti Eric atarahawe igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu, akaba ataragaragaje ko habayemo kwica amategeko ku buryo bukomeye cyangwa ko hakozwe amakosa mu buryo bukomeye byateye akarengane. [6] Nyuma y’aho urwo rubanza ruciriwe, Habinshuti Eric yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [7] Nyuma yo gusuzuma ikibazo yagejejweho, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko rwandikwa mu bitabo byabugenewe kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe [8] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 01/12/2020, mu buryo bwa video conference, Habinshuti Eric ari muri Gereza ya Mageragere aho afungiye, Me Habimana

1 Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite kandi ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rw’ubujurire imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, iyo izo manza zagenwemo igifungo kingana nibura n’imyaka icumi (10) mu gihe umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma yasanze harabaye kwica amategeko mu buryo bukomeye cyangwa harakozwe amakosa mu buryo bukomeye yatumye habaho akarengane. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 169

137

Emmanuel umwunganira ari mu rukiko naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric. [9] Habinshuti Eric na Me Habimana Emmanuel umwunganira baburanye bavuga ko: - Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rutagombaga gusuzuma iyakirwa ry‘ubujurire kubera ko bwoherejwe gusuzumwa muri urwo rukiko bwaramaze kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga; - Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwaciye urubanza Habinshuti Eric yigaritsemo umwunganizi we rutabanje gusuzuma ibyerekeranye n‘ubwo bwigarike; [10] Ku birebana n’ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rutaragombaga gusuzuma iyakirwa ry‘ ubujurire bwa Habinshuti Eric kubera ko bwoherejwe gusuzumwa muri urwo rukiko bwaramaze kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Habinshuti Eric na Me Habimana Emmanuel umwunganira baburanye bavuga ko ubujurire bwe yabutanze hakoreshwa Itegeko N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryateganyaga mu ngingo yaryo ya 28, igika cya 2, agace ka 9 ko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rwa kabiri imanza zatanzwemo igifungo kingana nibura n’imyaka 10, iyo umucamanza w’ibanzirizasuzuma asanze harabaye kwica amategeko mu buryo bukomeye cyangwa harakozwe amakosa mu buryo bukomeye byateye akarengane. [11] Bavuga kandi ko Urukiko rw‘Ikirenga rwari rwarakiriye ikirego cye mu ibanzirizasuzuma, rwaramuhaye n’itariki yo kuburana, ko rero Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwohererejwe urubanza nyuma y‘ivugururwa ry’inkiko n’inzego z’ubucamanza rutari UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI

## Page 170

138

kuvuguruza Urukiko rw’ikirenga ruvuga ko rudafite ububasha bwo kuruburanisha. [12] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko nta kosa Urukiko rwakoze kuko rwahereye ku nzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yari yatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. [13] Nyuma yo kumva ababuranyi, Urukiko rwafatiye mu ntebe icyemezo gikurikira : i. Ingingo ya 178 y’Itegeko n° 51/2009 ryo ku wa 09/09/2008 ryagengaga ububasha bw’inkiko igihe Habinshuti Eric yajuriraga mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ryateganyaga ko amategeko agenga ububasha bwo kuburanisha imanza z’inshinjabyaha ari indemyagihugu. Urukiko rusanga ibi ubwabyo byumvikanisha ko ari inshingano y‘inteko yashyikirijwe urubanza gusuzuma ibijyanye n‘ububasha bwo kuruburanisha. ii. Urukiko rurasanga icyemezo cyafashwe n‘Umwanditsi Mukuru w‘Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku iyakirwa ry’ikirego hashingiwe ku bubasha yahabwaga n‘ingingo ya 34 y’Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryakurikizwaga igihe Habinshuti Eric yatangaga ubujurire bwe, atari icyemezo cy’ubucamanza cyubahirizwa uko cyakabaye iyo cyarangije inzira z’ubujurire, ahubwo ari icyemezo kijyanye n’imitunganyirize y’akazi k’inkiko gishobora kongera gusuzumwa n’inteko iburanisha urubanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 171

139

iii. Ibimaze kuvugwa bihuye n‘umurongo wemejwe mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’uru rukiko2, aho rwasobanuye ko kuba Umwanditsi Mukuru w’Urukiko yakiriye ikirego akacyandika mu gitabo cy’ibirego, bitabuza inteko iburanisha urubanza gusuzuma ibijyanye n’ububasha bw’urukiko n’ibijyanye n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego. iv. Hashingiwe kuri ibyo bisobanuro, Urukiko rurasanga nta cyabuzaga inteko y’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yashyikirijwe urubanza gusuzuma iyakirwa ry‘ubujurire no kurifataho icyemezo ikurikije amategeko yagengaga ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga igihe Habinshuti Eric yajuriraga muri urwo rukiko. [14] Ku birebana n’ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwaraciye urubanza Habinshuti Eric yigaritsemo umwunganizi we rutabanje gusuzuma ibyerekeranye n‘ubwo bwigarike, Habinshuti Eric yaburanye avuga ko avoka bari bamuhaye ngo amwunganire, ariwe Me Gatarayiha Simon, yaje kumureba bucya urubanza ruburanishwa ku wa 07/11/2018, amusaba ko areka ubujurire bwe ngo kuko abona nta karengane kari mu rubanza ajuririra, ntibabyumvikanaho, iburanisha ritangiye aramwihana abwira umucamanza ko batavuga rumwe, umucamanza ntiyita ku bwigarike yakoze, akomeza kuburanisha, ndetse afatira icyemezo mu ntebe cyo kutakira ubujurire bwe, gishingiye kubyo avoka yigaritse yavugiye mu iburanisha no kubyo yanditse mu myanzuro yashyize muri system, akaba rero

2 Urubanza RPA0020/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 04/04/2014, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Uwinkindi Jean, igika cya 13; urubanza RPA/GEN/0004/16/CS rwaciwe ku wa14/10/2016, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Uwinkindi Jean, igika cya 21. UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI

## Page 172

140

asanga yararenganye kuko yapfukiranywe ntiyahabwa umwanya wo kuburana [15] Me Habimana Emmanuel yavuze ko ingingo ya 89, igika cya 4 y‘Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y'imanza z'imbonezamubano, iz'ubucuruzi, iz'umurimo n'iz'ubutegetsi ivuga ko iyo umuburanyi yigaritse umwunganira, umucamanza ahagarika iburanisha akabanza gufata icyemezo ku bwigarike mbere y’uko urubanza rukomeza, kuba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rutaritaye ku bwigarike bwakozwe na Habinshuti Eric, urubanza rugakomeza, ndetse avoka wigaritswe akabazwa n’ibyo yavuze bigashingirwaho, asanga ari akarengane kuko Habinshuti yimwe ubutabera ateganyirizwa n’amategeko. [16] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha yavuze ko nubwo Habinshuti Eric yigaritse umwunganizi we, yamwigaritse nta mpamvu agaragaje. [17] Nyuma yo kumva ababuranyi, Urukiko rwafatiye mu ntebe icyemezo gikurikira: i. Ingingo ya 85, igika cya 5 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga no mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire nta muburanyi wemerewe kwiburanira atunganiwe na avoka. ii. Inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ry’urubanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire igaragaraza ko iburanisha rigitangira Habinshuti Eric yavuze ko atavuga rumwe na avoka yahawe ngo amwunganire ariko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 173

141

ko urwo rukiko rwakomeje iburanisha nk’aho ntacyabaye. iii. Iyo nyandikomvugo igaragaza kandi ko uwunganiraga Habinshuti Eric atuzuzanyaga na we mu myiregurire ye kuko yabwiye urukiko ko ubujurire bwe bwa kabiri butujuje ibisabwa n’amategeko kugira ngo bwakirwe mu gihe Habinshuti Eric we yifuzaga ko bwakirwa bukaburanishwa. iv. Urukiko rusanga kuba Habinshuti Eric yaragaragaje ko atavuga rumwe n’uwamwunganiraga, ndetse n’uyu akabigaragaza mu miburanire ye, iburanisha rigakomeza hatitawe kuri uko kutavuga rumwe, byumvikanisha ko Habinshuti Eric yaburanye mu byukuri atunganiwe, bityo ko yavukijwe uburenganzira yemererwa n’amategeko bwo kunganirwa kandi mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire no mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ari ihame ko umuntu aburana yunganiwe. v. Urukiko rwemeje ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko rw‘Ubujurire nta gaciro gifite, ko rero arirwo rugiye gusuzuma ibyagombaga gusuzumwa n’urwo rukiko, ruhereye ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na Habinshuti Eric mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bwaragombaga kwakirwa hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n‘ingingo ya 28 y‘Itegeko N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI

## Page 174

142

by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryakoreshwaga igihe yatangaga ubujurire bwe. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A. Kumenya niba ubujurire bwa kabiri bwatanzwe na Habinshuti Eric mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bwaragombaga kwakirwa. [18] Habinshuti Eric na Me Habimana Emmanuel umwunganira bavuga ko ubujurire bwe bwari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga igihe yabutangaga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 28, igika cya 2, agace ka 9 y‘Itegeko N° 03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga iteganya ko rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha mu rwego rwa kabiri imanza zatanzwemo igifungo kingana nibura n’imyaka 10, iyo habayemo kwica amategeko mu buryo bukomeye cyangwa hakozwemo amakosa mu buryo bukomeye yatumye habaho akarengane, ari nabyo byabaye mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. [19] Bavuga ko amategeko yishwe mu buryo bukomeye, bigatuma Habinshuti Eric arengana, ari ingingo ya 9 y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, iteganya ko ikintu cyitwa icyaha iyo habaye kugambirira n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ibuza guca imanza ku buryo bugenekereje mu manza nshinjabyaha kuko Habinshuti Eric yahamijwe icyaha Ubushinjacyaha butagaragaje umugambi yagize wo gusambanya umwana, ndetse hashingiwe ku bimenyetso bigenekereje birimo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 175

143

icyemezo cya muganga, icyemezo cy‘amavuko n’indangamuntu kandi atari ibimenyetso byizewe byemewe n’amategeko bishobora kugaragaza imyaka y’umuntu, ko rero ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 28, igika cya 2, agace ka 9 y‘Itegeko N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga byari byuzuye kugira ngo ikirego cye cyakirwe. [20] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Habinshuti Eric na Me Habimana Emmanuel batagaragaza amategeko yishwe kandi ko Habinshuti Eric yemeraga icyaha, bivuze ko yemeraga ibimenyetso byashingiweho mu kumuhamya icyaha. [21] Ababuranyi basabwe guhuza ubujurire bwa Habinshuti Eric n’ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 28, igika cya 5, y‘Itegeko N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 ryavuzwe, Me Habimana Emmanuel avuga ko icyo gika batigeze bagisesengura, ko n’ubwo inkiko zose zemeje ko Habinshuti Eric atsinzwe ariko impamvu zashingiweho atari zimwe, ko buri rukiko rwakoze isesengura ryarwo ritandukanye n’iry’urundi. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha we avuga ko Habinshuti Eric yatsinzwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru ku mpamvu zimwe kuko yemeraga icyaha bigahura n’ibindi bimenyetso byari byatanzwe, akaba rero asanga kubera iyo mpamvu ubujurire bwe bwa kabiri butari bukwiye kwakirwa. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [22] Ingingo ya 28 y’Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ryakurikizwaga Habinshuti Eric atanga ikirego iteganya mu gika cyayo cya kabiri, kuva mu gace ka UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI

## Page 176

144

mbere kugeza ku gace ka cyenda, impamvu zituma imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi cyangwa Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare zijya mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, mu gace kayo ka munani hakavugwamo kuba izo manza zaragenwemo igifungo kingana nibura n’ imyaka icumi (10) mu gihe habayemo kwica amategeko mu buryo bukomeye cyangwa hakozwemo amakosa mu buryo bukomeye yatumye habaho akarengane. Nanone iyo ngingo iteganya mu gika cyayo cya gatanu ko (icyakora) urubanza umuburanyi yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe rudashobora kujuririrwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga. [23] Imyandikire y’iyo ngingo igaragaza ko ibiteganywa n’igika cya gatanu ari irengayobora ku biteganyijwe mu bika bikibanziriza, bivuze ko ubujurire butakirwa mu gihe bigaragara ko uwajuriye yatsinzwe mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe. [24] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, bigaragara muri kopi y’urubanza rwaciwe n‘Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ko muri urwo rukiko Habinshuti Eric yatsinzwe hashingiwe ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Kuba kuva mu Bugenzacyaha, yaremeye icyaha akanagisabira imbabazi; - Kuba raporo ya muganga igaragaza ko U. H atwite; - Kuba icyemezo cy’amavuko n’indangamuntu bya U. H bigaragaza ko yavutse ku wa 24/05/1999, bivuze ko Habinshuti Eric yamusambanyije atarageza ku myaka y’ubukure; ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 177

145

- Ku birebana n’imyireguriye ya Habinshuti Eric ko atari azi ko U.H. atarageza ku myaka 18, rwasanze bitahabwa agaciro kuko bari bamaranye ubushuti imyaka itatu yose, ku buryo atari kuyoberwa imyaka ye iyo abyitaho; - Ku birebana n’imyiregurire ya Habinshuti Eric ko yasembuwe (provocation) na U.H. kuko yamusabye kumusura, rwasanze bidashoboka ko umwana asembura umuntu mukuru, cyane cyane ko nawe ubwe yivugira ko baryamanye inshuro eshatu zose kandi mu bihe bitandukanye. [25] Izo mpamvu ni nazo zakomeje gutsinda Habinshuti Eric mu Rukiko Rukuru kuko ntacyo rwazivugurujeho cyangwa ngo rugire ubundi busesenguzi rukora, ahubwo rushingiye ku mpamvu ze z’ubujurire, rwasobanuye ko kuba U.H. yaramusabye kumusura bidasobanura ko yamusembuye, kandi ko kuba yaraburaga iminsi mike ngo akwize imyaka 18 bidakuraho ko yari akiri umwana. [26] Urukiko rurasanga rero ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa Habinshuti Eric butaragombaga kwakirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga kuko yatsinzwe mu rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu zimwe. [27] Urukiko rusanga icyakora Habinshuti Eric, niba abona hari akarengane yagiriwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, agifite amahirwe yo gusaba ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kuko ubu urwo rubanza aribwo rubaye ndakuka nk’uko uru Rukiko rwabitanzeho UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABINSHUTI

## Page 178

146

umurongo3. Apfa gusa kubahiriza ibyo amategeko ateganya, ni ukuvuga kwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire4 amusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu (30) ahereye igihe yamenyesherejwe imikirize y‘ uru rubanza5. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [28] Rwemeje ko urubanza RPAA00342/2018/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 7/11/2018 ruvanyweho, rukaba rusimbuwe n’uru ; [29] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa kabiri Habinshuti Eric yakoze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga butagombaga kwakirwa.

3 Reba urubanza RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0023/16/CS, Rutabayiro et al vs Mukamabano rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/09/2019. 4 Ingingo ya 58 y’Itegeko n° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, iteganya ko iyo umuburanyi abonye hari akarengane kagaragara mu rubanza rwe, yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rukuriye urwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa nyuma, akaba ariwe usuzuma ako karengane 5 Ingingo ya 56 y’Itegeko n° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, iteganya ko iyo umuburanyi abonye hari akarengane kagaragara mu rubanza rwe, yandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rukuriye urwaciye urubanza ku rwego rwa nyuma, akaba ariwe usuzuma ako karengane. Ushaka ko urubanza rwe rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, abisaba urwego rubishinzwe mu nyandiko ikubiyemo impamvu ashingiraho mu gihe kitarenze iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye ku munsi yamenyesherejwe imikirize yarwo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 179

147

URUBANZA RWEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA ZASABIWE GUSUBIRISHWAMO KU MPAMVU Z’AKARENGANE

## Page 180

148

## Page 181

149

UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/CA– (Nyirandabaruta, P.J., Mukandamage, Rugabirwa, J.) 31 Werurwe 2021] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza zasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Inzitizi yatuma urubanza rutaburanishwa mu mizi – Mu kirego gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego ntigarukira ku nzitizi yo kwibeshya ku bihe byo gutanga ikirego gusa, mu gihe iyo nzitizi ari indemyagihugu ishobora kubyutswa n’umuburanyi cyangwa Urukiko rubyibwirije igihe icyo ari cyo cyose. Amategeko agenga ubutaka – Umutungo utimukanwa – Ibisabwa kugirango witwe nyirumutungo – Kugira icyemezo cy’umutungo ntibihagije kugirango hemezwe ko umutungo ari uw’ umuntu hashingiwe gusa ku kuba icyemezo cy’umutungo kimwanditseho, ahubwo agomba kugaragaza aho yawukomoye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyirambabazi yandikiye Minisitiri w’Imirimo ya Leta n’Ingufu (MINITRAPE) asaba inzira ahahoze ruhurura yari itagikoreshwa kugira ngo abone uko yinjira iwe, kuko aho yari asanzwe anyura mu kibanza cy’umuturanyi we yari amaze kuhafunga, maze Minisiteri imumenyesha ko inzira yasabye ayemerewe, ariko akaba ari we ugomba gutunganya aho hantu yirinda kurengera abaturanyi kandi akubahiriza imbago z’ibiti zihasanzwe. Nyuma, Rwendeye nawe yandikiye MINITRAP asaba aho hantu hari ruhurura ngo ahomeke ku kibanza cye, arahahabwa, ariko 149

## Page 182

150

nyuma MINITRAP iza kubona ko habaye amakosa, iramwandikira imumenyesha ko icyemezo cyari cyafashwe cyo kumuha ahantu yari yasabye ngo homekwe ku kibanza cye giteshejwe agaciro, kuko byakozwe ku bwo kwibeshya. Muri iyo baruwa kandi, yavuze ko ibipimo by’ikibanza cye bigomba gukosorwa, kikagumana ibipimo cyahawe nk’uko biri mu nyandikomvugo yerekeye ipimwa n’ishyirwaho ry’imbibi, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa kugeza ubwo yagurishije ikibanza cye, Habimana n’umugore we, bahaguze bafunga ya nzira, Uwamahoro ntiyongera kubona uko ajya cyangwa ava iwe, nk’uko byari bisanzwe, ndetse n’imodoka yari afite mu rugo rwe ihamamo kuko yabuze aho ayinyuza kugeza ubwo. Uwamahoro yiyambaje inzego zitandukanye kugira ngo afungurirwe inzira, maze Akarere ka Gasabo kandikira Habimana kamusaba gukosoza «Titre de propriété n° 1120 (ikibanza cyahoze ari 5056) kugira ngo havanweho agace karimo inzira, kuko atari umutungo we, imanza zitangira ubwo. Habimana yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo asaba kuvanaho icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo cyamusabaga gukosoza Titre de propriété yavuzwe, Urukiko rwemeza ko nta makosa yakozwe ku buryo icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo cyavanwaho. Yakijuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza ruvuga ko icyemezo cy’Akarere kimusaba gukosoza Titre de propriété cyafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha, rukivanaho. Uwamahoro nawe yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge arega Habimana, asaba gutesha agaciro icyangombwa cy’umutungo n° 1120 cyahoze gifite n o 5056, Urukiko rwemeza ko ikirego cye kitakiriwe, kuko kitari mu bubasha bw’Urugereko ruburanisha imanza mbonezamubano, ahubwo kiri mu bubasha bw’Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi. Ibi byatumye atanga ikindi kirego muri uru ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 183

151

Rukiko arega Habimana n’Ikigo cy’Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda, asaba kuvana inzira yateganyijwe na Leta, nk'inzira rusange umuntu wese yakoresha, muri Titre de propriété ye. Uru Rukiko rwasanze inzitizi yatanzwe n’abaregwa y’uko Urega nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kurega nta shingiro ifite; maze mu mizi y’urubanza, rwemeza ko ikirego cy’Urega nta shingiro gifite ndetse hakaba hari imanza zaciwe mbere zabaye itegeko. Urega yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru, arusaba gusuzuma niba imanza zaciwe mbere zarabaye itegeko, kandi niba zaraburanishije ibijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement, no gusuzuma niba yari ifite nimero Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yasimbuwe na UPI 1/02/13/03/1120 yakosorwa. Uru Rukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ikirego cye kitakiriwe, kuko cyafashweho icyemezo mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 16/01/2015, rusanga ibindi rwasabwe gusuzuma nta mpamvu yo kubisuzuma, kuko ikirego cy’iremezo kitakiriwe. Urega yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, amusaba gusuzuma akarengane kabaye mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 27/02/2020, nyuma yo gusuzuma ubusabe bwe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeza ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kugira ngo abe ari rwo ruruburanisha. Urega yagaragaje akarengane ke mu rubanza rusubirwamo avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije gusuzuma niba imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko kandi niba zaraburanishije ibijyanye no gukosora UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 184

152

certificat d’enregistrement, asaba gusuma niba iyo certificat yahindurwa ikavanwaho inzira yari yarahawe akayitunganya, gutegeka Uregwa kwirengera igihombo yatejwe n’imodoka ye yafungiranye mu gipangu ubwo yamufungiraga inzira n’indishyi zitandukanye. Uregwa avuga ko Urega nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kuregera inzira rusange muri uru rubanza, ko ibyo aregera byaburanwe mu manza zabaye itegeko, ko kandi ataribo baryozwa igihombo aregera. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG ku mpamvu z’akarengane cyatanzwe n’Urega, kidakwiye kwakirwa kuko nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kurega, Uregwa avuga ko ikirego cy’Urega kidakwiye kwakirwa, kuko yagitanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ntigisuzumwe, agategereza ko cyasuzumwa muri uru rubanza, yitwaje ibaruwa nyina yandikiwe na MINITRAPE itarigeze ishyirwa mu bikorwa, Leta ikaba igifite ubwo butaka; ko kuba rero bukiri ubwayo nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kuburegera, uretse igihe yaba yerekanye ubutumwa yahawe bwo gutanga ikirego mu izina ryayo. Urega avuga ko iyakirwa ry’ikirego cy’akarengane ryasuzumwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga baracyakira, ko iyi nzitizi idakwiye kwakirwa ngo isuzumwe, kuko mu gihe hasuzumwa ibijyanye n’akarengane habanza gusuzumwa ibijyanye n’inyungu n’ububasha bw’uwatanze ikirego, bikaba bitakongera gusuzumwa imbere y’uru Rukiko. Akomeza avuga ko n’ubwo umutungo wanditse k’Uregwa, bitabuza uwo ari we wese uwufiteho inyungu kuwuregera, ko inzira iburanwa ayifiteho inyungu kuko imufasha gutaha iwe, byongeye kandi akaba yari yarayitunganyije kuko mbere hari ruhurura. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 185

153

Ikigo cy’Igihugu gishinzwe umutungo kamere cyo kivuga ko Urukiko rwaburanisha ikirego rugasuzuma niba Urega yari afite ububasha n’inyungu byo gutanga ikirego kuva na mbere, kuko izi ngingo zagiye ziburanishwa mu manza zabanje. Ikindi ni uko Urega atagaragaza uburenganzira afite ku butaka buburawa, kubera ko kuva urubanza rwatangira icyaregerwaga cyari ugusaba Urukiko kugitegeka kuvana inzira ku cyangombwa gifite titre de propriété kandi ibyo bikaba bitari gushoboka mbere y’uko agaragaza uburenganzira afite kuri ubwo butaka bukomoka ku rubanza yatsinze rumuha ibyo asaba, cyangwa ubwumvikane yaba yaragiranye n’Uregwa, nyir’ubutaka. Ku ngingo ijyanye no kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rutarasuzumye impamvu Urega yatanze ajurira y’uko imanza zavuzwe haruguru zitabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement kandi zitaburanishije ibijyanye nayo, Urega asobanura ko habaye imanza nyinshi cyane, hakaba kwibeshya ko zabaye itegeko. Avuga kandi ko izo manza zimaze gucibwa, Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’umwuga yaje kurangiza urubanza, abiregeye Urukiko rwemeza ko iryo rangizarubanza ryubahirijwe amategeko, ariko ko we yabonaga ko imanza zarangijwe zitabaye itegeko ku ikosorwa rya certificat d’enregistrement. Akomeza asobanura ko impamvu abona ko izo manza zitabaye itegeko, ari uko mu rubanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE Urukiko rwemeje ko rudafite ububasha, ntihagire ikindi cyemezo gifatwa mu mizi y’urubanza, naho mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, hakaba harasuzumwe niba Akarere ka Gasabo kari gafite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo kandi niba icyemezo kafashe cyavanwaho, ntihagira ikindi gisuzumwa mu byari byajuririwe, Urukiko rwemeza ko icyo cyemezo cy’Akarere kivanweho, ko UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 186

154

utemera ukuri kuvugwa muri certificat d’enregistrement azayiregera akoresheje inzira zemewe n’amategeko. Uregwa avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye neza ko iki kibazo kirebana no guhindura certificat d’enregistrement cyarangijwe n’imanza zavuzwe haruguru, kuko cyasuzumwe n’inkiko zaziciye kandi ko we n’Urega bazibayemo ababuranyi, ko iyo haba hari uwarenganye aba yarazijuririye, akaba ariho bashingira bavuga ko izo manza zabaye itegeko. Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda cyo kivuga ko izo manza zabaye itegeko, kuko ikiregerwa cyaburanwe kandi cyabaye ndakuka. Akomeza avuga ko iyo usomye urubanza RADA 0025/2014/HC, usanga rwaragumishije ibintu uko byari bimeze mbere, aho Uregwa yari afite titre de propriété na fiche cadastrale akabigumana, rukaba rwaratanze umurongo w’uko cyahindura icyangombwa cyangwa bikaregerwa mu Rukiko, ariko bikaba bitarubahirijwe n’Urega, kuko nta kirego aratanga ngo aho hantu hakurwe ku butaka bw’Uregwa. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba certificat d’enregistrement yari ifite No Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yasimbuwe na UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 yahindurwa igakurwaho inzira rusange, Urega avuga ko umubyeyi we yandikiye Minisitiri w’Imirimo ya Leta n’Ingufu (MINITRAP), asaba gutunganyirizwa ahahoze ruhurura itagikoreshwa iri imbere y’amarembo ye kugira ngo ashobore kubona uko yinjira iwe, kuko aho yanyuraga ku muturanyi we yahafunze, asubizwa ko inzira yasabye ayihawe, ndetse ko ahawe n’uburenganzira bwo kuyitunganyiriza uko ashaka. Akomeza avuga ko uwagurishije Uregwa nawe yariyasabyeguhabwa iyo nzira arayihabwa ariko nyuma Minisiteri imwandikira imubwira ko iyo nzira ayambuwe kuko habayemo kwibeshya ndetse anasabwa kutanga ibyangombwa by’ubutaka bwe ngo bisubizwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 187

155

ku gipimo yari asanganywe ntiyabikora kuko yahagurishije bitarakosorwa. Asobanura ko ibyo avuga bihuye n’ibyavuye mu iperereza, aho bigaragara ko ahaburanwa hari inzira rusange aho kuba ikibanza cy’Uregwa yaje kubakamo umusarane na bingalot, ko ibyavuzwe n’abaregwa ko ruhurura igizwe n’ibice bibiri atari byo. Uregwa avuga ko avuga ko ibyo Urega avuga ko akeneye inzira atari byo kuko ayifite, iburanwa ikaba iri ku cyangombwa cye cy’ubutaka, ariyo mpamvu nta wundi muntu uyifiteho uburenganzira. Akomeza avuga ko impamvu yafunze iyo nzira ari uko Urega yari afite aho anyura ku muhanda wa ruguru, kuko icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo cyari cyavuyeho na raporo yakozwe igaragaza ko afite aho agomba kunyura, ko kandi afite ibyemezo yahawe guhera ku Mujyi wa Kigali kugeza ku Murenge wa Remera, ariyo mpamvu asanga ashingiye kuri ibyo byangombwa no ku manza zabaye itegeko, s yahawe itagomba guhindurwa. Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda kivuga ko mu iperereza ryakozwe, Urukiko rwabonye ko icyitwa inzira rusange atari byo, kuko inzira rusange igira aho ihera naho irangirira. Asaba Urukiko kubona ko Urega afite umuhanda haruguru kandi nta muhanda uteganywa ugera iwe unyuze kw’Uregwa. Yongeraho ko amabaruwa yanditswe mu mwaka wa 1991 ataherwaho ngo Urega ahabwe inzira aburana, kuko nta gaciro agifite, kuko yavanweho n’ibindi byemezo bya Leta kandi n’ubundi by’urwo rwego, byagaragaje ko atahabwa aho hantu, ariyo mpamvu buri wese yagumana aho yahawe, kuko buri wese yafashe igice cya ruhurura agishyira ku butaka bwe. Ikibazo kijyanye no gusuzuma niba Uregwa akwiye gucibwa indishyi zijyanye n’igihombo gikomoka ku gihe imodoka ye UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 188

156

imaze ifungiranwe, Urega avuga ko Uregwa agomba kwirengera igihombo kingana na 42.100.000 Frw yatewe no kuba yarafungiranye imodoka ye kuva muri Kamena 2016 kugeza ubu. Uregwa avuga ko gufunga inzira byakozwe n’Umuhesha w’Inkiko, kandi ko ikirego cyo gufunga inzira Urega yakiburanye n’uwo Muhesha w’Inkiko agatsindwa akaba atakigarura ngo cyongere kuburanishwa, agasanga ntacyo yasabwa kuko Urega yasabwe kuvanamo imodoka ye ubwo harangizwaga urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru akabyanga. Avuga kandi ko nta kigaragaza ko imodoka yari nzima, ko n’ibyo yubatse yabiherewe ibyangombwa. RLMUA ivuga ko ku birebana n’indishyi Urega asaba, Urukiko rwabisuzuma. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Mu kirego gisubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego ntigarukira ku nzitizi yo kwibeshya ku bihe byo gutanga ikirego gusa, mu gihe iyo nzitizi (yo kutakira ikirego) ari indemyagihugu ishobora kubyutswa n’umuburanyi cyangwa Urukiko rubyibwirije igihe icyo aricyo cyose. Bityo, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ububasha n’inyungu byo kurega, ububasha akaba abukomora k’uburenganzira bwari bwarahawe umubyeyi we, kandi akaba afite inyungu yo kurega kuko ibyo yaregeye aramutse abitsindiye yakongera kubona inzira imugeza iwe nta nkomyi. 2. Kugira icyemezo cy’umutungo ntibihagije kugirango hemezwe ko umutungo ari uw’ umuntu hashingiwe gusa ku kuba icyemezo cy’umutungo kimwanditseho, ahubwo agomba kugaragaza aho yawukomoye. Bityo, nta cyabuza ko ibyangombwa byahawe Habimana Anselme bishingiye ku manza zabaye itegeko kandi izo manza nta burenganzira zimuhesha ku butaka buburanwa ngo bihindurwa ku buso bw’ubutaka ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 189

157

buburanwa, kugira ngo inzira rusange iburanwa igera ku rugo rwa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ivanweho. Inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego nta shingiro ifite. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. Amagarama aherera ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 62 n’iya 63. Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 3, 12,14, 81, 83, 111, 129, 161 n’iya 176. Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 11, 12, 37 n’iya 38. Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko ryo ku wa 20 Nyakanga 1920 ryerekeye imitungo itimukanwa, ingingo ya 34. Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa, ingingo ya 23. Imanza zifashishijwe: Busoro na Busoro n’abandi, RS/INJUST/RCOOO22/2018/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 21 Kamena 2019. Harerimana na Sebukayire, RCAA 0018/13/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/12/2014. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 190

158

Rutabayiru na Batamuliza, RCAA 0013/13/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 03 Kamena 2016. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Jean Vicent et Serge Guinchard, Procédure civile 24é ed. Dalloz, Paris, 1996, P.98. Serge Guinchard, Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, 8e éd., Dalloz, Paris, 2014, pp.5,8, 1209. Melina Douchy – Oudot, Procédure civile, 2ed, EJA, Paris, 2006, P. 108. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 22/12/1990, Nyirambabazi Vénantie, yandikiye Minisitiri w’Imirimo ya Leta n’Ingufu (MINITRAPE) asaba inzira ahahoze ruhurura yari itagikoreshwa kugira ngo abone uko yinjira iwe, kuko aho yari asanzwe anyura mu kibanza cy’umuturanyi we yari amaze kuhafunga, maze mu ibaruwa nimero 11.04.04/1974 yo ku wa 20/02/1991, iyo Minisiteri imumenyesha ko inzira yasabye ayemerewe, ariko akaba ari we ugomba gutunganya aho hantu ruhurura yanyuraga, uko bimunogeye, yirinda kurengera abaturanyi kandi akubahiriza imbago z’ibiti zihasanzwe. Nyuma y’uko Nyirambabazi Vénantie yemerewe gutunganya iyo ruhurura, Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille nawe yandikiye MINITRAPE asaba aho hantu hari ruhurura ngo ahomeke ku kibanza cye, ahahabwa ku wa 15/01/1992, ariko nyuma MINITRAP iza kubona ko habaye amakosa, yandikira Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/09/1992, imumenyesha ko icyemezo cyari ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 191

159

cyafashwe cyo kumuha ahantu yari yasabye ngo homekwe ku kibanza cye giteshejwe agaciro, kuko byakozwe ku bwo kwibeshya, kuko aho hantu ari inzira rusange izakoreshwa n’ubyifuza wese. Muri iyo baruwa kandi, MINITRAPE yavuze ko ibipimo by’ikibanza cya Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille bigomba gukosorwa, kikagumana ibipimo cyahawe nk’uko biri mu nyandikomvugo yerekeye ipimwa n’ishyirwaho ry’imbibi (procès-verbal de mesurage et de bornage) nimero 3200 yo ku wa 01/04/ 1981, ariko ibyo ntibyakorwa kugeza ubwo Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille yagurishije ikibanza cye, Habimana Anselme n’umugore we Irere Jeanne Marie Claire, bahaguze bafunga ya nzira, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ntiyongera kubona uko ajya cyangwa ava iwe, nk’uko byari bisanzwe, ndetse n’imodoka yari afite mu rugo rwe ihamamo kuko yabuze aho ayinyuza kugeza ubu. [2] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yiyambaje inzego zitandukanye kugira ngo afungurirwe inzira, maze ku itariki ya 19/09/2012 Akarere ka Gasabo kandikira Habimana Anselme kamusaba gukosoza «Titre de propriété nimero 1120 (ikibanza cyahoze ari 5056) kugira ngo havanweho agace karimo inzira, kuko atari umutungo we, imanza zitangira ubwo. [3] Habimana Anselme yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo asaba kuvanaho icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo kiri mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 19/09/2012, yamusabaga gukosoza Titre de propriété yavuzwe, hacibwa urubanza RAD 0057/13/TGI/NYGE ku wa 28/3/2014, Urukiko rwemeza ko nta makosa yakozwe ku buryo icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo cyavanwaho, Habimana Anselme ajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG ku wa 16/01/2015, ruvuga ko icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo cyo UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 192

160

gusaba Habimana Anselme gukosoza Titre de propriété cyafashwe n’abatabifitiye ububasha, rukivanaho. [4] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nawe yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge arega Habimana Anselme, asaba gutesha agaciro icyangombwa cy’umutungo nimero 1120 cyahoze gifite nimero 5056, Urwo Rukiko ruca urubanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE ku wa 23/04/2015, rwemeza ko ikirego yarushyikirije kitakiriwe, kuko kitari mu bubasha bw’Urugereko ruburanisha imanza mbonezamubano, ahubwo kiri mu bubasha bw’Urugereko rwihariye ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi. [5] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yatanze ikindi kirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge arega Habimana Anselme n’Ikigo cy’Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda, asaba kuvana inzira yateganyijwe na Leta muri Titre de propriété Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku wa 18/06/2012 yasimbuwe n'iyo ku wa 18/04/2016, yahawe Habimana Anselme, kuko guhera ku wa 15/09/1992 iyo nzira yateganyijwe na Leta (MINITRAPE) nk'inzira rusange umuntu wese yakoresha. [6] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE ku wa 18/04/2019, rusanga inzitizi yatanzwe n’abaregwa y’uko urega nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kurega nta shingiro ifite; mu mizi y’urubanza, rwemeza ko ikirego rwashyikirijwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta shingiro gifite, ko rutagomba gutegeka Ikigo Gishinzwe Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda (Ikigo cy'Igihugu Gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere) kuvana inzira ku cyangombwa cya Habimana Anselme kandi hari imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zabaye itegeko. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 193

161

[7] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, arusaba gusuzuma niba imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na n° RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko, kandi niba zaraburanishije ibijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement, no gusuzuma niba certificat d’enregistrement yari ifite nimero Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku 18/06/2012 yasimbuwe na UPI 1/02/13/03/1120 yo ku wa 18/04/2016 yakosorwa. [8] Mu rubanza RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 27/02/2020, haburana Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, Habimana Anselme n’Ikigo cy’Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ikirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kitakiriwe, kuko ikirego yatanze cyafashweho icyemezo mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 16/01/2015, rusanga ibindi rwasabwe gusuzuma nta mpamvu yo kubisuzuma, kuko ikirego cy’iremezo kitakiriwe. [9] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, amusaba gusuzuma akarengane kabaye mu rubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 27/02/2020, nyuma yo gusuzuma ubusabe bwe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko urubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze mu cyemezo nimero 031 /CJ/2020 cyo ku wa 28/9/2020, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeza ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire kugira ngo abe ari rwo ruruburanisha, muri uru Rukiko ruhabwa RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/CA. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 194

162

[10] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yagaragaje akarengane ke mu rubanza rusubirwamo avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije gusuzuma niba imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko kandi niba zaraburanishije ibijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement, asaba gusuma niba iyo certificat d’enregistrement yahindurwa ikavanwaho inzira Nyina Nyirambabazi Vénantie yari yarahawe akayitunganya, gutegeka Habimana Anselme kwirengera igihombo yatejwe n’imodoka ye yafungiranye mu gipangu ubwo yamufungiraga inzira, asaba amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya ba Avoka bamuburaniye. Abaregwa bavuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kuregera inzira rusange (voie publique), muri uru rubanza, ko ibyo aregera byaburanwe mu manza zabaye itegeko, ko kandi ataribo baryozwa igihombo aregera. [11] Urubanza rwahamagawe mu iburanisha mu ruhame ryo ku wa 01/12/2020, Urukiko rusanga ababuranyi bitabye, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yunganirwa na Me Kayijuka Ngabo na Me Bagabo Faustin, Ikigo cy’Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda (RLMUA) gihagarariwe na Me Mbonigaba Eulade, Habimana Anselme yunganiwe na Me Munderere Léopold, uwo munsi ntirwaburanishwa, kuko hari inyandiko abahagarariye urega bashyize muri dosiye bitinze, abaregwa batireguyeho, iburanisha ryimurirwa ku wa 13/01/2021. Uwo munsi ugeze, iburanisha ryarasubukuwe, rusanga ababuranyi bitabye bamwe bunganiwe abandi bahagarariwe nka mbere, haburanishwa inzitizi yatanzwe na Habimana Anselme y’uko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kuregera inzira rusange, hanasuzumwa niba imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko, kandi niba zaraburanishije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 195

163

ibijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement iburanwa muri uru rubanza, niba certificat d’enregistrement nimero Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku italiki ya 18/06/2012 yasimbuwe na UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 yo ku wa 18/04/2016 yakosorwa kugira ngo haboneke inzira rusange yahahoze kuva na mbere. Umunsi iburanisha ntiryapfundikiwe, kuko Urukiko rwasanze ari ngombwa kugera aho ikiburanwa giherereye mbere y’uko urubanza rukomeza, gahunda yo kujyayo ishyirwa ku wa 03/02/2021, iburanisha ryimurirwa ku wa 24/02/2021. [12] Ku wa 24/02/2021, iburanisha ryarasubukuwe, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yunganiwe na Me Kayijuka Ngabo, naho abaregwa bahagarariwe nka mbere, ababuranyi bahabwa umwanya wo kugira icyo bavuga ku byavuye mu iperereza, hanasuzumwa ingingo zasigaye mbere zitaburanishijwe, iburanisha rirapfundikirwa ababuranyi bamenyeshwa ko bazasomerwa urubanza ku wa 26/03/2021 saa tanu, ariko riza kwimurirwa ku wa 31/03/2021. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG ku mpamvu z’akarengane cyatanzwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kidakwiye kwakirwa kuko nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kurega [13] Habimana Anselme na Me Munderere Léopold umwunganira, bavuga ko bashingiye ku ngingo ya 3 n’iya 81 z’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, basanga ikirego Uwamahoro UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 196

164

Mbabazi Liliane yatanze kidakwiye kwakirwa, kuko yagitanze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ntigisuzumwe, agategereza ko cyasuzumwa muri uru rubanza, yitwaje ibaruwa nyina yandikiwe na MINITRAPE itarigeze ishyirwa mu bikorwa, Leta ikaba igifite ubwo butaka; ko kuba rero bukiri ubwayo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta bubasha n’inyungu afite byo kuburegera, uretse igihe yaba yerekanye ubutumwa yahawe (procuration) bwo gutanga ikirego mu izina ryayo. [14] Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko iyo nzitizi Habimana Anselme yatanze igamije gusaba Urukiko kutakira ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ayishingira ku kuba mu nama ntegurarubanza barasabye urega kugaragaza ingingo ashingiraho avuga ko habaye akarengane ntiyazigaragaza. Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, itabuza Urukiko kongera gusuzuma urubanza mu mizi n’inzitizi barugaragarije, akaba ariho ahera asaba ko inzitizi yatanze zasuzumwa. [15] Me Bagabo Faustin na Me Kayijuka Ngabo bunganira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, bavuga ko iyakirwa ry’ikirego cy’akarengane ryasuzumwe na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire na Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga baracyakira, ko iyi nzitizi idakwiye kwakirwa ngo isuzumwe, kuko mu gihe hasuzumwa ibijyanye n’akarengane habanza gusuzumwa ibijyanye n’inyungu n’ububasha bw’uwatanze ikirego, bikaba bitakongera gusuzumwa imbere y’uru Rukiko. Bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RCOOO22/2018/SC, rwaciwe ku wa 21 Kamena 2019, haburana Busoro vs Busoro n’abandi, rwemeje ko inzitizi yatuma urubanza rutaburanishwa mu mizi mu manza z’akarengane, itakirwa ngo isuzumwe, kuko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 197

165

iba yarasuzumwe n’inzego zibishinzwe, uretse igihe byaba bigaragaye ko uwatanze ikirego yaba yararengeje igihe cyo kugitanga. [16] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite mu rubanza, bavuga ko n’ubwo umutungo wanditse kuri Habimana Anselme, bitabuza uwo ari we wese uwufiteho inyungu kuwuregera, ko inzira iburanwa uwo bunganira ayifiteho inyungu kuko imufasha gutaha iwe, byongeye kandi akaba yari yarayitunganyije kuko mbere hari ruhurura. [17] Bavuga kandi ko kuba ubutaka ari ubwa Leta, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane aburana we aburana inzira yahawe umubyeyi we Nyirambabazi Vénantie, ko kuba aho hantu haramufashaga kugera iwe (droit de passage), ubwo burenganzira akaba yarabuvukijwe, kuhaburana bikaba biri mu nyungu ze. [18] Me Mbonigaba Eulade, uburanira RLMUA, avuga ko Urukiko rwaburanisha ikirego rugasuzuma niba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yari afite ububasha n’inyungu byo gutanga ikirego kuva na mbere, kuko izi ngingo zagiye ziburanishwa mu manza zabanje. Ku byerekeye urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC rwavuzwe rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko rudahuye n’ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza kuko icyo rwavugaga ari inzitizi ituma urubanza rutaburanishwa itanzwe bwa mbere mu Rukiko rusuzuma urubanza rw’akarengane, ubu hakaba hasuzumwa niba ikirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane cyari gikwiye kwakirwa mbere hose, kandi byaburanwe mu manza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zabaye itegeko. [19] Me Mbonigaba Eulade akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rukwiye kwemeza ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta nyungu UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 198

166

afite mu rubanza, kuko atagaragaza uburenganzira afite ku butaka buburawa, kubera ko kuva urubanza rwatangira icyaregerwaga cyari ugusaba Urukiko gutegeka Ikigo cy’Igihugu Gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere kuvana inzira ku cyangombwa gifite titre de propriété kandi ibyo bikaba bitari gushoboka mbere y’uko agaragaza uburenganzira afite kuri ubwo butaka bukomoka ku rubanza yatsinze rumuha ibyo asaba, cyangwa ubwumvikane yaba yaragiranye na Habimana Anselme, nyir’ubutaka. [20] Avuga ko ikindi gituma ikirego kitakirwa, ari uko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ashingira ku ibaruwa MINITRAPE yandikiye Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille imusaba ko ahaburanwa haba ahantu rusange, (place publique), ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 11 y’itegeko rigenga ubutaka, ibyo asaba binyuranye n’ibiteganijwe mu ngingo ya 37 y’iryo tegeko itegeka umuturanyi guha undi inzira. Ko akurikije ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 12 agace ka 6, y’itegeko rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, asanga Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane aregera ahantu hatari ahe, akaba ariyo mpamvu avuga ko nta nyungu afite mu rubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [21] Ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko itegenya ko iyo Urukiko rw’Ikirenga cyangwa urundi Rukiko Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga agena rushyikirijwe urubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rurusuzuma mu mizi bundi bushya abarubayemo ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe. [22] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 199

167

iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko ikirego cyakirwa mu rukiko iyo urega afite ububasha, inyungu n’ubushobozi byo kurega, naho ingingo ya 83, igika cya 4, y’iryo tegeko iteganya ko impamvu ituma ikirego kitakirwa ari ingingo yose isaba kutakira ikirego cy’umuburanyi, hatinjiwe mu mizi yacyo, kubera ko adafite uburenganzira bwo kurega, nko kuba adafite ububasha n’inyungu zo kurega. [23] Ingingo ya 129, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko impamvu ituma ikirego kitakirwa igaragazwa mu myanzuro yo kwiregura. Iyo ari indemyagihugu, nko kurenza igihe cyo kujurira, kutagira ububasha, ubushobozi cyangwa inyungu byo kurega, ishobora kubyutswa n’umuburanyi cyangwa urukiko rubyibwirije igihe icyo aricyo cyose. [24] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu yo kurega, abahanga mu mategeko Jean Vicent et Serge Guinchard, mu gitabo cyabo Procédure civile bavuga ko inyungu zigomba kuba ari iz’ako kanya, zavutse kandi zishingiye ku kintu kiriho, zidashingira ku kugenekereza kw’ibizakorwa. Ibyo bihura nanone n’ibyo Serge Guinchard yavuze mu gitabo Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, ko inyungu zigomba kuba iz’umuntu ku giti cye, (personnel) ziriho (né) kandi ari iz’ako kanya (actuel), ko kuba inyungu ari iz’umuntu ku giti cye ari kimwe mu biranga ikirego ko cyatanzwe nawe, kuko ntawe utegetswe kurengera inyungu z’undi muntu. Naho ku bijyanye n’ububasha bwo kurega, undi muhanga mu mategeko, Melina Douchy – Oudot, mu gitabo cye Procédure civile bavuga ko ububasha bufitwe n’umuntu wese ufite inyungu zo gutanga ikirego, kuko ubwo bubasha bwo kurega akenshi bujyana n’inyungu. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 200

168

[25] Dosiye igaragaza ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba gutegeka Ikigo cy'Igihugu Gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere (icyo gihe niko cyitwaga), kuvana inzira rusange yateganyijwe na Leta muri Titre de propriété Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku itariki ya 18/6/2012 yasimbuwe n'iyo ku wa 18/04/2016, cyandikwa kuri RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE, muri urwo rubanza, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeza ko inzitizi zatanzwe n’abaregwa zigamije kutakira ikirego cye nta shingiro zifite, ariko rwemeza ko icyo kirego cyatanzwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta shingiro ifite, ko rutagomba gutegeka icyo Kigo kuvana inzira yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 16/01/2015 rwabaye itegeko. Urwo rubanza rwajuririwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, ubujurire buhabwa RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG (kuri kopi y’urubanza handitswe ko rufite no RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG ku bwo kwibeshya), hasuzumwa ibibazo birimo icyo kumenya niba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ububasha n’inyungu muri uru rubanza, rwemeza ko ibyo aregera byaburanywe mu manza zabaye itegeko, ikirego cye nticyakirwa. [26] Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite inyungu n’ububasha byo kurega, mu rubanza RS RS/INJUST/RC00022/2018/SC, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasesenguye ingingo ya 62 y’Itegeko N°30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, rusanga yumvikanisha ko mbere yo kugira ngo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga afate icyemezo ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, aba yasuzumye neza raporo yashyikirijwe n’inzego zibishinzwe, yasanga nta nzitizi yatuma urubanza rutaburanishwa mu mizi agategeka ko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa, ari nayo mpamvu ingingo ya 63 y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko urukiko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 201

169

rusabwe gusubiramo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane ruruburanisha mu mizi. Rwakomeje rugaragaza ko mu ku biteganya gutyo, umushingamategeko yumvaga ko ibirebana n’inzitizi biba byarangije gusuzumwa, ku buryo kuri uru rwego nta nzitizi iba igomba gutangwa, keretse umuburanyi ashoboye kugaragaza impamvu idasanzwe nko kuba harabayeho kwibeshya ku bihe byo gutanga ikirego. [27] Urukiko rurasanga kuba mu rubanza rwavuzwe haruguru rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, rwavuze ko nta nzitizi igomba gutangwa mu manza z’akarengane, uretse igihe umuburanyi agaragaje impamvu idasanzwe, nko kwibeshya ku bihe byo gutanga ikirego, urwo Rukiko rutarigeze rugaragaza inzitizi zikwiye gutangwa izo ari zo, ariyo mpamvu uru Rukiko rutagarukira ku nzitizi yo kwibeshya ku bihe byo gutanga ikirego gusa, cyane cyane ko itegeko riteganya ko inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego iyo ari indemyagihugu ishobora kubyutswa n’umuburanyi cyangwa Urukiko rubyibwirije igihe icyo aricyo cyose , bityo imvugo y’abahagarariye urega y’uko mu manza z’akarengane nta nzitizi zindi zisuzumwa ikaba idafite ishingiro. [28] Urukiko rusanga inzira iburanwa muri uru rubanza nk’uko biri mu kirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, yari yarahawe Nyirambabazi Vénantie, umubyeyi we akiriho, ayihabwa na MINITRAPE nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, arayitunganya bigatuma ubwe ndetse n’abamugana bashobora kwinjira no gusohoka iwe n’amaguru cyangwa n’imodoka nta nkomyi, bityo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego kuko asimbura umubyeyi we mu burenganzira yari afite kuri iyo nzira. Kuba ubu bidashoboka ko hagira imodoka igera iwe, ndetse n’iyo yari ahafite ikaba yaraheze mu gipangu bitewe nuko iyo nzira yafunzwe na Habimana Anselme, UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 202

170

nabyo byerekana inyungu Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite yo kuregera iyo nzira, kuko kuba Habimana Anselme yarayifunze byamugizeho ingaruka. [29] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo abaregwa bavuga ko iyo nzira ari rusange, ko atari iya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ku buryo yagira inyungu n’ububasha bwo kuyiburana aterekanye uburenganzira yahawe na Leta, nta shingiro bifite, kubera ko kuba ikoreshwa n’abandi bantu, bitavanaho ko nawe ayifiteho uburenganzira nk’inzira yamugezaga iwe, kandi yayitunganyije amaze kubisabira Leta uruhushya akabyemererwa, ayitangaho amafaranga ye kugira ngo abone inzira igera iwe, nyamara ubu akaba yarambuwe ubwo burenganzira. [30] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kugaragazwa haruguru, Urukiko rusanga Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ububasha n’inyungu byo kurega, ububasha akaba abukomora k’uburenganzira bwari bwarahawe umubyeyi we, kandi akaba afite inyungu yo kurega kuko ibyo yaregeye aramutse abitsindiye yakongera kubona inzira imugeza iwe nta nkomyi, bityo inzitizi yatanzwe na Habimana Anselme yo kutakira ikirego cye ikaba nta shingiro ifite. 2. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rutarasuzumye impamvu Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yatanze ajurira y’uko imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA0025/14/HC/KIG zitabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no ukosora “certificate d’enregistrement” kandi zitaburanishije ibijyanye nayo. [31] Me Bagabo Faustin, wunganira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, avuga ko habaye imanza nyinshi cyane, hakaba kwibeshya ko zabaye itegeko. Avuga ko urubanza rwa mbere rukomoka ku kirego cyatanzwe na Habimana Anselme waregeye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 203

171

gutesha agaciro icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo, hacibwa urubanza RAD 0057/13/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeza ko icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo kigumyeho, naho mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Akarere ka Gasabo giteshejwe agaciro, rushingiye ku mpamvu y’uko Akarere atari Urukiko, ko ibikosorwa bigomba gukorwa n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha. [32] Avuga kandi ko izo manza zimaze gucibwa, Umuhesha w’Inkiko witwa Kamanzi yaje kurangiza urubanza, uwo yunganira abiregeye Urukiko rwemeza ko iryo rangizarubanza ryubahirijwe amategeko, ariko ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane we yabonaga ko imanza zarangijwe zitabaye itegeko ku ikosorwa rya certificat d’enregistrement, asaba Ikigo cy’Igihugu Gishinzwe Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda kuvana ku cyangombwa cya Habimana Anselme inzira yari yarahawe umubyeyi we, kirabyanga, atanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge gihabwa RC O129/15/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko rwemeza ko Urugereko ruburanisha imanza mbonezamubano nta bubasha rufite rwo kuburanisha ikirego yatanze, nyuma atanga ikindi kirego mu Rugereko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi, gihabwa RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE (y’ibirego mbonezamubano ku bwo kwibeshya), muri urwo rubanza Urukiko rwemeza ko imanza RC O129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/2014/HC zabaye itegeko, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ajuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, urubanza ruhabwa RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG, umucamanza ntiyasuzuma icyo yari yasabwe gusuzuma cyo kumenya niba izo manza zimaze kuvugwa zarabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosoza certificat d’enregistrement, ahubwo asuzuma ibijyanye n’iyakirwa ry’ikirego. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 204

172

[33] Akomeza asobanura ko impamvu babona ko imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zitabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosoza certificat d’enregistrement, ari uko mu rubanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE Urukiko rwemeje ko rudafite ububasha, ntihagire ikindi cyemezo gifatwa mu mizi y’urubanza, naho mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, hakaba harasuzumwe niba Akarere ka Gasabo kari gafite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo kandi niba icyemezo kafashe cyavanwaho, ntihagira ikindi gisuzumwa mu byari byajuririwe, Urukiko rwemeza ko icyo cyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo kivanweho, ko utemera ukuri kuvugwa muri certificat d’enregistrement azayiregera akoresheje inzira zemewe n’amategeko; ko urwo rubanza rwabaye itegeko ku byerekeranye n’icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo, ariko rutabaye itegeko ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Certificat d’enregistrement yakosorwa nk’uko byasabwe na MINITRAPE. [34] Me Bagabo Faustin akomeza avuga ko mu mwaka wa 2016 RLMUA yandikiye Habimana Anselme ibaruwa imusaba kugarura icyangombwa cye cy’ubutaka kugira ngo gikosorwe hakurwemo inzira rusange kuko ntawe ikwiye kwandikwaho, nk’uko bigaragara mu ibaruwa MINITRAP yandikiye Madamu Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille mu mwaka wa 1992, nyuma Me Munderere Léopold yandikira RLMUA ayigaragariza ko hari imanza zabaye itegeko, ko Habimana Anselme akwiye guhabwa uburenganzira bwo gushyira inzira iburanwa ku butaka bubaruye ku cyangombwa cye, RLMUA ibishingiraho yandikira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ko ibyo yasabye byo gukosora icyangombwa cyo ku wa 18/04/2016 ku kibanza nimer 1120 cyahoze ari nimero 5056 kiri i Remera-Rukiri I cyanditswe kuri Habimana Anselme n’umugore we Irere Marie Jeanne Claire kugira ngo havanweho inzira rusange bidashoboka, ko ariyo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 205

173

mpamvu Leta igomba kubazwa impamvu itashyize mu bikorwa ibyo yari yiyemeje, kuko kuva MINITRAP yandikiye Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille atigeze agarura ibyangombwa ngo bihindurwe, maze Habimana Anselme akabigenderaho ahabwa ibyangombwa byo kuvugurura, agafungira inzira uwo yunganira. [35] Me Kayijuka Ngabo, nawe wunganira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, avuga ko urubanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE rwabaye itegeko ku bijyanye n’uko ikirego kitari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’imbonezamubano, naho urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwabaye itegeko ku bijyanye n’icyemezo cy’Akarere Gasabo, ko rero izo manza zitabaye itegeko ku bijyanye n’icyo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yari yaregeye cyo gukosoza certificat d’enregistrement. [36] Habimana Anselme na Me Munderere Léopold umwunganira, bavuga ko mu gika cya 15 cy’urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye neza ko iki kibazo kirebana no guhindura certificat d’enregistrement cyarangijwe n’imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, kuko cyasuzumwe n’inkiko zaziciye kandi ko we na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane bazibayemo ababuranyi, ko iyo haba hari uwarenganye aba yarazijuririye, akaba ariho bashingira bavuga ko izo manza zabaye itegeko. [37] Me Mbonigaba Eulade, uhagarariye RLMUA, avuga ko imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zabaye itegeko, kuko ikiregerwa cyaburanwe kandi cyabaye ndakuka (autorité de la chose jugée) kuko mu gihe Urukiko rwasesenguraga urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwavuze ko Urukiko ari rwo rufite ububasha bwo gutegeka ko certificat UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 206

174

d’enregistremennt ikosorwa, ariko ko rutategetse Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kurega cyangwa guhindura imitangire y’ikirego cye, kuko uburyo bwonyine yashoboraga gukoresha ari ubujurire budasanzwe buvugwa kuva mu ngingo ya 161 kugeza ku ngingo ya 176 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. Avuga ko n’ubundi ibyo arega RLMUA, yakomeje gushaka kubikora nk’uko bigaragazwa n’amabaruwa ya mbere y’icibwa ry’urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, n’ibaruwa yo ku wa 05/07/2016 icyo kigo cyanditse kitaramenya urwo rubanza rwabaye itegeko, hanyuma ruza rutanga umurongo. [38] Avuga ko iyo usomye urubanza RADA 0025/2014/HC, usanga rwaragumishije ibintu uko byari bimeze mbere, aho Habimana Anselme yari afite titre de propriété na fiche cadastrale akabigumana, rukaba rwaratanze umurongo w’uko Ikigo cy’Igihugu cy’Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda cyahindura icyangombwa cyangwa bikaregerwa mu Rukiko, ariko bikaba bitarubahirijwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, kuko nta kirego aratanga arega Habimana Anselme ngo aho hantu hakurwe ku butaka bwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [39] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana. Naho ingigo ya 14 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, igateganya ko urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma ntirushobora kongera ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 207

175

kuburanishwa bundi bushya ku mpamvu zimwe no ku kiburanwa kimwe hagati y’ababuranyi bamwe baburana ikirego kimwe. [40] Umuhanga mu mategeko Serge Guinchard, avuga ko kugira ngo urubanza rube itegeko ari uko Urukiko ruba rwaburanishije ikirego rwashyikirijwe mu mizi kandi rukagifataho icyemezo ndakuka… Urwo urubanza ruba rugifite agaciro mu gihe nta kindi cyemezo cyarukuyeho binyuze mu nzira y’ubujurire. [41] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko Habimana Anselme yareze Akarere ka Gasabo na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, asaba ko hakurwaho icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo kimurenganya, maze mu rubanza RAD 0057/13/TGI/NYGE, rwemeza ko ibyo Akarere ka Gasabo kakoze byo kumutegeka gusubiza icyangombwa kugira ngo kivanweho inzira bifite ishingiro. Habimana Anselme ntiyabyishimiye ajuririra icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, ruca urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG ku wa 16/1/2015, rwemeza ko Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gasabo yafashe icyemezo adafitiye ububasha, ko icyemezo yafashe kivanyweho. Ku kirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane cyo gukosora certificat d’enregistrement, rwavuze ko ikigomba gusuzumwa atari ukumenya niba certificat d’enregistrement ya Habimana Anselme igomba gukosorwa ngo rusuzume ibimenyetso atanga, kuko icyaregewe ari cyo kigomba gusuzumwa ari ukumenya niba Akarere ka Gasabo kari gafite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo kafashe. [42] Muri dosiye bigaragara kandi ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yareze Habimana Anselme mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, asaba gutesha agaciro icyangombwa cy’umutungo, ikirego cye gihabwa RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE, ariko Urukiko UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 208

176

ntirwagisuzuma, kuko rwasanze Urugereko ruburanisha imanza mbonezamubano rwaregewe rudafite ububasha bwo kukiburanisha, ko ahubwo kiri mu bubasha bw’Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi. [43] Nyuma y’urwo rubanza ruvuzwe haruguru, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yatanze ikindi kirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, mu Rugereko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi, arega RLMUA na Habimana Anselme, asaba Urukiko gutegeka RLMUA (icyo gihe cyitwaga Ikigo Gishinzwe Umutungo Kamere) kuvana inzira yateganyijwe na Leta muri Titre de propriété Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku itariki ya 18/06/2012 yasimbuwe n'iyo ku wa 18/04/2016, ikirego cye gihabwa RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE (n’ubwo ari urubanza rw’ubutegetsi), muri urwo rubanza hakaba harasuzumwe ibijyanye no kumenya niba hari urubanza rwabaye itegeko hagati y’ababuranyi ku buryo ikirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kitagomba kwakirwa; kumenya niba ikirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kitagomba kwakirwa kubera ko nta inyungu afite mu rubanza nta n’ubushobozi afite bwo kurega; kumenya niba ikirego cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kitagomba kwakirwa bitewe nuko yaregera Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’imbonezamubano aho kuregera urw’Ubutegetsi, kumenya niba Urukiko rwategeka ikigo cy’Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka kuvanaho inzira yateganyijwe na Leta muri Titre de propriété Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku itariki ya 18/06/2012 no kumenya niba indishyi Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane asaba yazihabwa akanasubizwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. [44] Nyuma yo gusuzuma izo ngingo z’urubanza, urwo Rukiko mu cyemezo rwafashe ku wa 18/04/2019, rwasanze imanza RC 00129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 209

177

zitarigeze ziba itegeko kuri RLMUA, rusanga Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ubushobozi n’inyungu zo gutanga ikirego (igika cya 11), kandi ko n’ubwo RLMUA itabaye umuburanyi mu manza zimaze kuvugwa, ntacyo Urega yagaragaje gituma ayirega usibye gusaba ko itegekwa kuvana inzira ku cyemezo yaregeye, rwemeza (igika cya 23) ko ibyo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane arega Habimana Anselme yabiburanye mu manza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zabaye itegeko hagati ye na Habimana Anselme. [45] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, asaba ko hasuzumwa niba imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko kandi zaraburabunishije ibijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement iburanwa muri uru rubanza, gusuzuma niba certificat d’enregistrement yari ifite no Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku italiki ya 18/06/2012 yasimbuwe na UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 yo ku wa 18/04/2016, yakosorwa hakavanwaho inzira iburanwa, gusuzuma niba Habimana Anselme yakwirengera igihombo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yatewe no kuba yarafungiranye imodoka ye. Uhagarariye RLMUA yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bugamije gusaba kwishyura ibyagiye ku rubanza, naho Habimana Anselme yongera kuzamura inzitizi y’uko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta nyungu n’ububasha afite bwo gutanga ikirego. [46] Kuri ubwo bujurire, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG, ari narwo rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane (n’ubwo kuri kopi y’urubanza handitse ko ari RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG), rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane butakiriwe kuko UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 210

178

ikirego yatanze cyafashweho icyemezo mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 16/01/2015. [47] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga mu rubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG rumaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru rutarigeze rusuzuma mu mizi impamvu y’ubujurire Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ijyanye no kumenya niba imanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement kandi niba mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG urwo Rukiko rwarakiburanishije, ahubwo rwasesenguye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ububasha n’inyungu byo kurega, aho kugifataho umwanzuro, ruhita rwanzura mu gika cya [17], ko ikirego cye kitakiriwe ku mpamvu y’uko cyafashweho icyemezo mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwabaye itegeko, nyamara bigaragara ko ikibazo kijyanye n’imanza zabaye itegeko rwari rutarakigeraho, kuko cyasesenguwe mu bika bya [18] – [24]. [48] Urukiko rurasanga kandi mu isesengura ryavuzwe ryakozwe mu bika bya [18] – [24], Urukiko Rukuru rwaragarukiye ku kwemeza gusa ko hari urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’urwo Rukiko n’urubanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge zabaye itegeko, ariko ntirwagaragaza niba zarabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement, kandi niba izo manza zaraburanishije ibijyanye n’iyo certificat d’enregistrement. [49] Urukiko rusanga rero kuba Urukiko Rukuru rutarafashe umwanzuro ku bijyanye no kumenya niba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite ububasha n’inyungu byo gutanga iki kirego, rukaba rutaranasesenguye ibijyanye no kumenya niba imanza RC ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 211

179

0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG zarabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosora certificat d’enregistrement kandi niba zaraburanishije ibijyanye nayo, nk’uko yari yabijuririye, bigaragaza akarengane Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yagize mu rubanza yasabye ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [50] Ku bijyanye n’ikibazo cyo kumenya niba izo manza zarabaye itegeko ku bijyanye no gukosora certifictat d’enregistrement, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga mu rubanza RC O129/15/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Urugereko ruburanisha imanza z’imbonezamubano, rwariyambuye ububasha ku kirego rwari rwashyikirijwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, cyo gukosora certificat d’enregistrement ikavanwaho inzira iburanwa bikaba byumvikana ko rutigeze ruyiburanisha ngo ruyifateho icyemezo. Naho mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG icyaburanwaga kwari ugusaba kuvanaho icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo Habimana Anselme yavugaga ko kimurenganya, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeza ko icyo icyemezo Akarere ka Gasabo kafashe kivanweho, kuko cyafashwe n’utabifitiye ububasha, ko ikirego cyo gukosora certificat d’enregistrement cyatanzwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane kitasuzumwa, kuko atari cyo cyaregewe, ko icyaregewe ari ugusuzuma niba Akarere ka Gasabo kari gafite ububasha bwo gufata icyemezo kafashe. [51] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga kuba mu rubanza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE ikirego kitarakiriwe ku mpamvu y’uko Urukiko rwasanze nta bubasha rufite bwo kukiburanisha, mu rubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG hagasuzumwa gusa ibijyanye n’ivanwaho ry’icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo, bigaragara ko izo manza zitigeze zisuzuma ikirego kijyanye no gukosora UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 212

180

certificat d’enregistrement, zikaba zarabaye itegeko ku bibazo byasuzumwe muri zo gusa, kandi nk’uko n’umuhanga mu mategeko Serge Guinchard yabisobanuye mu gitabo cyavuzwe haruguru (ku rupapuro rwa 15, igika cya [41], kugira ngo urubanza rube itegeko urukiko rugomba kuba rwaraburanishije mu mizi ikirego rwashyikirijwe rukagifataho icyemezo ndakuka. [52] Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo Habimana Anselme na RLMUA baburanisha ko izo manza zabaye itegeko kandi ko zasuzumye ibijyanye na certificat d’enregistrement nta shingiro ifite. [53] Urukiko rurasanga rero Habimana Anselme atari guhera kuri izo manza ngo asabe Umuhesha w’inkiko kuzirangiza amuhesha ahari inzira iburanwa, cyangwa ngo RLMUA izihereho igira uburenganzira imuha kuri iyo nzira, kuko izo manza nta cyemezo cyazifashwemo kimwegurira aho hantu. 3. Kumenya niba certificat d’enregistrement yari ifite nimero Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku italiki ya 18/6/2012 yasimbuwe na UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120, yo ku wa 18/04/2016 yahindurwa igakurwaho inzira rusange. [54] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane avuga ko ku wa 22/12/1990, umubyeyi we Nyirambabazi Vénantie yandikiye Minisitiri w’Imirimo ya Leta n’Ingufu (MINITRAP), asaba gutunganyirizwa ahahoze ruhurura itagikoreshwa iri imbere y’amarembo ye kugira ngo ashobore kubona uko yinjira iwe, kuko aho yanyuraga ku muturanyi we yahafunze; ko ku wa 20/02/1991, MINITRAP yamusubije imubwira ko inzira yasabye ayihawe, ndetse ko ahawe n’uburenganzira bwo kuyitunganyiriza uko ashaka (le chemin d’accès que vous avez sollicité vous est ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 213

181

accordé, toutefois il vous appartient de l’amenager comme il vous conviendra….). [55] Avuga ko hagati aho ku itariki itazwi Madamu Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille nawe yasabye ko iyo nzira yayihabwa ikongerwa ku kibanza cye arabyemererwa, ariko ku wa 15/01/1992 MINITRAPE yabonye ko habayeho kwibeshya, maze ku wa 15/09/1992, yandikira Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille imumenyesha ko icyemezo kimuha aho hantu giteshejwe agaciro (…J’ai le regret de vous signifier par la présente que cette mesure est annulée), ko akibona iyo baruwa areka aho hantu, kuko ari inzira rusange izajya ikoreshwa n’uwo ari we wese (En conséquences dès réception de la présente, Il vous est demandé de dégager cette bande laquelle sera considérée dorénavant comme une zone publique et ainsi pourra servir à quiconque s’y plaira); ko kandi uretse no kuba yarambuwe iyo nzira rusange, MNITRAPE yasabye Madamu Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille gusubiza ibyangombwa yahawe bigakosorwa, kuko yasabye serivisi zibishinzwe guhuza ibyangombwa bye n’ibipimo ikibanza cye cyari gisanganywe (Le chef de Division Cadastrale et le Chef de Division Domaine qui me lisent en copie sont invités à actualiser les pièces foncières y relatives conformément au procès-verbal de mesurage et de bornage no 3200 du 1 Avril 1981 et à matérialiser cette décision sur terrain). Avuga ko hashingiwe ku igenzurwa ryakozwe n’Akarere ka Gasabo gakoresheje umuhanga wako (ingénieur w’Umurenge wa Remera) n’abandi bakozi, bemeje ko Habimana Anseleme yubatse mu nzira rusange, uyu agomba kubyirengera, agasaba Urukiko kwemeza ko iyi nzira rusange igumaho ikavanwa ku cyemezo cy’umutungo cyahawe Habimana Anselme gifite UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120, kuko yahubatse UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 214

182

yirengagije amabaruwa yandikiwe asabwa kukizana ngo gikosorwe akabyanga. [56] Me Bagabo Fustin, wunganira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, avuga ko gusuzuma niba inzira yavanwaho babishingira ku bintu bitatu by’ingenzi: a) Kuva Madame Nyirambabazi Vénantie yasaba inzira akayihabwa, nyuma na MINITRAP ikandikira Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille akandikirwa ibaruwa imusaba gusubiza icyangombwa kuko aho yahawe ngo ahongere ku kibanza cye ari inzira rusange (voie publique), nta kindi cyemezo giha Habimana Anselme iyo nzira nyabagendwa, uretse ibyangombwa yerekana birimo titre de propriété na certificat enregestriment yahawe hashingiwe ku makosa yakozwe na MINITRAP no ku manza avuga ko zabaye itegeko kuri icyo kibazo kandi atari byo. b) Kuva mu mwaka wa 1992 inzira yabayeho ikoreshwa nk’umuhanda ugera kwa Nyirambabazi Vénantie, kandi abantu bose bahabaye bazi ko inzira yari nyabagendwa, na Habimana Anselme yubaka urugo (clôture) rw’amatafari ya Ruriba yasize ya nzira ikomeza gukoreshwa kugera ubwo mu mwaka wa 2016 yayifunze ashingiye kuri za manza avuga ko zabaye itegeko, akaba asanga Habimana Anselme yasenya urupangu yubatse rufungira inzira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane akarusubiza aho rwahoze mbere, kuko n’Ubuyobozi bwa RLMUA bwamwandikiye bumumenyesha ko iyo nzira ikwiye kugumaho. c) Raporo ya Ingénieur w’Umurenge wa Remera wagaragaje uburyo ubutaka bwatanzwe, mu mwanzuro ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 215

183

wayo avuga ko inzira ihagaragara ari rusange, ko igomba kuvanwa kuri certificat d’enegistrement yahawe Habimana Anselme. [57] Me Bagabo Faustin, avuga ko ibyo abaregwa bavuga ko titre de propriété Habimana Anselme afite Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille yayihawe mbere y’uko Nyirambabazi Vénantie ahasaba atari byo, kuko yasabye MINITRAP ahahoze ruhurura ku wa 22/12/1990, agasubizwa ko ahahawe ku wa 20/02/1991, Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille akaba yarahemerewe ku wa 15/01/1992, ahabwa titre de propriété ku wa 01/02/1992 ahamburwa mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/07/1992. Avuga kandi ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane adasaba inzira, ahubwo aburana inzira yatanzwe na Leta nyuma igashyirwa ku kibanza cya Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille kandi umubyeyi we ariwe wayitunganyije ku mafaranga ye bwite kugira ngo abone inzira imugeza iwe. [58] Me Bagabo Faustin avuga ko ashingiye ku mabaruwa yagaragaje, Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille yasabwe gusubiza icyangombwa ngo gikosorwe ntabikore, na Habimana Anselme yabisabwa nawe ntabikore, ayo makosa akaba akwiye gukosorwa, kuko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yasabye RLUMA kuvana inzira ku cyangombwa cya Habimana Anselme, ikamusubiza yivuguruza, ko itavana inzira ku cyemezo cye kandi hari imanza, nubwo icyo kigo cyari cyagaragarijwe ko izo manza zitabaye itegeko kubyerekeye certificat d’enregistrement. [59] Me Kayijuka Ngabo, nawe wunganira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, avuga ko Nyirambabazi Vénantie yahawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha, ahabwa uburenganzira bwo gutunganya inzira iri rusange (voie publique) n’abandi barayikoresha, ko Leta iramutse ihisubije k’ubw’inyungu UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 216

184

rusange byakumvikana, ariko ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane atahamburwa ngo haherezwe ku wundi muntu utagaragaza inyungu rusange. Avuga ko inzira yasubizwaho, kuko ibyo Habimana Anselme avuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite aho anyura imbere atari byo, kuko hari umugunguzi, ndetse byatumye imodoka ye ihera mu gipangu indi akayiraza mu baturanyi. [60] Me Kayijuka Ngabo akomeza avuga ko kudateshwa agaciro kw’icyangombwa (Inattaquabilité ya titre de propriété) bivugwa n’abaregwa bitahabwa agaciro, kuko Habimana Anselme yahawe uruhushya rwo kubaka mu mwaka wa 2016 hagendewe ku manza ziswe ko zabaye itegeko, hirengagijwe amabaruwa yandikiwe amusaba kugikosoza ndetse n’ibaruwa yemerera Nyirambabazi Vénantie gutunganya iyo nzira. [61] [Me Kayijuka Ngabo avuga na none ko ibyo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yasobanuye bihuye n’ibyavuye mu iperereza, aho bigaragara ko ahaburanwa hari inzira rusange aho kuba ikibanza cya Habimana Anselme yaje kubakamo umusarane na bingalot, ko ibyavuzwe n’abaregwa ko ruhurura igizwe n’ibice bibiri atari byo, kuko nyina wa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane atafashe icyangombwa cyangwa igice cya ruhurura ngo acyomeke ku byangombwa bye, ahubwo yabisabye akabyemererwa akahatunganya n’undi wese akaba yahakoresha, ko kandi Urukiko rwiboneye ko ku gipangu hari numero ya 55 yo kwa Habimana Anselme na 53 yo kwa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane itaboneka kuko yafunzwe, ikaba iboneka gusa igihe unyuze ku bwiherero Habimana Anselme yubatse mu marembo ya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, bigaragaza ko yahubatse nyuma, kuko mbere hose iyo nomero yaragaragaraga kuko iri ku rugi rw’amarembo ye Habimana Anselme yafunze. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 217

185

[62] Habimana Anselme avuga ko ibyo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane avuga ko akeneye inzira atari byo kuko ayifite, iburanwa ikaba iri ku cyangombwa cye cy’ubutaka, ariyo mpamvu nta wundi muntu uyifiteho uburenganzira nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa, bivuze ko ntawemerewe guhindura titre de propriété, ariyo mpamvu ku wa 01/08/2016 yahawe uburenganzira bwo kubaka urupangu. [63] Akomeza avuga ko impamvu yafunze inzira igera kwa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ari uko yari afite aho anyura ku muhanda wa ruguru, kuko icyemezo cy’Akarere ka Gasabo cyari cyavuyeho na raporo yakozwe igaragaza ko afite aho agomba kunyura, ko kandi afite ibyemezo yahawe guhera ku Mujyi wa Kigali kugeza ku Murenge wa Remera, ariyo mpamvu asanga ashingiye kuri ibyo byangombwa no ku manza zabaye itegeko, certificat d’enregistrement yahawe itagomba guhindurwa. [64] Me Munderere Léopold avuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yitsitsa ku ibaruwa yo mu mwaka wa 1991, ariko akirengagiza ko ingingo ya 34 y’Itegeko ryo ku wa 20 Nyakanga 1920 ryerekeye imitungo itimukanwa iteganya ko titre de propriété ari inattaquable, byanatumye na MINITRAP yisubiraho ntikore ibyari bikubiye mu ibaruwa yandikiye Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille, kuko hari ibyangombwa birimo titre de propriété uyu yari afite byatanzwe mu mwaka wa 1992, n’ibindi byemezo byagiye bifatwa mu mabaruwa yanditswe nyuma. Avuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane afite undi muhanda wo haruguru anyuramo, undi yifuza ukaba ugomba kunyura mu butaka bwa Habimana Anselme adakodesha, ahubwo afitiye certificat d’enregistrement. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 218

186

[65] Ku bijyanye n’amategeko aha uburenganzira Habimana Anselme, avuga ko ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko N° 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, ivuga ko nyir’ubutaka adashobora kwimana inzira y’amaguru, ko mu gihe Uwamahoro Mbabazi Lialiane ashaka umuhanda ugera iwe asabwa kumvikana na Habimana, ariko akaba atarabikoze. Ku bijyanye na raporo y’Umurenge wa Remera, iri muri dosiye, avuga ko raporo y’Umujyi wa Kigali yo ku wa 26/02/2016, igaragaza ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ashaka kwiyenza, kuko afite aho kunyura kandi ko na Master Plan igaragaza ko nta muhanda uri aho hantu aburana. Ku byo urega avuga ko atabasha kwinjira iwe, avuga ko Habimana Anselme yerekanye uburyo yakemuye ikibazo cye, kugira ngo agere iwe, aho yakoze akazamuko kari iwe, akaba yibaza impamvu Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nawe atakora iwe ku muhanda wo haruguru ngo ahinjirize imodoka. [66] Avuga ko kuba Habimana Anselme yarasenye igipangu cye yari yarubatse (kitafungaga inzira iburanwa), atabibona nk’ikibazo, kuko ari uburenganzira yemererwa n’amategeko, ndetse ko atahubatse ashingiye ku manza, ahubwo yabikoze ashingiye kuri certificat d’enregistrement, mu gihe Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane nta cyo ashingiraho avuga ko atagombaga kuhubaka. [67] Me Munderere Léopold, avuga ko nk’uko uru Rukiko rwabibonye mu iperereza, iby’uko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane adafite aho kunyura atari byo, kuko Urukiko rwageze iwe runyuze mu nzira afite ku muhanda wo haruguru, ikibazo akaba atari uko yabuze aho anyura, kuko yivugira ko umuntu anyura aho ashaka, akaba ashaka gukora ku mihanda ibiri kandi abandi bose baturanye banyura ku muhanda wo haruguru, ko niba yumva ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 219

187

agomba kunyura ku butaka bwa Habimana Anselme, yagombye kwerekana niba kuri Master plan uwo muhanda urimo. [68] Me Mbonigaba Eulade, uhagarariye RLMUA avuga ko ibyo ababuranira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane bavuga ko aho hantu hambuwe uruhande rumwe hagahabwa undi muntu atari byo, kuko Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille yanditse ahasaba n’ubwo yari asanzwe ahafitiye titre de propriété guhera ku wa 1/02/1992, ku wa 15/09/92 MINITRAP ikamwandikira imusaba ko aho hantu ari inzira rusange ariko bitashyizwe mu bikorwa, kuko yari ahafitiye titre de propriété. [69] Me Mbonigaba Eulade akomeza avuga ko mu gika cya 3 cy’inyandikomvugo y’iperereza, Uwamahoro yerekanye ko yanyuraga muri icyo kibanza, ari ukwibeshya kuko yavuze ko aho hantu haruguru ku gice cya ruhurura hari hasanzwe hanyura amazi akahongera ku butaka bwe, akaba yibaza niba icyo gice yaracyongereye ku butaka bwe abisabye, kuko ahaburanwa Habimana Anselme we yahahawe. Avuga ko ku iby’uko umuntu yasohokera aho ashaka atari byo, ko ahubwo asohokera aho afitiye uburenganzira, akaba asanga mu gihe ikiregerwa ari inzira, Urukiko rusanze ayifite rwakwanzura ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite, rwasanga ntayo afite rukareba niba uburyo akoresha ngo ayibone ariyo, kuko yayibona ari uko yumvikanye na Habimana Anselme akahamugurira. [70] Avuga kandi ko kuba Urega aregera umuhanda aho kuregera droit de propriété, atari kurega RLMUA, kuko idafatanyije na Habimana Anselme ubutaka, ko kandi Urukiko rutafata icyemezo rushingiye ku ibaruwa, kuko rwaba ruvanyeho ibindi byemezo bitaregewe. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 220

188

[71] Me Mbonigaba Eulade yabajijwe impamvu MINITRAPE yandikiye Nyirambabazi Vénantie imuha uburenganzira bwo gutunganya inzira yasabye anasobanura ko Madame Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille yari ahafitiye titre de propriété, nyuma akanasaba ko hongerwa ku butaka bwe, avuga ko nubwo MINITRAPE yandikiye Madame Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille imusaba gusubiza icyangombwa nyuma yasanze yaribeshye, ariyo mpamvu MINITRAPE itahinduye icyangombwa cye, kandi ko ibyari kuba bibi kurushaho ari uko yari kuvana inzira ku mutungo wa Rwandeye Nzabonimpa Donatille wari ufite titre de propriété. [72] Me Mbonigaba Eulade avuga ko mu iperereza ryakozwe, Urukiko rwabonye ko icyitwa inzira rusange atari byo, kuko inzira rusange igira aho ihera naho irangirira. Asaba Urukiko kubona ko urega afite umuhanda haruguru kandi nta muhanda uteganywa ugera iwe unyuze kwa Habimana Anselme. Yongeraho ko amabaruwa yanditswe mu mwaka wa 1991 ataherwaho ngo Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ahabwe inzira aburana, kuko nta gaciro agifite, kuko yavanweho n’ibindi byemezo bya Leta kandi n’ubundi by’urwo rwego, byagaragaje ko atahabwa aho hantu, ariyo mpamvu buri wese yagumana aho yahawe, kuko buri wese yafashe igice cya ruhurura agishyira ku butaka bwe. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [73] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo yibukijwe haruguru, itegeka buri mu buranyi kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 221

189

[74] Ingingo ya 23 y’Iteka rya Minisitiri N° 002/2008 ryo ku wa 01/04/2008 rigena uburyo iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka rikorwa, iteganya ko icyemezo cy’iyandikisha cyerekana nta mpaka uburenganzira ku mutumgo bwite w ‘ubutaka, ku bukode bw’ubutaka cyangwa uburenganzira ku mutungo cyangwa ibiwubangamira byanditse kuri icyo cyemezo. Uburenganzira ku mutungo nk'uko buvugwa mu cyemezo, ntibuhungabanywa kabone n'ubwo icyemezo cyaba cyarakozwe bashingiye ku masezerano yo kurekura umutungo ashobora guseswa cyangwa ashobora guteshwa agaciro, cyangwa icyemezo cy'urukiko cyemeza izungura ku buryo butunguranye…. Cyakora, iyo uburenganzira bwo gutunga umutungo bugifitwe n’uwawuhawe, impamvu yo gusesa cyangwa gutesha agaciro amasezerano yakozwe nawe bituma uwawutanze atangirwa ibirego byo kongera gutanga uwo mutungo akongeraho n’indishyi iyo bibaye ngombwa. [75] Mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 22/12/1990, Madamu Nyirambabazi Vénantie (umubyeyi wa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane) yandikiye Minisitiri w’imirimo ya Leta n’ingufu (MINITRAPE) amusaba inzira imugeza kuri pariseli ye iri muri Remera I, ahahoze ruhurura yari imbere y’inyubako ye, amusubiza ku wa 20/02/1991, yemera ubusabe bwe bwo kubona inzira ahahoze ruhura, ariko asabwa kuhitunganyiriza uko abyifuza, anasabwa kwirinda kurengerera abaturanyi no kubahiriza uruzitiro rw’ibiti ruhasanzwe. [76] Muri dosiye na none hari ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/09/1992 MINITRAPE yandikiye Rwendeye Nzaponimpa Donatile, imubwira ko icyemezo yamenyeshejwe mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/01/1992 kimwemerera ubusabe bwe bwo komeka (annexer) ubutaka bumutandukanya n’abaturanyi ku kibanza cye nimero UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 222

190

5056 kivanweho, ko akibona iyo baruwa asabwe guhita arekura ubwo butaka kuko bufatwa nk’ahantu rusange nyabagendwa ( une zone publique) hakoreshwa n’ubyifuza wese, inasaba serivisi zibishinzwe za MINITRAPE (chef de Division cadastre et Chef de Division domaine) kubishyira mu bikorwa, ibyagombwa by’ubutaka byahawe Rwendeye Nzaponimpa Donatile bigakosorwa, ibipimo by’ubutaka bwe bigasubira nk’uko byahoze mbere hashingiwe ku nyandikomvugo ijyanye n’ikatwa ry’ibibanza (procès verbal de mésurage et de bornage) nimero 3200 yo ku wa 01/04/1981. [77] Raporo yakozwe n’Ubugenzuzi rusange bw’Umujyi wa Kigali ku wa 04/07/2007 bubisabwe n’Ubuyobozi bw’uwo Mujyi bwashakaga gukemura ikibazo cya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, igaragaza ko bwasanze amakosa yakozwe mu gihe hatangwaga Titre de propriété bakaba barashyizeho Plot itariyo, ifite n’ibipimo (mésures) bitandukanye aribyo MINITRAPE yari yemeje ko zitabwaho. [78] Muri dosiye hari kandi ibaruwa yo mu mwaka wa 2016, Ingen. Sagashya Didier, Umuyobozi wungirije w’Ikigo cy’umutungo kamere, yandikiye Habimana Anselme amusaba kugarura Titre de propriété nimero Vol.RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku wa 18/06/2012, kugira ngo ahabwe ijyanye n’ikibanza cye nk’uko cyapimwe, ari yo RTXXXIII Folio 140 yo ku wa 18/04/2012. Hari kandi n’ibaruwa yo ku wa 05/07/2016 RLMUA cyandikiye na none Habimana Anselme kimusaba kugarura ibyangombwa yahawe kugira ngo bikosorwe. [79] Muri dosiye hagaragara kandi ibimenyetso byatanzwe na Habimana Anselme birimo certificat d’enregistrement yo ku wa 10/10/2005 yaje gusimbuzwa indi yo ku wa 22/8/2012, hakaba na UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 yahawe ku wa 18/04/2016. Hari kandi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 223

191

ibaruwa yo ku wa 22/10/2012 yanditswe n’Umuyobozi Wungirije w’Ikigo Gishinzwe Umutugo Kamere mu Rwanda, Ishami ry’Ubutaka no Gutunganya Amakarita yandikiwe Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Gasabo, imusaba gushyikiriza icyo kigo dosiye za kera z’ibibanza 5056 (prec 589) Remera na 5058 Remera kugira ngo babashe gusuzuma ikibazo bagejejweho na Nyirambabazi Vénantie, ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/12/2014 Umuyobozi w’Umujyi wa Kigali yandikiye Irere Marie Jeanne Claire imwemerera kubaka uruzitiro, iyo ku wa 2/07/2016, Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Umurenge wa Remera yandikiye Habimana Anselme imwemerera kubaka ubwiherero, n’icyemezo cyo mu mwaka wa 2016 kimwemerera kubaka urugo (clôture), agatangira ku wa 30/05/2016. Icyo Kigo kandi cyandikiye Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ibaruwa yo ku wa 01/08/2016, imumenyesha ko guhindura titre de propriété Vol RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku wa 18/6/2012 yahawe Habimana Anselme yasimbuwe n’iyo ku wa 18/04/2016 ku kibanza numero 1120 cyahoze ari 5056, byakorwa gusa mu gihe abo bireba babyiyemereye cyangwa hari icyemezo cy’Urukiko. [80] Muri dosiye hari na none raporo yo ku wa 26/07/2016 ku bibanza numero 1120 na numero 1985 biri i Remera hafi ya SONATUBE, mu Karere ka Gasabo yakozwe na Nsengiyumva Kagabo Antoine, ushinzwe Cadastre (utaragaraje Akarere akoreramo), mu mwanzuro w’iyo raporo, avuga ko ubutaka Habimana Anselme apfa na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane buramutse bugizwe umuhanda ikibanza no 1120 cyaba kitagifite ubuso bwacyo bungana na 2.082 sqm. [81] Nk’uko inyandikomvugo y’iperereza ryakozwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 10/02/2021 mu Karere ka Gasabo, Umurenge wa Remera, Akagari ka Rukiri I, ibyerekana, kuri iyo UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 224

192

tariki Urukiko rwageze aho ikiburanwa kiri, rubona imiterere y’ahaburanwa, ababuranyi berekana ahahoze ruhurura nyuma hakaza gutunganywa na Nyirambabazi Vénantie, umubyeyi wa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, hakaboneka inzira yagera ku rugi rw’amarembo ye (nimero 53), hagati y’ígipangu nimero 51 n’igipangu nimero 55 cya Habimana Anselme. Aho hantu ubu hakaba hari ibikorwa bya Habimana Anselme, birimo inzu yicarwamo n’abakiriya b’akabari ke (bungalow), n’umusarane yubatse ku rugi rw’amarembo ya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, ufatanye n’igikuta cy’urugo. Abari mu iperereza binjiye kandi no mu rugo kwa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, baturutse ku muhanda wo haruguru, babona inzira y’abanyamaguru bashobora kwinjira iwe banyuze ku ngazi (escaliers) yazamuye ku mukingo kugira ngo ashobore kugera kuri uwo muhanda, rubona n’imodoka ya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yaheze mu rugo, kubera kubura aho ayinyuza, kuko aho yanyuraga hafunzwe. [82] Urukiko rusanga ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza ari uburenganzira MINITRAP yahaye Nyirimbabazi Vénantie bwo gutunganya ahahoze ari ruhurura nk’uko abishaka, kugira ngo abone inzira y’umuhanda imugeza iwe, akahatunganya neza ku buryo yashoboraga kugera iwe nta kibazo ndetse n’undi wese ubikeneye akahanyura, ariko nyuma MINITRAP ikaza na none guha aho hantu Rwendeye Nzaponimpa Donatille wari wahasabye ngo ahomeke ku butaka bwe, bidatinze MINITRAP ibona ko yibeshye ihamuha, imumenyesha ko icyemezo kimuha aho hantu kivanyweho, asabwa kuzibukira ubwo butaka kandi icyangombwa cye kigakosorwa ntiyabikora kugeza ubwo yagurishije ubutaka bwe, ibyangombwa bitakosowe abiha Habimana Anselme wabuguze, uyu nawe asabwe kubikosoza arabyanga, ahubwo ashingira kuri ayo makosa asaba ibyangombwa bishya aribyo UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 yahawe ku wa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 225

193

18/04/2016, anarega Akarere ka Gasabo kamusabaga gukosoza ibyo byangombwa by’umutungo, bushingiye kuri raporo yakozwe n’abakozi bako. [83] Urukiko rurasanga rero, ikibazo kiri muri uru rubanza atari icyo gusaba inziri nk’uko Habimana Anselme n’uhagarariye RLMUA babivuga, ahubwo ari uburenganzira ku nzira rusange igera kwa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yavukijwe, akomora ku mubyeyi we wayihawe na MINITRAPE, bityo ibyo Habimana Anselme n’umwunganizi we ndetse n’uhagarariye RLMUA bavuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane atasabye inzira mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, ko yagombaga gukurikiza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 38 y’Itegeko No 43/2013 ryo ku wa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda, akumvikana na Habimana Anselme akaba yamuha inzira, bikaba nta shingiro bifite kuko ahaburanwa atari ubutaka bwa Habimana Anselme yifuza ko bucishwamo inzira, ahubwo ari uburenganzira bwo gukoresha inzira rusange imugeza iwe nk’uko yahozeho itarafungwa. [84] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko bigaragara mu bimenyetso byavuzwe haruguru biri muri dosiye ndetse n’uko rwabibonye igihe rwakoraga iperereza, inzira (agahanda) yageraga ku nyubako ya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yarakoreshwaga guhera igihe Nyirambabazi Vénantie yayitunganyirije mu mwaka wa 1991 kugeza ubwo Habimana Anselme yahabwaga uruhushya rwo kubaka n’Ubuyobozi bw’Akarere ka Gasabo (Umuyobozi ushinzwe imiturire mu Karere ka Gasabo) muri Gicurasi 2016, agasenya urugo rw’amatafari ya Ruriba ( clôture) yari asanzwe yarubatse mbere, akongera kurwubaka arwigije inyuma, ari naho yafungiye Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane inzira yamugezaga iwe yanyuragamo n’imodoka. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 226

194

[85] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Habimana Anselme na Me Munderere Léopold umwunganira kimwe n’uhagarariye RLMUA bavuga ko ibyangombwa yahawe bitagomba guteshwa agaciro, kuko ubutaka buburanwa bumwanditseho anabufitiye ibyangombwa birimo certificat d’enregistrement na Titre de propriété, bidakwiye guhabwa ishingiro kubera ko nta cyabuza ko ibyangombwa bikosorwa, mu gihe bigaragaye ko byatanzwe bishingiye ku makossa yatumye abihabwa abona uburenganzira atari akwiye guhabwa, byongeye kandi, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, imanza Habimana Anselme yashingiyeho yimura urugo akubaka umusarane na bungalow, nta burenganzira zigeze zimuha ku nzira iburanwa yabyubatsemo, bityo ntiyagombaga gufungira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane amarembo n’umuhanda ugana iwe yahawe n’inzego zibifitiye ububasha nk’inzira rusange. [86] Urukiko rurasanga kandi imyumvire y’abaregwa muri uru rubanza y’uko uwanditseho umutungo aba ari we nyirawo, itafatwa nk’ukuri igihe cyose, kuko hari impamvu zishobora gutuma uwanditsweho ataba ariwe nyirawo byanze bikunze, nk’igihe bigaragaye ko yawubonye mu buryo butemewe n’amategeko, (akoresheje uburiganya) cyangwa se atarashoboye kugaragaza inkomoko yawo. Iki gitekerezo kikaba ari nacyo kigaragara mu manza zinyuranye zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ndetse n’uru Rukiko, aho izo nkiko zemeje ko bidahagije kuba umuntu yanditseho umutungo ngo bifatwe ko ari uwe, ahubwo agomba kugaragaza aho yawukomoye . Nubwo Habimana Anselme yerekana ibyangombwa by’umutungo birimo certificat d’enregistrement ndetse na Titre de propriété yahawe na RLMUA, kuba we kimwe n’icyo kigo bavuga ko ibyangombwa biriho ubutaka buburanwa Habimana Anselme yabihawe hashingiwe ku manza RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE na RADA ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 227

195

0025/14/HC/KIG zabaye itegeko kandi bikaba byagaragajwe haruguru ko izo manza nta burenganzira zimuhesha ku butaka buburanwa, nta cyabuza ko ibyangombwa yahawe muri ubwo buryo bihindurwa ku buso bw’ubutaka buburanwa, kugira ngo inzira rusange iburanwa igera ku rugo rwa Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ivanweho. [87] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’amategeko zavuzwe haruguru no ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga, certificat d’enregistrement yari ifite nimero Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 yo ku italiki ya 18/6/2012 yasimbuwe na UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120, yo ku wa 18/04/2016 ya Habimana Anselme na Irere Marie Jeanne Claire igomba kuvanwaho igice cyari gisanzwe ari inzira rusange, ikibanza cyabo kigasubirana ibipimo nk’uko byahoze mbere y’uko Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille ayisaba akayihabwa na MINITRAPE yibeshye mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/01/1992; ibyo bigakorwa n’Ikigo Gishinzwe Imicungire n’Imikoreshereze y’Ubutaka mu Rwanda ( RLUMUA). [88] Urukiko rusanga kandi kuba Habimana Anselme yarubatse igipangu agendeye kuri ibyo byangombwa yabonye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ndetse n’Umuhesha w’Inkiko akamuhesha aho hantu kandi bitarigeze biburanwa cyangwa ngo bitegekwe mu manza bise ko zabaye itegeko ku kiburanwa , ariwe ugomba kwirengera ingaruka z’ibyo yakoze, agakuraho inyubako yasimbuje izari zihasanzwe (urupangu) akahatunganya kuko yuhubatse azi neza ko hasanzwe hari inzira nyabagendwa, kandi nta cyemezo cy’Urukiko ashingiyeho kimuha uburenganzira kuri aho hantu, bityo akaba agomba kuvanaho ibyo yashyizeho mu gihemcy’ukwezi kumwe ( 1 mois) kibarwa uru rubanza rukimara gusomwa, atabikora muri icyo gihe bigakorwa ku ngufu za Leta. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 228

196

4. Gusuzuma niba Habimana Anselme akwiye gucibwa indishyi zijyanye n’igihombo gikomoka ku gihe imodoka ya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane imaze ifungiranwe [89] Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane avuga ko Habimana Anselme agomba kwirengera igihombo kingana na 42.100.000 Frw yatewe no kuba yarafungiranye imodoka ye kuva muri Kamena 2016 kugeza ubu. [90] Me Kayijuka Ngabo avuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yagize igihombo agitewe na Habimana Anselme, kuko kuva mu mwaka wa 2016 yubatse urugo (clôture), amufungira irembo, bituma adashobora gukoresha imodoka ye, imwe ihera mu gipangu, indi ihera hanze, biba ngombwa ko bakodesha indi modoka yo gukoresha, yishyurwa 25.000 Frw buri munsi, bakanishyura aho indi irara, kugeza ubu hakaba hashyize amezi 56, igihombo kikaba gihwanye n’iminsi 17.000 X 25.000 Frw = 42.100.000 Frw. [91] Avuga ko ku bijyanye n’ibimenyetso by’ayo mafaranga yakoreshejwe, nta nyemezabwishyu batse, ariko ko ikidashidikanywaho ari uko imodoka iri mu gipangu itasohotse icyo gihe cyose kandi yari isanzwe ikora, bigaragara ko hari ibyangiritse (dommages), ko kandi imodoka yafunzwe na Habimana Anselme aho kuba Umuhesha w’Inkiko, kuko Habimana Anselme ariwe wamusabye gushyira mu bikorwa urubanza, Umuhesha w’Inkiko akaba akurikiranwaho gusa ku makosa aba yakoze ku giti cye. [92] Habimana Anselme avuga ko gufunga inzira byakoze n’Umuhesha w’Inkiko Kamanzi, kandi ko ikirego cyo gufunga inzira Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yakiburanye n’Umuhesha w’Inkiko Kamanzi agatsindwa akaba atakigarura ngo cyongere ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 229

197

kuburanishwa, agasanga ntacyo yasabwa kuko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yasabwe kuvanamo imodoka ye ubwo harangizwaga urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG akabyanga. Avuga kandi ko nta kigaragaza ko imodoka yari nzima, ko n’ibyo yubatse yabiherewe ibyangombwa. [93] Me Munderere Léopold, avuga ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane atakwishyuza Habimana Anselme 42.100.000 Frw kuko nta mpamvu yayo mu gihe nta kimenyetso ayatangira, kuko aterekanye inyemezabwishyu n’imwe, ibyo ubwabyo bikaba bimutsinda. Avuga ko Habimana Anselme ntaho ahuriye n’ibikorwa byo gufunga inzira kuko Umuhesha w’inkiko wahafunze Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yamureze agatsindwa, kandi ko yasabwe gukuramo imodoka ye akabyanga. [94] Mbonigaba Eulade, uhagarariye RLMUA, avuga ko ku birebana n’indishyi Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane asaba, Urukiko rwabisuzuma. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [95] Ingingo ya 12, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko Urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda. [96] Ubwo Urukiko rwageraga aho ikiburanwa kiri, rwasanze hari imodoka ya Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane iri mu gipangu kava igihe ahari amarembo n’umuhanda (inzira rusange) yanyuragamo hafunzwe na Habimana Anselme. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 230

198

[97] Urukiko rusanga ibyo Habimana Anselme na Me Munderere Léopold bavuga ko indishyi z’igihe gishize imodoka iparitse idakoreshwa zabazwa Umuhesha w’Inkiko Kamanzi, kuko ari we wafunze igipangu, nta shingiro ifite, kubera ko ibyo Umuhesha w’Inkiko yakoze yabisabwe na Habimana Anselme arangiza urubanza RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG , nyamara urwo rubanza ntacyo rwategetse ku byerekeye uburenganzira ku nzira iburanwa, ikindi Habimana Anselme ni we wubatse ahari inzira iburanwa. [98] Urukiko rusanga indishyi zingana na 42.100.000 Frw Uwamahoro Mbabazi Lilane asaba kwishyurwa na Habimana Anselme kubera imodoka ye yakingiranwe mu gipangu bigatuma akodesha indi, atayahabwa uko ayifuza, kuko atabashije kuyagaragariza ibimenyetso. Rurasanga ariko ikigaragara ari uko imodoka iparitse mu gipangu guhera mu mwaka wa 2016, kandi idakoreshwa na nyirayo ku mpamvu y’uko yakingirwanwe harangizwa urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru bisabwe na Habimana Anselme, bikaba byumvikana ko Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane yavukijwe uburenganzira bwo kuyikoresha uko byari bisanzwe, bityo kubera kuvutswa ubwo burenganzira agomba kwishyurwa na Habimana Anselme indishyi zigenwe mu bushishozi bwarwo zingana na 10.000.000 Frw (miliyoni icumi) 5. Gusuzuma niba hari amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka akwiye gutangwa muri uru rubanza [99] Me Kayijuka Ngabo avuga ko Habimana Anselme agomba kwishyura Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane 10.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza guhera igihe urubanza rwatangiriye, ko amafaranga uwunganira Habimana Anselme asaba uwo yunganira atayahabwa, kuko ari we watumye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 231

199

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane atanga ikirego, kandi ko n’ayatswe na RLMUA itazihabwa kuko ari yo yahaye Habimana Anselme ibyangombwa by’ubutaka yifashishije amufungira inzira, bigatuma yiyambaza inkiko. [100] Habimana Anselme kimwe n’umwunganira bavuga ko ayo mafaranga Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane asaba ntayo yahabwa, kuko nta bimenyetso ayatangira, kandi ko ari we wishoraga mu manza zose akazitsindwa, ko ahubwo Habimana Anselme ari we ukwiye guhabwa na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane 5.000.000 Frw y'igihembo cya Avoka, 1.000.000 Frw yo gukurikirana urubanza na 3.000.000 Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro zo guhozwa ku nkeke kubera ikibanza cye, mu gihe cy’imyaka 8. [101] Me Mbonigaba Eulade avuga ko ntacyo yavuga ku ndishyi, kuko Ikigo agaharariye kitazisabwa, ahubwo ko asaba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane ari we ukwiye guha RLMUA 3.000.000 Frw y’ikuririranarubanza no gushora ikigo ahagarariye mu rubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [102] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza ni ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishirizwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikanaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe. UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 232

200

[103] Urukiko rurasanga 10.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane asaba Habimana Anselme ari menshi akaba agenewe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko 3.000.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya ba Avoka bamwunganiye n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza, kuko iki kibazo kimaze igihe kandi akaba yaragiye ashaka abamwunganira. Naho amafaranga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka basaba Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, ntibayahabwa batsindwa n’urubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [104] Rwemeje inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yatanzwe na Habimana Anselme nta shingiro ifite. [105] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 27/02/2020 ku mpamvu z’akarengane cyatanzwe na Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane gifite ishingiro. [106] Rwemeje ko urubanza RADA 00071/2019 /HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 27/02/2020, ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose. [107] Rutegetse Ikigo Gishinzwe Imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda (RLMUA) kuvana kuri UPI:1/02/13/03/1120 yo ku wa 18/04/2016, inzira iburanwa, ikibanza cya Habimana Anselme na Irere Marie Jeanne Claire kigasubirana ibipimo nk’uko yahoze mbere y’uko Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille ayisaba akayihabwa na MINITRAPE yibeshye mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/01/1992. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 233

201

[108] Rutegetse Habimana Anselme kuvanaho inyubako yashyize ahari inzira iburanwa, akabikora mu gihe cy’ukwezi uhereye igihe uru rubanza ruciriwe, atabikora ku neza bigakorwa ku ngufu za Leta. [109] Rutegetse Habimana Anselme kwishyura Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane indishyi zingana na 10.000.000 Frw zo kuvutswa uburenganzira bwo gukoresha imodoka ye, na 3.000.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka; [110] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

UWAMAHORO v HABIMANA N’UNDI

## Page 234

202

## Page 235

203

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 236

204

## Page 237

205

URUBANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 238

206

## Page 239

207

NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RC 0008/2017/SC (Mugenzi, P.J, Kayitesi na Cyanzayire J.) 28 Nzeri 2018] Amategeko agenga bubasha bw’Inkiko – Ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire – Imanza zivuruzanya – Ibibazo birebana no kuvuguruzanya kw’imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, biri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ikibazo cyahere muri Komite y’Abunzi aho Umuhoza yareze Mukandekezi ko yibaruje ku mutungo wasizwe na Ndayambaje kandi atari uwe, abunzi bafashe icyemezo bemeza ko ishyamba ari irya Ndayambaje. Uwo mwanzuro wabaye itegeko kuko ntawigize awujuririra. Umuhoza yanareze nyirabukwe Mukandekezi mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru, amukurikiranyeho umutungo yibarujeho wa nyakwigendera Ndayambaje, akawugira uw’umuryango we kandi yarawusigiwe n’umugabo. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rusanga ikirego nta shingiro gifite. Umuhoza yajuririye Urukiko rw’Isumbuye rwa Gasabo ariko ruza gusibwa kuko atitabye. Yaje kubyutsa urwo rubanza, maze urwo rukiko rwemeza ko Umuhoza atsinze. Mukandekezi yaje gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya mu Rukiko rw’Isumbuye rwa Gasabo. Mu gihe urwo rubanza rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya rutaracibwa, uwitwa Ndayisenga Protais yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, arega Umuhoza, asaba Urukiko gukemura ukuvuguruzanya kuri hagati y’Umwanzuro wa Komite y`Abunzi b’Umurenge wa Kimironko n‘urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa 207 zivuguruzanya-

## Page 240

208

Kacyiru ku wa 23/07/2007 rujuririrwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, avuga ko izo manza zombi zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma. Umuhoza avuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Ndayisenga Protais asaba ko uru Rukiko rwakemura ivuguruzanya ry’imanza zavuzwe haruguru kitakwakirwa, kuko cyatanzwe nta tegeko ririho riteganya ko iryo vuguruzanya rikemurwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Avuga kandi ko no mu Itegeko rishya rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko, nta rukiko rwahawe ububasha ku birego birebana n`ivuguruzanya. Ndayisenga avuga ko iyi nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha kuri iki kirego, kuko n’ubwo izo manza zivuguruzanya zabaye itegeko, hari izindi manza zizikomokaho, zaburanishijwe Itegeko Ngenga riha ububasha Urukiko rw`Ikirenga ku ivuguruzanya ryaratangajwe, kandi Itegeko rishya ryo muri2018 rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko, ntaho ribuza URukiko rw’Ikirenga gusuzuma ibirego birebana n’ivuguruzanya ry’imanza. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ibibazo birebana no kuvuguruzanya kw’imanza zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, bikemurwa n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, kubera ko ukuvuguruzanya kw’imanza ari ibibazo bisanzwe ugereranije n’ububasha bwihariye bwahawe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, bityo ikirego cyatanzwe na Ndayisenga kikaba cyoherejwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. Inzitizi y’iburabubasha ifite ishingiro; Urubanza rwimuriwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire; Amagarama y’urubanza ahwanye n’ibyakozwe.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 241

209

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko, ingingo ya 52 Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ingingo ya 29 agace ka 12 Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uwitwa Umuhoza Annonciata yareze muri Komite y`Abunzi b’Umurenge wa Kimironko nyirabukwe Mukandekezi Euphrasie, avuga ko igihe Goboka yakoreye expropriation y’umutungo yasigiwe n’umugabo we Ndayambaje Pierre, yawibarujeho kandi ariwe ugomba kuwucungira abana bane (4) yamusigiye. [2] Komite y'Abunzi b’Umurenge wa Kimironko yakemuye icyo kibazo ku wa 15/07/2005, yemeza ko ishyamba rya kijyambere ryagurishijwe atari irya Ndayambaje Pierre, itegeka ko rigomba kuguranwa rigahabwa Gapfizi umugabo wa Mukandekezi Euphrasie kuko iryagurishijwe ryari irye (Gapfizi). Uwo mwanzuro wabaye ndakuka kuko utajuririwe. [3] Umuhoza Annonciata yanareze nyirabukwe Mukandekezi Euphrasie mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru, amukurikiranyeho umutungo yibarujeho wa nyakwigendera Ndayambaje Pierre, akawugira uw’umuryango we kandi NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 242

210

yarawusigiwe n’umugabo, akaba agomba kuwukoresha mu gutunga abana. [4] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RC 0770/05/TD/KCY ku wa 23/03/2007, rukiza ko Umuhoza Annonciata atsinzwe, rutegeka ko amafaranga y’ishyamba ryishyuwe Goboka yafashwe na Mukandekezi Euphrasie angana na 423.570 agomba kugabanywa abana bane (4) ba nyakwigendera Ndayambaje Pierre, ariko kubera ko Umuhoza Annoncita yafashe ay’abana be akarenzaho, ntayo bahabwa; rutegeka ko amafaranga yishyuwe amazu ya nyakwigendera Ndayambaje Pierre nayo agabanywa abana be bane ni ukuvuga 893.810 Frw kuri buri mwana; abo Umuhoza Annonciata arera bagatwara 1.899.404 Frw; rutegeka Umuhoza Annonciata gusubiza abana ba Ndayambaje Pierre, barerwa na Mukandekezi Euphrasie 159.709 Frw kuko yayafashe atagomba kuyafata, runamutegeka gutanga amafaranga y’urubanza agahera kuyo yatanzeho ingwate arega. [5] Umuhoza Annoncita yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, ikirego cye cyandikwa kuri numero RCA 0064/07/TGI/GSBO, muri urwo rubanza hanagobokeshwa Goboka, ariko ruza gusibwa ku wa 21/11/2008, ku mpamvu y‘uko Umuhoza Annonciata wajuriye, atitabye. [6] Umuhoza Annoncita yabyukije urubanza ku wa 16/06/2009, asobanura impamvu zatumye atitaba ngo aburane urubanza rwe, Urukiko rurazemera ruburanisha urwo rubanza mu mizi. [7] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rwaciye urubanza RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO ku wa 25/02/2010, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Umuhoza Annonciata bufite ishingiro, rutegeka Mukandekezi Euphrasie gusubiza umutungo yahawe witwa ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 243

211

ari igice cy’abana Uwambaje Liliane na Uwitonze Diane, ukagaruka mu mutungo wa nyakwigendera Ndayambaje Pierre, Umuhoza Annonciata akawucungira abana nk’uko yabiherewe uburenganzira n`Urukiko, runategeka Mukandekezi Euphrasie kwishyura Umuhoza Annonciata indishyi zihwanye na 1.500.000 Frw akanishyura amagarama angana na 13.900 Frw. Uru rubanza RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 25/02/2010 rwuzuzwa n’urubanza rusobanura RCA 0499/10/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 21/01/2011. [8] Mukandekezi Euphrasie yahise atanga ikindi kirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo asaba gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO, ikirego cye gihabwa numero RC 00249/2017/TGI/GSBO, ndetse inama ntegura rubanza yarwo ikaba yari iteganyijwe ku wa 02/03/2018 ariko kugeza ubu, rukaba rutaracibwa. [9] Mu gihe uru rubanza RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO rusabirwa gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya rutaracibwa n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, uwitwa Ndayisenga Protais yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, arega Umuhoza Annonciata, asaba Urukiko gukemura ukuvuguruzanya kuri hagati y’Umwanzuro wa Komite y`Abunzi b’Umurenge wa Kimironko wo ku wa 09/07/2005 n‘urubanza RC 0770/05/TD/KCY rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Kacyiru ku wa 23/07/2007 rurjuririrwa mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, hacibwa urubanza RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO, avuga ko izo manza zombi zaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, ikirego cyahawe numero RC 00008/2017/CS. [10] Me Nsengimana Emmanuel wunganira Umuhoza Annonciata avuga ko mu gihe ikirego cya Ndayisenga Protais kitakwakirwa, uwo yunganira yahabwa indishyi zose hamwe zingana na 1.000.000 Frw. NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 244

212

[11] Me Twizeyimana Innocent uhagarariye Ndayisenga Protais avuga ko indishyi zasabwe uwo yunganira atazicibwa, kuko imanza nyinshi zagiye ziba ari Umuhoza Annonciata wazishoyemo umuryango we, anasaba ko atahabwa igihembo cya avoka. [12] Iburanisha ry`uru rubanza ryabaye ku wa 04/09/2018, Ndayisenga Protais ahagarariwe na Me Twizeyimana Innocent, Umuhoza Annonciata yunganiwe na Me Nsengimana Emmanuel. Iburanisha ritangiye, Nsengimana Emmanuel yatanze inzitizi, asaba ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Ndayisenga Protais kitakwakirwa kubera iburabubasha bw`Urukiko rw`Ikirenga ku kirego gisaba gukemura ivuguruzanya ry`imanza ryavuzwe haruguru, inzitizi y’uko rumwe muri izo manza zivugwa ko zivuguruzanya, rwasabiwe gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo rutaraburanishwa, n`indi ijyanye n‘uko urega nta nyungu afite mu rubanza, ariko iyi yaje kuyivanaho igihe cy`iburanisha. Mu gusuzuma inzitizi zatanzwe, harasuzumwa ikibazo kirebana n`ububasha bw`uru Rukiko.

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO. Kumenya niba ikirego cy`ivuguruzanya ry’imanza kiri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga [13] Me Nsengimana Emmanuel wunganira Umuhoza Annonciata, avuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Ndayisenga Protais asaba ko uru Rukiko rwakemura ivuguruzanya ry`imanza zavuzwe haruguru kitakwakirwa, kuko cyatanzwe nta tegeko ririho riteganyamko iryo vuguruzanya rikemurwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. Asobanura ko imanza zivuguruzanya zavuzwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 245

213

haruguru, zaciwe mbere y’uko hashyirwaho Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ryatangiye kubahirizwa ku wa 13/06/2012. Asobanura ko Umwanzuro wa Komite y’Abunzi wafashwe ku wa 15/07/2005, urubanza RC 0770/05/TD/KCY rucibwa ku wa 23/03/2007, n‘urubanza RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 25/02/2010, ko rero kuba izo manza zaraciwe mbere y’uko itegeko urega ashingiraho ububasha bw`uru Rukiko rijyaho, nta bubasha rufite bwo kuburanisha iki kirego hashingiwe ku biteganywa n`ingingo za 87, 91 na 92 z’Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryavuzwe haruguru. Avuga kandi ko no mu Itegeko rishya rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko, nta rukiko rwahawe ububasha ku birego birebana n`ivuguruzanya. [14] Me Twizeyimana Innocent uhagarariye Ndayisenga Protais avuga ko iyi nzitizi nta shingiro ifite, ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha kuri iki kirego, kuko n`ubwo izo manza zivuguruzanya zabaye itegeko, hari izindi manza zizikomokaho, zaburanishijwe Itegeko Ngenga riha ububasha Urukiko rw`Ikirenga ku ivuguruzanya ryaratangajwe, zirimo urubanza rwa Mukandekezi Euphrasie akosoza urubanza, n’urwo gusobanuza, ko zose zaburanishijwe nyuma y‘uko Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL rivugwa rigiyeho, akaba rero asanga iryo tegeko ryarakomeje gukoreshwa kuri izo manza zivuguruzanya kugeza mu mwaka wa 2017, ko kandi Itegeko rishya N°30/2018 du 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko, ntaho ribuza uru Rukiko rw`Ikirenga gusuzuma ibirego birebana n‘ivuguruzanya ry`imanza.

NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 246

214

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA. a. Ku byerekeye ububasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku birego by`ivuguruzanya ry’imanza igihe hakurikizwaga Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga. [15] Urukiko rusanga ububasha bw ‘Urukiko, budakwiye kureberwa igihe imanza zaciriwe, ahubwo bugomba kureberwa igihe Urukiko rwaregewe. Ku birebana n`ikirego cya Ndayisenga Protais ku ivuguruzanya ry`imanza zavuzwe haruguru, bigaragara ko cyashyikirijwe uru Rukiko ku wa 13/07/2017, Itegeko Ngenga N° 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, rigena imiterere, imikorere n’ububasha by’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ryahaga ububasha Urukiko ry`Ikirenga ku ivuguruzanya ry`imanza mu ngingo yaryo ya 29, agace ka 12 rikiriho, kuko ryavanyweho ku itariki ya 02/06/2018, bityo Urukiko rukaba rusanga rwari rufite ububasha bwo kwakira no gusuzuma icyo kirego. b. Kumenya niba Urukiko rw`Ikirenga rugifite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ibirego by`ivuguruzanya ry`imanza hakurikizwa Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko. [16] Urukiko rusanga Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko ntaho ryateganyirije uru Rukiko, ububasha bwo gukemura ukuvuguruzanya hagati y`imanza, ndetse nta n`urundi rukiko rwahawe ubwo bubasha. [17] Urukiko rusanga ariko kuba ubwo bubasha butarateganyijwe, atari ku mpamvu z`uko Umushingamategeko yashatse ko ibirego birebana n`ivuguruzanya ry`imanza bitazajya ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 247

215

bikemurwa, ahubwo byumvikana ko byibagiranye, hakaba rero hagomba kugenwa urukiko rukwiye kuburanisha bene ibyo birego. [18] Uru Rukiko rusanga icyerekezo cyafashwe n`Umushingamategeko mu Itegeko rishya Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko, ari uko imanza hafi ya zose zaburanishwaga n`Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, zashyizwe mu bubasha bw‘Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, nkuko biteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 52 y`iri tegeko. [19] Urukiko rusanga rero ubwo ukuvuguruzanya hagati y`imanza zaciwe mu rwego rwa nyuma kwari mu bubasha bw`Urukiko rw’Ikirenga nkuko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 29 agace ka 12° y’Itegeko Nº 03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012, ubwo bubasha ku ivuguruzanya ry`imanza nabwo bugomba guhabwa Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, bityo, akaba ari naho uru rubanza rugomba kwimurirwa, cyane ko rutari mu manza zari zatangiye kuburanishwa, zo zigomba gukomereza muri uru Rukiko, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n`ingingo ya 105 y`Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw`Inkiko iteganya ko ``Guhera igihe iri tegeko ritangiriye gukurikizwa, uretse imanza zatangiye kuburanishwa, imanza zose zitakiri mu bubasha bw‘urukiko zaregewe, zohererezwa Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n`iri tegeko. Ibyakozwe mu rubanza n`ibyemezo byafashwe bigumana agaciro kabyo. [20] Naho ku bijyanye n`ikibazo cya rumwe mu manza1 zivugwaho kuba zivuguruzanya, rutaracibwa kimwe

1 Umwanzuro w`Abunzi b`Umurenge wa Kimironko wafashwe ku wa 09/07/2005. NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 248

216

n’icy’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga ari ibigomba gusuzumwa n`Urukiko rw`Ubujurire, kuko arirwo rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma urubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [21] Rwemeje ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha ry`Urukiko rw`Ikirenga yatanzwe na Umuhoza Annonciata ifite ishingiro; [22] Rwemeje ko Urukiko rw`Ikirenga rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego kirebana n`ivuguruzanya ry`imanza rwashyikirijwe na Ndayisenga Protais; [23] Rutegetse ko urubanza rwimuriwa mu Rukiko rw`Ubujurire; [24] Rutegetse ko amagarama y`urubanza yatanzwe ahwanye n`ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

-Urubanza N°RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO (rukomoka ku rubanza RC 0770/05/TD/KCY) rwaciwe ku wa 25/02/2010 Mukandekezi EUphrasie yasabiye gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, rugitegereje kuburanishwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 249

217

URUBANZA RW’UBUCURUZI

## Page 250

218

## Page 251

219

IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y'U RWANDA (MININFRA) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA 00012/2017/SC, (Kayitesi, Z., P.J., Cyanzayire, na Mutashya J.) 23 Mata 2019] Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Kwishyuza ingwate yo kurangiza neza imirimo – Rwiyemezamirimo wahawe isoko ryo gukurikirana imirimo (Supervising works) ntiyakwitwaza ko igihe cyari kiri mu masezerano cyo gukora akazi cyarangiye ngo yake gusubizwa ingwate mu gihe atagaragaza imirimo yakozwe. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge aho IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils yareze Leta y’Urwanda mu izina rya MININFRA ko itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye yo kugenzura imirimo yakorwaga na Sosiyete yitwa ESPINA ngo kuko itayishyuye amafaranga agaragara ku nyemezabwishyu eshanu yayishyikirije.Ivuga andi ko itahawe amafaranga y’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza Mu guca urubanza Urukiko rwavuze ko ikirego cyatanzwe na IGIP MBH Ingénieurs-Conseils nta shingiro gifite ko ndetse umwenda yishyuza n’indishyi zinyuranye isaba itazihabwa ngo kuko nta bimenyetso bifatika yabashije gushyikiriza Urukiko. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ntiyishimiye imikirize bityo ijuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, mu bujurire bwayo yavuzeko Urukiko rubanza rutahaye agaciro ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe ndetse runasobanura nabi Itegeko rigenga amasoko ya Leta rusobanura amasezerano yakoranye na 219

## Page 252

220

MININFRA. Urikiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils nta shingiro bufite, ruvuga ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutategetse ko yishyurwa umwenda ku mirimo yakoze itarishyuwe, kandi yarawutangiye ibimenyetso bigizwe n’inyemezabuguzi z’umwimerere zakiriwe na MININFRA, ikaba itarigeze izihakana cyangwa ngo ivuge ko imirimo itarangiye. Avuga ko raporo y’akazi yakozwe igashyikirizwa MININFRA ndetse ko kopi yayo yashyikirijwe Urukiko. Uhagarariye Leta muri uru rubanza avuga ko iyi ngingo y’ubujurire nta shingiro ifite ngo kuko nkuko byakunze gusobanurwa ikibazo cy’ingenzi ari ukugaragaza ibimenyetso, nk’inyemezabuguzi zashyizweho umukono na "fonctionnaire dirigeant", ariko ko kugeza ubu uwo baburana atabigaragaza nubwo agerageza kwerekana ko Inkiko zitabiha agaciro nyamara ntacyo baba barugaragarije. Ibyuko imirimo y’umushinga yarangiye byo asobanura ko abayikoraga basabye ko haba réception provisoire, ariko muri réception technique yagombaga kuyibanziriza basanga hari byinshi bitakozwe, bituma hataba réception provisoire na réception définitive. Bityo rero bikaba bisobanuye neza ko akazi katarangiye. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga kandi ko Urukiko rwitiranyije ingwate itangwa mbere yo gutangira isoko itangwa nuwatsindiye isoko ndetse n’ ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin des travaux). kuko iyi igenda ikatwa kuri buri fagitire ishyikirizwa urwego ruba rwatanze isoko akaba rero ariyo bishyuza. Akomeza avuga ko kuba ESPINA itararangije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 253

221

imirimo yayo yose bitatuma idasubizwa 10% yagiye ikatwa ku nyemezabuguzi yagendaga ishyikiriza MININFRA. Mu busobanuro bwe, uhagarariye Leta avuga ko ibyo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils isaba nta shingiro bifite ngo kuko n’ubwo imirimo yakorwaga na ESPINA, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils niyo yagombaga gukurikirana uko ikorwa kandi ikarangira neza, ibyaba bitagenda neza ikabigaragaza. Ni nayo mpamvu mu masezerano Leta yagiranye na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, hateganyijwemo ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin), isubizwa ari uko imirimo yakorwaga irangiye neza, ikakirwa. Kuba rero ESPINAyarataye imirimo itarangiye kandi IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils nta Raporo yigeze itangwa igaragaza imikorere idahwitse ya ESPINA kuburyo isoko ririnda riseswa imirimo itarangiye batahindukira ngo bavuge ko bo akazi bari bashinzwe bakarangije neza. Incamake y’Icyemezo: Rwiyemezamirimo wahawe isoko ryo gukurikirana imirimo (Supervising works) ntiyakwitwaza ko igihe cyari kiri mu masezerano cyo gukora akazi cyarangiye ngo yake ingwate mu gihe atagaragaza imirimo yakozwe Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite Ingwate y’amagarama ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 75. Itegeko N 12//2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ingingo ya 75 na 101. Nta manza zifashishijwe. IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 254

222

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku masezerano y’akazi (contrat de service) No 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB yo ku wa 23/06/2006, Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Minisiteri yari ifite amazi mu nshingano zayo (MINITERE) yagiranye na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, yiswe “Contrat de consultants pour prestations de services de validation des études d’exécution établies par l’Entreprise, contrôle et surveillance des travaux de renforcement d’AEP de la Ville de Kigali à partir de la nappe phréatique de la Nyabarongo”. Ayo masezerano y’akazi yari afite agaciro ka 428.275 Euro na 31.700.000 Frw, kandi ako kazi kagomba gukorwa mu gihe cy’amezi 14, ariko icyo gihe kikaba cyaragiye cyongerwa. Incuro ya mbere, amasezerano yongerewe kuva ku wa 24/04/2008 kugeza ku wa 30/11/2008 (avenant Nº 1 au contrat Nº 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB), yongera kongererwa igihe ku wa 24/12/2008 agomba kurangira ku wa 31/03/2009 (avenant Nº 2 au contrat Nº 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB). [2] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga ko byageze ku wa 31/03/2009, ikomeza gukora kugeza ku wa 30/11/2009 ariko nta masezerano ahari. Ivuga ko nyuma y’aho Minisitiri w’Ubutabera akaba n’Intumwa Nkuru ya Leta agiriye inama MININFRA ko kugirango IGIP mbH Ingénieurs - Conseils izishyurwe imirimo yakoze hagati yo kuwa 31/03/2009 kugeza kuwa 30/11/2009, hagomba gukorwa amasezerano yanditse ajyanye n’imirimo yakozwe muri icyo gihe, ku wa 14/05/2010 IGIP mbH Ingénieurs - Conseils na MININFRA basinyanye amasezerano yiswe “contract of consultancy service for supervision of the works for ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 255

223

the project to supply water to Kigali city from Nyabarongo ground water resources”. Ayo masezerano akaba yari ay’igihe cy’amezi umunani (8) kuva ku wa 31/03/2009 kugeza ku wa 30/11/2009, akaba ari nayo aregerwa ko atubahirijwe. [3] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yareze MININFRA mu Rukiko rw’ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge, ivuga ko yayikoreye inyemezabuguzi eshanu (5) zikurikira: • N° 29A iriho 18.886,93 Euro, na N° 29B iriho 8.180.146 Frw, z’amafaranga atarishyuwe, zashyikirijwe MININFRA ku wa 17/04/2009; • N° 30A iriho 83.889,20 Euro, na N° 30B iriho 5.276.600 Frw, zijyanye n’amafaranga yagiye akatwa ku nyemezabuguzi zishyuwe (garantie de bonne fin), zashyikirijwe MININFRA ku wa 22/01/2010; • N° 31B yishyuza 2.874.458 Frw, yashyikirijwe MININFRA ku wa 20/01/2010. Inyemezabuguzi zose hamwe zihwanye na 102.786,13 Euro na 16.331.204 Frw. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga ko MININFRA yanze kuzishyura kugeza ubu, ikaba isaba ko yazishyurwa hiyongereyeho inyungu z’uwo mwenda zibariwe kuri 18% ku mwaka kuva mu mwaka wa 2009 na 2010 kugeza igihe umwenda wose uzishyurirwa, ndetse ikanishyurwa amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 2.000.000 Frw n’igihembo cy’avoka gihwanye na 7% y’umwenda wose wishyuzwa. [4] Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza RCOM 00307/2016/TC/NYGE, ku wa 29/07/2016, rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils nta shingiro gifite, rwemeza ko umwenda wose n’indishyi zinyuranye isaba IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 256

224

itazihabwa. Rwasobanuye ko urega nta bimenyetso bifatika yarugaragarije byerekana ko izo nyemezabuguzi zishyuzwa zaba zarakiriwe muri MININFRA ikirengagiza kuzishyura, bityo Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera ruyitegeka kwishyura amafaranga n’ama Euro yaregeye. Urwo Rukiko rwasobanuye ko IGIP MbH Ingénieurs-Conseils itigeze ishyikiriza Urukiko amasezerano yo ku wa 14/04/2009 yagiranye na MININFRA, ahubwo ko ayo yashyikirije Urukiko ari ayo ku wa 14/05/2010, kandi ikaba itarashoboye kugaragaza isano iri hagati y’ayo masezerano yombi, n’akwiye gushingirwaho ayo ariyo. [5] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ijuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ivuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwayirenganyije ku mpamvu ebyiri, aho rwemeje ko kongera amasezerano (avenant) byakozwe mu buryo budakurikije ingingo ya 74 y’Itegeko N° 12/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, n’aho rwemeje ko nta bimenyetso bigaragaza ko umwimerere w’inyemezabuguzi yishyuza zashyikirijwe MININFRA. Isobanura ko Urukiko rutahuje ibikubiye mu masezerano y’inyongera n’ibyo Itegeko riteganya, kuko rivuga impinduka ibaye mu masezerano kandi akaba nta mpinduka yabaye ahubwo ko habayeho kongerera igihe amasezerano bikozwe n’Umunyamabanga Uhoraho wa MININFRA, ku busabe bwa IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils. Ivuga kandi ko ikindi kiregerwa ari ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin) ihwanye na 10%. [6] MININFRA yireguye ivuga ko impamvu z’ubujurire nta shingiro zifite, kuko kuba IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yemera ko amasezerano yongerewe igihe, ariko igahakana ko nta mpinduka zabayeho, yirengagiza ko guhindura igihe amasezerano azarangirira ari impinduka zivugwa n’ingingo ya 74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 257

225

yavuzwe haruguru. Naho ku birebana n’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin) uwajuriye asaba, MININFRA ivuga ko atayihabwa kuko atagaragaza niba imirimo yararangiye. [7] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza RCOMA 00494/2016/CHC/HCC, ku wa 06/01/2017, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils nta shingiro bufite, rutegeka ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba haragombaga kubaho amasezerano yihariye yo kongera igihe cy’amasezerano y’ibanze, Urukiko Rukuru rwakosoye ibyari byasobanuwe n’Urukiko rubanza, rugaragaza ko kuba icyahinduwe ari amatariki yo kurangirizaho imirimo biturutse ku busabe bwa rwiyemezamirimo, kandi urwego rwatanze isoko rukaba rwaramwandikiye rumwemerera ko yongerewe igihe asaba, bitagombaga andi masezerano yihariye kuko nta mpinduka yabaye, bityo ibyakozwe bikaba bitanyuranye n’ibiteganywa n’amategeko. Ku birebana n’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin) ingana n’ama Euro 102.786,13 isabwa n’uwajuriye, Urukiko rwasanze nta shingiro byahabwa kuko usibye no kuba atabasha kurugaragariza ko iyo ngwate yatanzwe koko, atanagaragaje ibimenyetso by’uko imirimo yarangiye, ndetse ikanakirwa burundu nk’uko amategeko abiteganya. [8] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yajuririye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, inenga Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuba rwaremeje ko inyemezabuguzi zashyikirijwe MININFRA zidahagije kugirango zihamye umwenda iberewemo, ko hagomba ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yatanze ingwate mbere yo gutangira isoko, kandi icyaregewe atari ingwate yo gutangira isoko ahubwo ari ukwishyurwa umwenda ujyanye n’imirimo IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 258

226

yakozwe ntiyishyurwe, no gusubizwa amafaranga yagiye akatwa ku nyemezabuguzi nk’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza. [9] Mu myanzuro yo kwiregura ku bujurire bwa IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, uburanira Leta y’u Rwanda (MININFRA) yatanze inzitizi y’iburabubasha bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, avuga ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa katageze kuri 50.000.000 Frw cyangwa se ngo muri urwo rubanza habe haragenwemo indishyi zingana na 50.000.000 Frw, kandi ko IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yatsinzwe ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri ku mpamvu imwe yo kubura ibimenyetso. [10] Urukiko rwaburanishije kuri iyo nzitizi ku wa 13/06/2012, rufata icyemezo ku wa 20/04/2018, rwemeza ko nta shingiro ifite, rutegeka ko iburanisha rizasubukurwa ku wa 19/06/2018. Uwo munsi urubanza ntirwaburanishijwe bitewe n’impinduka z’amategeko, rwimurirwa ku wa 02/10/2018, ruburanishwa mu ruhame Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel ahagarariye IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, naho Me Umwali Munyentwari Claire ahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda (MININFRA), Urukiko rwemeza ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 09/11/2018. Mu gihe Urukiko rwari mu mwiherero, Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel yohereje ibimenyetso bitagiweho impaka, bigizwe na « dispositions générales » na « conditions particulières du contrat », ndetse n’ibaruwa yitiriwe Umunyamabanga Uhoraho muri MININFRA yo ku wa 06/12/2009. [11] Urukiko, rushingiye ku ngingo ya 75 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo, n’iz’ubutegetsi no ku ruhare ibimenyetso byatanzwe na Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel bishobora kugira ku mikirize y’urubanza, rwasanze ari ngombwa ko iburanisha ryongera ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 259

227

gufungurwa kugirango ababuranyi bagire icyo babivugaho, rishyirwa ku wa 15/01/2019. [12] Kuri iyo tariki, ababuranyi bose baritabye bajya impaka ku bimenyetso byatanzwe nyuma yo gupfundikira iburanisha. Nyuma yo kumva icyo buri ruhande ruvuga kuri ibyo bimenyetso, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe cy’uko mbere yo guca urubanza, ari ngombwa kubanza kubaza MININFRA ibijyanye n’ibaruwa yasinywe na Marie Claire Mukasani ku wa 06/12/2009 nk’Umunyamabanga Uhoraho, mu gihe Umunyamabanga Uhoraho yitwaga Mukasine Marie Claire, igasobanura niba ibaruwa ari iyayo hakaba harabaye kwibeshya. Urubanza rwimuriwe ku wa 19/03/2019, kuri uwo munsi iburanisha ribera mu ruhame, hasuzumwa igisubizo MININFRA yahaye Urukiko ivuga ko ibaruwa yo ku wa 06/12/2009 itanditwe n’uwari Umunyamabanga Uhoraho Mukasine Marie Claire, ko ahubwo ifite nimero y’indi baruwa yo ku wa 07/05/2009; hasuzumwa kandi n’ibindi bimenyetso Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel yari yatanze nyuma yo gupfundikira iburanisha. Iburanisha ntiryashojwe uwo munsi kubera ko Urukiko rwasanze ari ngombwa ko mbere y’uko urubanza rucibwa, hari ibigomba kubanza gusobanuka, rusaba Me Umwali Munyentwari Claire kujya gushaka amakuru yuzuye ku mushinga harimo n’impapuro zijyanye nawo. [13] Urukiko rwasabye kandi Ubwanditsi gutumiza umukozi wo muri MININFRA warusobanurira ibi bikurikira: - Imirimo yakozwe n’itarakozwe kuri uyu mushinga; - Uburyo inyemezabuguzi zakirwaga n’uwazakiraga; IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 260

228

- Uburyo ingingo ya 6.4, iii ya conditions particulières yubahirijwe, niba ibivugwamo byarakozwe cyangwa bitarakozwe; - Imirimo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga ko yakoreye Surveillance ikarangiza mu gihe uhagarariye Leta avuga ko ESPINA yagenzurwaga itarangije imirimo; - Kumenya niba réception provisoire na definitive byarakozwe, n’ibindi bisobanuro byaba ngombwa ku bijyanye n’umushinga. Iburanisha ryimuriwe ku wa 09/04/2019, kuri uwo munsi ababuranyi bose baritaba, hitaba kandi Niwenshuti Emmanuel ushinzwe ubwubatsi muri MININFRA, YARAMBA Albert ushinzwe gukurikirana inyigo zo gukwirakwiza amazi muri WASAC, na Mwesigye Sam Umujyanama mu by’amategeko muri MININFRA. [14] Niwenshuti Emmanuel yabwiye Urukiko ko imirimo y’umushinga itigeze irangira, ko abayikoraga basabye ko haba réception provisoire, ariko muri réception technique yagombaga kuyibanziriza basanga hari byinshi bitakozwe, bituma hataba réception provisoire na réception définitive. Yasobanuye ko uruhare rwa IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils rwari ukugenzura imigendekere myiza y’umushinga, harimo no kureba ibitarakozwe neza. Yavuze kandi ko, iyo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils iza gukora rapport provisoire igaragaza uko imirimo ihagaze, ibyagenze neza n’ibyagenze nabi, yashoboraga gusubizwa 5% y’ingwate yo kurangiza neza imirimo, ariko ko bitakozwe. [15] Ku bijyanye n’uko inyemezabuguzi zakirwaga n’uwazakiraga, Niwenshuti Emmanuel yabwiye Urukiko ko IGIP ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 261

229

mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yohererezaga MININFRA inyemezabuguzi iherekejwe na raporo y’imirimo, yamara kwakirwa igahabwa ingénieur ukurikirana imirimo, akagenzura ko ihuje n’ibisabwa, agatanga approbation ikabona kujya muri Finance kugirango yishyurwe. [16] Ku bijyanye no kumenya uburyo ingingo ya 6.4, iii ya conditions particulières yubahirijwe, Yaramba Albert yasobanuriye Urukiko ko ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza yagombaga gusubizwa yari 10%, 5% agomba gusubizwa ari uko habaye „réception provisoire des travaux, andi 5% agasubizwa nyuma ya réception définitive Avuga ko imirimo itarangiye, ntihaba kuyakira, ntihagira na raporo zitangwa, bituma hataba no gusubiza ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza. Yasobanuye ko raporo z’ibyakozwe zatangwaga na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils, kandi ko guzubiza ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza bitakorwaga kuri buri nyemezabuguzi, ahubwo byagombaga gukorwa ari uko hamaze kubaho réception provisoire na réception definitive [17] Ibibazo by’ingenzi byagiweho impaka bigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza, ni umwenda IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga ko iberewemo na MININFRA ku mirimo yakozwe ntiyishyurwe, n’ amafaranga y’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza ivuga ko yagiye ikatwa kuri buri nyemezabuguzi ntiyasubizwe.

IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 262

230

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A. Kumenya niba hari amafaranga Leta y’u Rwanda (MININFRA) igomba kwishyura IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils y’umwenda w’imirimo ivuga ko yakoze ntiyishyurwe [18] Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel ahagarariye IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils avuga ko impamvu yamujurije ari uko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutategetse ko yishyurwa umwenda ku mirimo yakoze itarishyuwe, kandi yarawutangiye ibimenyetso bigizwe n’inyemezabuguzi z’umwimerere zakiriwe na MININFRA, ikaba itarigeze izihakana cyangwa ngo ivuge ko imirimo itarangiye. Asobanura ko amasezerano yasinywe mu mwaka wa 2006 n’ayasinywe mu 2010 ari amwe kandi ko yuzuzanya, ndetse ko ayo mu 2010 yasinywe nyuma y’uko Minisitiri w’ubutabera agiriye inama MININFRA ko kugira ngo imirimo yakozwe nta masezerano ibashe kwishyurwa, ari uko hasinywa andi masezerano arebana n’iyo mirimo, ko rero atari "avenant" ahubwo ari amasezerano yakozwe hongerwa igihe cy’imirimo (prolongation de délais). [19] Avuga ko IGIP mbH Ingénieurs yakoze akazi yahawe ikakarangiza ndetse ikanongerwa akandi, ko nta kuntu yari kuba itararangije akazi ka mbere ngo yongere ihabwe akandi. Avuga ko amasezerano yose IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yahawe yayubahirije, ko kandi n’ibikorwa byakozwe bihari. Avuga ko raporo y’akazi yakozwe ndetse ikaba yaranashyikirijwe Urukiko, ko kandi Itegeko ryateganyaga ko iyo raporo itanzwe hagashira iminsi 60 ntacyo iravugwaho, bifatwa ko yemewe. Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba hari raporo zakorwaga na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils mbere yo kwishyuza, Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 263

231

avuga ko zakorwaga zikemezwa n’abakozi bakurikiranaga imirimo ba ELECTROGAZ cyangwa PNEAR (Programme National d’Alimentation en eau potable), ikimenyetso akaba ari nk’inyemezabuguzi ya mbere n’iya kabiri zishyuwe hamaze koherezwa raporo. [20] Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel avuga ko ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’Abakozi ba MININFRA na WASAC budakwiye guhabwa agaciro kubera ko nabo bari mu bagize uruhare kugira ngo urubanza rube ruri mu Rukiko, ko iyo bakora ibyo bagombaga gukora, ikibazo kiba cyararangiye. Avuga ko Uwitwa Niwenshuti Emmanuel ariwe wasinye ku nyemezabuguzi nº 29B iri mu ziburanwa [21] Me Umwali Munyantwari Claire avuga ko ikibazo cy’ingenzi kiri muri uru rubanza ari ukugaragaza ibimenyetso, nk’inyemezabuguzi yashyizweho umukono na "fonctionnaire dirigeant", ariko ko kugeza ubu uwo baburana atabigaragaza. Akomeza avuga ko mu guca uru rubanza hagomba kurebwa ingingo ya 101 y’Itegeko Nº 12/2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ko kandi inyemezabuguzi IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yishyuza ziteye urujijo kuko uwazakiriye atagaragara, uretse kuba handitseho Ir Bosco, zikaba rero zidashobora gufatwa nk’ikimenyetso cy’umwenda Leta iyifitiye. [22] Ku nyemezabuguzi 29A ya 18.886,93 Euro na 29B ya 8.180.146 Frw, Intumwa ya Leta ivuga ko zakozwe mu kwa 03/2009 zikakirwa na MININFRA ku wa 30/04/2009, zikaba zishingiye ku masezerano yarangiye ku wa 31/03/2009, kandi ikirego IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yatanze igishingira ku masezerano yo ku wa 14/05/2010 yagombaga gutangira ku wa 01/04/2009. Bityo, ibyo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils isaba, IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 264

232

uretse no kuba nta bimenyetso ibigaragariza, biri hanze y’amasezerano yashingiyeho itanga ikirego. [23] Me Umwali Munyentwari Claire avuga ko IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils itigeze itanga raporo igaragaza imirimo yakoze, ko kandi inyemezabuguzi bavuga yasinyweho na Niwenshuti Emmanuel atari ikimenyetso, kuko yanditseho mu magambo y’igifaransa pour vérification bivuze ko wenda nyuma yo kugenzura basanze itujuje ibyangombwa harimo no kuba itari iherekejwe na raporo. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Amafaranga IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yishyuza ku mirimo ivuga ko yakozwe ntiyishyurwe, ni 18.886,93 Euro ari mu nyemezabuguzi 29A, na 8.180.146 Frw ari mu nyemezabuguzi 29B. Izo nyemezabuguzi bigaragara ko zakozwe ku wa 17/04/2009, hishyuzwa imirimo yakozwe mu kwezi kwa 3/2009. Hari kandi 2.874.458 Frw, ari mu nyemezabuguzi 31B, bigaragara ko yakozwe ku wa 25/11/2010, ijyanye n’imirimo ivugwa ko yakozwe kuva mu kwezi kwa 4 kugeza mu kwa 11/ 2009. Bigaragara ko imirimo ivugwa ko yakozwe mu kwezi kwa 3/2009, ishingiye kuri « avenant » No 2 yongeraga amasezerano No 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB kuva ku wa 24/12/2008 kugeza ku wa 31/03/2009; naho imirimo ivugwa ko yakozwe kuva mu kwezi kwa 4 kugeza mu kwa 11/ 2009, ikaba ishingiye ku masezerano No 334/UPPR/010 yasinywe ku wa 14/05/2010 agomba gukurikizwa kuva ku wa 01/04/2009 kugeza ku wa 30/11/2009. [25] Amasezerano No 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB yo ku wa 23/11/2006, afite inyandiko ziyaherekeje nazo zigize ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 265

233

amasezerano, arizo les conditions générales du contrat, les conditions particulières du contrat, n’imigereka ». Ibikubiye muri izi nyandiko byagombaga gukurikizwa no ku bijyanye n’amasezerano yo ku wa 14/05/2010, hashingiwe ku ngingo yayo ya 2 iteganya ko uhawe imirimo azayikora hakurikijwe ibiteganyijwe mu masezerano abanza arebana n’umushinga wo gutanga amazi mu Mujyi wa Kigali aturutse mu mugezi wa Nyabarongo. [26] Ingingo ya 6.4 ya conditions générales du contrat, iteganya ko kwishyura bizajya bikorwa ari uko ibiteganyijwe muri « conditions particulières » birebana n’ubwo bwishyu byubahirijwe, kandi uwahawe imirimo (consultant) yatanze inyemezabuguzi igaragaza amafaranga yishyurwa. Ingingo ya 6.4, iii ya conditions particulières niyo igaragaza ibigomba kubahirizwa kugirango imirimo yishyurwe, ikaba iteganya ko hazajya hishyurwa buri kwezi 7% y’igiciro cyose mu byiciro 13, hamaze gutangwa raporo ya buri kwezi, kandi yamaze kwemezwa, hakishyurwa n’inyemezabuguzi imwe (1) ya nyuma hamaze gutangwa raporo ya nyuma y’imirimo. [27] Ingingo ya 101 y’Itegeko No 12//2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta iteganya ko kwishyura bikorwa iyo uwegukanye isoko yatanze inyemezabuguzi yerekana umubare w’amafaranga yishyuza; iyo nyemezabuguzi ikaba yemezwa kandi igashyirwaho umukono n’umukozi ushinzwe igenzura ry’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano (fonctionnaire dirigeant). [28] Ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 101 y’Itegeko rigenga amasoko ya leta rimaze kuvugwa, bihujwe n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6.4 ya conditions générales na 6.4, iii ya conditions particulières byumvikanisha ko kugirango uwahawe isoko yishyurwe imirimo IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 266

234

yakoze, hagomba kuba hari raporo igaragaza ibyakozwe kandi yemejwe, n’inyemezabuguzi yemejwe kandi igashyirwaho umukono n’umukozi ubishinzwe ariwe fonctionnaire dirigeant. [29] Ku bijyanye n’inyemezabuguzi 29A, 29B na 31B IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga ko zitishyuwe, nta raporo y’imirimo yakozwe ijyanye nazo kandi yemejwe (approuvé), nta n’inyemezabuguzi yemejwe kandi igashyirwaho umukono n’umukozi ushinzwe igenzura ry’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano (fonctionnaire dirigeant), byigeze bigaragarizwa Urukiko. Ku nyemezabuguzi 29A na 29B hagaragaraho ko zohererejwe Ir J. Bosco /ELECTROGAZ « pour vérification », naho ku nyemezabuguzi 31B hakagaragaraho kashe « pour réception MININFRA », ibi bikaba ntaho bihuriye n’ibisabwa kugirango inyemezabuguzi yishyurwe nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ni ukuvuga raporo yemejwe (approuvé) y’imirimo yakozwe, n’inyemezabuguzi yemejwe kandi yashyizweho umukono n’umukozi ubishinzwe. Ibyo uhagarariye IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils avuga ko raporo zisabwa zakorwaga, ntibihagije mu gihe atazigaragariza Urukiko, kandi niwe ugomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu gika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi. [30] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ibisabwa n’Itegeko rigenga amasoko ya Leta kimwe n’inyandiko zigize amasezerano impande zombi zashyizeho umukono, kugirango uwahawe imirimo yishyurwe, atarabyubahirije rukaba rero ntaho rwahera rwemeza ko hari amafaranga Leta y’u Rwanda (MININFRA) igomba kwishyura ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 267

235

IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils y’umwenda w’imirimo ivuga ko yakoze ntiyishyurwe. B. Kumenya niba hari amafaranga Leta y’u Rwanda (MININFRA) igomba gusubiza IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils ajyanye n’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza [31] Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel ahagarariye IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwitiranyije ingwate yo kurangiza isoko neza iteganywa n’ingingo ya 75 n’izikurikira z’Itegeko Nº 12/2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, n’ ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin des travaux) ingana na 10% yagiye ikatwa kuri buri nyemezabuguzi yishyuwe, yagombaga gusubizwa ari uko imirimo irangiye. Avuga ko ingwate yo kurangiza isoko neza iteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 75 yavuzwe haruguru, itangwa n’uwegukanye isoko mbere yo gusinya amasezerano, ikaba itandukanye n’ingwate IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yaregeye gusubizwa, kandi ko bene iyo ngwate idatangwa ku birebana n’amasoko ya serivisi y’impuguke nk’iryo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yatsindiye. [32] Akomeza avuga ko ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza iteganyijwe mu masezerano bagiranye mu gice cya "conditions particulières", ingingo ya 6.4, iii; na raporo zivugwamo zikaba zarakorwaga zikemezwa n’abakozi ba Electrogaz cyangwa ba PNAER (Programme National d’Alimentation en Eau Potable umushinga wari muri MINITERE) bakurikiranaga imirimo. Avuga ko imirimo yose yarangiye nk’uko bigaragazwa n’icyemezo cyatanzwe na MININFRA ku wa 06/12/2009 kikakirwa ku wa 17/01/2010, kigaragaza akazi kakozwe n’igihe kamaze, kuba kitaratanzwe mu nkiko zibanza bikaba byaratewe n’uko kitigeze kibazwa kandi kikaba kitari cyakabonetse. Avuga IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 268

236

kandi ko n’inyemezabuguzi zose zishyuwe (kuva ku ya 1 kugeza ku ya 28) nk’uko bigaragazwa na "transferts" zakozwe kuri konti ya IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils mu Budage no muri BK Ltd, hakaba harasigaye 10% ya "retenue de garantie de bonne fin" ariyo yishyuzwa mu nyemezabuguzi ya 30A na 30B. [33] Urukiko rwabajije Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel niba uwo aburanira afite raporo y’agateganyo (rapport provisoire) na raporo ya nyuma (rapport définitif) z’imirimo zemejwe na „fonctionnaire dirigeant, avuga ko nta raporo y’agateganyo ihari kuko ntayari iteganyijwe mu masezerano, ko hari raporo y’isozwa ry’imirimo ariko idasinye, hakaba hari n’inyemezabuguzi 30B yakiriwe na MININFRA igaragaza ibyagiye bikorwa byose. Avuga ko raporo idasinye ayifata nk’intangiriro y’ikimenyetso kuko yunganirwa no kuba imirimo yarakozwe kandi ikaba yaranishyuwe hagasigara gusa 10% y’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza yagiye ikatwa. Ku bijyanye n’ibaruwa yo ku wa 06/12/2009 MININFRA yagaragaje ko itanditswe n’uwari Umunyamabanga uhoraho wayo, yavuze ko uwo yunganira aretse kuyikoresha nk’ikimenyetso, ko ahubwo byatumye bamenya ibaruwa yo ku wa 07/05/2009 igaragaza ko imirimo yakozwe. [34] Me Ndagijimana Emmanuel avuga ko kuba ESPINA itararangije imirimo yayo yose bitatuma idasubizwa 10% yagiye ikatwa ku nyemezabuguzi zakiriwe na MININFRA, zikagenzurwa, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ikishyurwa. Avuga ko imirimo yagendaga ikorwa mu bice binyuranye, kandi uko buri gice kirangiye IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils igatanga inyemezabuguzi ikishyurwa, hagasigara 10% y’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza, akaba ariyo yishyuza kuko imirimo yarangiye kandi ikanagenzurwa na MININFRA. Avuga ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 269

237

amafaranga yagiye akatwa yagombye gusubizwa ku mirimo yakozwe neza ikemerwa. [35] Me Umwali Munyentwari Claire Uhagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda avuga ko IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils itabasha kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo iregera, kuko kugirango isubizwe amafaranga iregera, yagombye kugaragaza inyemezabuguzi yakiriwe kandi ikemezwa (réception et approbation) na fonctionnaire dirigeant, hakagaragazwa na raporo z’uko imirimo yakiriwe, ni ukuvuga raporo y’agateganyo (rapport provisoire) na raporo ya nyuma (rapport définitif), nk’uko biteganyijwe mu masezerano, bikanateganywa n’ingingo ya 101 y’Itegeko rigenga amasoko ryo mu 2007. Intumwa ya Leta ivuga ko amasezerano ateganya ko IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils izasubizwa 5% kuri réception provisoire na 5% kuri réception définitive, ariko ikaba itagaragaza ko habayeho n’imwe muri izo. [36] Ku bivugwa na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ko nta raporo y’agateganyo yo kwakira imirimo yari iteganyijwe, Me Umwali Munyentwari Claire avuga ko nta mwihariko uwo mushinga wari ufite, iyo raporo ikaba yaragombaga gukorwa. Avuga kandi ko, kuba MININFRA yaramenyesheje Urukiko ko ibaruwa yo ku wa 06/12/2009 itanditswe na Mukasine Marie Claire wari umunyamabanga Uhoraho muri iyo Minisiteri, ko ahubwo ifite nimero y’indi baruwa yo ku wa 07/05/2009, byagombye kuba ikimenyetso cy’uko IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils ifite „intention yo kubeshya Urukiko kandi ko ikoresha uburiganya. Avuga ko ibaruwa yo ku wa 07/05/2009 idakwiye gufatwa nk’ikimenyetso kubera ko yandikiwe ESPINA igifite amasezerano, ikaba rero ntaho ihuriye na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils. IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 270

238

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [37] Amafaranga IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yishyuza ni 83.889,20 Euro na 5.276.600 Frw, agaragara ku nyemezabuguzi No 30A na 30 B, ajyanye n’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin) yaba yarakaswe ku nyemezabuguzi kuva kuri No 01 kugeza kuri No 28. Iyi ngwate yari iteganyijwe mu nyandiko ya « conditions particulières », nayo ikaba ari kimwe mu bigize amazezerano impande zombi zagiranye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, ikaba itandukanye n’ingwate yo kurangiza isoko neza byitiranyijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. [38] Ingingo ya 6.4, iii ya « conditions particulières » iteganya ko kuri buri nyemezabuguzi hazajya hakurwaho 10% y’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza, 5% agasubizwa habayeho kwakira imirimo by’agateganyo, andi 5% agasubizwa nyuma yo kwakira imirimo burundu. Nta nyandiko n’imwe iri muri dosiye cyangwa yashyikirijwe Urukiko, igaragaza ko habaye kwakira imirimo by’agateganyo, cyangwa ko habaye kwakira imirimo burundu. Urukiko rwashyikirijwe ahubwo n’Intumwa ya Leta, amabaruwa yo ku wa 04/09/2009 no ku wa 12/10/2009 yanditswe na MININFRA, agaragaza ko amasezerano y’uwakoraga imirimo yasheshwe itakiriwe. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils nk’urwego rwari rushinzwe gukurikirana imirimo, nta raporo ivuga yaba yarakoze isobanura impamvu kwakira imirimo bitabayeho. [39] Urukiko rurasanga raporo isoza imirimo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils iburanisha ivuga ko yarangije akazi yagombaga gukora kandi neza, nayo ubwayo yemera ko idasinye, ikaba rero itashingirwaho hemezwa ko habaye kwakira imirimo nk’uko bisabwa mu ngingo ya 6.4, iii yavuzwe haruguru. Ibaruwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 271

239

yo ku wa 06/12/2009 yari yatanzwe na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs Conseils nk’ikimenyetso ko yarangije imirimo neza, n’ubwo itashoboraga gusimbura raporo z’iyakira ry’imirimo, byagaragaye ko ari impimbano, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ivuga ko itakiyikoresheje nk’ikimenyetso. Urukiko rurasanga kandi, ibyo IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils yaburanishije ivuga ko kuba ESPINA yari ishinzwe gukora imirimo itarayirangije bitagomba kubangamira ko isubizwa ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza, nta shingiro byahabwa kuko n’ubwo imirimo yakorwaga na ESPINA, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils niyo yagombaga gukurikirana ko ikorwa neza kandi ikarangira neza, ibyaba bitagenda neza ikabigaragaza. Ni nayo mpamvu mu masezerano Leta yagiranye na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, hateganyijwemo ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza (garantie de bonne fin), isubizwa ari uko imirimo yakorwaga irangiye neza, ikakirwa nk’uko ingingo ya 6.4, iii y’ayo masezerano ibiteganya. [40] Urukiko rurasanga, nta kimenyetso na kimwe IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils itanga, kigaragaza ko ibisabwa n’ingingo ya 6.4, iii yavuzwe haruguru byubahirijwe, kugirango ishobore gusubizwa amafaranga y’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza. Urukiko rukaba rusanga rero, ntacyo rwashingiraho rutegeka Leta y’u Rwanda (MININFRA) gusubiza IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils amafaranga ajyanye n’ingwate yo kurangiza imirimo neza yaba yaragiye ikatwa. [41] Ku bijyanye n’inyungu zibariye kuri 18% by’umwenda wishyuzwaga, Urukiko rurasanga zitakwirirwa zisuzumwa, mu gihe umwenda zari zishingiyeho utariho. Urukiko rurasanga kandi n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yasabwaga na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils atatangwa kuko ntacyo itsindira mu rubanza. IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v LETA Y’U RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 272

240

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [42] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils nta shingiro bufite [43] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA 00494/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 06/01/2017, idahindutse; [44] Rutegetse ko ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe na IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 273

RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 276

Printed by Image Designing Center Tel : (+250) 788 887 218 / 789 332 730 E-mail:imagedesigningcenter@gmail.com I

TABLE OF CON TENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii I. LAW REPORTING TEAM ............................................. iii II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ..................... v PREFACE ................................................................................. ix SCOPE OF THE REPORTS ..................................................... xi CITATION ................................................................................ xi LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ xiii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED ............................................ xv SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................... xix Re BYANSI (ADD) ................................................................... 1 Re BYANSI (Fond) .................................................................. 11 PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI ........................................ 125 UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL. ............................ 141 NDAYISENGA v. UMUHOZA ............................................ 197 IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA) ....................................................... 209 i

## Page 277

II

## Page 278

III

TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

RWAYITARE Eric

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

iii

## Page 279

IV

## Page 280

V

II. MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : President of the Committee, Judge of the Court of Appeal

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee, Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Judge at Supreme Court

NDAHAYO Xavier : President of High Court

RUTAZANA Angeline : Inspector General of Courts

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

Dr. SEZIRAHIGA Yves :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Rector of ILPD

Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court v

## Page 281

VI

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

BUNYOYE Grace : Prosecutor at National Level

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Lt. Col. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge at Military Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Peresident of Intermediate Court GIRANEZA Clémentine :

TASHOBYA Benon :

Judge of the Intermediate Court

Judge of the Intermediate Court BAGABO Faustin :

GAPARAYI Idi :

Dr. SHEMA Pierre :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at ULK

Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 282

VII

RWIGEMA Royck :

YANKURIJE Dorothée : Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Judge of Primary Court

MULTI-INSTITUTION COMMITEE

## Page 283

VIII

## Page 284

IX

PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 4 [2022]. As usual, we select cases that solve some of the legal issues you encounter, either in your career or in your daily life. This volume contains six (6) cases, which includes; two (2) cases relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, one (1) civil cases, one (1) commercial case and two (2) procedural case. These cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

ix

## Page 285

X

## Page 286

XI

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited as: [2022] 4 RLR

xi

## Page 287

XII

## Page 288

XIII

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 38……………………………………………...3 Law No 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties, articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251…………………….3 Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 72……………………………………………………...3 articles 62 and 63…………………………………………149 article 52……………………………………………..…….199 Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 85, paragraph 5…………………………………..126 articles 3,12,14,81,83,111,129,161 and 176…………..176 article 75…………………………………………………...211 Law No 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media, articles 5 and 8………………………………………………………………………...3 Law No 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3………………………………………………149 Ministerial order No 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining land registration modalities, article 23……………………………….150

b. Repealed laws Organic Law No 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determing the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, xiii

## Page 289

XIV

articles 28 and 34………………………………………....126 article 29 paragraph 12………………………………….199 Law No 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing Land in Rwanda, article 11,12,37 and 38……………………………………………149 Law No 51/2009 of 09/09/2008 determing jurisdiction of courts, article 178...............................................................................127 Law No 12//2007 of 27/03/2007 on Public Procurement, articles 75 and 101................................................................................211 Law of 20 July 1920 relating to immovable property, article 34…………………………………………………………………….150 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 290

XV

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Busoro v. Busoro et al. RS/INJUST/RC00022/2018/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 21 June, 2019…………………………150 Harerimana v. Sebukayire, RCAA 0018/13/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/12/2014…………………………………...150 Interlocutory judgment n° RPA 0061/11/CS; Prosecution v. Uwimana Nkusi et al rendered on 17/02/2012…………………..16 Judgment Aubrey v Vice-Versa (1998) 1 RCS 25………………..17 Judgment Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne, n° 39954/08), 07/02/2012…………………………………………………………...17 Judgment Bernstein and Others v. Betsr and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC), paragraph 77………………………………..17 Judgment E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, paragraphs 57, 58 and 71……………………………………………………………..17 Judgment Galella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973)…….17 Judgment Handyside c. Royaume Uni, n°5493/72, 7/12/1976, paragraph 49………………………………………………………..17 Judgment Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014, paragraphs 135, 136 and 137…………………………………………………………………….17 Judgment MEC for Health, opposing Mpumalanga to M-Net (MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v. M-Net 2002 (6) SA 714 (T))….........................................................................................17 Judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, Re Mugisha, rendered on 24/04/2019………………..…………………………..17 xv

## Page 291

XVI

Judgment n° RCOMAA 00023/2017/SC, rendered on 06/10/2017, paragraph 16………………………………………………………..16 Judgment n° RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS; Re Democratic Green Party of Rwanda v. Government of Rwanda, pronounced on the bench on 29/07/2015……………………………………………………….16 Judgment of The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v. Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), paragraphs 15 and 16………………………………….17 Judgment R & M v. SABC TV 3, JOL 22643, paragraph 37 (2008)………………………………………………………………...17 Judgment Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare, K. Gyasi Company Limited, Assembly of God Church, n°. J6/04/2017, 28/02/ 2018, page 4…………………………………………………17 Judgment Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal. 4th 200, Supreme Court of California, June 1, 1998………………………17 Judgment Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n° 40660/08 and n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012…………………………..……………….16 Judgment White v. Sweden, n° 42435……………………………..17 Public Prosecution v. Uwinkindi, RPA 0020/14CS rendered on 04/04/2014, paragraph 13………………………………………..127 Public Prosecution v. Uwinkindi, RPA/GEN/0004/16/C rendered on 14/10/2016, paragraph 21…………………………………….127 Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC0003/2021/SC ruled by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021………………………..3 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC ruled by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019……………………………..17 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 292

XVII

Rutabayihu v. Batamuliza RCAA0013/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 03 June 2016…………………………………150 Rutabayiro et al v. Mukamabano RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0023/16/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/09/2019….127 The judgment of the Cour de cassation 1re chambre civile, 20 décembre 2000, Bull. 2000, I, n° 341. 2000, I, n° 341…………..16

LIST OF CASE CONSIDERED

## Page 293

XVIII

## Page 294

XIX

SUBJECT INDEX 1. Constitution – The petition seeking to declare unconstitutional the provisions of the law – The interests to sue – Although the interest must be broadly understood and be regarded in the right of the petitioner to seek the repeal of the provisions of a particular Law as they make the purpose of the Constitution unattainable while it should be protected, the petitioner has a duty to provide his personal interests in the petition in order to avoid unnecessary petitions that could interfere with the functioning of the courts. Re BYANSI (ADD)……………………………………...1 Limitations of constitutional freedoms and liberties – Personal privacy – Freedom of press – Freedom of expression – Freedom of access to information – Immunity of journalist – The Constitution establishes the balance between the gravity of the effects of violation of the personal privacy as a result of the exercise of the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, and effects resulting from the limitation of the freedom of press for reasons of protection of the personal privacy – The effects of limitation of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are less severe – The journalist is forbidden to interfere with people’s privacy. Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….11 Limitations of the constitutional freedoms and liberties – Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are not absolute – The dignity and honour of a person prevents any person including a journalist from any voluntary deed likely to lead to his/her denigration – The obligation to the journalist to indicate that the statements, xix

## Page 295

XX

photographs he/she published are different from the original version and be required to do it in good faith should not be perceived as violation of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….11 Limitations of the constitutional freedoms and liberties – Freedom of press – Spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda – False information with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda – False information or spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government, which is an assault to democracy – False information or spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government would not be considered as part of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, of which aim at promoting a democratic nation. Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….11 Politicians are public figures ex officio and should therefore exhibit a certain level of patience and discipline than a simple ordinary citizen – A politician enjoys also legal protection of his dignity but without compromising broadcasts of general interests – The exception provided for by article 38 of the Constitution should not be extended to give some leaders the undeserved privilege covering them from being critically reported for fear of their positions or duties, without considering the relevance of the article. Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….11 Fair justice – None should be held liable for the offence he/she did not commit and everyone has the obligation to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 296

XXI

denounce the commission of offences especially when it comes to felonies and misdemeanours – Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information should not prevail over the right to fair justice such that a journalist would let innocent people face prosecution for the offences they did not commit until their condemnation while he/she holds exculpatory evidence or be allowed to conceal the information about the offences of which he/she has had knowledge. Re BYANSI (Fond)…………………………………….11 2. Contract law – Claiming for refund of “works performance security” – A contractor for supervisory services cannot invoke the expiration of the contractual period to claim for the refund of works performance security before he/she submits a statement of work completion. IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)……209 3. Criminal procedure law – Disowning a legal counsel – When the hearing of the case proceeds while a litigant has raised an issue of misunderstanding with his/her legal counsel and the court proceeds with the hearing in such a case, the litigant is deemed to have been heard unassisted. PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI………………….125 4. Land law – Immovable property-requirements for ownership to immovable property –The mere possession of property title and its registration do not suffice to prove the property ownership, one has to explain how he/she acquired the property. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL…………...141 SUBJECT INDEX

## Page 297

XXII

5. Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal – Contradictory court decisions – Issues related to contradictions that arise among final court decisions are resolved by the Court of Appeal NDAYISENGA v. UMUHOZA……………………...197 6. Review of the case due to injustice – Procedure for application for review due to injustice – Objection that bars the hearing on merit – Inadmissibility of application for review due to injustice does not always limit to delay objections, when an objection (of inadmissibility) is of a public order, it can at any time be raised either by a party or initiated by the court. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL…………...147

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 298

XXIII

SPECIAL CLAIMS

## Page 299

XXIV

## Page 300

XXV

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

## Page 301

XXVI

## Page 302

1

Re BYANSI (ADD) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC – (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza and Kalimunda, J.) December 24, 2021] Constitution – The petition seeking to declare unconstitutional the provisions of the law – The interests to sue – Although the interest must be broadly understood and be regarded in the right of the petitioner to seek the repeal of the provisions of a particular Law as they make the purpose of the Constitution unattainable while it should be protected, the petitioner has a duty to provide his personal interests in the petition in order to avoid unnecessary petitions that could interfere with the functioning of the courts. Facts: Byansi petitioned in the Supreme Court seeking confirmation that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general are contrary to articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 as provided for by the Constitution. He states that those articles are detrimental to him as professional journalist in his profession and to the freedom of media as provided for by the Constitution. The State attorney retorts that such provisions are not contrary to the Constitution because there are acts of a journalist as an ordinary person and as well as his/her actions as a journalist, which means that his or her entire life is not about journalism, so what is allowed to other ordinary people is also allowed to journalist and what they should be held accountable for may apply to journalists too. 1

## Page 303

2

In this case, the Court first examined whether the petitioner has an interest to sue, where he alleges that the foregoing provisions interfere with the work of investigative journalism, which means that he has a personal interest and a general interest in filing a petition because the freedom of information has a connection with the general interest because he may not publish information for fear of being prosecuted by criminal provisions in petition. In the instant case, the State Attorney argues that the petitioner has an interest to petition considering his profession and based on the provisions of articles 38 of the Constitution and 72 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. Held: 1. Although the interest must be broadly understood and be regarded in the right of the petitioner to seek the repeal of the provisions of a particular law as they make the purpose of the Constitution unattainable while it should be protected, the petitioner has a duty to provide his personal interests in the petition in order to avoid unnecessary petitions that could interfere with the functioning of the courts. 2. A journalist exercises his or her career of seeking information in order to educate the public, promote activities that benefit the public and promote the freedom of such profession. 3. Freedom of the press consists of the way in which a journalist expresses his or her opinions and how he or she collects, receives, delivers and imparts information and opinions through a variety of media outlets. The petitioner has interest. The hearing of this case will resume. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 304

3

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 15 and 38. Law n°68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties, articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251. Law no. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 72. Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media, articles 5 and 8. Cases referred to: Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC0003/2021/SC ruled by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021. Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC ruled by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On May 2, 2021, Byansi Samuel Baker petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to declare articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015.

He explains that he is currently a professional journalist with a business card number 17/726-1, that he focuses on local and external investigative journalism from 2015 to date, and that subsequent the publication of the Law no. 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general in the Official Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 305

4

Gazette, he found that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of that Law were prejudicial to his work and violate the freedom of the press as provided for in articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

He states in particular that: - Article 156 prohibits the publication of photos, photographs, audio or visual recordings without the permission of the owner, yet there are photos, audio or visual recordings that are taken in public places to the extent that it is not easy to get everyone's permission before their publication. - Article 157 prohibits the publication of statements, photographs and visual recordings that have been altered while in the course of the preparation of the story, a journalist as a professional may edit to make the story more comprehensible and interesting to the audience. He explains that there are times when a story may be based on image or photograph editing, which is a form of cartoons and that even Charlie Hebdo magazine that has only been doing cartooned stories for 200 years. - Article 194 prohibits anyone from spreading false information or harmful propaganda with intent to cause a hostile international opinion against Rwandan Government. He asserted that the fact that this article uses the term "anyone” it violates the rights of a journalist because he or she is treated as an ordinary person while he/she has a special obligation to publish opinions that may not RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 306

5

be accepted by all, and in another instance he/she would publish a story he/she was told by someone who did not tell him/ her the truth. In addition, the fact that such article does not provide a definition of the term "propaganda" can lead to divergent interpretation by each court, which may affect the journalist. - Article 218 prohibits humiliation or insult against foreign Heads of States or representatives of foreign States or representatives of international organizations in Rwanda while on duty, which induces discrimination against the protected subjects and impedes the freedom of seeking and publish information and the freedom of expressions. - Article 251 any person in possession of evidence of the innocence of another person prosecuted or convicted of a felony or a misdemeanour, who deliberately refuses to give such evidence to judicial authorities, yet the journalist has a duty of confidentiality in relation to the source of information and thus subjecting him to punishment violates the freedom of expression.

State Attorney Mbonigaba Eulade and State Attorney Habumuremyi Prosper, state that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/ 2018 determining offences and penalties in general are not in violation of articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 because of there are acts of a journalist in the capacity of an ordinary person and his/her other acts as a journalist , which Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 307

6

means that he/she does not act as a journalist in his/her entire life, thus, what ordinary persons do, a journalist can do it and what they should be held accountable for applies to him/her too.

The hearing was held in public on 13/12/2021 whereby Byansi Samuel Baker was represented by Counsel Gakunzi Musore Valéry and Counsel Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée, while the Government of Rwanda was represented by State Attorney Mbonigaba Eulade and State Attorney Habumuremyi Prosper. The Court first examined whether Byansi Baker has interest to sue. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE - Whether Byansi Baker has interest to sue

Byansi Samuel Baker, Counsel Gakunzi Musore Valéry and Counsel Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée assisting him allege that he has the right to defend his interests because as a professional journalist, the provisions he attacks in the court to be unconstitutional infringe upon his daily work and the public rights, due to the fact that information is imparted in public interest. They argue that the position adopted by the instant Court in the case of Counsel Mugisha Richard,1 is that the interests of the party must be broadly perceived by considering general interest that the claimant has in petitioning that the provisions of the law be declared to be unconstitutional, because in such judgment, the petition was filed by a Lawyer and the instant

1 See judgment RS / INCONST / SPEC 00002/2018 / SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 308

7

Court found that it was not necessary for him to wait for the law to affect his interests before he could seize the Court.

They allege that Byansi Samuel Baker, as a journalist, finds that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general hamper his or her work as an investigative journalist, which means that he has personal interest and a public interest in filing a petition because the freedom of press has a connection with the public interest since he may not publish the news for fear of being prosecuted under the challenged criminal provisions.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade and Counsel Habumuremyi Prosper, representing the Attorney General, argue that based on the profession of journalism that Byansi Samuel Baker exercises and the provisions of article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 and article 72 of Law no. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, it appears that Byansi Samuel Baker has an interest to sue. DETERMINATION OF COURT

Article 72 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest. […]

The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, states that freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognised and guaranteed by the State. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 309

8

Article 5 of Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating Media reads that a journalist shall have the following main obligations: 1° to inform; 2° to educate population and promote leisure activities; 3° to defend the freedom of information, analyse and comment on information. Article 8, paragraph 3 of the same law provides that every journalist has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the right to seek, receive, give and broadcast information and ideas through any variety of media.

When these legal provisions are jointly read, they lead to the fact that a journalist is engaged in his or her profession of seeking information for the purpose of educating the public, promoting public activities, the profession of journalism and defending the freedom of the press. The law states therefore that freedom of expression must be perceived as a way a journalist expresses his or her opinions and how he or she seeks, receives, imparts and broadcasts information and ideas through various media outlets. That is to say, in accordance with the provisions of article 72 of Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts above-mentioned, a journalist has the right to claim that there is a new law that violates his or her rights or responsibilities that he/she is entitled to by the Constitution and other laws.

With regard to the scope of interests of the petitioner of a claim requesting the declaration of provisions of a particular law unconstitutional, the instant Court has analysed such issue in a number of judgments, including that of Counsel Mugisha Richard, where it found that although it is necessary to prevent the petitions by the persons intending to grandstand, publicize their activities or to be given the rights entitled to others while it RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 310

9

is necessary to safeguard the limited resources of the courts by avoiding being distracted by inexistent issues, as far as constitutional petitions are concerned, interest must be broadly understood where it should be considered in the rights of petitioners that seek the repeal of certain provisions of the law as they prevent the achievement of the purpose of the Constitution, which should in contrast be protected2.

The Court finds that this position was upheld in the Judgment of Byansi Samuel Baker decided on 10/12/2021, but the Court added that in order to avoid unnecessary petitions that could jeopardize the functioning of the courts, the petitioner has the duty to prove his or her personal interest in the case3. In this regard, it is evident to the Court that Byansi Samuel Baker as a journalist operating in Rwanda has a personal interest in this case because the provisions of articles of which he requests the Court to declare unconstitutional are in particular relating to the media. In addition, the law determining offences and penalties in general apply to anyone who is on Rwandan territory including journalists; therefore, its provisions he alleges that they should be repealed for being inconsistent with the Constitution could prejudice him now or in the future.

The Court therefore finds that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, are relevant to the responsibilities of the press, which implies that in the event the Court finds that they are in fact in violation of articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution as

2 See judgment RS / INCONST / SPEC 00002/2018 / SC ruled by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019.. 3 See judgement RS / INCONST / SPEC 0003/2021 / SC ruled by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021. Re BYANSI (ADD)

## Page 311

10

alleged by Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel, such decision would be in his best interest, and for this reason, he has interest to petition seeking to repeal the provisions of the law he claims they deprive him of the right he is entitled by the Constitution. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that Byansi Samuel Baker has interest in the instant case to petition in order to declare articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of Law n ° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution.

Holds that the hearing of the instant case shall be resumed on 14/02/2022.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 312

11

Re BYANSI (Fond) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Muhumuza and Karimunda, J.) May 20, 2022] Constitution – Limitations of constitutional freedoms and liberties – Personal privacy – Freedom of press – Freedom of expression – Freedom of access to information – Immunity of journalist – The Constitution establishes the balance between the gravity of the effects of violation of the personal privacy as a result of the exercise of the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, and effects resulting from the limitation of the freedom of press for reasons of protection of the personal privacy – The effects of limitation of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are less severe – The journalist is forbidden to interfere with people’s privacy. Constitution – Limitations of the constitutional freedoms and liberties – Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are not absolute – The dignity and honour of a person prevents any person including a journalist from any voluntary deed likely to lead to his/her denigration – The obligation to the journalist to indicate that the statements, photographs he/she published are different from the original version and be required to do it in good faith should not be perceived as violation of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. Constitution – Limitations of the constitutional freedoms and liberties – Freedom of press – Spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government 11

## Page 313

12

of Rwanda – False information with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda – False information or spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government, which is an assault to democracy – False information or spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government would not be considered as part of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, of which aim at promoting a democratic nation. Constitution – Politicians are public figures ex officio and should therefore exhibit a certain level of patience and discipline than a simple ordinary citizen – A politician enjoys also legal protection of his dignity but without compromising broadcasts of general interests – The exception provided for by article 38 of the Constitution should not be extended to give some leaders the undeserved privilege covering them from being critically reported for fear of their positions or duties, without considering the relevance of the article. Constitution – Fair justice – None should be held liable for the offence he/she did not commit and everyone has the obligation to denounce the commission of offences especially when it comes to felonies and misdemeanours – Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information should not prevail over the right to fair justice such that a journalist would let innocent people face prosecution for the offences they did not commit until their condemnation while he/she holds exculpatory evidence or be allowed to conceal the information about the offences of which he/she has had knowledge. Facts: Byansi Samuel Baker petitioned the Supreme Court requesting to declare of articles 155, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 314

13

Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general inconsistent with the Constitution. He alleges that article 156 of the Law determining offences and penalties should not treat a journalist as any other ordinary individual and punish him/her for listening or disclosing confidential conversations, taking or disclosing photograph, audio, visual recordings or private document without authorisation from the author. He states that incriminating such acts prevents the journalist from undertaking investigative journalism and undercover journalism while such methods would contribute to the exposure of crimes or other illegal acts of strongmen. He states in addition that since a journalist may face justice for such acts violates the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information provided for by article 38 of the Constitution. He further states that article 157 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general should not penalise a journalist for modification of utterances, photographs or images without mentioning it because media relies primarily on editing. He alleges that penalisation of editing deters cartooned articles, which limits the media on plausible articles only while viral articles vexing some individuals are protected by the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information as well. Concerning article 194 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, he states that journalists are not themselves authors of information because they get it from people who may tell them the truth or lie. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 315

14

He contends that the initial words “any person” of such provision does not give a journalist the deserved special treatment as they rather confuse him/her with any other person which may lead journalist to be held liable for releasing an article of which the subject experienced discontent. He adds that the word “propaganda” that is also in the provision was not defined by the Law, which makes it extensive to the extent that courts would interpret it in approximate way while in a democratic government, a person should not be liable for propaganda. Regarding article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, he states that there is no ground for exempting the leaders provided for in the aforementioned article from being subject of stories freely. For him, the provision of such article melts all efforts already made by the country in the context of protection of human rights because it promotes discrimination and hinder the freedom of access to information, of press and of expression. He declares that a journalist should not be held liable for defamation, and would this happen, she/he must be prosecuted following the legislation on media or civil law. Concerning article 251 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, he states that a journalist has the duty to protect people who whisper him information even though it is not prohibited to collaborate with other organs. He deems that a journalist should not be subject to the obligation to reveal the source of information for it can violate their freedom of expression. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 316

15

Held: 1. The Constitution establishes the balance between the gravity of the effects of violation of the personal privacy as a result of the exercise of the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, and effects resulting from the limitation of the freedom of press for reasons of protection of the personal privacy. Noted that the effects of violation of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are less severe, a journalist is not allowed to interfere personal privacy on the sole ground of finding a story. 2. The fact that a journalist is required to indicate the published statements, photographs or images different from original in good faith, should not itself be regarded as violation of the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. 3. False information or spread of harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government, which is an assault to democracy, would not be regarded as part of freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, of which aim at promoting a democratic nation. 4. Politicians are public figures ex officio and should therefore exhibit a certain level of patience and discipline than a simple ordinary citizen. A politician enjoys also legal protection of his dignity but without compromising broadcasts of general interests. Thus, the exception provided for by article 38 of the Constitution should not be extended to give some leaders the undeserved privilege covering them from being critically reported for fear of their positions or duties, without considering the relevance of such article. 5. Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information should not prevail over the right to fair justice such that a journalist would let innocent people face prosecution for the Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 317

16

offences they did not commit until their condemnation while he/she holds exculpatory evidence or be allowed to conceal the information about the offences of which he/she has had knowledge. Article 156 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution; Article 194 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution; Article 218 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution, and is therefore invalid; Article 251 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. Cases referred to: Judgment n° RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS; Re Democratic Green Party of Rwanda v. Government of Rwanda, pronounced on the bench on 29/07/2015. Interlocutory judgment n° RPA 0061/11/CS; Prosecution v. Uwimana Nkusi et al rendered on 17/02/2012. Judgment n° RCOMAA 00023/2017/SC, rendered on 06/10/2017, paragraph 16. Judgment of the Cour de cassation 1re chambre civile, 20 décembre 2000, Bull. 2000, I, n° 341. 2000, I, n° 341. Judgment Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n° 40660/08 and n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012, paragraph 96. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 318

17

Judgment Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne, n° 39954/08), 07/02/2012. Judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, Re Mugisha, rendered on 24/04/2019, paragraph 65. Judgment Handyside c. Royaume Uni, n°5493/72, 7/12/1976, paragraph 49. Judgment Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n°40660/08 and n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012. Judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rendered on 24/04/2019, paragraph 65; Judgment Aubrey v Vice-Versa (1998) 1 RCS 25. Judgment Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare, K. Gyasi Company Limited, Assembly of God Church, n°. J6/04/2017, 28/02/ 2018, page 4. Judgment Bernstein and Others v. Betsr and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC), paragraph 77. Judgment of The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v. Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), paragraphs 15 and 16. Judgment Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014, paragraphs 135, 136 and 137. Judgment R & M v. SABC TV 3, JOL 22643, paragraph 37 (2008). Judgment MEC for Health, opposing Mpumalanga to M-Net (MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v. M-Net 2002 (6) SA 714 (T)) Judgment E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, paragraphs 57, 58 and 71. Judgment Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal. 4th 200, Supreme Court of California, June 1, 1998. Judgment n° Galella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973). Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 319

18

Judgment White v. Sweden, n° 42435, Authors cited: Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation of Foreign State Leaders in Times of Globalized Media And Growing Nationalism, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, vol 9, no 1, p. 52, 56-57. BBC Africa Eye documentary, “Sex for Grades: undercover inside Nigerian and Ghanaian universities”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we-F0Gi0Lqs consulted on 11/03/2022. BBC Africa Eye documentary, “The Baby Stealers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ix5jbCmiDU consulted on 11/03/2022. Bernard Dubuisson et Paul Jadoul (sous la dir.), La responsabilité civile liée à l'information et au conseil: questions d’actualité, Bruxelles, Presses Universitaires Saint Louis, 2019, p.235. https://www.justifit.fr/b/guides/droit-propriete- intellectuelle/droit-image-atteinte-vie-privee/ Jo Samanta and Ash Samanta, Medical Law, London, Palgrave, 2015, p. 76 Jonathan Herring, Medical Law and Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2013, p.231 and 241 Tarlach McGonagle, Minority Rights, Freedom of Expression and of the Media: Dynamics and Dilemmas, Cambridge, Intersentia, Research Series, Volume 44, 2011, p.272. Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p.1-2 and 3. OSCE, Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, March 2017, p.16 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 320

19

William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.377 and 448. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Byansi Samuel Baker initiated a petition before the Supreme Court on 02/05/2021 requesting it to declare articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015.

He explains that he is a professional journalist with the media card number no 17/726-1 since the year 2015, where he focusses mainly on investigative journalism as well as foreign reports. He states that following the publication of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general in the Official Gazette, he found that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of the said act obstruct his job and violate the freedom of press as enshrined in article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

He especially alleges that: i. Article 156 forbids any person with bad faith to infringe the personal privacy of another person through listening to or disclosing a photograph, audio, visual recording or document without one’s Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 321

20

authorisation while there are pictures, audio or visual recordings that are taken in public gathering to the extent that it would not be easy to get the approval of everybody prior to the disclosure of the photograph, audio or visual recording. ii. Article 157 prohibits the publication, in bad faith, of an edited version of a person’s statements, or images and photos without explicitly stating that it is not the original version. However, a journalist as a professional may in the course of making his report, edit the audio, photographs or visual recordings to make the report appealing and clear. He explains that sometimes a report may rely on the editing of visual recordings or photographs, which is known as cartoon and that even the newspaper Charlie Hebdo has spent 200 years venturing in the publication of cartooned articles. iii. Article 194 forbids any person to spread false information or harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda or a hostile international environment against the Government of Rwanda. He argues that the fact that the expression “any person” is used in this provision, infringes the freedom of press as he/she is regarded as any other individual while he has a particular duty of publishing opinions that would not be unanimously welcomed, or publish a report based on statements from a person who did not tell him the truth. In addition to that, he alleges that since such provision does not provide the definition of the term “propaganda”, this would RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 322

21

induce every court to find its own interpretation and the journalist would face injustice from that. iv. Article 218 forbids defamation or insult against foreign Heads of States or representatives of foreign States or representatives of international organizations in Rwanda in the performance of their functions, which amounts to discrimination with regards to protected officials and it infringes the freedom of access and publication of information, and of expression. v. Article 251 penalizes a person in possession of evidence of the innocence of another person prosecuted or convicted of a felony or a misdemeanour, who deliberately refuses to give such evidence to judicial authorities. Nonetheless, a journalist has the obligation to refrain from revealing the source of information, therefore facing criminal charges amounts to violation of freedom of expression.

The State Attorneys Mbonigaba Eulade and Habumuremyi Prosper state that articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general are not inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised 2015, because there exist actions of a journalist as an ordinary individual and his/her actions in the capacity of a journalist, which implies that they are not always confined in their actions as journalists. For this reason, they may do same deeds as ordinary individuals and be prosecuted for the same. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 323

22

The hearing was held in public on 13/12/2021, BYANSI Samuel Baker being assisted by Counsel Gakunzi Musore Valéry and Counsel RURAMIRA BIZIMANA Zébédée while the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel MBONIGABA Eulade and Counsel HABUMUREMYI Prosper.

It was initially examined whether Byansi Samuel Baker has an interest to file the petition. In the interlocutory judgment rendered on 24/12/2021, the Court deemed Byansi Samuel Baker, as a journalist in Rwanda, has personal interest in the present case because the provisions of the article of which he seeks the Court to declare contrary to the Constitution concerns in particular way the press. In addition, articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general that he seeks to be declared repealed have to do with journalists as well as every person in Rwanda including journalists. For this reason, he has interest to seek their repealing because they may obstruct him at the moment or in the future. The hearing of the merits of the case was scheduled on 14/02/2022.

At the hearing date, the hearing was held in public where Byansi Samuel Baker was assisted as before and the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade. The Court started by examining the request of Centre for Rule of Law Rwanda (CERULAR), represented by Counsel Sebusandi Moses to appear in the capacity of amicus curiae where it stated in its letter of 19/01/2022 that it has expertise to share with the Court since it usually carries out research on the freedom of expression and of press and that it is part of different human rights activists’ platforms. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 324

23

After examination of the documents submitted by CERULAR, the Court found that based on the position adopted in the judgment of Democratic Green Party of Rwanda vs Government of Rwanda1 as well as that between Uwimana Nkusi Agnès and MUKAKIBIBI Saidati vs Prosecution2, according to which even though the opinion of the amicus curiae can help to examine the facts and interpret the law concerning the case and need special knowledge or further research that the Court or parties would not do themselves easily; the participation in the case as an amicus curiae is decided by the Court upon its own discretion and in order to be admitted, the amicus curiae should have sufficient knowledge to the extent that they will not be tempted to repeat the statements of the parties otherwise. It deemed the experience alleged by CERULAR as well as the research they allege to be carrying out are not supported by elements of evidence to substantiate the sufficient knowledge about the issues to be examined to believe that they will bring in some new ideas with respect to the present case; thus, the Court decided that it should not be allowed to appear in the capacity of amicus curiae, and the hearing should pursue without their appearance.

1 See the judgment n° RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS pronounced on the bench on 29/07/2015. 2 See the interlocutory decision n° RPA 0061/11/CS rendered on 17/02/2012 Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 325

24

II. LEGAL ISSUES AND THEIR ANALYSIS II.1. Whether article 156 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution

Byansi Samuel Baker alleges that article 156 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general forbids any person secretly to listen to or disclose people’s confidential statements, to take a photo, audio or visual recording or disclose them without one’s authorisation. He states that sometimes, the report may intend to dig out the modus operandi of the powerful individuals or suspects of offences, and in this case, it would be impossible to ask them the permission to report about them. He cites as an example where doing a report through open source journalism about a marijuana trader or a person who accepts bribes does not have same effects as reporting about them through investigative journalism by listening, taking photos, audio or visual recordings. He explains that reporting about such individuals nowadays requires accessing into their phones or computers which harbors information and that if done properly, it would help even other institutions including justice to get elements of evidence that may be based on to initiate criminal prosecution.

Byansi Samuel Baker states that the importance of investigative journalism or undercover journalism does not consist of raising the journalist above the law, trying to put him/her in the position of the investigation and prosecution organs or entitling him with the power to control the communication. He adds that whenever a journalist discovers that RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 326

25

something is about to be committed somewhere, he reaches the place first, prepares his/her devices in disguise in order to reach the goal of reporting. He adds that if you inform the suspects that you are going to install the camera in order to take their audio and visual recordings they would not consent to it, the reason why it is needed to hack the electronic devices where the information is being sought or use hidden cameras and microphones in order to facilitate the recording.

He states that the investigative journalism and undercover journalism methods are common in other countries. He cites the example of Ghana and Kenya where such methods contributed to the case of university professors doing sexual intercourse with students in exchange of grades ((Sex for Grades: undercover inside Nigerian and Ghanaian universities)3 as well as the case of babies stolen from their mothers while at the roads or from hospitals in Nairobi to be sold to sterile women or be killed to use their body parts for indigenous rituals. (The Baby Stealers).4 He states that for such offences and those relating to cannabis trading or payment and receiving bribes, it is hard to conceive a story through open source journalism which is commonly used in Rwanda because they are not committed in public like in bus stations where journalists could take photos, audio and visual recording without prior authorisation.

Counsel RURAMIRA Bizimana Zébédée and Counsel GAKUNZI Musore Valéry who assist Byansi Samuel Baker,

3 See BBC Africa Eye documentary, “Sex for Grades: undercover inside Nigerian and Ghanaian universities”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we- F0Gi0Lqs visited on 11/03/2022. 4 See BBC Africa Eye documentary, “The Baby Stealers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ix5jbCmiDU consulted on 11/03/2022. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 327

26

argue that the reason article 156 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution is that the legislator disregarded the fact that photos may be taken in the place where many people have gathered to the extent that it would not be easy to get the permission for every person. They state that there are three general principles that the instant Court should examine to decide that the article concerned by the petition is inconsistent with the Constitution would it find that they were not respected. Such principles are as follows: Whether article 156 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is relevant in a democratic country; whether the provisions of such article include also the photographs, audio or visual recordings of famous persons and whether it is convenient to punish a journalist for taking photos, audio or visual recordings and report them.

They argue that punishing a journalist for taking a photo, visual or video recording and publish them is seen as interfering the freedom of press, and that the words “in bad faith” introduced in article 156 stated above, may be interpreted extensively while criminal law provisions are interpreted restrictively. They state that though journalists are regarded as performing their duties in good faith, but a person unhappy with the report would pretend that it was done in bad faith. They explain that the words “in bad faith” are common in civil cases, therefore that what is convenient is that a person unsatisfied with the report against them would seize civil court for damages, instead of seizing criminal court.

They clarify that article 156 of the aforementioned Law pertains to offences against privacy, and that nowhere such law does provide a definition of personal privacy and that even article RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 328

27

23 of the Constitution does only protect privacy without providing its definition.5 According to them, the definition of personal privacy provided for by article 3, subparagraph 6° of the Law no 058/2021 of 13/10/2021 relating to the protection of personal data and privacy stating that “a fundamental right of a person to decide who can access his or her personal data, when, where, why and how his or her personal data can be accessed”. They argue in addition that the text of this article corroborates the position adopted by the instant Court in the case that opposed GISA Frediane to BRALIRWA Ltd6, where it found the claim for damages by Gisa Frediane with merit since the company known as EXP Rwanda passed his photos to BRALIRWA Ltd without her consent, which used them to market the Heinken beverage. They also state that this is different from a photo taken and published by a journalist. They explain that courts in other forums such as the Court of cassation in France, held that the report of the photograph of an injured victim of terrorist attack does in anyway violate the personal dignity since the journalist’s intention is not a sensational report or indecency towards the victim.7

5 “The privacy of a person, his or her family, home or correspondence shall not be subjected to interference in a manner inconsistent with the law; the person’s honour and dignity shall be respected. A person’s home is inviolable. No search or entry into a home shall be carried out without the consent of the owner, except in circumstances and in accordance with procedures determined by the law. Confidentiality of correspondence and communication shall not be waived except in circumstances and in accordance with procedures determined by the law.” 6 See the judgment RCOMAA 00023/2017/SC, delivered on 06/10/2017, paragraph 16. 7 “C'est ainsi que la publication de la photo d'une victime, ensanglantée, de l'attentat du RER Saint Michel n'a pas été jugée contraire à la dignité humaine étant dépourvue de « recherche du sensationnel et de toute indécence”. See Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 329

28

They emphasize that the European Human Rights Court has also recalled that the right to privacy includes elements relating to the identity of a person, such as his name, his photo, his physical and moral integrit and that as far as photos or video recordings are concerned, the image of an individual is one of the main attributes of his personality, especially that it expresses his originality and allows him to differentiate himself from his peers, the reason why every individual has the right of control over them, which includes in particular the possibility for him to refuse their diffusion.8 They add that they too admit that such right should respected by others and be protected by courts, but that this should be associated with the right of a journalist to freedom of press, of access to information and of expression as enshrined in article 38 of the Constitution, article 199 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and article 19 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, all indicating that no legal instrument or provision should contradict such principle.

the judgment of Cour de cassation 1re chambre civile, 20 décembre 2000, Bull. 2000, I, n° 341. 8 “La Cour rappelle que la notion de vie privée comprend des éléments se rapportant à l’identité d’une personne, tels que son nom, sa photo, son intégrité physique et morale…“La Cour a souligné que l’image d’un individu est l’un des attributs principaux de sa personnalité, du fait qu’elle exprime son originalité et lui permet de se différencier de ses pairs. Le droit de la personne à la protection de son image constitue ainsi l’une des conditions essentielles de son épanouissement personnel. Elle présuppose principalement la maîtrise par l’individu de son image, laquelle comprend notamment la possibilité pour celui-ci d’en refuser la diffusion.” See the case Von Hannover c. Allemagne (N° 2), n° 40660/08 and n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012, paragraph 96. 9 This article stipulates that “the freedom of opinion and expression includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 330

29

They clarify that in the case Axel Springer AG against the government of Germany, the European Court of Human Rights linked the freedom of expression and the right to private life, and found that the following six (6) factors should be considered in order for such right and freedom to be in correlation: Determine whether the story has the objective of contributing to the discussions or debates of public interests; determine the content of the story and whether the reported person is a famous person; examining the behaviour of a reporter in normal circumstances; examining the information access method; examining the veracity of the story, the content of the report, the modality of publication as well as the effects; and examining the penalties imposed for such offence.10

They add that in the case Re Mugisha Richard, the instant Court has also held that the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognized and guaranteed by the State but that they are subject to some limitations11, and that such position is supported by different courts that held that the freedom of press applies not only to information or ideas received with favor, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population.12

10 “In order to balance the right to freedom of expression against the right to private life, the Court uses six criteria: the contribution to a debate of general interest; how well known the person being reported on is and the subject of the report; the person’s prior conduct; the method used to obtain the information; the veracity, content, form and repercussions of the report; and the penalty imposed”. Read the case law Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne, n° 39954/08), 07/02/2012. 11 Judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, Re Mugisha, rendered on 24/04/2019, paragraph 65 12 “ vaut non seulement pour les "informations" ou "idées" accueillies avec faveur ou considérées comme inoffensives ou indifférentes, mais aussi pour Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 331

30

They state in addition that while analysing article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights,13 found that the exception to the freedom of press is only admissible if the following conditions are met: 1) such exception or obstruction should be statutory, 2) with a legitimate goal, 3) whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. According to them, the right to personal privacy and freedom of press should be respected equally, which requires the instant Court to hold that the freedom of press is necessary in democratic country even when the published story is unpleasant or annoying toward someone; the exception to such principle of freedom of press being that its interpretation should not be conjectured. They argue that the Court admits the exception when it is necessary and in the interest of people, which is where it relies to determine whether the interference to the freedom of press correlates with the protected goal considering the context of the claim at hand.

celles qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent l'État ou une fraction quelconque de la population.” See the case law Handyside c. Royaume Uni, n°5493/72, 7/12/1976, paragraph 49. 13 Such article reads that “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 332

31

They explain that the European Court of Human Rights has addressed similar issue while it was seized by victims who were photographed at road, the photos of which were published in newspapers. The victims requested the German Courts to halt the diffusion of such articles, which they denied, and they sued the German State to the European Court of Human Rights stating that the publication of their photographs violates their private life. The Court deemed that such photos were not offensive to the extent of halting their diffusion.14 They however add that the instant court established the following principles: 1) the fact that their daily duties include the shooting of photos, videos and conversations and their publication to contribute to a debate of general interest, 2) the fact that taking photographs, audio and conversations of famous persons should not violate their private life comparing to that of ordinary citizens (the reputation of the person concerned and the purpose of the report), the fact that a journalist act professionally and for the good of all.

They conclude by requesting the instant Court to hold that the punishment of a journalist who published a photograph, audio or video recording without the consent of the owner consists of interference with the right to freedom of expression and that it is not necessary in Rwanda as a democratic country, and therefore declare that article 156 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution.

14 “La Cour note au demeurant, comme l’a relevé la Cour fédérale de justice, que les photos montrant les requérants en pleine rue à Saint-Moritz en hiver n’étaient pas en elles-mêmes offensantes au point de justifier leur interdiction”. See the case law Von Hannover c. Germany (N° 2), n°40660/08 and n° 60641/08), 7/02/2012, paragraph 123. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 333

32

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, the State Attorney, avers that the statements of Byansi Samuel Baker according to which he should be allowed to use hidden cameras, the act is beyond the diffusion of information since that falls within the duties of the investigation or intelligence organs, and the fact that it is done elsewhere would not constitute a reason to allow the practice forbidden by the Rwandan legislation and Constitution especially that the constitution of the place where the practice exists, possibly permits them to do so.

He explains that article 8, paragraph 2 of the Law regulating media provides that freedom of the media is recognized and respected by the State when exercised in accordance with the Law while article 9 of the same Law states that freedom of media shall not jeopardize the rights of the general public, the reason why the legislator introduced in the first part of article 156 of the aforementioned Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, the words “in bad faith” which exactly correlate with the restrictions put on the freedom of media by article 38, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

He contends that the concern of Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel that there may be photograph, audio or video recordings taken in public to the extent that it would not be easy to get the consent of every person, should also not be considered to declare article 156 of the aforementioned Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 in contradiction with the Constitution because whenever those acts occur to the knowledge of the concerned persons but abstain themselves from opposing them, their consent is presumed. Again, concerning whether prohibition to eavesdrop the conversations violates the operations of a journalist, he retorts that this is not correct because the right a journalist is entitled by RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 334

33

article 38 of the Constitution is restricted by the public order, and it is necessary to know that the rights and freedoms do not imply the violation of other people’s rights, especially that article 41 of the Constitution15 provides that freedoms are subject to legal limitations.

He goes on to say that the legal scholars assert that the right of others is broad; it covers personality rights, among others, the right to moral integrity or the right of honour, the right to secrecy and respect for private life16, and that article 156 of the aforementioned Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 is not a particularity of Rwanda. He cites an example in France where article 226, paragraphs one17 and 218 of the Penal Code criminalizes the shooting and publication of a photograph, audio and video of events that happened in private without prior consent

15 Such article reads that “In exercising rights and freedoms, everyone is subject only to limitations provided for by the law aimed at ensuring recognition and respect of other people‟s rights and freedoms, as well as public morals, public order and social welfare which generally characterize a democratic society.” 16 La catégorie “droit d’autrui est large; elle recouvre les droits de personnalité entre autres , le droit à l’integrité morale ou droit d’honneur, le droit au secret et au respect de la vie privée, y compris le droit de l’oubli, le droit au nom, le droit à l’image et à la voix, le droit à la dignité” See Bernard Dubuisson na Paul Jadoul (sous la dir.), La responsabilité civile liée à l'information et au conseil: questions d’actualité, Bruxelles, Presses Universitaires Saint Louis, 2019, p.235. 17 Le fait, au moyen d'un procédé quelconque, volontairement de porter atteinte à l'intimité de la vie privée d'autrui en captant, enregistrant ou transmettant, sans le consentement de leur auteur, des paroles prononcées à titre privé ou confidentiel (article 226-1 du code pénal). 18 « Le fait de conserver, porter ou laisser porter à la connaissance du public ou d'un tiers ou d'utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit tout enregistrement ou document obtenu à l'aide de l'un des actes prévus par l'article 226- 1 » (article 226-2 du code pénal). Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 335

34

of the concerned persons. He explains that even article 179 bis of the Law determining offences and penalties in Switzerland states also that “any person who, without the consent of all participants, listens with the aid of a listening device or records a non-public conversation between other persons, any person who benefits from or gives knowledge to a third party of a fact which he knew or should have presumed to have come to his own knowledge by means of an offense will, on complaint, be punished with a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or with a monetary penalty”19. He states in addition that even the legal scholars assert that nobody could take a photograph of a person in relation to his private life without his prior consent20, therefore, he finds that article 156 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not contrary to article 38 of the Constitution.

He closes the submissions by stating that article 156 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as well as its other provisions that are subject

19 “Celui qui, sans le consentement de tous les participants, aura écouté à l’aide d’un appareil d’écoute ou enregistré sur un porteur de son une conversation non publique entre d’autres personnes, celui qui aura tiré profit ou donné connaissance à un tiers d’un fait qu’il savait ou devait présumer être parvenu à sa propre connaissance au moyen d’une infraction visée à l’al. 1, celui qui aura conservé ou rendu accessible à un tiers un enregistrement qu’il savait ou devait présumer avoir été réalisé au moyen d’une infraction visée à l’al. 1, sera, sur plainte, puni d’une peine privative de liberté de trois ans au plus ou d’une peine pécuniaire”. 20 En raison du droit à l’image propre à chaque individu, toute personne doit donner son accord avant d’être photographiée dans un endroit privé. En revanche, il est possible de photographier des personnes sans pour autant risquer de porter atteinte à leur vie privée”.Consulted from https://www.justifit.fr/b/guides/droit-propriete- intellectuelle/droit-image- atteinte-vie-privee/. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 336

35

of dispute in this case are new in Rwandan legislation. He explains that though he did not find the debates about them in the course of their adoption, they were adopted in the context of establishing the media guidelines in a bid to prevent it to be diverted as it was the case where it was used for the preparation of genocide against Tutsi. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 38 of the Constitution states that: “Freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognized and guaranteed by the State. Freedom of expression and freedom of access to information shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law.”

Article 156 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general reads that “Any person who, in bad faith and in any way, infringes the personal privacy of another person by: 1º secretly listening to, or disclosing, people’s confidential statements without authorisation; 2º taking a photo, audio or visual recording or disclosing them without one’s authorisation; commits an offence. Any person who is convicted of any of the acts referred to in Paragraph One of this Article, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000Frw) and not more than two million Rwandan francs (2,000,000Frw) or only one of these penalties. If the acts referred to in Paragraph One of this Article are committed in full view and Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 337

36

knowledge of the persons concerned and without opposing the acts while they were able to do so, their consent is presumed. The penalties referred to in Paragraph 2 of this Article also apply to a person who, in bad faith, distributes in any way whatsoever, a photo, audio and video, recordings or documents obtained as a result of one of the acts referred to in Paragraph One of this Article.”

In the case Re Mugisha Richard, recalled above by Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel, the instant Court found that article 38 of Constitution establishes a principle that the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognized and guaranteed by the State. Thus, any thing including the law or its provisions that are contrary to such principle should be regarded as inconsistent with the Constitution.21 The text of article 38 of the Constitution corroborates also with the text of article 19 International Covenant on civil and political rights of 19/12/1966 ratified by Rwanda on 12/02/197522, that also provides that the right to freedom of expression, of press and of access to information include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.

The second paragraph of article 38 of the Constitution establishes the values attached to rights and freedoms stated in the first paragraph that should not be prejudiced: i. public order; ii. good morals;

21 Judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rendered on 24/04/2019, paragraph 65 22 See the decree Law n° 8/75 of 12/02/1975. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 338

37

iii. the protection of the youth and children; iv. the right of every citizen to honour and dignity; v. In addition, the third paragraph of the same article states that conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law.

The provisions of paragraphs two and three of article 38 of the Constitution is recalled by article 19, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of the International Covenant on civil and political rights stating that among the restrictions to which the exercise of the freedom of press is subject to include the respect of the rights or reputations of others, the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Among the legal instruments stated in article 38 of the Constitution and article 19, paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the International Covenant on civil and political rights include the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above.

The prayer of Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel consists of holding that the freedom of press has primacy over the right to privacy, therefore that article 156 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above that protects such right suppresses the right of a journalist to freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, which they regard as the reason of its inconsistency with article 38 of the Constitution.

The right to the personal and family privacy is normally enshrined in article 23 of the Constitution stating that the privacy of a person, his or her family, home or correspondence shall not be subjected to interference in a manner inconsistent with the law; and that the person’s honour and dignity shall be respected. Such right is also provided for by Article 17 of the International Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 339

38

Covenant on civil and political rights of 19/12/1966 reading that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”23

The fact that article 38, paragraph two of the Constitution recalls the right of a person not be subjected to interference in their personal and family privacy, is that the Constitution intended to establish the balance between the right to personal privacy and the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. Both rights are protected by the Constitution. The respect of either right does not eliminate the obligation to respect the other. It implies that the person who listens, records or publishes audio, photographs, or video of other persons is barred to do so by the right entitled to the concerned persons. Indeed, even at the non-existence of such law, they are barred by good morals, public order and social order in general. Such limitations were also provided for by article 41 of the Constitution as well as article 19, paragraph three of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19/12/1966. Thus, the person who eavesdrops, records audio, takes photos or videos even if he/she is a journalist, he/she would not rely on the freedom of press, of express and of access to information to pretend that such rights are not subject to any limitation.

23 “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 340

39

The Court finds that article 9, paragraph two of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media provides that the freedom of opinions and information shall not jeopardize the general public order and good morals, individual’s right to honour and reputation in the public eye and to the right to inviolability of a person’s private life and family; the freedom shall also be recognized if it is not detrimental to the protection of children. Again, article 4 of the Law n°04/2013 of 08/02/2013 relating to access to information provides for confidential information as follows: “information withheld by a public organ or private body to which this Law applies shall not be published when it may: 1. 1° destabilize national security; 2. 2° impede the enforcement of Law or justice; 3. 3° involve interference in the privacy of an individual when it is not of public interest; 4. 4° violate the legitimate protection of trade secrets or other intellectual property rights protected by the Law; 5. 5° obstruct actual or contemplated legal proceedings against the management of public organ.”

When Article 9, paragraph 2 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media is read concomitantly with article 4 of the Law n° 04/2013 of 08/02/2013 relating to access to information, they imply that the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information have limitations, of which intend to protect the general interest and privacy of others. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 341

40

While the African Court on Human and People’s Rights, in the case Lohé Issa Konaté vs Burkina Faso, analyzed the freedom of press stipulated by article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights adopted on 27/06/198124, they realized that even though the said provision does nowhere clearly state about the limitations on the freedom of press as it is the case by other international conventions, the analysis of the wording “within the law” closing the second paragraph should rely on international principles establishing the limits of the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, and they therefore concluded that such freedoms are circumscribed by the protection of personal interests such as the right to dignity and decency, general interest, security, public health as well as good morals.

Regarding the issue of determining the definition of the personal privacy and the limits of the related right, the Court finds that though article 23 of the Constitution does not provide the detailed explanations, article 3, subparagraph 6 of the Law nº 058/2021 of 13/10/2021 relating to the protection of personal data and privacy initially defines the privacy as a fundamental right of a person to decide on the access of her personal data by others.

Courts in other forums have also defined the role and importance of the right to personal privacy. In the case that opposed Aubry to Vice-Versa, the Supreme Court of Canada held that: “The notion of privacy is at the heart of freedom in a modern State. It is based on the notion of dignity and integrity of the person. The right to privacy protects, among other things, the

24“1. Every individual shall have the right to receive information. 2. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 342

41

limited sphere of personal autonomy in which inherently private choices are based. (La notion de la vie privée est au coeur de la liberté dans un Etat moderne et se fonde sur la notion de dignité et d’intégrité de la personne. Le droit à la vie privée protège entre autres choses, la sphère limitée d’autonomie personnelle où se fondent des choix intrinsèquement privés”.)25

In the case that opposed Raphael Cubagee to Michael Yeboah Asare delivered on 28/02/2018, the Supreme Court of Ghana, while it addressed the issue of whether a person who recorded the audio of another person they were talking to on the phone without his/her consent, would produce it as an element of evidence in the case against another person, it deemed that: “Although the list of the full scope of the right to personal and family privacy cannot possibly be set out in the text of the Constitution, it should be understood that such right includes an individual's right to be left alone to live his life free from unwanted intrusion, scrutiny and publicity. It is the right of a person to be secluded, secretive and anonymous in society and to have control of intrusions into the sphere of his private life. It is a very important human right that inheres in the individual and ensures that he can be his own person, have self identity and realise his self worth. Such is the right that guarantees personal autonomy for the individual and, without it, public authorities would easily control and manipulate the lives of citizens and undermine their liberty. Considering the current trend of stories and technology facilitating the intrusion into the personal privacy, it is now that the right to personal privacy that needs to

25 See the case Aubrey v Vice-Versa (1998) 1 RCS 25. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 343

42

be protected than other rights. For this reason, almost all countries enact detailed legislation to protect the personal privacy…..”.26

Concerning the limits of the right to personal privacy, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has clarified it in the case Bernstein and Others vs Bester and Others, where it found that a very high level of protection is given to the individual’s intimate personal sphere of life and the maintenance of its basic preconditions and there is a final untouchable sphere of human freedom that is beyond interference from any public authority, unless the person concerned starts interacting with others outside

26 “Privacy is so broad a constitutional right that it defies a concise and simple definition. It comprises a large bundle of rights some of which have been listed in the article as privacy of the home, property, and correspondence or communication. This list is not exhaustive and the full scope of the right of privacy cannot possibly be set out in the text of the Constitution. However, under the right to privacy is covered an individual's right to be left alone to live his life free from unwanted intrusion, scrutiny and publicity. It is the right of a person to be secluded, secretive and anonymous in society and to have control of intrusions into the sphere of his private life. Privacy is a very important human right that inheres in the individual and ensures that she can be her own person, have self identity and realize her self worth. It guarantees personal autonomy for the individual and, without it, public authorities would easily control and manipulate the lives of citizens and undermine their liberty. It is one of the most widely demanded human rights in today's world for the simple reason that advancements in information and communication technology have made it extremely easy to interfere with privacy rights. As a result, almost all states have passed laws and detailed regulations to protect privacy rights and prescribe circumstances under which public authorities, private organizations and, in some countries, individuals may be permitted to interfere with privacy rights.” See Raphael Cubagee v Michael Yeboah Asare, K. Gyasi Company Limited, Assembly of God Church, n°.J6/04/2017, 28/02/ 2018, paper 4. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 344

43

such sphere.27 In contrast, in the case The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences And Others vs Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd And Others, it further held that the respect of the right to personal privacy is similarly necessary even when people are in their office, in their cars or on their cellphones. In this case, no one is allowed to unlawfully interfere with the right to personal privacy, and that it should be accepted that person has the ability to decide what he or she wishes to disclose to the public and the expectation that such a decision will be respected as it entails the enjoyment of his/her right to privacy.28

The Court finds thus that among the elements of the personal privacy include sounds, photographs, videos and

27 “A very high level of protection is given to the individual’s intimate personal sphere of life and the maintenance of its basic preconditions and there is a final untouchable sphere of human freedom that is beyond interference from any public authority. So much so that, in regard to this most intimate core of privacy, no justifiable limitation thereof can take place. But this most intimate core is narrowly construed. This inviolable core is left behind once an individual enters into relationships with persons outside this closest intimate sphere; the individual’s activities then acquire a social dimension and the right of privacy in this context becomes subject to limitation.” Bernstein and Others v Betsr and Others NNO 1996 (4) BCLR 449 (CC), paragraph 77. 28 “The right, however, does not relate solely to the individual within his or her intimate space. Ackermann J did not state that when we move beyond this established “intimate core”, we no longer retain a right to privacy in the social capacities in which we act. Thus, when people are in their offices, in their cars or on mobile telephones, they still retain a right to be left alone by the state unless certain conditions are satisfied. Wherever a person has the ability to decide what he or she wishes to disclose to the public and the expectation that such a decision will be respected is reasonable, the right to privacy will come into play.” See The Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC), paragraphs 15 and 16. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 345

44

personal correspondence since they are essential personal and distinctive identifiers. It is the reason why nowadays, a person has the right to quest the way his/her personal audio, photographs, videos or writings were recorded, are saved or diffused. Such rights include the fact that the subject may deny to be eavesdropped, refuse that sounds, photos, videos and personal correspondence be taken, saved, published, diffused or reproduced. Otherwise, there would be somebody’s important information subject to surveillance by another person while the victim has no power to control how being eavesdropped, their sounds, photos, videos and personal correspondence would be used. Such reasoning concurs with the principles recalled in the case Von Hannover vs Germany29, on which Byansi Samuel and his legal counsel relied in their submissions.

If the foregoing holdings are considered together with the provisions of the first paragraph of article 156 of the above stated Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018, the second paragraph of article 9 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media as well as article 4 of the Law n° 04/2013 of 08/02/2013 relating to access to information, it entails that eavesdropping, taking or diffusing audio, photographs, videos or personal documents in a way that interfere with personal privacy of the owner is only possible within the following circumstances: i.If the owners consented to; ii.If such acts occurred to the knowledge of the concerned persons but abstained themselves from opposing them while they were able to do so;

29 See the case R Von Hannover v Germany n° 40660/08 and n° 60641/08, 07/02/2012, paragraph 96. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 346

45

iii.If done in general interest.

In the second paragraph of article 156 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above, the legislator considered that in the event the persons whose conversations were eavesdropped, and sounds, photographs or videos were recorded with their consent or with their knowledge without opposing them, no offence is supposed to have been committed. Under Rwandan law, such offence exists for two following and cumulative reasons: 1) in the event the eavesdropping, the audio and video were recorded, the photographs and documents were taken or diffused without the consent of the owners or without their knowledge; 2) if the eavesdropping, the recording of audio, video and taking photographs or documents that are personal were done or diffused “with bad faith”.

The punishment of the persons responsible for eavesdropping, for taking, recording and diffusing audio, photographs or videos with bad faith and without the consent of and knowledge by the owners consists of the effective translation of “the right to prevent interference with personal and family privacy” stated in articles and the second paragraph 38 of the Constitution. The establishment of the limits to the constitutional rights is not the uniqueness of Rwanda. While the African Court of Human and peoples’ rights was analyzing whether Burkina Faso overstepped the limits by introducing the legal provisions punishing people who violate the personal privacy in articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Law regulating media in Burkina Faso relating to the protection of the honour and dignity of a person and his/her profession, as well as article 178 of the criminal law of Burkina Faso for the protection of the honour and dignity of court staff in exercise of their duties, it found that the limits established by such Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 347

46

instruments to the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are founded on legitimate reasons and compliant with the international principles with regard to such privacy30. The main objective is that the consequences form the limits established by the legislature should not prevail over the protected interests.31

Concerning the fact that the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information have the limits was again recalled by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa in the course of the analysis of personal privacy provided

30 “In the instant case, the aim of Articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Information Code of Burkina Faso is to protect the honour and reputation of the person or a profession; that of Article 178 of the Criminal Code of Burkina Faso is more specifically to protect the honour and reputation of Magistrates, jurors and assessors in the performance of their duties or in the course of perming the duty. The Court is of the view that this is a perfectly legitimate objective and therefore the limitation thus imposed on the right to freedom of expression by the Burkinabé legislation is consistent with international standards in this area.” 31 “Though in the African Charter, the grounds of limitation to freedom of expression are not expressly provided as in other international and regional human rights treaties, the phrase “within the law” under Article 9 (2) provides a leeway to cautiously fit in legitimate and justifiable individual, collective and national interests as grounds of limitation. Here the phrase “within the law” must be interpreted in reference to international norms which can provide grounds of limitation on freedom of expression. A restriction to be acceptable, … it must serve a legitimate purpose… the Court is of view that the reasons for possible limitations must be based on legitimate public interest and the disadvantages of the limitation must be strictly proportionate and absolutely necessary for the benefits to be gained…the legitimate purpose of a restriction …consists in respecting the rights and reputation of others or the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.” See the case Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, Communication n° 004/2013, judgment of 05/12/2014, from paragraph 129 to paragraph 135. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 348

47

for by article 14 of the Constitution of South Africa32, and the freedom of access to information that is also provided for by article 16 of the Constitution of South Africa33, where it found that: “It is true that the freedom of the public to receive information is supported significantly by the freedom of the media, but the media are not free to convey information that intrudes upon the privacy of a person without a legitimate public interest being present.”34 In other words, the public freedom to access information does not allow a journalist go beyond the limits by doing what is not right or unlawful.

Such position corroborates the position adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the case E.S. vs Sweden,35

32 Section 14 reads as follow: “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have— (a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed”. 33 Section 16 (1) reads as follow: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes— (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.” 34 “It is true that the freedom of the public to receive information is supported significantly by the freedom of the media, but the media are not free to convey information that intrudes upon the privacy of a person without a legitimate public interest being present.” See the case R & M v SABC TV 3, JOL 22643, paragraph 37 (2008). Such position adopted in the year 2008 intervened to rectify the position adopted in 2002 in the case MEC for Health, Mpumalanga v M-Net 2002 (6) SA 714 (T) whereby the Court has said that the use of hidden cameras in hospital unbeknownst to patients as well as the hospital with the aim of indicating poor service delivery to aborting wives and girls, was done in public interest because it intended to shed the light to the discharge of the duties by the leaders and politicians in charge of that hospital. 35 Such case arose from the fact that the court in Sweden deemed that hiding an operating camera in the female child bathroom is not criminalized by any law, and that no element of evidence indicates the existence of an action of a Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 349

48

according to which countries have obligations to take measures to protect the personal privacy even when individuals are concerned, and for this reason, it should be enacted legislation fighting the violation by individuals. It finds that even though the criminalization is not the only solution, it is necessary to enact severe criminal provisions with the objective of preventing serious acts likely to violate the basic values and standards of individual's life.36 It finds in addition that the evolution of cinematographic, photographic, and communication technology stresses the need to tighten the protection of personal privacy.37 The legal scholar William A. Schabas states that there are European countries that incorporated in the criminal instruments, acts relating to secretly or unlawfully taking photographs of individuals especially when done in violation of personal privacy.38

child whose images were taken because his/her mother had teared off that camera from the hands of the father and destroyed the cliche. Court have held that there is no basis to hold that there occurred sexual molestation or attempted child pornography, and thus, the accused was acquitted. 36 These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves …The states are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals... While recourse to the criminal law is not necessarily the only answer, effective deterrence against grave acts where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake requires efficient criminal law provisions.” See the case E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, paragraphs 57 and 58. 37 The Court also observes the technical developments in the sphere of filming and photography and reiterates that increased vigilance in protecting private life is necessary to contend with new communication technologies which make it possible to store and reproduce personal data.” See the case E.S. v Sweden n° 5786/08, 21/06/2012, paragraph 71. 38 “In some European States, measures have been considered in order to address the phenomenon of illicit or covert filming of individuals, including RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 350

49

The Court finds also that even in the case Shulman vs Group W. Productions, the Supreme Court of California deemed that a journalist who diffused the conversation and video of the patient and rescue medical personnel taken within the ambulance on the television without their consent, would not rely on the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information as the basis of discharging him/her of the liability because he/she violated the personal privacy of the patient by taking advantage of his/her trauma and weakness. It further found that while the press seeks for information, it is not entitled to immunity for the enforcement of laws, therefore the existent legal provisions protecting the general interests would limit its freedom since nowhere the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America does provide special treatment for a journalist while seeking for information as opposed to the way an ordinary citizen gets information.39

In the case Galella vs Onassis40, the Court of Appeal of America (2nd Circuit) has also found that Donald Galella who was a professional photographer who used to shoot famous persons and sell photos to the journals, would not rely on the freedom of press provided for (1st amendment) by the Constitution of the United State of America to encroach on the privacy of people since offences and faults are not protected by the Constitution. The Court deemed that even though the protection of general interest may prevail over the personal

criminalization where personal integrity is compromised.” Read about William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2015, p.377. 39 See the case Shulman v Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal. 4th 200, Supreme Court of California, June 1, 1998. 40 See the case n° Galella v. Onassis 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973). Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 351

50

privacy, the protection of general interest should not extend beyond what is necessary. It deemed that though Onassis was a celebrity, the acts of Galella exceeded the limits of seeking information, and it held that requiring journalist to abide by the law does not in any case breach the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information.

The Court finds therefore that the statements of Byansi and his legal counsel that the right to personal privacy is not an obstruct to the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, lack merit. The protection of the personal privacy is not only limited to ordinary persons though they need more protection than famous persons and politicians. Nonetheless, an article regarding such famous persons would only violate their personal privacy if it aims at protecting public interest. Before the eavesdropping, taking or diffusion of personal audio, video or documents of famous person or politician, a journalist should always ask him/herself if it is in the general interest to trigger the curiosity of the public on the topic, where if he/she finds that what he/she intended to do falls within the context of the secrecy of personal privacy, he/she refrains from doing it.

Regarding this issue, the European Court of Human Rights explained that the instance of general interest consists of when an article aims at discovery of the commission of the offence, at exhibiting the political thoughts of the subject in order to stimulate the democratic debate or the debates relating to entertainment.41 As a matter of fact, a story about the fact that a certain person is suspected to have committed an offence, about the problem of money owned by an artist or talking about the marital disputes involving a politician, should not be regarded as

41 See the case White v Sweden, n° 42435, 19/09/2006, paragraph 29. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 352

51

aiming at general interest.42 The foregoing reasoning corroborates again the provisions of article 6 of the Law n° 04/2013 of 08/02/2013 relating to access to information stating that the general interest consists of something that is in the interest of the people considering the potential trouble to their lives, ensuring that any public authority with regulatory mission properly discharges its functions, ensuring that the expenditure of public funds is subject to effective management and oversight or promoting founded public debate.

The Court deems that the foregoing grounds entail that the right of a journalist to seek for information does not entitle him/her the immunity. Article 38 of the Constitution should be perceived as having balanced the gravity of the consequences arising from the failure to respect the personal privacy for aspiring to respect the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, as well as the consequences arising from failure to respect the freedom of press for aspiring to protect the personal privacy. It is evident that the consequences arising from failure to respect the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information when a journalist is barred from violating the personal privacy are fewer; and thus, a journalist is not allowed to encroach in personal privacy for only believing to have come across a story. Manuel Molina, a legal scholar, states clearly it in the following terms: “la liberté qui lui (le journaliste) est reconnue par la Constitution a dû être inscrite par la loi dans les limites nécessaires pour le maintien de la justice et de l’ordre social… C’est dire combien doivent être prudents les journalistes comme les éditeurs et les

42 See the judgment Standard Verlags Gmbh V Austria (n°2), n° 21277/05, 04/06/2009, paragraph 48. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 353

52

diffuseurs qui ne doivent pas croire que tout leur est permis au nom de cette liberté solennellement proclamée et oublier que des limites sont imposées pour éviter que la liberté des uns ne dégénère en dommages pour autrui.”43

The Court finds that nowhere in the judgment Axel Springer AG vs Germany, it is said that the freedom of press is absolute to the extent that six principles that Byansi and his legal counsel allege to have been established by such judgment44 would be regarded as totally limiting the right to personal privacy. It is nonetheless evident to the Court that in paragraph 110 of that judgment, the European Court of Human Rights found in contrast that the right to personal privacy consists of limitation to the freedom of press, but that in the context of exercising some of the said rights, proportionality should be exercised in order to avoid the potency of one over another in a way that eliminates the protected interest.45 The Court reached such conclusion after recalling the position it adopted in the case Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) vs France, raised by Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel, according to which the freedom of press and the right to personal privacy should be equally respected.46

43 See Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p.3. 44 The story’s objective should be general interest, the story should involve a famous person who was prosecuted for crime, the conduct of a journalist, the method of information gathering, the veracity of the story and the sanctions to such an offence. 45 See the case Axel Springer AG v. Germany, n° 39954/08, 7/02/2012, paragraph 110. 46 “Indeed, as a matter of principle these rights deserve equal respect.” see the judgment Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS) v. France, n°. 12268/03, 23/07/2009, paragraph 41. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 354

53

The Court further deems that the method of investigative journalist or undercover journalism is very important to the country and population. Such methods may reveal the information about the decision making by the state organs, which would help to discover the commission of offences, especially the acts committed undercover such as corruption, gender-based violence, embezzlement and breach of trust. They can help uncover dysfunctions and ill decisions. However, all such benefits would not prevail over the right to personal privacy because the freedom entail also doing what does not obstruct others. Henri Ader recalls that every journalist, be it a writer, a photographer, an investigator, a radio or television presenter, should always wonder whether he/she does not encroach with the right of another or the limits set by the law by exercising his/her freedom.47

The Court finds that in the instant case, Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel state that the words “in bad faith” also limit the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information because journalists collect and diffuse information in the general interest, and thus in the event that a journalist does it in bad faith, he should be held liable before civil courts rather than before criminal courts.

47 “La liberté consiste à faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui… Et du journaliste qui écrit ou dicte l’article qui doit paraitre tout à l’heure, du photographe qui vqa saiasir et figer l’instant fugitive qui deviendra, à cause de lui ou grace à lui, image sans fin reproduite, de l’nqueteur qui, pour la radio ou la television va amplifier aux limites de notre monde la parole fugace ou le geste éphèmere, chancun de se demander s’il demeure se faisant, dans les limites de la liberté de la presse ou s’il est n’est pas coupable de nuire à autrui et de ne pas respecter ces bornes (de la loi)” See Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p.1-2. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 355

54

The importance of having legal provisions protecting the personal privacy in criminal instruments has been sufficiently explained above and it was indicated that it is not as a matter of fact the particularity of Rwanda, it is in any way inconsistent with the Constitution. The issue concerning the wording “in bad faith” and determination of whether such words are necessary in article 156 of the aforementioned Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018.

The Court finds that the words “in bad faith” translate the intent to commit the offence, and the legislator classified such intent to the higher category (special intent). Such words place the onus to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the criminalized acts were committed with intent to harm to the prosecution. They constitute also reasons that may decriminalize such acts based on that provision in the event of eavesdropping, taking, publication or diffusion of personal audio, photographs, video or documents were done by accident or without intent to harm. Eliminating them from such provision would extend its scope and the related effects being to rely on it for the punishment of the persons who committed such acts inadvertently or without intent to harm, as well as those who did it in general interest. This is what would in contrast be inconsistent with the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information provided for by article 38 of the Constitution.

On the contrary, the Court further finds that the words “in bad faith” make the Rwandan law favorable as far as prosecuting the suspects of violation of article 256 is concerned because it punishes the person who committed the acts stated therein without being given prior consent of the concerned persons, and who does it with intent to harm. Article 226-1 of the penal code of France that Counsel MBONIGABA Eulade, the State RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 356

55

Attorney, recalled above, indicates also that it is important to consider the objective of the person who did eavesdropping, took, published or diffused personal photographs, audio, video or documents. Such article reads that: “Est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 45.000 Euros d’amende le fait, au moyen d’un procédé quelconque, volontairement de porter atteinte à l’intimité de la vie privée d’autrui…”.48 Again, article 162.1. (1) of the Penal Code of Canada also indicates that it is necessary for the suspect to have committed such offence with full knowledge. It reads: “Quiconque sciemment publie, distribue, transmet, vend ou rend accessible une image intime d’une personne, ou en fait la publicité, sachant que cette personne n’y a pas consenti ou sans se soucier de savoir si elle y a consenti ou non, est coupable …”49

The Court finds that article 156, paragraph 2 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above, punishes the person convicted of the offences stated in the first paragraph or the person who, in bad faith, distributes in any way whatsoever, a photo, audio and video, recordings or documents obtained as a result of one of the acts referred to in Paragraph One as provided in paragraph three of that article is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one million Rwandan francs (1,000,000Frw) and not more than two million Rwandan francs (2,000,000Frw) or only one of these penalties.

48 See the Code pénal Français, modifié par la loi n°2020-936 du 30 juillet 2020. 49 See the Code criminel L.R.C. (Loi Révisée du Canada) (1985), ch. C-46 (À jour au 4 avril 2022, dernière modification le 16 janvier 2022). Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 357

56

Concerning the penalties provided for by that provision, the Court notes that while the African Commission of Human Rights was addressing the dispute between Constitutional Rights Project and Nigeria, it realized that the protected aim was necessary and reasonable, and therefore the issue to be determined being whether the established measures were proportional. It put them in the following terms: “The only legitimate reason(s) for limitations of the rights and freedoms of the African Charter are … is that the rights of the Charter ‘shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. The justification for limitation must be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages which follow. Most important, a limitation may not erode a right such that the right itself becomes illusory.”50

The Court finds that the penalties provided by article 156, paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 are proportionate comparing to the protected rights, and in addition to that, courts are not required to cumulate the imprisonment penalty with the pecuniary penalty. This further foretells that such part of the penalties that is in this provision does not turn the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information provided by article 38 of the Constitution illusory.

Concerning the statements of BYANSI Samuel Baker according to which article 156 of the Law determining offences and penalties is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution would facilitate journalists to proceed through investigative or

50 Constitutional Rights Project and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 227 (ACHPR 1999). RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 358

57

undercover journalism, the Court deems that the petitioned article does in no way prohibit journalists to resort to such methods. What is prohibited is the breach of personal privacy and with bad faith. Instead, it is clear to the Court that article 12 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media provides that “a journalist shall have free access to all sources of information and the right to freely inquire on all events of public life, and to publish them in respect of the provisions of this Law and other Laws.” The free access to all sources of information and inquire means that a story may even be constituted in any form provided that a journalist remains within the limits set by the law.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds article 156 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. II. 2. Whether article 157 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution

Byansi Samuel Baker alleges that the work of a journalist relies on editing, therefore that concerning the investigated story, a journalist would be obliged to take a distance from the ordinary regulations and that the discovered evidence from the collected information are likely to help other organs including justice organs. He states that article 157 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general does regard a journalist as any other person, which leads to the violation of his/her freedoms. He explains that in the course of preparation of an article, a journalist would modify it (editing/interpretation/analyze), alter the video, photograph or use the cartoon in order to be pleasant or attractive for the target Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 359

58

audience since he/she may dramatize some personal traits to represent him/her as a reference.

He explains that the magazine known as Charlie Hebdo in France which spent the last 200 years reporting through cartoons as a way of expressing their thoughts, and therefore, the fact that article 157 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general punishes any person including journalists, contravenes article 38 of the Constitution because it obstructs the freedom of expression through any medium that a journalist may use in his/her profession.

He alleges that the freedom of expression through cartoons was penalized by foreign courts in the judgment where Charlie Hebdo was attacked by Société des Habous des Lieux Saints de l’Islam and l’Union des Organisations Islamiques de France to have insulted the leaders of Islam religion by cartooning the prophet Muhammad, the Court of Appeal of Paris found that freedom of press does not only concern plausible stories, but it also extends to viral report, account that upset some people or annoying narratives51, and thus, the cartoons are sometimes designed voluntarily in the context of triggering public debate, and that even if such cartoons would themselves be controversial, it should be perceived as contributing to the exercise of freedom of expression that benefits the general interest.

51 “La liberté d’expression vaut pour les informations ou idées accueillies avec faveur ou considérées comme inoffensives ou indifférentes dans une société déterminée, mais aussi pour celles qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent … les caricatures litigieuses ont participé au débat d’intérêt général sur la liberté d’expression”. See the judgment rendered by the Cour d’Appel de Paris, 11è chamber, section A, 12 mars 2008, dossier no 07/02873. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 360

59

His legal Counsel MUSORE Gakunzi Valéry states that the punishment of the journalist who diffused statements or videos that are different from the source amounts to unnecessary violation of freedom of press in Rwanda as a democratic country, therefore that article 157 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. He explains that when the way in which the media operates is considered and how journalists do analysis by reducing the minutes of the conversations they had with interviewed persons, or change photos; this should not constitute an offence in itself. He states that the magazine known as Charlie Hebdo pleases the audience around the world by its cartoons, which is an example that Rwanda would borrow especially that it is not an island and that nothing prevents the practice elsewhere to apply in Rwanda. He argues that would there be a person who is discontent with the working conduct of a journalist, he has to seize the civil court for damages.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, the State Attorney, retorts that article 157 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general does in any way forbid to do editing, interpretation or analysis, as what is prohibited is to do it in bad faith or doing editing without indicating it as an edited version, which is likely to lead people to believe that the work of the journalist is original. He states that the role of such provision consists of preventing people who would alter stories, where people would believe that what they have been given is the true story. He raises an example of the recorded audio of Apostle Gitwaza Paul where he was alleged to have declared that the followers who do not worship in his church will not go to heaven, a citizen may take it to be true whereas the person who distorted it was of bad faith. In this case, Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 361

60

it is necessary for a journalist to remain ready to disclose the original version.

He states also that the modus operandi of the magazine Charlie Hebdo should not be basis for enacting Rwandan law, thus, the statements of Byansi Samuel Baker according to which article 157 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 recalled above obstructs the freedom of press, are baseless because article 38 of the Constitution provides for limitations to such freedom, which means that in the event a journalist acts unlawfully, nothing stands against his/her punishment as it is the case for any other person. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 38 of the Constitution recalled above establishes a principle that freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognized and guaranteed by the State. However, such freedoms shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law.

Article 157 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general states that “Any person who, in bad faith, publishes in any way whatsoever an edited version of a person’s statements, or images and photos without explicitly stating that it is not the original version, commits an offence”. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than one million RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 362

61

Rwandan francs (1,000,000Frw) and not more than two million Rwandan francs (2,000,000Frw).

The foregoing provision regards any person who publishes an edited version of a person’s statements, or images and photos without indicating to the audience that they have been edited. In other words, this provision criminalizes the deception of the publisher of statements, photos or images presented differently from the original version and where the public or the audience deceptively take them as original version. However, a person held criminally liable is the one acting with bad faith.

Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel states that a journalist should not be regarded as “any person” stated in article 157. The definition of a journalist is provided for by article 2, subparagraph 19 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media stating that “a professional journalist: a person who possesses basic journalism skills and who exercises journalism as his/her first profession. He/she shall exercise at least one of the following professions: a. collecting information, b. processing information, c. publish/broadcast information through a given media organ with intention to disseminate information or opinions”. The term “a professional journalist” that the legislator used implies the existence of a non-professional journalist, who does not fulfill one or several requirements set by the foregoing provision such as the fact that he/she did not study journalism or where journalism is not his main occupation.

The Court finds that based on the provisions of article 3, paragraph one of the aforementioned Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013, a journalist, whether exercising the profession of journalism in a registered media company or a freelance, or a representative of a foreign media organ in Rwanda, shall be given Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 363

62

accreditation by the Media Self Regulatory Body or other competent organ for a foreign journalist.

The second principle of the Rwanda media fundamental principles of 05/04/2014 states that: “A journalist should refrain from misinformation. He/she has the duty to publish the real scenario by seeking the truth, and he/she should keep in mind that the public has the right to receive accurate information. He/she should not disregard the substantial information or alter the statements made or any kind of documents.”52

The Court finds that in the judgment Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés vs France, the European Court of Human Rights established that the media professional principles and duties determine the exercise of their profession. It deems that the professional principles instruct journalists to fulfill their obligations in good faith and based on tangible and actual facts, and they have to publish credible stories and which are not misleading. It further found that acting professionally implies that a journalist should respect the way he accessed the information without disparaging the person from whom he got the information.53

52 See Rwanda Media Commission, Media professional principles in Rwanda, PGL, Kigali, Amended 5th April 2014. 53 “131…Le respect par les journalistes de leurs devoirs et de leurs responsabilités ainsi que des principes déontologiques qui encadrent leur profession. À cet égard, elle rappelle que l’article 10 protège le droit des journalistes de communiquer des informations sur des questions d’intérêt général dès lors qu’ils s’expriment de bonne foi, sur la base de faits exacts, et qu’ils fournissent des informations “fiables et précises” dans le respect de l’éthique journalistique… 132. La loyauté des moyens mis en œuvre pour obtenir une information et la restituer au public et le respect de la personne faisant l’objet d’une information … sont aussi des critères essentiels à prendre RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 364

63

The instant Court finds that as recalled above that the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are not absolute especially that one of the limitations thereto includes the honour and dignity of a person preventing any person including a journalist to do anything with the intent to disparage or dehumanize a person. Such freedom would also be limited by the interest to protect the person against whom lies would be told about and held liable for the diffusion of his/her untrue declarations, photos and images. Regarding the cartoons of which BYANSI Samuel Baker and his legal counsel they state that they are concerned by article 157 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, the instant Court upholds the position adopted by the European Court of Human Rights where it held that the portrayals in the form of cartoons even though expressing the thoughts, they are themselves and the related descriptions regulated by the media professional principles; therefore, they should not violate the privacy of the cartooned person or defame him/her.54

The instant Court notes that even the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the duties of the journalists to ethically exercise their profession where it held in the case Grant vs Torstar Corporation, that: Freedom does not negate responsibility. It is vital that the media act responsibly in reporting facts on matters

en compte. Le caractère tronqué et réducteur d’une publication est donc susceptible, lorsqu’il est de nature à induire les lecteurs en erreur, de limiter considérablement l’importance de la contribution de cette publication à un débat d’intérêt général.” See Couderc Et Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France, n° 40454/07, 10/11/2015, paragraphs 131 and 132. 54 See the case Palomo Sanchez et Autres v Espagne n° 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, 2/09/2011, paragraph 66 Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 365

64

of public concern, holding themselves to the highest journalistic standard.”55

In the Book titled Style Book: Bestselling Guide for Writing and Editing written by The Canadian Press, it is stated that photographs must always express the truth, indicate what the author saw and that a photograph may be rectified through different methods of burning, dodging, colour balancing and cropping but that person who makes alterations should avoid overdoing it since it is not permitted in journalism to dismiss important traits of the photo in favor of useless traits, and for this reason, editing should only be limited to clearing with the aim of erasing dust, dots and other small spots, whereas colour balancing should be done slightly by avoiding the modification of originality of the photograph.56 Nothing prevents the holdings of The Canadian Press about photographs to apply to statements or images which all corroborate to imply that a journalist who, publish edited photo, statements or images without indicating them as such, violates the principles stated previously by intending to falsely present them as original.

The Court is of the view that the problem of not indicating the basis of the story whether they were modified or not, relies largely on the professionalism of the journalist. In addition to that, article 157 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 stated above does not only protect the owner of the published photo,

55 Freedom does not negate responsibility. It is vital that the media act responsibly in reporting facts onmatters of public concern, holding them- selves to the highest journalistic standards…” See the case Grant v Torstar Corp. [2009] 3 S.C.R., paragraph 52. 56 Manuel Molina, Les Journalistes: Statut professionnel, libertés et responsabilités, Victoire Editions, 1989, p. 356 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 366

65

statements or images after modification of which the author did not indicate to be different from original versions. Instead, such provision averts the harm intended by the editor, that is likely to extend beyond the owner of modified photo, statements or images of which it was not indicated to be different from the original versions. The terms “with bad faith” that were used by the legislator concern the prejudice intended by the publisher of the photograph, statements and images.

Every aspect of human rights plays its own role, and aims at promoting and respecting human dignity. Accordingly, no aspect of human rights should suffocate and suppress another, rather, all aspects should radiate in synergy in order to promote the human dignity. It implies that the fact that everybody, including a journalist, is required to indicate that the statements, photographs or video recordings he/she diffused are different from the original versions and should do it with good faith, is not what should be regarded as prejudicing to the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. In addition to that, the fact of requesting a journalist to exhibit integrity and operating professionally without doing something with bad faith, and to indicate the changes he/she made to original versions, does in no way prejudice democracy or basic principles that would hamper democratic or people’s progress.

The foregoing demonstrates that the arguments of Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel based on the judgment that opposed Handyside to England are not true because in contrast, the European Court of Human Rights found that any person that exercises his/her freedom of press admits to the associated onus and duties. It also explained that his/her freedom is restricted with the status of the circumstances at hand as well as the devices Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 367

66

he/she chose to use, and that the Court would not disregard such onus and duties in the course of determining whether the limits and penalties established are necessary to promote the civil education in a democratic country.57

The Court further finds that the right protected by article 157 of the Constitution constitutes one of the rights to privacy of which the exercise is preceded by the claim of the owner of the photo, statements or video recordings as provided by article 162 of such Law. It entails that whenever the owner did not file, the prosecution is not allowed to take action and file on his/her behalf. It follows that claims are submitted following the intention of the owner to prosecute for only some photos, statements or video recordings diffused after their modification, which is also a limitation to unnecessary claims.

Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that article 157 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. II.3. Whether article 194 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution

Byansi Samuel Baker alleges that article 194 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in

57 “whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes "duties and responsibilities" the scope of which depends on his situation and the technical means he uses. The Court cannot overlook such a person's "duties" and "responsibilities" when it enquires, as in this case, whether "restrictions" or "penalties" were conducive to the "protection of morals" which made them "necessary" in a "democratic society". See the case Handyside v. The United Kingdom, n° 5493/72, 7/12/1976, paragraph 49. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 368

67

general prejudices the freedom of press considering that journalists do not own information as they find it from people who would tell them the truth or lie to them. He explains that normally it is the investigative journalism that helps journalists to analyze whether the declarations made to them are reliable, therefore, a journalist should not be punished for publication of information, which is subsequently deemed to be false. He states that in their carrier, in the event of misconduct, a journalist is sanctioned with the withdrawal or rectification of the publication, which he finds satisfactory.

His legal Counsel RURAMIRA Bizimana Zébédée states that being punished for published information which was later judged to be untrue, is unlawful. He explains that the terms “any person” that open out the article 194 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general are inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution because it does not accord a journalist with any special treatment, and that it disregards that the duties of a journalist consist of expressing opinions that would not be sometimes welcomed equally by all individuals. He states that a journalist diffuses an information he/she deems true depending on the source of information, which would be discovered to be false later; therefore, being subject to prosecution amounts to prejudice to freedom of expression. He further states that in the course of analysis of article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights, the France Court of Cassation deemed that the publication of untrue story does not consist of an offence,58 thus, a journalist who published false

58 “Viole par fausse application l'article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, la cour d'appel qui interdit la reproduction de propos litigieux sur un site internet au motif que ceux-ci revêtent un caractère mensonger, alors que la liberté d'expression est un droit dont l'exercice ne Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 369

68

story would rather be required to make adjustments, rectifications or the reported subject be give the opportunity to reply as provided for by article 21 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media.59

Concerning the spread of propaganda, he explains that nobody should be punished for that in a democratic country, and that in countries like France, a journalist may reveal in an article that he/she supports an opposition party without being regarded as causing public disaffection against the Government. He states that since articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution provided for the principle of equality before the law and the freedom of press and further stresses on the freedom of expression and of access to information respectively, other legal instruments should also give a special treatment to and protect a journalist. Because should not this be the case, it would amount to unconstitutionality, since as for him, such article bars a journalist from expressing his/her opinions freely.

revêt un caractère abusif que dans les cas spécialement déterminés par la loi, et que les propos litigieux reproduits, fussent-ils mensongers, n'entrent dans aucun de ces cas;” France, Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 10 avril 2013, 12-10177 59 Such article specifies that “Every individual, associations, public entities and organizations with legal personality shall have the right to request for correction, reply or rectification of an article or a story published in a media organ. Request for correction, reply or rectification shall be submitted to the Publishing Director of media organ in a registered mail, letter delivered with acknowledgement of receipt or electronic mail with acknowledgment of receipt. The Media Self Regulatory body shall determine modalities for correction, reply and rectification. If the applicant for correction, reply or rectification is unsatisfied with the decision made, the person may file a case with the Media Self Regulatory Body. In the absence of amicable settlement, the person may file a case with the competent court. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 370

69

He alleges that nowhere the Law defines “propaganda”, the situation that may lead to make judgment by analogy while it is forbidden by article 4 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. He cites examples of Legal scholars60 and foreign courts61, where they concur that the term “propaganda” is broad and implies different modes of expressing opinion that may vary depending on the content of the story, its interpretation, medium of publication as well as its adverse effects.

He states that in the judgment Sabuncu and others vs Türkiye, the European Court of Human Rights was seized by journalists from Türkiye alleging that the prosecution holds them liable for their article that it qualified to instigate the political organisations including the opposition party PKK. He explains that they were detained for spreading propaganda of such organisations, the reason they initiated a claim with the objective of criticising their government that opted to detain them instead of resorting to media and answer about the opinions of the criticizers, and for them, the foregoing consists of the hindrance to the freedom of press. He explains that such Court found indeed

60 “Propaganda is a sufficiently broad notion to cover a range of different types of expression which vary in terms of the harmfulness of their content, the sophistication of their presentation and strategies of dissemination and the gravity of their effects.” See Tarlach McGonagle, Minority Rights, Freedom of Expression and of the Media: Dynamics and Dilemmas, Cambridge, Intersentia, Research Series, Volume 44, 2011, p.272. 61 “The right to freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the community.” See the case Handyside v. the United Kingdom, n° 5493/72, 7/12/1976, paragraph 49. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 371

70

that the provisional detention of a journalist for their profession consists of the interference with the freedom of press.62

Counsel Musore Gakunzi Valéry who also assists BYANSI Samuel Baker states that there are some main principles that should be considered before interfering with the freedom of press including prior stance of whether in a democratic country, it is necessary to interfere with such freedom and determination of whether the purpose would not be achieved otherwise. He argues that the Court, within its discretion, should determine whether the way the story was made breaches the law and determine whether it disrupts the public, therefore, a journalist should not be sentenced to jail for having made critiques; rather, would faults have been committed, they should be mended through legal remedies provided for by the Law regulating media or civil law.

Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel request the instant Court to consider their submissions as founded and hold that article 194 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, the state attorney, states that the worry that a journalist may be punished for his/her article is

62 “La Cour estime que la détention provisoire qui a été imposée aux requérants dans le cadre de la procédure pénale engagée contre eux pour des crimes sévèrement réprimés et directement liée à leur travail journalistique consiste en une contrainte réelle et effective, et qu’elle constitue donc une “ ingérence” dans l’exercice par les requérants de leur droit à la liberté d’expression garanti par l’article 10 de la Convention.” See the case SABUNCU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE, n° 23199/17, 10 /11/ 2020, paragraph 226. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 372

71

baseless because when a story is well prepared and published, and the author indicates the source, this is an indication that he/she did not have the intention to spread rumors, thus, he/she should not be held liable since criminal liability is personal. He explains that a journalist is required to know whether a story is inoffensive and he/she should bear in mind that having the source of information does not exonerate him/her from the obligation of diligence to the extent that as a person of influence to the society, whenever he deems that such story would be compromising, he/she should refrain from broadcasting it. He explains that when there happen to be inadvertent or lack of precautions in whatever we do, the responsible person is held liable.

He states that the publications by journalists are considered as true by the population. Thus, he finds that the instant Court should reiterate that no provision of the law obligates journalists to publish any information they come across, and holds that they are required to exercise discernment in their duties. He further argues that article 194 of the aforementioned Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 concerns all persons, and implement the principle expressed by article 38 of the Constitution. For this reason, it would not set a particularity to journalist or any other person because its provisions intend to protect the Rwandan sovereignty and public order. He states that the freedom of press does not entail talking about what is not allowed; rather, the freedom of expression and of access to information should be allowed by all country’s legislation as provided for by article 41 of the Constitution63 as well as article

63 Such article provides that “In exercising rights and freedoms, everyone is subject only to limitations provided for by the law aimed at ensuring recognition and respect of other people’s rights and freedoms, as well as public Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 373

72

9, paragraph 2 of the Law no 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media.

He explains that article 38, paragraph 2 of the Constitution provides for the exception where it states that freedom of expression and freedom of access to information shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy, the text which corroborates the provisions of article 194 of the stated Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, and therefore, such article is not inconsistent with the Constitution. He further states that nowhere article 38 of the Constitution prevents a journalist to publish an investigated story as it rather prohibit the publication of lies or irrelevant information he/she comes across regardless of their source, and that though article 21 and 22 of the Law no 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media provides for the persons having the right to request the correction, reply to or rectification of the published article or story in the media, such request and correction does not eliminate the problems and challenges arose from such published false information, and that for this reason, the rectification would not bring any remedy as long as the public order is disturbed.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade pursues that the provision alleged to be inconsistent with the Constitution provides that the criminalised spread of propaganda is that intending to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda or where it is likely or calculated to cause public disaffection or a hostile international environment against the Government of Rwanda,

morals, public order and social welfare which generally characterise a democratic society”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 374

73

therefore that it is not necessary to dig out other explanations for such term from legal scholars opinions or foreign precedents. He adds that even if the penalty for the offence provided under such provision be reduced, it would not concern a journalist for the consequences of the published story since most people consider it to be true because the audience think that he/she has done deep research, which leads to their reading and being listened to by many people.

He states that even international law establishes limitations to every body’s rights, whit an example of article 19, paragraph 2 of International Covenant on civil and political rights stating that Everyone shall have the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media of his/her choice, but such freedom subject to restrictions for respect of the rights or reputations of others depending on the legislation of every country64, while article 9 of African Charter on human and peoples’ right provides that Every individual shall have the right to receive information and to express and disseminate his opinions within the law; which implies that even a journalist has

64 “Toute personne a droit à la liberté d’expression ; ce droit comprend la liberté de rechercher, de recevoir et de répandre des informations et des idées de toute espèce, sans considération de frontières, sous une forme orale, écrite, imprimée ou artistique, ou par tout autre moyen de son choix”. Indeed, the 3rd paragraph states that “l'exercice des libertés prévues au paragraphe 2 du présent article comporte des devoirs spéciaux et des responsabilités spéciales. Il peut en conséquence être soumis à certaines restrictions qui doivent toutefois être expressément fixées par la loi et qui sont nécessaires : a) Au respect des droits ou de la réputation d'autrui; b) A la sauvegarde de la sécurité nationale, de l’ordre public, de la santé ou de la moralité publiques”. See article 19 of International Covenant on civil and political rights. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 375

74

no right to impart any kind of information or article65. He concludes his submissions by requesting the instant Court to hold that nowhere article 194 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 15 of the Constitution reads that: “All persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law.”

Article 38 of the Constitution that was recalled above establishes a principle according to which the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information is recognised and guaranteed by the State. However, such freedoms shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law.

Article 194 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general provides that: “Any person who spreads false information or harmful propaganda with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda, or where such information or propaganda is likely or calculated to cause public disaffection or a hostile international environment against the Government of Rwanda commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable, in wartime, to a term

65 “ toute personne a le droit d’exprimer de diffuser ses opinons dans le cadre des lois et des reglements”. See article 9 of African Charter on human and peoples’ rights. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 376

75

of life imprisonment. In peacetime, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than seven (7) years and not more than ten (10) years.”

Article 194 punishes “any person” who spreads false information or harmful propaganda: i. with intent to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda; ii. or where such information or propaganda is likely or calculated to cause public disaffection or a hostile international environment against the Government of Rwanda. In other words, what is criminalised by this article is not the information or propaganda themselves, it is rather the intent of the person who spreads information or propaganda to cause public disaffection or the effects such information had or is likely to have on peoples’ or countries’ relations vis-a-vis the Government of Rwanda. The Court finds that another aspect on which this article shed light is that it says “spreading false information”, of which words would not be confused with “publication of an untrue story”. As provided for by article 2, subparagraph 8 of the aforementioned Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013, “the news consists of print, audio, visual or audio-visual elements that are prepared for media purposes.” The Diffusion of information leads to the transmission of news to many people or to the public in unprofessional way. Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel states that according to article 194 of the Law determining offences and Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 377

76

penalties in general, a journalist should not be confused with any other person, because doing so is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution which establishes the right to equality before the law. However, they do not indicate how the words “any person” lead to inequality. Rather, it is evident to the Court that such words treat all people equally either Rwandans or foreigners who do not abide by this provision. The distinction of journalists from others who are likely to evenly commit offences without indicating reasonable grounds would rather make such article inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution. The instant court recalled it in the case of Uwinkindi Jean where it held that “grouping people in categories should be done with the aim of achieve a reasonable and justifiable objective, and with legitimate purpose under the covenant and criteria for such differentiation should be groundful and in general interest.”66 The Court further deems that the objective of such article is not to criminalise the false information or propaganda themselves as alleged by Samuel Baker and his legal counsel. The words “bigamije/with intent to/avec l’intention de” indicate that the offence occurs once false information or propaganda intend to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda or where such information or propaganda is likely or calculated to cause public disaffection or a hostile international environment against the Government of Rwanda. The words “bigamije/with intent to/avec l’intention de” indicate that the offence occurs once false information or propaganda intend to cause public disaffection against the Government of Rwanda or where such information or propaganda is likely or calculated to cause public disaffection or a hostile international environment against the

66 See the judgment n° RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS rendered on 22/02/2013, paragraph 16. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 378

77

Government of Rwanda. It is the motive behind the person who spreads such information or propaganda that the law intends to fight. Article 194 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general does not include false information or propaganda imparted by a person with no intention to cause public disaffection against the Government or devoid of anything likely to cause public disaffection or hostile international environment against the Government. Regarding whether the prosecution of people who incite public disaffection or hostile environment against the Government through false information or propaganda, violates the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, the Court finds that article 9 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media leaves journalists the obligation to refrain themselves from disrupting the public order while article 4 of article of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 on access to information prohibits journalists to impart information, even when it is not false, if it is likely to destabilize national security or impede the enforcement of Law or justice. Such provisions imply in addition that national security, law enforcement and justice consist of some of the limitations to the rights provided by article 38, paragraph one of the Constitution. The Court finds that Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel allege that Rwanda should follow the example of other countries including France because in those countries, a journalist may be a partisan of the opposition party and produce a story that does not please the government without being prosecuted. Nonetheless, as recalled above, the offence does not rely on the veracity of falseness of the news, it is rather based on the false information of propaganda with intent to cause or likely to cause Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 379

78

public disaffection or hostile international environment against the Government. From 29/07/1881, France has enacted the law criminalising what the call “délit de fausse nouvelle”, which law was amended on 06/05/1944 by adding aggravating circumstances, and the last amendment occurred on 19/09/2000.67 In general, such law criminalises false information whether it is based on fabrications or not, violating or likely to violate public order.68 It punishes also the person who spread such information with bad faith which provoke the misconduct in the army, demoralize it or block the assistance accorded to the State during wartime.69France has gone beyond the provisions of the aforementioned law and established the punishment for people who lies about potential terrorist attacks70 or spread rumors with the intent to lift or lower the value of the currency.71

67 See the Ordonnance n°2000-916 du 19 septembre 2000 - art. 3 (V) JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002. 68 “La publication, la diffusion ou la reproduction, par quelque moyen que ce soit, de nouvelles fausses, de pièces fabriquées, falsifiées ou mensongèrement attribuées à des tiers lorsque, faite de mauvaise foi, elle aura troublé la paix publique, ou aura été susceptible de la troubler, sera punie d'une amende de 45 000 euros.” 69 “Les mêmes faits seront punis de 135 000 euros d'amende, lorsque la publication, la diffusion ou la reproduction faite de mauvaise foi sera de nature à ébranler la discipline ou le moral des armées ou à entraver l'effort de guerre de la Nation.” 70 “Le fait de communiquer ou de divulguer une fausse information dans le but de faire croire qu'une destruction, une dégradation ou une détérioration dangereuse pour les personnes va être ou a été commise est puni de deux ans d'emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d'amende. Est puni des mêmes peines le fait de communiquer ou de divulguer une fausse information faisant croire à un sinistre et de nature à provoquer l'intervention inutile des secours.” See article 3, Ordonnance n°2000-916 du 19 septembre 2000, JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002 71 “Est puni des peines prévues au premier alinéa de l'article L. 465-1 le fait, pour toute personne, d'exercer ou de tenter d'exercer, directement ou par RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 380

79

And again, the offence of spreading false information willingly or likely to cause public to rebel against the law, cause its weakness or with the intent to misdemean public institutions, is criminalised by article 255 of the penal code of Sénégal.72 The Court finds that spreading false information or propaganda with intent to cause disaffection against the government which ruins democracy, therefore, should not be considered as violating the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information of which the objectives contribute to the edification of a democratic country. Even if the objective of the preventing the spreading of such information or propaganda would be achieved through other means, the Supreme Court of Canada explained clearly that it is so important to consult various legal instruments in order to establish that it is not permitted and to deter people intending to venture into such practice.73 The legal scholar William Schabas also explains that since the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights, it was established measures to cab the spread of propaganda especially

personne interposée, une manoeuvre ayant pour objet d'entraver le fonctionnement régulier d'un marché réglementé en induisant autrui en erreur. Est puni des peines prévues au premier alinéa de l'article L. 465-1 le fait, pour toute personne, de répandre dans le public par des voies et moyens quelconques des informations fausses ou trompeuses sur les perspectives ou la situation d'un émetteur dont les titres sont négociés sur un marché réglementé ou sur les perspectives d'évolution d'un instrument financier admis sur un marché réglementé, de nature à agir sur les cours.” See article 30, Loi n°2005-842 du 26 juillet 2005, JORF 27 juillet 2005. 72 See the Loi de base b° 65-60 du 21 Juillet 1965 portant code penal. 73 “…bien qu’il existe d’autres moyens, non pénaux, de lutte contre la propagande haineuse, il est éminemment raisonable de recourir à plus d’un type d’instrument législatif pour chercher à empêcher la diffusion de l’expression raciste et le préjudice qui en résulte.” See the judgment R. v KEEGSTRA [1990] 3 R.C.S, sheet no 700 h. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 381

80

extremism74. In the case of James Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that the reasons the legislator criminalised ill propaganda that are enough in order to secure the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. It noted that the ill propaganda does not benefit Canada and Canadians neither in the determination of the truth, for development nor the promotion and support of sustainable and inclusive democracy75. Such position was again reiterated by the European Court of Human Rights in the case that opposed SÜREK to Türkiye. Such case arose from the fact that SÜREK published in the newspaper articles criticising the government army’s fight to PKK rebels76 as well as the repression of the opposition by government organs. The Court deemed that although the freedom of press is necessary in a democratic country and for the protection of stories and unpleasant or scary opinions, the punishment of SÜREK was adequate because it was aimed at protecting substantial national interests.77

74 William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 448. 75 “L’objectif visé par le législateur de prévenir le mal causé par la propagande haineuse est d’une importance suffisante pour justifier la supression d’une liberté garantie par la Constitution…La propagande haineuse apporte peu aux aspirations des Canadiens et du Canada, que ce soit dans la recherche de la vérité, dans la promotion de l’épanouissement personnel ou dans la protection et le dévelopment d’une démocratie dynamique qui accepte et encourage la participation de tous.” See the case R. v KEEGSTRA [1990] 3 R.C.S, Sheet no 699 e and 701 a. 76 Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan (The Kurdistan Workers' Party). 77 “La liberté d’expression constitue l’un des fondements essentiels d’une société démocratique, l’une des conditions primordiales de son progrès et de l’épanouissement de chacun. …, elle vaut non seulement pour les « informations » ou « idées » accueillies avec faveur ou considérées comme inoffensives ou indifférentes, mais aussi pour celles qui heurtent, choquent ou RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 382

81

The Court finds that article 194 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general protects relevant interests for reasons of general interests and national security; thus, the instant Court deems it to be a relevant exception which is equitable to the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, the reason why such article is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. II.3. Whether article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution Byansi Samuel Baker states that there is no reason preventing free coverage about the officials referred to in article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties. Counsel Musore Gakunzi Valéry and Counsel Ruramira Bizimana Zébédée who assist him, argues that the text of such article hampers the steps made by the country in relation to the respect of human rights because it gives rise to discrimination and violation of the freedom to seek and impart information and freedom of expression. They explain that even if defamation and humiliation against any person should not be supported, the author must not be prosecuted before criminal courts because the legislation for the protection of journalists and

inquiètent : ainsi le veulent le pluralisme, la tolérance et l’esprit d’ouverture sans lesquels il n’est pas de « société démocratique »…(Néanmoins) la sanction infligée au requérant en sa qualité de propriétaire de la revue peut raisonnablement être considérée comme répondant à un « besoin social impérieux », et que les motifs avancés par les autorités pour justifier la condamnation de l’intéressé sont « pertinents et suffisants ». See the case SÜREK v. TURQUIE (n° 1), n° 26682/95), 8/07/1999, from paragraph 58 to 65. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 383

82

civil laws provide for other remedies to serve justice to the victim of defamation or humiliation. They state that the fact that it is forbidden to talk about the persons stated in article 21778 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, it is inconsistent with the Constitution because such provision protects some people. They explain that a journalist may, in the course of his work, use a certain word and be considered as defamatory to an individual depending of the person who heard it. They state that in the case Uj v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights clarified that the use of the defamatory expressions should not in itself considered as such as long as using them consists of the mode of exercise of the freedom of expression.79 They allege that in the case of Mugisha Richard, the instant Court noted that article 233 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general to be inconsistent with the Constitution, and for this reason, they request that the grounds relied on in that case would also be considered for declaring article 218 inconsistent with the Constitution especially its articles 15 and 38.80

78 Such article provides that “any person who physically assaults: 1 º a foreign Head of State; 2 º representatives of foreign countries or international organisations while in Rwanda in the performance of their functions; commits an offence”. 79 “The use of vulgar phrases in itself is not decisive in the assessment of an offensive expression as it may well serve merely stylistic purposes. For the Court, style constitutes part of the communication as the form of expression and is as such protected together with the content of the expression” See the case UJ v. HUNGARY, Application n° 23954/10, rendered on 19/07/2011 by the European Court of Human Rights, paragraph 20. 80 In the judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, Re MUGISHA Richard, rendered on 24/04/2019. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 384

83

They add that while a journalist exercises his/her profession, he/she can release a story that may be perceived as defamation or insult to one of the officials stated above, and therefore that if he is punished, it would amount to obstruction to the freedom of expression, an indication that article 218 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is contrary to the Constitution and that such move is not necessary in a democratic country especially that defamation or humiliation is emotional and close to the right to make critiques (les notions d'outrage et d’injure sont en partie subjectives et parfois d'appréciation difficile car très proches du droit de critique). They pray the instant Court to rely on article 56, 62, 63, 65 and 68 of the case Colombani and others vs France,81 where such Court held that a journalist should not be punished for defamation. Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade, the State Attorney, avers that it should not be allowed to any person to pray to be permitted to commit defamation and that nowhere articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution authorises a journalist to do whatever pleases him to the extent that criminal acts with respect to others would become a right to him/her. He states that article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general does not forbid the foreign heads of state or representative of foreign countries or international organisations in Rwanda to be the subject of critiques; that rather, what is forbidden is public defamation and humiliation against them. He explains that the prayers of the legal counsel for Byansi Samuel Baker that the grounds based on in the judgment of Mugisha Richard that article 233 of the Law no 68/2018 of

81 See the case Colombani et Autres c. France, n° 51279/99, 25/06/2002. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 385

84

30/08/2018 is inconsistent with the Constitution would also serve as the basis to hold that article 218 of the same law be repealed from the Rwandan penal code, should be rejected. He states that article 233 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018, criminalised suspects who humiliated Heads of State and public officials and that it was general, therefore that it has no link with article 218 of which the repeal is sought now because this one criminalises the offences of defamation and humiliation, and is also specific because it involves the Head of State of a foreign country, representatives of foreign countries or international organisations while in Rwanda in the performance of their functions, and this is coupled with the fact that both provisions do not have the same weight. He states that bringing action for defamation before civil courts is not enough, as it would rather be an additional resort by demanding damages in a criminal case especially that defamation may carry gravity in different ways. He alleges that sometimes defamation may amount to disturbance of public order, which would become an offence. He requests the Court to decide about it within its discretionary power. Regarding in which circumstances defamation may affect the public order, he states that in the event a journalist tell a lie toward the Head of State of a foreign country or another leader stated in the provision attacked for unconstitutionality, is likely to cause public unrest and as nobody could predict the context of defamation, it would lead competent authorities to commit violence against other authorities while in stay in the country where defamation occurred. He rests the case by stating that article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 386

85

general should not be regarded as discriminatory because its rationale is to protect diplomatic relations and mutual respect of countries, and failure to do so would affect Rwanda and her leadership. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 15 of the Constitution establishes the principle of equality before the Law and equal protection of the Law. Article 38 of the Constitution recalled above establishes a principle that the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognised and guaranteed by the State. However, such freedoms shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law. Article 218 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general reads that: “Any person who publicly humiliates or insults one of the persons referred to under Article 217 of this Law commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than three (3) years and not more than five (5) years.” Article 218 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general recalled above punishes any person who publicly humiliates or insults one of the persons referred to under Article 217 of this Law to imprisonment for a term of not less than three (3) years and not more than five (5) years. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 387

86

Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of on 18 April 1961 and article 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, provide that the receiving State of dignitaries referred to in such articles shall treat them with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity.82 Such texts corroborates the provisions of article 29 of the New York Convention on special missions of 8 December 1969.83 Article 2 of the 14 December 1973 New York Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents reads on the basis of international law that: “1. The intentional commission of: (a) A murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person; (b) A violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transport of an internationally protected person likely to endanger his person or liberty; (c) A threat to commit any such attack; (d) An attempt to commit any such attack;

82 “…The receiving State … shall treat (the diplomatic staff) with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their persons, freedom or dignity.” 83 “The persons of the representatives of the sending State in the special mission and of the members of its diplomatic staff shall be inviolable…. The receiving State shall treat them with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their persons, freedom or dignity.” RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 388

87

(e) An act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack; shall be made by each State Party a crime under its internal law. 2. Each State Party shall make these crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article in no way derogate from the obligations of States Parties under international law to take all appropriate measures to prevent other attacks on the person, Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 389

88

freedom or dignity of an internationally protected person.”84 Rwanda has ratified such convention on 04/10/1977.85 Article 217 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general punishes any person who physically assaults one of the victims stated in the preceding paragraph or Any person convicted of intentionally compromising safety or integrity of official buildings of such officials, their private residences or their means of transport. It is evident that such provision implements the first and second paragraphs of aforementioned international convention. In contrast, article 218 criminalises

84 “Article 2 1. Le fait intentionnel: a) De commettre un meurtre, un enlèvement ou une autre attaque contre la personne ou la liberté d’une personne jouissant d’une protection internationale; b) De commettre, en recourant à la violence, contre les locaux officiels, le domicile privé ou les moyens de transport d’une personne jouissant d’une protection internationale une attaque de nature à mettre sa personne ou sa liberté en danger; c) De menacer de commettre une telle attaque; d) De tenter de commettre une telle attaque; ou e) De participer en tant que complice à une telle attaque; est considéré par tout Etat partie comme constituant une infraction au regard de sa législation interne. 2. Tout Etat partie rend ces infractions passibles de peines appropriées qui prennent en considération leur gravité. 3. Les paragraphes 1 et 2 du présent article ne portent en rien atteinte aux obligations qui, en vertu du droit international, incombent aux Etats parties de prendre toutes mesures appropriées pour prévenir d’autres atteintes à la personne, la liberté ou la dignité d’une personne jouissant d’une protection internationale.” 85 See the Decree-Law n° 31/77 of 04/10/1977. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 390

89

public humiliation or insults against a foreign Head of State or representatives of foreign countries or international organisations while in Rwanda in the performance of their functions; and that reflects the provision of the third paragraph of the second of such. Though article 218 recalls initially article 217, Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel do not have any concern about article 217. The article against which they petitioned for violating the freedom of media, of expression and of access to information is 218th. Article 218 lies mainly on the 3rd paragraph of article 2 of the 14 December 1973 New York Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons. Such paragraph requires member States to enact implementing legal instruments of their international obligations. However, the issue to be determined by the instant Court is not to know whether article 218 complies or not with the international obligations of Rwanda; rather, what is to be determined in the context of unconstitutionality cases, is to determine whether or not the attacked article is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution stated above. The Court finds that article 3 of the Constitution specifies it to be the supreme law of the country. Any law, decision or act contrary to this Constitution is without effect. Among the specified legal instruments include the international agreements. They are ranked 3rd of the hierarchy of laws established by article 95 of the Constitution.86 It follows from the foregoing that the arguments of the State Attorney Mbonigaba Eulade that the repealing of the offence of humiliation or insults against a foreign

86 “The hierarchy of laws is as follows: 1° Constitution; 2° Organic Law; 3° International treaties and agreements ratified by Rwanda; 4° Ordinary Law; 5° Orders. A law cannot contradict another law that is higher in hierarchy…” Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 391

90

Head of State or representative of foreign country from the law determining offences would cause unease in international relations, would not be the basis of the decision to maintain article 218 of the law determining offences and penalties in general in Rwandan legislation. The reason for maintaining it is that it is not inconsistent with the Constitution for the reason that values, principles and standards enshrined in the Constitution of which Rwandans as an independent people resolved to be guided; thus, anything that is contrary to that is invalid. i. Whether article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with the Constitution Regarding whether article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution which establishes the equality before the Law, Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel refutes that article 218 affects the development of the Country because it promotes discrimination even against the leaders that are stated therein, and prevents journalists to fulfill their duties having regard to them as they do to others. While the instant Court was analysing the issue of whether article 233 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general that used to criminalise humiliation of some of the civil servants is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution, it realised that such provision protects only authorities and persons in charge of public service, and it found that such article is silent about humiliation of other people who do not fall within such category or who are not civil servants. The Court held that there is no reason to establish a provision that criminalises one act against some individuals while it is not to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 392

91

others depending only on the status of their service or the position they have in such service. The instant Court recalled that distinction of people does not amount to discrimination in itself, because it may be done for tangible, necessary and rational purposes like protection of vulnerable people, but which should be done with transparency, and it therefore found that since such grounds were not indicated, that leads to the conclusion that article 233 is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution.87 The Court finds that article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties regards foreign heads of states and representatives of foreign countries or international organisations while in Rwanda in the performance of their functions. Such is in itself the category of leaders of foreign countries governed by Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18/04/1961 ratified by Rwanda on 17/02/1964,88 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24/04/1963 ratified by Rwanda on 22/04/1974,89 and the Conventions on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, Specialized Agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency approved by the United Nations on 13/02/1946 and on 21/11/1947, ratified by Rwanda on 17/02/1964.90 The Court notes that while it was analysing whether article 236 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general that provided for defamation or humiliation of the Head of State, is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution, it

87 See the judgment n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, rendered on 24/04/2019, paragraphs 87-91. 88 See the Law of 17/02/1964. 89 See the Decree-law of 22/04/1974. 90 See the Law of 17/02/1964. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 393

92

deemed that it was necessary for the competent authority to assimilate the imprisonment penalty ranging from five to seven years that was provided for such offence with an imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen (15) days and not more than two (2) months provided for by article 161 of the said Law for any person who commits public insult against any person.91 Regarding whether the provision criminalising humiliation of the President of the Republic is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution, the instant Court noted in paragraph 113 of the Mugisha case that “Humiliation of the President of the Republic and humiliation of the foreign Heads of States or representatives of foreign countries or international organisations while in Rwanda are the only criminalised acts in Rwanda. Humiliation of other individuals other than the persons mentioned is not an offence. Rather, the humiliated person may file a claim for damages”.92 In that case, the Court realised that the paragraph relating to defamation that is part of article 236 makes a distinction between the President of the Republic and other people but such distinction is not an issue in itself because it is founded; thus, it finds that considering the magnitude of the responsibilities of the President of the Republic especially the guaranteeing of national unity, of which he/she incarnates to the extent that humiliating him/her would affect such unity. One of the consequences thereto consists of divisionism based on the publication made against him/her. Consequently, stories over him/her should refrain from his/her defamation to debar disinformation of the public. The

91 See the case n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, delivered on 24/04/2019, paragraph 112. 92 See the case n° RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC, delivered on 24/04/2019, paragraph 113. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 394

93

instant Court held that the fact that the election, removal, immunity and prosecution of the President of the Republic are governed by special provisions coupled with the amplitude of his/her duties, differentiate him/her from other individuals and the enactment of special provisions that govern or protect such office is rational. The Court notes however that subsequent to such judgment, the legislator realised that there was no reason, as far as defamation is concerned, that a special provision of the law be established for the President of the Republic and for this reason, it adopted in article 10 of the Law nº 69/2019 of 08/11/2019 modifying the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, the repeal of article 236. Regarding article 218 of the Law against which the petition was initiated in the instant case, the Court finds that the issue to be determined consists of whether there are reasons for giving special treatment to foreign Heads of States, Representatives of foreign States or Representatives of international organizations in Rwanda to the extent of maintaining their humiliation in Rwandan criminal legislation. It is evident on the basis of international law such as Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 and article 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, article 29 of New York Convention on special missions of 8 December 1969 or article 2 of New York Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons of 14 December 1973 that they no where explicitly provide that they intend to require member states to enact provisions criminalising humiliation or public insult of foreign Heads of States, Representatives of foreign Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 395

94

States or Representatives of international organizations in Rwanda while in their functions. The Court finds that as it recalled it in Uwinkindi Jean’s case, grouping people in categories does not amount to discrimination especially when such categories were established to achieve a clear, rational and legitimate objective and on the basis of rational ground in public interest.93 As fas as the instant case is concerned, it is evident that the officials stated in article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general belong to a special category of foreign heads of states and representatives of foreign states and international organisations in Rwanda. Such category should not be regarded as including vulnerable people or, regarding the offence of defamation, as including people that need special protection by the law than others, the reason why the fact that such article does not provide equal protection of the persons it mentions vis-a-vis others leads to inconsistency with article 15 of the Constitution providing that all persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law. ii. Whether article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution Concerning whether article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general prejudices the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information, the Court finds that in the case that opposed Jam to Netherlands, the Netherlands Supreme Court held that defamation of the foreign head of state

93 See the judgment n° RS/INCONST/PEN 0005/12/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/02/2013, paragraph 16. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 396

95

through media humiliates him/her, but that such act would only be regarded as failure to abide by the duty to protect his dignity because no where in international conventions, it is provided that it amounts to the offence of defamation or insult.94 The legal scholar Alexander Heinze95, also states that the analysis of the provisions of the international conventions stated above infers that countries are no where required to adopt the provision criminalising defamation and insult against foreign heads of states in their penal legislations. For him, the fact that article 2, paragraph 3 of the New York Convention of 14 December 1973 on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons provides that its implementation is effected by complying with the member states’ obligations under international law, which means that countries have intentionally suppressed the obligation of protection of the dignity of the head of state in such international convention; therefore, nothing obliges a member state to criminalise defamation or insult under such convention.96

94 See the judgment JAM v Public Prosecutor, Netherlands Supreme Court, 21 January 1969, YBIL 222-273 (1970). 95 Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation Of Foreign State Leaders In Times Of Globalized Media And Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, Vol 9, n° 1, p. 56. 96 “(It) is at least sufficiently plausible to conclude that an obligation to specifically sanction the defamation of state representatives cannot be deducted from article 29 (VCDR)… The same holds true for the Protection of Internationally Protected Persons Convention, specifically regarding its Article 2. Article 2 Paragraph 1, however, only refers to attacks on the person and liberty of protected persons and omits any dignity protection. Only Article 2 Paragraph 3 states that obligations derived from this convention do not in any way derogate from other existing obligations under international law “to take all appropriate measures to prevent other attacks on the person, freedom or dignity of an internationally protected person” (emphasis added). Since Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 397

96

Regarding the issue whether there is international customary law that criminalises them despite that nowhere defamation or insult is criminalised by international conventions ; the Court notes that there are some countries that repealed provisions relating to the offence of defamation or insult against a foreign head of state, representative of foreign state or international organisation from their penal legislations. For instance Germany has repealed article 103 of the penal code that imposed a term of imprisonment from three months to five years any person that humiliates a foreign head of state, the Representative of a foreign state or a diplomate accredited to Germany.97 As of the justification of the repeal of such provision, some of the members of parliament of such country declared that such article criminalise the offence of lèse-majesté consists of the relic from the time of monarchy (relic from time when Germany was still a monarchy), while others state that it sows

Article 2 Paragraph 3 explicitly attributes the protection of dignity to other international treaties, it can be concluded that the contracting parties deliberately excluded the obligation to protect dignity from this Convention and that, consequently, no obligation to enact any type of libel law can be derived from it.” See Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation Of Foreign State Leaders In Times Of Globalized Media And Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, vol 9, no 1, pp. 56-57. 97 “Whosoever insults a foreign head of State, or, with respect to his position, a member of a foreign government who is in Germany in his official capacity, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission who is accredited in the Federal territory shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine, in case of a slanderous insult to imprisonment from three months to five years.” See article 103 of Strafgesetzbuch. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 398

97

anachronistic cooperationist understanding of states which even burdens individual citizens with fulfilling the state’s duties.98 The Court finds that France also used to punish any person for defamation or insult against foreign Heads of States or governments and Ministers of foreign affairs of other countries on the basis of article 36 of the Law 29/07/1881 on freedom of media.99 In the case Colombani and others against France, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision of the Intermediate Court of Paris that being held liable for defamation or insult against a foreign head of state is inconsistent with the freedom of press where it found that criminalizing such acts accord the protected persons the undue immunity which eludes them from facing public critique like other individuals due to only their position, without considering the importance of such critique, the move that is outdated vis-à-vis the present political trend. The Court dicided that even though it is understood that every Country has interest to protect diplomatic relations vis-a- vis other countries, the act of punishment of the liable persons of defamation or insult against foreign Heads of States or their

98 See Alexander Heinze, “L’État, c’est moi!” The Defamation of Foreign State Leaders in Times of Globalized Media and Growing Nationalism”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law, vol. 9, n° 1, p. 52 99 “§ 4-Délits contre les chefs d’Etats et agents diplomatiques étrangers Art. 36. - L'offense commise publiquement envers les chefs d'Etat étrangers sera punie d'un emprisonnement da trois mois à un an et d'une amende de 100 fr, à 3,000 fr., ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement. Art. 37. - L'outrage commis publiquement envers les ambassadeurs et ministers plénipotentiaires, envoyés, chargés d'affaires ou autres agents diplomatiques accrédités près du Gouvernement de la République, sera puni d'un emprisonnement de huit jours à un an et d'une amende de 50 fr. à 2. 000 fr ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement.” See the Journal Officiel de la République Française n° 206 du 30/07/1881. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 399

98

representatives goes beyond what is necessary to achieve such diplomatic relationship.100 This judgment triggered France to adopt the amendment law where article 36 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on freedom of media was modified to the effect that the imprisonment penalty for such offence was repealed and the penalty was maintained in the form of fine amounting to 45,000 Euros.101 However, in the year 2004, article 52 of the Law of 09/03/2004 repealing definitely the offence that was provided for by article 36 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on the freedom of media was adopted.102 The Court notes that in Sweden, the offence of defamation is generally subject to the fine. With respect to foreign Heads of

100 “La Cour rélève par ailleurs que depuis un jugement du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris du 25 avril 2001, les juridictions internes commencent à reconnaitre que le délit prévu par l’article 36 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 et son interprétation par les tribunaux constituent une atteinte à la liberté d’expression garantie par l’article 10 de la Convention… La Cour observe que l’application de l’article 36 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 portant sur le délit d’offense tend à conférer aux chefs d’Etats un régime exorbitant du droit commun, les soustrayant à la critique seulement en raison de leur fonction ou statut, sans que soit pris en compte son intérêt. Elle considère que cela revient à conférer aux chefs d’Etats étrangers un privilège exorbitant qui ne saurait se concilier avec la pratique et les conceptions politiques d’aujourd’hui. Quel que soit l’intérêt évident, pour tout Etat, d’entretenir des rapports amicaux et confiants avec les dirigeants des autres pays, ce privilège dépasse ce qui est nécessaire pour atteindre un tel objectif.” See the judgment Colombani et Autres c France, n° 51279/99 rendered on 25/06/2002, paragraphs 67 and 68. 101 “L'offense commise publiquement envers les chefs d'Etats étrangers, les chefs de gouvernements étrangers et les ministres des affaires étrangères d'un gouvernement étranger sera punie d'une amende de 45 000 euros.” See Ordonnance n°2000-916 du 19 septembre 2000 - art. 3 (V) JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002. 102 “L'article 36 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 précitée est abrogé.” RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 400

99

States and the Representatives of foreign Countries, article 5 of the Law relating to criminal procedure provides that such offences are prosecuted under government request.103 Nonetheless, the document titled Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study indicates that in Europe, countries such as Belgium, Greece, Netherlands and Monaco still criminalise defamation of foreign Heads of State on the basis of archaic laws that establish the offence of lèse-majesté.104 It is evident to the Court that practices of Countries are different despite that they are called to implement the same international conventions. This is the reason why in the case that opposed Aziz to Aziz in which Sultan of Brunei intervened, the Supreme Court of England found that neither international convention requires member states to adopt measures to prevent an act of attack on the dignity of a head of state, nor there is the existence of a rule of customary international law requiring states to take steps to prevent individuals from insulting foreign heads of state abroad.105

103 “A person who identifies someone as being a criminal or as having a reprehensible way of life, or otherwise provides information liable to expose that person to the contempt of others is guilty of defamation and is sentenced to a fine… If, in committing an offence referred to in Sections 1–3, a person insults a foreign power by abusing its head of state who is in Sweden or one of its representatives in Sweden, a prosecution for the offence may be brought by a prosecutor notwithstanding the first paragraph. However, a prosecution may not be brought without authorisation by the Government or whoever is empowered by the Government to give such authorisation.” See Chapter 5, Section 5 ya Act 2018:540, amending The Swedish Criminal Code (brottsbalken, SFS 1962:700). 104 OSCE, Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, March 2017, p.16. 105 “What matters is that the obligation is not an absolute one to prevent an attack on the dignity of a head of state… far from convinced of the existence Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 401

100

The Court finds that regarding the provisions of international conventions recalled above, the obligations of the member states including Rwanda consist of guaranteeing honor and dignity as appropriate to the foreign heads of states, Representatives of foreign countries and international organisations while in Rwanda in the performance of their functions. Even though the worthiness of the Country affects her population and even the officials cited above should also be protected in their dignity, the instant Court concurs with the analysis made in the judgment of Colombani stated above106 according to which the duties of politicians turns them into public figures, which attracts the follow up of their deeds and conduct by journalists to the extent that it sometimes becomes hard to determine the limits to the stories in their regard. For this reason, a politician is required to be more patient than an ordinary citizen and should exercise caution whenever he must talk or take decisions on controversial matter. A politician has the right to protection of his/her dignity, but that cannot be done in a way to censor the debates on political issues in general interest, the reason why the exception on the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information provided by article 38, paragraph two of the Constitution should not be too widened. The Court finds that no where in article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general or in the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, it is provided the requirements for the initiation of criminal

of a rule of customary international law requiring states to take steps to prevent individuals from insulting foreign heads of state abroad.” See the judgment Aziz v. Aziz and Others, Sultan of Brunei Intervening [2007] EWCA Civ 712. 106 See the judgment Colombani et Autres v France, n° 51279/99 rendered on 25/06/2002, paragraph 56. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 402

101

proceedings. Nonetheless, there are instances in other countries where the initiation of criminal proceedings for humiliation against Heads of States or Representatives of Countries or International organisations depends on the plaint of the victims as well as the existence of diplomatic relations between both countries. For instance, article 104 a) of Germany Penal code reads that : “Offences under this chapter shall only be prosecuted if the Federal Republic of Germany maintains diplomatic relations with the other state, reciprocity is guaranteed and was also guaranteed at the time of the offence, a request to prosecute by the foreign government exists, and the Federal Government authorizes the prosecution.”107 The Court is of the stance that since there is no special provision on the prosecution of the offence provided for by article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, it is likely to lead to the prosecution of every simple act including irrelevant one, and it may be possible that the Head of Rwanda, the Representative of Rwanda abroad or a Rwandan representing an International organisation while abroad could be victim of similar acts provided by such article without the author being punished for that by criminal court of that Country given that they are not considered to be criminal acts.

107 “Offences under this chapter shall only be prosecuted if the Federal Republic of Germany maintains diplomatic relations with the other state, reciprocity is guaranteed and was also guaranteed at the time of the offence, a request to prosecute by the foreign government exists, and the Federal Government authorizes the prosecution.” See Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code), former article 104 a. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 403

102

The Court finds therefore that article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general accords an undue special treatment the foreign head of states and Representatives of foreign countries and international organisation in Rwanda, which prevents the critique stories in their regards for only their positions or duties without considering the relevance of such story, which makes such provision inconsistent with the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information provided for by article 38, paragraph one of the Constitution. Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, is inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution. II.3. Whether article 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel, state that a journalist has a duty to protect his/her informants though it is not forbidden to collaborate with other organs. They explain that the work of a journalist is distinctive for keeping information confidential, therefore article 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general should not consider him/her as any ordinary person; thus, imputing the onus of revealing the source of information to him/her would affect his freedom of expression. They base their submissions on the precedents that upheld the immunity of journalists with regard to giving testimony. They cite the case law Branzburg vs Hayes, where the Supreme Court of the United States that found that journalists are immune from the request to testify.108

108 See the judgment Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 404

103

They submit that the holdings by the Supreme Court of the United States corroborate the provisions of article 13 of the Law no 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media in Rwanda that entitles a journalist the right to remain confidential with respect to the source of information in the context of abiding by the professional secrecy.109 They state that prosecuting and carrying out investigation against a journalist for remaining confidential prejudices the freedom he/she is entitled by the Constitution and the Law regulating media. They add that remaining confidential about the source of information by a journalist, is necessary and should be protected as one of the ways allowing him/her to fulfill his/her duties. They pursue that article 12 of the Law n° 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media states that “a journalist shall have free access to all sources of information and the right to freely inquire on all events of public life, and to publish them in respect of the provisions of this Law and other Laws”. They submit that such provision is not the novelty of Rwanda because like in Canada, there exists a legal instrument on the protection of journalistic source “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques”,110 where its article 39.1 (2) provides that a journalist may oppose to reveal the source of his/her

109 Such article provides that “Professional journalist confidentiality shall be guaranteed in respect of his/her sources of information, notes, audio or audiovisual recordings or film shooting as well as any information collected and stored electronically. However, the court may order a journalist to reveal his/her sources of information whenever it is considered necessary for purposes of carrying out investigations or criminal proceedings.” 110 See L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18, available on https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/loisa/lc- 2017-c-22/derniere/lc-2017-c- 22.html. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 405

104

information,111 and would only reveal it under Court injunction and in case such information could not be found otherwise, and in the interest of justice in relation to relevant issue of the case, and after assessment of consequences of revealing the source of information by the author.112 They also state that this is an indication that in Canada, a journalist indicates rarely the source of information and that it is the duty of the applicant of the source of information to prove that it is clearly provided for by the law.113 They argue that such position was also adopted by the European Court of human rights where in the case SANOMA UITGEVERS B. v. Netherlands, it held that the right of a journalist to protect the source of

111 “Sous réserve du paragraphe (7), un journaliste peut s’opposer à divulguer un renseignement ou un document auprès d’un tribunal, d’un organisme ou d’une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements pour le motif que le renseignement ou le document identifie ou est susceptible d’identifier une source journalistique”. See article 39.1(2) of the “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” (L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18). 112 “Le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ne peut autoriser la divulgation du renseignement ou du document que s’il estime que les conditions suivantes sont réunies: 1) le renseignement ou le document ne peut être mis en preuve par un autre moyen raisonnable; 2) l’intérêt public dans l’administration de la justice l’emporte sur l’intérêt public à préserver la confidentialité de la source journalistique, compte tenu notamment : (i) de l’importance du renseignement ou du document à l’égard d’une question essentielle dans le cadre de l’instance, (ii) de la liberté de la presse, (iii) des conséquences de la divulgation sur la source journalistique et le journaliste”. See article 39.1 (7), of the “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” (L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18). 113 Il incombe à la personne qui demande la divulgation de démontrer que les conditions énoncées au paragraphe (7) sont remplies. See article 39.1 (9), of “la Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” (L.C. 2017, ch. 22, Sanctionnée 2017-10-18). RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 406

105

information is one of essential element that prevents the interference with the freedom of press.114 They add that in such case, the Court held that the protection of the source of information is necessary in a democratic society because interfering with the freedom of press defies the stipulations of article 10 of the European convention on human rights, and is only permitted for legitimate reasons of public interest.115 They stress that the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa of 2019 adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has set the leading position. They state that the 25th principle intending to protect the source of information and other journalist’s devices, provides that journalists are not required to reveal the source of information or any other belonging in their possession for reasons of their work unless they are instructed by the Court to do so, and even in this case, it should be necessary for investigation purpose in relation to felonies, where information would not be found through other means and it

114 Le droit pour les journalistes de protéger leurs sources fait partie de la liberté de « recevoir ou de communiquer des informations ou des idées sans qu'il puisse y avoir ingérence d'autorités publiques » consacrée par l'article 10 de la Convention et il en constitue l'une des garanties essentielles. Il s'agit là d'une pierre angulaire de la liberté de la presse, sans laquelle les sources pourraient se montrer réticentes à aider la presse à informer le public sur des questions d'intérêt général. La presse pourrait alors être moins à même d'assumer son rôle vital de chien de garde, et sa capacité à fournir des informations précises et fiables au public pourrait s'en trouver amoindrie. See the case Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas, n° 38224/03, 14 /09/2010. 115 “Eu égard à l'importance de la protection des sources journalistiques pour la liberté de la presse dans une société démocratique, une ingérence ne peut être jugée compatible avec l'article 10 de la Convention que si elle est justifiée par un impératif prépondérant d'intérêt public … », See the case Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays- Bas, n° 38224/03, 14/09/2010, paragraph 54. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 407

106

should be done in general interest. They declare that such principle add that the Government should not deviate the principle of confidentiality of the source of information and inspect the technology used by journalists without being authorised by the court and being established necessary measures for the respect of the freedom of expression.116 They rest this issue by stating that subjecting a journalist to punishment for refusing to testify or hand elements of evidence he holds on the commission of a felony or misdemeanor to justice institutions, prejudices the freedom of expression including the confidentiality on the source of information, and therefore, article 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. Counsel MBONIGABA Eulade, the State Attorney, states that the prohibitions or conditions that apply to people apply to journalists as well, but specifically the latter are required to assist

116 “1. Les journalistes et autres professionnels des médias ne sont pas obligés de révéler leurs sources d’informations confidentielles ou de révéler tout autre matériel détenu à des fins journalistiques, sauf lorsque cette révélation a été ordonnée par un tribunal, après une audience publique complète et équitable. 2. La révélation de ces sources d’information ou matériels journalistiques telle qu’ordonnée par un tribunal, ne peut intervenir que lorsque : a. l’identité de la source est nécessaire à l’enquête ou à l’instruction concernant un crime grave ou à la défense d’une personne accusée d’une infraction pénale ; b. l’information ou les informations similaires menant au même résultat ne peuvent pas être obtenues ailleurs ; etc. dans le cas de la révélation des sources, l’intérêt public prime sur l’entrave à la liberté d’expression. 3. Les États ne contournent pas la protection des sources d’informations confidentielles ou des matériels journalistiques par la surveillance des communications, sauf lorsque cette surveillance est ordonnée par un tribunal impartial et indépendant et est soumise à des garanties appropriées”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 408

107

in fighting and preventing felonies and obstructions to criminal prosecution. He states that article 13 of the Law no 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media does nowhere forbid a journalist from testifying, and that confidentiality does not entail refusal to testimony before competent organs, especially that such organs are bound with the confidentiality with respect to such declarations and the witness. He states that article 15 of the Constitution reads that “All persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law”, while articles 41, 43 and 48 of the same Constitution provide that individual rights and freedoms are subject to limitations with respect to other people’s rights and freedoms, as well as public morals, which implies that the fact that a journalist was not distinguished from others is a justification of the compliance of article 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general with the Constitution. He adds that Courts, as guarantors of human rights and freedoms, are competent to determine the circumstances in which the denial of deposition of the testimony or submission of evidence should be criminalised. He explains that article 83 of the Law no 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general provides that Criminal liability is incurred by the offender, whereas article 9 of the Law no 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media reads that the freedom of opinions and information shall not jeopardize the general public order and good morals, which implies that BYANSI Samuel Baker should not be worried that he would be prejudiced by his publications that would be misinterpreted or be held responsible for the information of which he is not the author. He rests his arguments by stating that Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 409

108

according to article 8, paragraph 2 of the Law no 02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media, “Freedom of the media and freedom to receive information are recognised and respected by the State. Such freedom shall be applicable in accordance with the Law.” It entails that he is also subject to article 251 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general as well as other legal instruments, which implies that such provision and others against which the petition was initiated do nowhere contravene the Constitution. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 38 of the Constitution that was recalled above establishes the principle according to which freedom of press, of expression and of access to information are recognised and guaranteed by the State. However, such freedoms shall not prejudice public order, good morals, the protection of the youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity and protection of personal and family privacy. Conditions for exercising and respect for these freedoms are determined by law. Article 251 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general provides that: “Any person in possession of evidence of the innocence of another person prosecuted or convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor, who deliberately refuses to give such evidence to judicial authorities, commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than one (1) year and not more than two (2) years and a fine of not less than three hundred thousand (300,000Frw) Rwandan francs and not more than five hundred thousand (500,000Frw) Rwandan francs. Any person who possesses evidence on the commission of a felony or RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 410

109

misdemeanor and who deliberately refuses to report such evidence to judicial authorities is liable to the same penalties as those provided for in Paragraph One of this Article.” Article 5 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media establishes the following main obligations of a journalist : 1° to inform; 2° to educate population and promote leisure activities; 3° to defend the freedom of information, analyse and comment on information. In contrast, article 13 of the said Law provides that “professional journalist confidentiality shall be guaranteed in respect of his/her sources of information, notes, audio or audiovisual recordings or film shooting as well as any information collected and stored electronically. However, the court may order a journalist to reveal his/her sources of information whenever it is considered necessary for purposes of carrying out investigations or criminal proceedings.” The Court deems that article 251 of the above mentioned Law determining offences and penalties in general, establishes a principle of fair trial where no person should undergo injustice and that a felony or a misdemeanor should not be covered, they rather have to be punished. The first paragraph concerns a person under prosecution or whose prosecution for felony or a misdemeanor is closed by justice organs while being innocent. It therefore punishes a person who is aware of such injustice without contributing to its disclosure in order to acquit the suspect or convicted person. The second paragraph concerns a situation where a person is in possession of evidence on the commission Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 411

110

of either the felony or misdemeanor, and who deliberately refuses to report it to help judicial authorities to effectively prosecute or punish it. The Court finds when articles 5 and 13 of the Law n°02/2013 of 08/02/2013 regulating media are read concomitantly, they lead to the understanding that the main duty of a journalist consists of promoting general interest by informing the public, teaching the population, promoting entertainment and making efforts to promote the media profession. The way of seeking and collecting such information is the action that is subject of protection through journalist confidentiality in the context of promotion of media. Thus, the issue consists of determining the extent of such confidentiality with respect to felonies or misdemeanors reported about by a journalist or that came to his/her knowledge while on her/his duty. Another issue consists of determining whether article 251 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general orders a journalist to comply with its text without requiring the court order provided for by article 13 of the Law regulating media. The court finds that the right to due process of law encompasses the prohibition to be held liable for the offence a person did not commit provided for by article 29 of the Constitution. In the judgment of Kabasinga Florida, the instant Court clarified that the principle of due process of law is comprised of two parts: procedural due process and substantive due process.117 Article 29 of the Constitution is one of the implementing provisions of the objectives that Rwandans have committed to in the preamble of such legal instrument that is

117 See the judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rendered on 4/12/2019, paragraph 13. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 412

111

“building a State governed by the rule of law based on the respect for human rights, freedom and on the principle of equality of all Rwandans before the law as well as equality between men and women”. The Court is of the view that the confidentiality about the source of information that is protected by article 13 of the Law regulating media, consists of the one in relation to his/her profession. However, the professional secrecy is not the uniqueness of journalists. It concerns all professions where confidentiality is involved due to their nature such as medical, lawyering, financial managers’ and so on… Regarding whether the duty of confidentiality of an advocate forbids him/her from disclosing the commission of offences, in the judgment that opposed People to Francis Belge, Robert Garrow informed his legal counsel that apart from one person of which he is prosecuted to have killed, he killed other persons, and he gave them traces of the place where he buried them, and when they arrived there, they found the corps of the victims but they refrained from denouncing it to the competent authority for reason of professional secrecy. The Supreme Court of New York found that the secret between an advocate and his client does not protect all aspects, and that though it should be taken into account, an advocate has the duty based on the traditional principles of humanity to protect the interest of justice and of public.118 Such principle that the professional secrecy is not absolute was also addressed in the case

118 “We note that the privilege (attorney-client) is not all encompassing and that in a given case there may be conflicting considerations. We believe that an attorney must protect his client’s interests, but also must observe basic human standards of decency, having due regard to the need that the legal system accord justice to the interests of society and its individual members.” See the case of People v Belge, 50 AD 2nd 1088, 377 NYS 2d 771 (1975) at 41. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 413

112

Jespers vs Belgium, where the European Court of Human Rights held that providing information about elements of evidence that may benefit the accused is in the interest of justice, and should be produced earlier to be given proper consideration.119 In contrast, in the judgment A and others vs England, the said Court found that the matter concerning the state security consists of an exception to the professional secrecy because it lies in public interest.120 The Court notes that the legal scholar Jonathan Herring states also that concerning medical profession, the secrecy may be disclosed to protect the general interest, and in such case, it should be evaluated the importance between the general interest and individual interest of the patient as well as the interest of collaboration between the patient and the medical practitioner.121 Jo Samanta and Ash Samanta state also that the denunciation of the commission of the felony such as sexual violence, murder, assault or battery, violence against children, treason or any other offence that is likely to bring about people’s suffering, is of public interest. They explain that such crimes consist of exception that would allow investigation organs to be given information that was normally protected by secrecy.122 In the judgment Hunt vs Mann, the Supreme Court of England deemed that a medical practitioner who treated a patient injured due to the road accident he voluntarily caused, which is known as hit and run, should not take cover behind the professional secrecy and deny to provide

119 Jespers v Belgium n° 8403/78, 16/12/1992. 120 See the case of A and Others v United Kingdom, n° 3455/05, 11/01/2011, paragraph 206. 121 Jonathan Herring, Medical Law and Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 231 and 241. 122 Jo Samanta and Ash Samanta, Medical Law, London, Palgrave, 2015, p. 76 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 414

113

information that would help police organs given that such information is in public interest.123 Therefore, the Court is of the view that the commission of offences and their prosecution would be reported, because the interest of the suspect that would be reported about should not prevail over general interest in relation to prosecution and repression of offences or prevail over the interest of the convicted of a crime he/she did not commit. The explanations provided in the foregoing paragraphs entail that a professional, be it a journalist, advocate, medical practitioner or any other person should not abet any person in the commission of the offence or cover it up since such acts do not fall under the professional secrets protected by the law in the matter. Indeed, freedom of press, of expression and of access to information should not be given consideration over the right to due process of law to the extent of allowing a journalist to abandon innocent people accused of offences they did not commit until they are punished for that while he/she holds exculpatory evidences. The Court finds that concerning media in particular, in the case Cornellisen vs the Prosecution and Zeelie, the Supreme Court of South Africa held that journalists do not enjoy immunity allowing them to refrain from testifying before the Courts about the information they came across in the course of their work.124 In addition, in the case Nel vs le Roux, the Constitutional Court of South Africa holds that the interest to protect the constitutional

123 See the case Hunter v. Mann [1974] 1QB 767. 124 “…there is no legal privilege in terms of which journalists have immunity from the compulsory giving of evidence on information which they have obtained in the course of their work.” See the case S v Corelissen; Cornelissen v Zeelie No en andere 1994 (2) SACR 41 (W). Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 415

114

rights including the freedom of press should be regarded together with the interest of the prosecution organ to find the relevant information for accusations, and where possible it be relied on the trending principle in other countries like America whereby the Supreme Court held in the judgment of Branzburg that the public has the right of access to elements of evidence in the hands of any individual.125 The Court finds that in such case that opposed Branzburg to Hayes, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that the first constitutional amendment that adopted the principle of freedom of expression does not in any way forbid a journalist to testify before the Court for the information he collected in secret by explaining that, the submissions of journalists according to which the interpretation of the Constitution leading to the assertion that the testimonies by journalists should constitute an exception as opposed to ordinary citizens, lack merit.126 Considering the position adopted in the foregoing case, it is evident that Byansi Samuel Baker and his legal counsel

125 “In balancing these interests (right to equality, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression), regard must be had to both the right asserted and the state’s interest in securing information necessary for the prosecution of crimes- an interest recognized in other democratic societies including the United States, where it is accepted that the investigative authority of the grand jury rests largely on “the long standing principle that ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence (Branzburg v Hayes, 408 U.S. 655, 689- 693 (1972)” See the case Nel v Le Roux No and Others 1996 (1) SACR 572 (CC). 126 “We are asked to create another (privilege) by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.” See the case Branzburg v Hayes, 408 U.S. 655, 689-693 (1972). RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 416

115

misinterpret such case because nowhere it does state that journalists should be given special treatment allowing them to refrain from testifying or denouncing the offences about which they have information. In addition to that, a short time after the delivery of such case, another plaint was filed in the case Zurcher vs Stanford Daily in which it was also requested that journalists be accorded immunity over the search by investigation organs. In that case, Stanford Daily was suspected to store photo of individuals who fought police while in protest, and the Supreme Court has again noted that given that the said newspaper is not personally under prosecution, that would not prevent the act of search as long as it is believed that the documents that should be searched or seized were in its custody.127 The instant Court finds that in the case Cohen vs Cowless Media Co, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has also held that it should not be regarded as if the generally applicable laws violate the first constitutional amendment for the sole reason that their enforcement would obstruct journalists while fulfilling their duties of collecting and imparting information.128 The similar position was adopted by the Supreme

127 A State is not prevented …from issuing a warrant to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of the place to be searched is not reasonably suspected of criminal involvement. The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of crime, but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the "things" to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.” See the case Zurcher v Stanford Daily 436 U.S. 547, 553-560 (1978). 128 “generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the Press has incidental effect on its ability to gather and report the news.” See the judgment Cohen v Cowless Media Co, 501 U.S. 663 (1991). Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 417

116

Court of Canada in the judgment that opposed National Post to the Prosecution authority, where it clarified it as follows: “…lorsque les circonstances le requièrent, les tribunaux respectent la promesse de confidentialité faite à une source secrète par un journaliste ou un directeur de la rédaction. L'intérêt du public à ce que lui soit communiquée l'information sur des sujets susceptibles de n'être mis au jour qu'avec la collaboration de sources secrètes n'est toutefois pas absolu. Il doit être mis en balance avec d'autres intérêts publics importants, comme la conduite d'enquêtes criminelles. Dans certaines situations, des intérêts publics opposés l'emporteront sur l'intérêt public à protéger la source secrète contre toute divulgation et, en pareil cas, une promesse de confidentialité ne justifiera pas la rétention de la preuve.”129 The position set in the National Post case indicates that the statements of BYANSI Samuel Baker and his legal counsel according to which article 39.1. (2) of the “Loi sur la protection des sources journalistiques” that accords journalists in Canada the immunity to testify about the source of the information they collected or be required to disclose the evidence of the offences in their custody, lack merit. Rather, paragraph 7 of that article explains how a journalist is required to testify or produce elements of evidence in his/her custody.130 The subparagraph b)

129 See the case R. v. National Post [2010] 1 R.C.S. at p. 480. 130 “Le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ne peut autoriser la divulgation du renseignement ou du document que s’il estime que les conditions suivantes sont réunies: a) le renseignement ou le document ne peut être mis en preuve par un autre moyen raisonnable; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 418

117

states that the public interest embedded in fair justice prevails over general interest that is attached to the protection of professional secrecy over a story produced by a journalist. Other explanations provided by such provision and the basis of disclosure of the secret include the importance of the information needed in the trial, determination of whether they would prevail over freedom of expression and evaluation of the effects of disclosure of such confidential information on the author and the journalist to whom it was whispered. All the foregoing grounds should not be regarded as forbidding a journalist to testify or produce evidence of the committed offence as they rather establish the outline on how it should be done. The Court finds that the repression of a person for the offence he/she did not commit being contrary to article 18 paragraph one, subparagraph 8 of the Constitution, it should also not be tolerated in the current world. Thus, a journalist could not claim for the right to contribute to the building of a State that promote the freedoms, rights and the rule of law, and at the same time claim the right to refrain from producing evidence indicating that there is a person denied such rights and freedoms unfairly. In addition to that, the obligations of a journalist and his/her part in the edification of the State governed by the rule of law require him/her not to remain silent in the event he/she comes across the information about the commission of a felony or misdemeanor

b) l’intérêt public dans l’administration de la justice l’emporte sur l’intérêt public à préserver la confidentialité de la source journalistique, compte tenu notamment: (i) de l’importance du renseignement ou du document à l’égard d’une question essentielle dans le cadre de l’instance, c) de la liberté de la presse, (ii) des conséquences de la divulgation sur la source journalistique et le journaliste.” Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 419

118

because it negates such rights and freedoms as well as the principles of a State governed by the rule of law that the same journalist aspires to. The failure to do that would obstruct the country development due to the fact that the suspects of such offences would not be prosecuted despite that someone has information about their role. The Court finds that the duties of testifying and denouncing the committed offences are not only limited to journalists because it is in the general interest of justice and benefit the country, the reason why the exception established by article 251 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general is necessary, and for these reasons it should not be regarded as contrary to the freedom of expression, of press and of access to information enshrined in article 38 of the Constitution. III. GENERAL HOLDING On the basis of the foregoing grounds on every legal issue, the Supreme Court finds that article 156 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. As of the foregoing explanations, among the elements of personal privacy include photographs, documents, audio and video recordings since they are part of essential distinctive element and personal identifiers. Every person has therefore the right to pursue on how they were recorded, saved and diffused. Such right encompass also the right to refute to being eavesdropped, reject photographs shooting, audio and videos recording, saving, diffusion, broadcast or reproduction. Otherwise, there would be a necessary facet of the owner that would be controlled by RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 420

119

another person while he/she would not be able to oversee the usage of his/her eavesdropped information, photographs, audio and video recordings and persona documents. Such state of affairs give rise to a situation where the right to personal privacy becomes an obstruction to the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. The Court finds article 157 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. As explained above, a journalist who, in bad faith, discloses a photo, audio or visual recording after their modification without reporting it, contravenes the professional duties and it is likely to affect the owner because the public believes the diffused information to be original while it is not the case. The Court finds that article 194 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. Per the explanations above, spreading false information or harmful propaganda with intent to cause a hostile international opinion against the Government, should not be regarded as part of the aspects of freedom of press while they tear down democracy and the country. For these reasons, it should be referred to different legal instruments including criminal laws in order to signal that it is not permitted and discourage persons wishing to venture in. The Court finds that article 218 of the Law n° 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, is inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution. On the basis of international conventions and customary law, the duties of countries consist of granting to Heads of States, representatives of foreign States or international organizations in service in Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 421

120

Rwanda the dignity they deserve. A politician is entitled the right to be protected in his/her dignity, but this should not be done in a way that limits the conversations on political issues or issues of general interests. Article 218 of the Law determining offences and penalties in general entitles an extra special treatment to a Head of State, Representatives of foreign States or representatives of international organizations in Rwanda, which prevents critic report in their regard for the only reason of their positions or attributions without considering the importance of such report; the reason why such provision contravenes the freedom of press, of expression and of access to information. The Court finds that article 251 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not inconsistent with article 38 of the Constitution. It is true that offences and their prosecution should be reported. However, the interest of the suspect of whom a media report was diffused should not prevail over general interest of prosecution and repression of offences or over the interest of serving justice to the person convicted for the offence they did not commit. A professional, be it a journalist, an advocate, a medical practitioner or any other person should not abet any person in the commission of the offence or cover it up since such acts do not fall under the professional secrets protected by the law in the matter. IV. COURT RULING Finds the petition initiated by BYANSI Samuel Baker requesting the Court to declare articles 156, 157, 194, 218 and 251 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general contrary to articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, with merit in parts; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 422

121

Holds that article 156 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not contrary to article 38 of the Constitution; Holds that article 157 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not contrary to article 38 of the Constitution; Holds that article 194 of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not contrary to articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution; Holds that article 218 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is contrary to article 38 of the Constitution, and is therefore devoid of effects; Holds that article 251 of the Law nº 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general is not contrary to article 38 of the Constitution. Instructs the publication of this ruling in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda. Re BYANSI (Fond)

## Page 423

122

## Page 424

123

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 425

124

## Page 426

125

PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI [Rwanda THE SUPREME COURT– RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2019/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Rukundakuvuga and Muhumuza J.) December 23, 2020] Criminal procedure Law – Disowning a legal counsel – When the hearing of the case proceeds while a litigant has raised an issue of misunderstanding with his/her legal counsel and the court proceeds with the hearing in such a case, the litigant is deemed to have been heard unassisted. Facts: This case was instituted before the Intermidiate Court of Nyarugenge, the Public Prosecution accusing Habinshuti to have defiled a minor referred to as U.H of 17 years of age. The Court heard the case, convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. The defendant appealed to the High Court, and the latter declared his appeal void of merit. The defendant again appealed to the Supreme Court, his appeal was admitted for pre-trial conference, but shortly after the reforms in judicial organs and laws determining the jurisdiction of courts, his appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal which declared itself incompetent to hear his appeal, since he has not been sentenced to life imprisonment, neither did he prove to the Court of grave violation of laws nor serious irregularities in the procedure that could have resulted into injustice. After the case has been heard, the defendant petitioned the President of the Supreme Court praying the latter to have the case reviewed for grounds of injustice. The President of the Supreme Court ordered it to be registered in the special roll for it to be 125

## Page 427

126

reviewed. In this Court, the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeal should not have examined the admissibility of this appeal since the very appeal had already been admitted by the Supreme Court. He also appeals that the Court of Appeal went ahead to hear his case yet he had disowned his Counsel without firsty analysing the grounds of the disownment. The Public Prosecution did not note any defect in the Court’s stance, since it first analysed the objection of inadimissibiliy raised by the Public Prosecution and though the defendant disowned his counsel, he did not provide reasonable grounds for such a disownment. Held: 1. When the hearing of the case proceeds while a litigant has raised an issue of misunderstanding with his/her legal counsel and the court proceeds with the hearing in such a case, the litigant is deemed to have been heard unassisted. Judgment RPAA00342/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal is hereby quashed and replaced by the present judgment; The second appeal lodged by the defendant is not admissible. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 85, paragraph 5 Organic Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determing the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, articles 28 and 34; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 428

127

Law no 51/2009 of 09/09/2008 determing jurisdiction of courts, article 178. Cases referred to: Public Prosecution v. Uwinkindi, RPA 0020/14CS rendered on 04/04/2014, paragraph 13. Public Prosecution v. Uwinkindi, RPA/GEN/0004/16/C rendered on 14/10/2016, paragraph 21. Rutabayiro et al v. Mukamabano RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0023/16/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/09/2019. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case was instituted before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Public Prosecution accusing Habinshuti Eric to have defiled a minor referred to as U.H of 17 years of age.

On 18/07/2018, the same Court heard the case RP00465/2016/TGI/NYGE, and convicted Habinshuti Eric of the charges brought against him and imposed to him a sentence of 10 years of imprisonment.

Habinshuti Eric appealed to the High Court, and the latter heard the case RPA00701/17/HC/KIG on 30/11/2017, and ruled that his appeal lacks merit.

Habinshuti Eric appealed to the Supreme Court on 20/12/2017 and his appeal was admitted for pre-trial conference. PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI

## Page 429

128

But due to the reform of laws and judicial organs, his casefile was later transferred to the Court of Appeal.

On 7/111/2018, the Court of Appeal examined the case RPAA00342/2018/CA and declared itself incompetent to hear Habinshuti’s appeal referring to the provisions of sub-paragraph 2, and sub-paragraph 9 of the article 28 of the Organic Law n0 03/2012 of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court1, highlighting the fact that Habimana Eric has not been sentenced to life imprisonment, neither did he prove to the Court of any gross violation of legal provisions nor serious irregularities that could have resulted into injustice.

After the case has been decided on, the defendant petitioned the President of the Supreme Court praying the latter to have the case reviewed for grounds of injustice.

The President of the Supreme Court examined the case, and ordered it to be registered in the special roll for it to be reviewed.

The case was heard in public on 01/12/2020 via video conference, Habimana Eric appeared fromMageragere Prison where he is detained, Counsel Habimana Emmanuel, assisting him at the bar, while the Public Prosecution was represented by Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric.

1 The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over cases heard and decided in the second instance by the High Court, the Commercial High Court or by the Military High Court if such cases lead to a term of imprisonment of at least ten (10) years where the judge pre-screening the case found that there was serious violation of legal provisions or serious irregularities that caused injustice. RWANDA LAW REPORTS RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 430

129

Habinshuti Eric and his legal Counsel Habimana Emmanuel submitted that :  The Court of Appeal should not have examined the admissibility of the appeal, since the very appeal had already been admitted by the Supreme Court.  The Court of Appeal decided on the case of Habinshuti Eric, yet the latter had disowned his legal counsel without firstly analysing the grounds of the disownment.

Regarding to whether the Court of Appeal was not to admit the appeal of Habinshuti Eric, just on the fact that the very appeal had already been admitted by the Supreme Court, Habinshuti Eric, and his legal Counsel Habimana Emmanuel argue that they lodged their appeal in reference to the provisions of former Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determing organisation, functioning, and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court paragraphs 2, sub-paragraph 9 artcle 28 reads that the Supreme Court has the appellate juridiction on cases that lead to a term of imprisonment of at least ten (10) years where the judge pre- screening the case found that there was serious violation of legal provisions or serious irregularities that caused injustice.

They further argue that the Supreme Court had already admitted the appeal, had even scheduled itshearing date, and they therefore defend that the Court of Appeal that received the file due to the reform of laws and judicial organs had no reasons of declaring itself incompentent over the issue since that would be contradicting the Supreme Court. PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI

## Page 431

130

The representative of the Public Prosecution found no defect in the Courts’ decision since the Court first analysed the objection of case inadmissibility raised by the Public Prosecution.

After hearing both parties, the Court decided on the bench as follows : i. By the time Habinshuti appealed to the Supreme Court, article 178 of the former law n0 51/2009 of 09/09/2008 determining the jurisdiction of Courts, was providing that rules that govern criminal procedures are of public order. Therefore, the Supreme Court finds that such denotes that it is the duty of the bench to which the case was assigned to examine matters related to court’s jurisdiction over such case. ii. The Court finds the decision of the Supreme Court Chief Registrar on the admissibility of the case in reference to provisions of articles 34 of the Organic Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining organisation, the functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that was applicable by the time Habinshuti Eric appealed, not judicially entirely binding after all remedies of appeal have been exhausted, rather, it is a judicial work-related decision that is subject to further analysis by the bench. iii. The foregoing is similar with the positions adopted by this Court in various cases2 , whereby it clarified that the fact that the Supreme Court Chief Registrar receives and registers a claim, does not prevent the bench from

2 Case RPA0020/14/CS decided on 04/04/2014 of Public Prosecution vs Uwinkindi Jean, paragraph 13; case RPA/GEN/0004/16/2016, Public Prosecution vs Uwinkindi Jean, paragraph 21. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 432

131

analysing the registered case on matters pertaining to the Court’s jurisdiction and case admissibility. iv. In reference to the foregoing explanations, the Court finds nothing that could have barred the Bench of the Court of Appeal that received the appeal from analysing its admissibility and decide on it accordingly in accordance with the laws that determining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the time Habinshuti Eric appealed to it.

On matters related to whether the Court of Appeal adjudicated the judgment in which Habinshuti Eric has disowned his Counsel without firstly analysing such disownment, Habinshuti submits that the counsel assigned to him, Counsel Gatarayiha, came on 07/11/2018 one day prior to the hearing and advised him to withdraw his appeal since the case contained no injustice. They both thereof disagreed and in the opening of the hearing, Habinshuti disowned his legal counsel and declares it to the judge. The judge did not take into account this disownment, at the beginning of the hearing he disowned him, he declared to the judge that they disagree, the judge went on with the hearing and decided on the bench that his appeal was inadmissible on the basis of the disowned counsel’s statements during the hearing and his submissions uploaded in the system. He therefore remarks that he has been prejudiced as he was thereby muzzled and never got time to present his defence.

Counsel Habimana Emmanuel states that the article 89, paragraph 4 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and adminitrative procedure provides that when a party disowns his/her representative before the hearing on the merits, the judge fixes the date and time of the hearing of the PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI

## Page 433

132

disowning case, and takes a decision before the main hearing. In that case, the main hearing is rescheduled with parties being notified accordingly. Thus, the fact that the Court of Appeal did not consider the counsel disownment by Habinshuti Eric, and the hearing proceeded and the disowned counsel was interrogated and his statements were based on, he remarks that he was denied justice entitled to him by the law.

The representative for the Public Prosecution stated that though Habinshuti disowned his legal counsel, he did not provide reasons for the disownment.

After hearing both parties, the Court decided on the bench as follows : i. Article 85, paragraph 5 of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure states that no party can appear before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal without the assistance of a counsel. ii. ii.The statement of the case hearing in the Court of Appeal indicates that Habinshuti Eric disowned the legal counsel assigned to him just at the beginning of the hearing, but the Court resumed the hearing of the case as if nothing had happened. iii. The same statement of the hearing again indicates that Habinshuti Eric, in his defense, disagreed with his legal counsel, since the latter wanted the Court to reject Habinshuti’s second appeal qualifying it legally void for being admitted, while RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 434

133

Habinshuti Eric wanted the very appeal to be admitted and heard by the Court. iv. The Court finds that, the fact that Habinshuti Eric disowned his legal counsel, and the latter indicated it in his pleading, and given the fact the hearing continued regardless of the disagreement, constitute serious grounds to believe that Hbinshuti Eric pleaded unassisted, thus he has been deprived of his right to legal assistance entitled to him by the law and it is a principle to plead assisted in the Supreme and the Court of Appeal. v. The Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the Court of Appeal is unfounded and decides to analyze the issues that would be examined by that Court starting by the determination of the admissibility of the second appeal lodged by Habinshuti Eric, according to the provisions of article 28 of the Law n0 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that was applicable by the time Habinshuti Eric filed appeal. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Whether the appeal lodged to the Supreme Court by Habinshuti Eric would be admitted

Habinshuti Eric and his legal Counsel Habimana Eric submit that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to admit and hear PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI

## Page 435

134

their appeal as per the provisons of article 28. Paragraph 2 sub- paragraph 9 of the Law n0 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determing organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which provides that it shall handle appeals over cases leading to 10 years of imprisonment that contain serious violation of laws or gross irregularties that resulted into injustice, and this is, as they claim, what happened in the case when it was ruled by the High Court.

They aver that laws were seriously violated so that Habinshuti Eric is prejudiced, the article 9 of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalities in general provides that an offence is considered to have been committed in case of mens rea, the article 3 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure prohibits the hudgment by analogy in criminal cases, because Habinshuti Eric was convicted while the Public Prosecution did not prove his intention for child defilement and basing aon analogical elenents of evidence including the medical report, the birth certificate and the identity card, which are not credible elements of evidence provided under the law to prove a person’s age, therefore the requirements provided under article 28, paragraph 2, sub- paragraph 9 of the Law n0 03/2012 of 13/06/2012 determining organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court were met for appeal admissibility.

The Representative of the Public Prosecution argues that Habinshuti Eric and his legal Counsel Habimana Emmanuel failed to indicate the violated laws, he further submits that Habimana Eric pleaded guilty, meaning that he admitted all the elements of evidence relied on in convicting him. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 436

135

Parties were requested to link the appeal of Habinshuti Eric to the provisions of the article 28, pargraph 5 of the aforementioned law n0 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2021, and Counsel Habimana Emmanel states that they did not do a thorough analyis of the very paragraph, even though all courts convicted Habinshuti Eric, they did so on different grounds, every court made its own analysis different from the one of another. The Representative of the Public Prosecution submits that Habinshuti Eric was sentenced on similar grounds by the Intermediate Court and the High Court because he pleaded guilty, such fact was proved by other produced elements of evidence, therefore, he finds that the second appeal was inadmissible. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 28 of the then Organic Law n0 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court into force by the time Habinshuti lodged appeal provides in its paragraph 2 from sub- paragraph one to nine for the grounds of admissibility of the judgments rendered in the second instance by the High Court, Commercial High Court and the Military High Court which are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the paragraph 8 stipulates that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the cases that lead to a term of imprisonment of at least ten (10) years where the judge pre-screening the case found that there was serious violation of legal provisions or serious irregularities that caused injustice. In addition, the paragraph five of the same article reads that a case lost by a party to proceedings in the first and second instances basing on similar grounds shall not be appealed for to the Supreme Court. PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI

## Page 437

136

The text of that article indicates that the provisions of paragraph 5 are exception from the preceding paragraphs, and it implies that the appeal is not admitted whenever the appellant has lost in the first and last instances on similar grounds.

With regard to the content of the instant case indicated in the copy of the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, Habinshuti Eric has lost the case due to the following grounds :  The fact that from the investigation phase, he pleaded guilty and has been apologetic ;  -The fact that the medical expert report states that U.H is pregnant ;  -The fact that the birth certificate and the identity card of U.H indicate that she was born on 24/05/1999, meaning that Habinshuti Eric defiled her while she was under majority age.  -With regard to Habinshuti’s defense that he never knew U.H was under 18, the Court found that such statement cannot be taken into consideration because they were close friends for three years so that he could not ignore her age, had he given it due attention ;  -Regarding the defense of Habinshuti Eric over being provoked by U.H when the latter requested to pay him a visit, the Court found that it is not possible for a minor to provoke an adult person, especially that he states himself that they slept together for all three rounds and on differents occasions. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 438

137

These are the same grounds for which Habinshuti Eric was convicted in the High Court because it had not contradicted them nor did it add any subsequent analysis, rather, basing on his grounds for appeal, it expounded that the fact that she requested to visit him does not mean that she provoked him and the fact that her age was about being 18 years in few days does not exclude that she was still a minor.

The Court finds that the appeal of Habinshuti Eric was not admissible to the Supreme Court, given that he had lost in the first and second instances for same grounds.

However, the Court finds that Habinshuti Eric still has opportunity to apply for the case review if he finds any injustice in the ruling of the High Court because that judgment is now final as it is the position of this Court 3. He has only to abide by the applicable procedure by petitioning the President of the Court of Appeal4 requesting him to have his case reviewed on grounds of injustice, within 30 days from the date he is notified of the present ruling 5.

3See case RS/REV/INJUST/CIV 0023/16/CS, Rutabayiro et al vs Mukamabano rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/09/2019 4 Article 58 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determing the jurisdiction of courts stipulates that When a party to the case identifies injustice in his/her case, he/she submits an application to that effect in writing to the President of the court immediately higher than the one having tried the case at last instance, for him/her to examine the alleged injustice. 5 Article 56 of the Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts provides that any litigant who identifies injustice in the last instance of his/her case, petitions the president of the immediate higher court for him to assess the alleged injustice. Any person wishing to have his/her case reviewed on grounds of being vitiated by injustice files, to that effect, a reasoned written application to the competent organ within thirty (30) days of notification of the judgement. PROSECUTION v HABINSHUTI

## Page 439

138

III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares the judgment RPAA 00342/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 7/11/2018 quashed and replaced by the present ruling ;

Holds that the second appeal lodged by Habinshuti Eric to Supreme Court is not admissible.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 440

139

CASE RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT DUE TO INJUSTICE

## Page 441

140

## Page 442

141

UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL-RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/CA-(Nyirandabaruta, J.P, Mukandamage, Rugabirwa, J.) March 31, 2021] Administrative procedure – Procedure for application for review on the grounds of injustice -Objection that bars the hearing on merits- Regarding the application for judgment review on the grounds of injustice, the inadmissibility of application is not only limited to the error on the time limit for filing the claim, when such objection (of inadmissibility) is of public order, it can at any time be raised either by a party or by the court on its own initiative. Law governing land-Immovable property-Requirements for being qualified as the property owner- Holding the property title is not enough to ascertain the owner of the property on basis of the fact that the property is registered on him/her, he/she must prove its acquisition mode. Facts: Nyirambabazi wrote to the Ministry of Public Works and Energy (MINITRAPE) requesting the passage where was the sewer no longer in use for accessing to her home, because the passage she used through the plot of her neighbour was blocked by the latter. The Ministry replied to her that the requested passage was granted but she had to develop the place without encroaching on the neighbours’plots nor damaging the existing tree boundaries. Rwendeye also wrote to MINITRAPE requesting for the same place where was the sewer for annexing it to her plot and it was 141

## Page 443

142

granted to her. MINITRAPE later noted that it was mistakenly granted and wrote to her nullifying the decision granting the place, it explained that the granting decision was mistakenly taken. By the same letter, it indicated that the boundaries of her plot should be corrected and her plot shall maintain the boundaries mentioned in the statement of the boundary measurement but it was not done until she sold the plot to Habimana and his wife, after selling it, they blocked the passage and it was not possible to Uwamahoro to enter or exit from her home as usual, even her car was locked in her home because she had no passage. Uwamahoro resorted to different state organs for the passage reopening, and Gasabo District wrote to Habimana requesting him to apply for rectification of the ownership title n0 1120 (the former plot number was 5056) for demarcation of the passage, as it was not part of his property, and then the lawsuits were initiated. Habimana lodged a claim before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting the nullification of the decision of Gasabo District that ordered him to apply for rectification of the ownership title abovementioned. The Court ruled that there was no error that could lead to the nullification of the decision of Gasabo District. He then appealed to the High Court which ruled that the decision requesting him to apply for rectification of the ownership title was taken by incompetent officers, and invalidated it. Uwamahoro also filed a claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge against Habimana requesting it to invalidate his property title no 1120, which was no 5056. The Court declared her claim inadmissible since it did not fall into the jurisdiction of the chamber hearing the civil matters, rather it was within the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 444

143

jurisdiction of the specialised chamber hearing the administrative matters. For that reason, she lodged another claim before the same Court against Habimana together with Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, requesting for demarcation of the public passage from Habimana’s ownership title. The Court found that the objection raised by the respondent that the claimant has no capacity nor interest to this case is unfounded and on the merits of the case, it found that the claim was unfounded and there are final judgments previously rendered. The claimant appealed to the High Court praying it to determine whether the previous judgments had really become final, whether those judgments ruled on the rectification of the registration certificate and whether the registration certificate Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 replaced by UPI 1/02/13/03/1120 should be rectified. The High Court declared her claim inadmissible since the decision concerning it has been taken by this Court on 16/01/2015. The Court found that there is no ground to rule on other issues because the principal claim was declared inadmissible. The claimant petitioned to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting for the analysis of injustice in the judgment rendered by the High Court on 27/02/2020. The President of the Court of Appeal, after analysis of the petition, wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the above mentioned judgment should be reviewed for grounds of injustice. The President of the Supreme Court decided that the judgment should be reviewed for the grounds of injustice and the judgment was referred to the Court of Appeal for hearing. The claimant explained the injustice within the judgment under review by stating that the High Court did not determine whether the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 445

144

RADA0025/14/HC/KIG had already been final, examine whether they ruled on the rectification of the registration certificate, and she requests to determine whether the certificate should be corrected for demarcation of the passage granted to her for its development, to order to the respondent to be liable for the car locked in her home when he blocked the passage and various damages The respondent submits that the claimant has neither interest nor standing to claim for a public passage, the subject-matter of her claims have been adjudicated by the final judgments, and they cannot be held liable for the loss for which she claims the damages. Regarding the fact that the application for review of the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG due to injustice should be declared inadmissible since the claimant has neither standing nor interest to sue, the respondent avers that the claim of the applicant should be declared inadmissible because it was filed before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge and not examined, and she waited for its analysis in the course of this case on basis of a letter issued by MINITRAPE to her mother and which was never taken into consideration for execution, and the plot is still State- owned, the fact that the plot is still State-owned indicates that she has no standing nor interest to lodge a claim for it unless she provides the power of attorney to file a claim of behalf of State. The claimant argues that the admissibility of the application for review due to injustice had already been examined by the President of the Court of Appeal and the President of the Supreme Court who declared it admissible, therefore this objection should be declared inadmissible for its analysis, in case the application for review due to injustice was examined, it is necessary to firstly anayze the claimant’s standing and interest, therefore such issues RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 446

145

cannot be re-examined by this Court. The claimant states that even if the property is registered to the respondent, this cannot preclude any interested party to lodge a claim for it, she has interest over the passage under litigation because it gives to access to her home and she had developed the place where there was a sewer. Rwanda Natural Resources Authority argues that the Court can hear the case and examine whether the claimant had standing and interest to sue even before, since these issues had always been raised in the previous judgments. The claimant fails to prove her ownership on the disputed plot of land, because from the beginning of the case the subject-matter was to request the Court to order the demarcation of the passage from the land title indicating the land ownership and this was impossible before proving the right to the plot of land emanating from a judgment she won that confers to her what she claims or an agreement with the respondent who is the owner of the plot of land. With regard to whether the High Court did not examine the appeal grounds of the claimant who states that the previous judgments were not final about the rectification of registration certificate while no case was heard about it, the claimant sustains that various judgments were rendered and it was mistakenly adduced that they had been final. She also states that following the judgment pronouncement, the professional bailiff executed the judgment, she filed a claim before the Court which ruled that the execution was legally conducted, but she realized that the executed judgments were not final on the rectification of the registration certificate. She goes on by explaining that she realized that the previous judgments were not final because by the judgment RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE, the Court declared that it lacks the UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 447

146

jurisdiction, and never heard the case on the merits, while in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, it was determined whether Gasabo District had the competence to decide on the issues or whether the decision taken should be nullified, and nothing else of the grounds of appeal has been examined, the Court therefore nullified the District’ s decision and ruled that whoever is not satisfied with the validity of the registration certificate, should file a claim in accordance with the legal procedure. The respondent advances that the High Court clearly explained that the issue related to the rectification of the land registration certificate was settled by the abovementioned judgments because it was examined by the courts which rendered those judgments and the claimant as well as the respondent were parties, the aggrieved party could have lodged appeal against them, and this is the reason why they sustain that the previous judgements have already became final. Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority states that the previous judgements have became final, since their subject- matter was adjudicated and became final. It states that the judgment RADA 0025/2014/HC sustained the previous judgment, as the respondent maintained the land title and the cadastral certificate he had, the Court provided the position on the rectification of the certificate or the issue should be submitted before the court, this was not respected by the claimant since she never instituted any claim for the demarcation of the disputed passage from the respondent’s plot of land. With regard to whether the registration certificate n0 Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 replaced by UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 has to be rectified for demarcating the passage, the claimant advances that her mother wrote to the Ministry of Public Works and Energy (MINITRAPE) requesting to be granted the unused sewer in front RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 448

147

of her home for serving for easement, since she could no longer pass through the neighbour’s plot of land as the latter has fenced it and the passage was granted to her and she was even requested to develop it at her convenience. She further explains that the owner who sold the plot of land to the respondent also requested for the same passage and it was granted to her. The Ministry later notified her in writing that the granted easement was withdrawn because it was mistakenly granted and she was requested to bring back her land title for readjusting the plot of land to the previous boundaries but she failed to do so because she sold the plot of land before the boundary readjustment. She explains that her statements match with the investigation findings which indicate that the disputed area was used as public passage instead of the respondent’s plot where he built a pit latrine and a bungalow, the respondents’allegations that the sewer comprised two parts are not true. The respondent submits that the claimant’s allegations that she claims for an easement are not true because she already has it and the disputed area is registered on his land title and nobody else has the right over it. He further indicates that he blocked the passage because the claimant has access to the passage on the road located on the opposite side, and the decision of Gasabo District was nullified, and the report indicated that she has access to her home and she holds the documents issued by different organs from Kigali City to Remera Sector, for these reasons and on basis of the documents and final judgments, he notes that the title granted to him cannot be modified. Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority states that during the investigation, the Court found that the allegations about the so-called public passage are not true, because a public passage has starting and closing coordinates. It requests the Court to UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 449

148

consider that the claimant has access to the road on the opposite side and there is no planned road which gives access to her home through the respondent’s plot of land. It adds that the letters of 1991 cannot serve as basis for granting to the claimant the passage under litigation because they are no longer valid because they have been nullified by other official decisions issued by the same organs which indicated that she cannot be granted such passage, the reason why each one should maintain the plot of land granted, since each party annexed a part of sewer to his/her plot of land. With regard to whether the respondent should be fined for the loss incurred due to the period of locking the car of the claimant, the latter requested for 42,100,000 Frw arguing that her car has been locked since 2016 up to date. The respondent states that the passage blockage was done by the court bailiff, and the claim related to the passage blockage was adjudicated against the court bailiff and she lost. She cannot file it again for hearing, he finds that he cannot be ordered to pay damages because the claimant was requested to take out her car by the time of the execution of the judgment rendered by the High Court and she refused. The respondent again submits that nothing proves that the concerned car was in good conditions, he was authorized to erect the constructions. RLMUA submits that the Court shall examine the issues related to the claimed damages. Held:1 Regarding the application for review of a judgment vitiated by injustice, the objection of inadmissibility of a claim is not only limited to the time limit to file a claim, in case such objection is of public order, it can be raised at any time by a party or a court at its own initiative. Therefore, Uwamahoro Mbabazi RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 450

149

Liliane has standing and interest to sue since she derives the standing from the rights granted to her mother and she has an interest to sue because if she wins the case she will enjoy again the easement to her home without any difficult. 2. It is not enough to possess the land title for asserting that the property belongs to a given person on basis of the fact that the property is registered on him/her, rather, he or she has to prove the acquisition mode of the property. Therefore, nothing does not preclude that the land title granted to Habimana Anselme on basis of the final judgments while those judgments do not grant to him the rights on the disputed plot of land should be rectified about the disputed area for the purpose of demarcation of the disputed public passage giving access to the home of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane. The objection of inadmissibility is hereby void of merit The application for review for grounds of injustice is hereby admitted. The ruling of the High Court is entirely quashed. Court fees are borne by the Public Treasury. Statutes for reference: Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 62 and 63. Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 3,12,14,81,83,111,129,161 and 176. Law No 15/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, articles 11,12,37 and 38. Law No 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 451

150

Law of 20 July1920 relating to immovable property, article 34. Ministerial order n0 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining land registration modalities, article 23. Cases referred to: Busoro v. Busoro et al. RS/INJUST/RC00022/2018/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 21 June, 2019. Harerimana v. Sebukayire, RCAA 0018/13/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/12/2014. Rutabayihu v. Batamuliza RCAA0013/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 03 June 2016 Authors cited: Jean Vicent et Serge Guinchard, Procédure civile 24è éd. Dalloz, Paris,1996, P.98. Serge Guinchard, Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, 8è éd., Dalloz, Paris, 2014, P.5,8, 1209. Melina Douchy- Oudot, Procédure civile, 2è éd., EJA, Paris, 2006, P.108. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 22/12/1990, Nyirambabazi Vénantie wrote to the Ministry of Public Works and Energy (MINITRAPE) requesting the passage where was the sewer no longer in use for accessing to her home, because she could no longer pass through the plot of her neighbour who had already fenced it. In the letter n0 11.04.04/1974 of 20/02/1991, the Ministry informed her that the requested passage was granted, but she had to develop the place RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 452

151

without encroaching on the neighbours’plot nor damaging the existing tree boundaries. When Nyirambabazi Vénantie was authorized to develop the sewer, Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille wrote to MINITRAPE requesting for the same place where was the sewer for annexing it to her plot and it was granted to her on 15/01/1992. MINITRAPE later noted that it was mistakenly granted and wrote on 15/09/1992 to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille nullifying the decision granting the place, it explained that the granting decision was mistakenly taken because the place should be for public use. By the same letter, MINITRAPE precised that the boundaries of the plot of Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille had to be rectified to maintain its initial sizes as per the statement of land measurement and demarcations number 3200 of 01/04/1981; but this was not done until Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille sold her plot to Habimana Anselme with his wife Irere Jeanne Marie Claire who immediately fenced the plot and blocked the passage, thus Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was deprived of the easement to her home, and her car was locked in it up to date.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane then resorted to different state organs for the passage reopening to access to her home, and Gasabo District wrote on 19/09/2022 to Habimana requesting him to apply for rectification of the ownership title no 1120 (the former plot number was 5056) for demarcation of the passage, as it was not part of his property, and then the lawsuits were initiated.

Habimana Anselme seized the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting the nullification of the decision of Gasabo District contained in the District letter of 19/09/2012, requesting him to pply for rectification of the land title, by the judgment UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 453

152

RAD 0057/13/TGI/NYGE decided on 28/03/2014 the Court found that there was no error that could lead to the nullification of the decision of Gasabo District. Habimana Anselme appealed to the High Court, and the Court ruled by the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rendered on 16/01/2015 that the decision of Gasabo District requesting Habimana Anselme to apply for the rectification of his land title was taken by incompetent officers and invalidated it.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane also sued Habimana Anselme before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge requesting for the invalidation of the land title number 1120, replacing the plot number 5056, this Court rendered the judgment RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE on 23/04/2014 and declared her claim inadmissible since it did not fall under the jurisdiction of the chamber hearing the civil matters, rather it was within the jurisdiction of the specialised chamber hearing the administrative matters.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane filed another claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge suing Habimana Anselme together with Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, requesting for demarcation of the passage from Habimana’s land ownership title Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/04/2012 replaced by that of 18/04/2016, because from 15/09/1992, the passage was planned by the Government (MINITRAPE) as public.

[6] The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE on 18/04/2019 and found that the allegations of the respondent that the claimant lacks standing and interest to sue are not grounded, and on the merits of the case, it found that the claim filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was unfounded and it could not order to Rwanda Land RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 454

153

Management and Use Authority to demarcate the passage on the plot of Habimana Anselme while there are final judgments RC0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane appealed against that decision before the Hight Court and prayed it to examine whether the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG had really became final, whether they ruled on the rectification of a registration certificate and whether the registration certificate that had number Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2012 replaced by UPI 1/02/13/03/1120 of 18/04/2016 should be rectified.

By the judgment RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG decided by the High Court on 27/02/2020 in which the parties were Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, Habimana Anselme and Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, the High Court declared inadmissible the claim filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane because the decision was already taken about her claim in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 16/01/2015, it found also that there is no ground to rule on other issues because the principal claim was declared inadmissible.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal requesting to examine the injustice in the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG decided by the High Court on 27/02/2020, after analysis of her petition, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting the review of the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG for grounds of injustice. By the decision n0 031/CJ/2020 of 28/09/2020, the President of the Supreme Court decided that the judgment should be reviewed for grounds of UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 455

154

injustice and it was transferred to the Court of Appeal and was recorded as RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/CA.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane explained the injustice within the judgment under review by stating that the High Court did not determine whether the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA0025/14/HC/KIG had already been final, she requests to examine whether they ruled on the rectification of the registration certificate, and whether the certificate should be corrected for demarcation of the passage granted to her mother Nyirambabazi Vénantie who developed it, to order to the respondent to be liable for the car locked in her home when he closed the passage and she requested for the procedural fees and lawyer’s fees. The respondent submits that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has neither standing nor interest to sue for public passage in the instant case, because her claims have been decided in the judgments which have already became final and they are not liable for the loss for which she claims damages.

The judgment was called for hearing in public on 01/12/2020, the parties appeared, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was assisted by Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo together with Counsel Bagabo Faustin, Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority appeared represented by Counsel Eulade Mbonigaba whereas Habimana Anselme was assisted by Counsel Munderere Léopold. On that day, the case was not heard because there was a document uploaded by the claimant’s representatives with delays and the representatives of the respondent did not upload their defence submissions, and the hearing was adjourned on 13/01/2021. On the fixed date, the hearing was resumed, the Court found that some parties were assisted, others represented just as before. The Court first heard the objection raised by RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 456

155

Habimana Anselme arguing that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane did not have standing nor inter- to sue for a public passage. The Court also examined whether the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA0025/14/HC/KIG had already became final, and whether these judgments ruled about the disputed registration certicate. The Court also examined the issue related to the rectification of the registration certificate Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2012 replaced by UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 of 18/04/2016 for demarcation of the passage. The hearing was not closed because the Court deemed necessary to conduct the site visit on the location of the subject-matter, the site visit was fixed on 03/02/2021 and the hearing was then adjourned on 24/02/2021.

The hearing was resumed on 24/02/2021, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was assisted by Cousel Kayijuka Ngabo, whereas the respondent still maintained the same counsel as before, the parties were given the floor to comment on the findings of the site visit, and the Court examined the issues not previously settled, the hearing was closed, the parties were notified that the prouncement was scheduled on 26/03/2021 and it was adjourned on 31/03/2021. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether the application for review due to injustice of the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane should be declared inadmissible as she lacks standing and interest to sue.

Habimana Anselme together with Counsel Munderere Léopold, referring to articles 3 and 81 of the Law n0 22/2018 of UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 457

156

29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, request the Court to declare inadmissible the claim filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane because she lodged the same claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge which did not examine it, and she waited for its analysis in the course of this case on basis of a letter issued by MINITRAPE to her mother and which was never taken into consideration for execution, and the plot is still State-owned, the fact that the plot is still State-owned indicates that she has no standing nor interest to lodge a claim for it unless she provides the power of attorney to file a claim on behalf of State.

Counsel Munderere Léopold supports that the objection raised by Habimana Anselme for requesting the Court to declare inadmissible the application for the judgment review on the grounds of injustice is based on the fact that during the pre-trial conference they requested the claimant to justify the injustice and she did not do so. He further adds that article 63 of the Law n0 30/ 2018 of 02/06/2018 determing the jurisdiction of courts which does not preclude the Court to reexamine the claim on the merits and the obejctions raised, he relies on that provision to request the Court to reexamine the raised objections.

Counsel Bagabo Faustin and Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo assisting Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane state that the admissibility of the claim related to the injustice was examined by the President of the Court of Appeal and the President of the Supreme Court, such objection should not be admitted and examined, because for analysing the claim related to injustice, it is necessary to firstly examine the standing and interest of the claimant, such objection should not be reexamined by this Court. They state that by the judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC rendered on 21 June RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 458

157

2019 whereby the parties were Busoro v. Busoro et al., the Supreme Court ruled that the objection which can preclude the hearing on the merits of the claim related to injustice is not admissible for analysis because it had been examined by the concerned organs, except when it is obvious that the claimant went beyond the time limit for lodging the claim.

With regard to the issue of interest that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has in this case, they sustain that the fact that the property is registered on Habimana Anselme does not preclude any other interested party to sue for it since she has the interest to disputed passage because it gives access to the client’s home, in addition, she developed it as it was a sewer.

They also state that the plot of land is State-owned, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane claims for the passage granted to her mother Nyirambabazi Vénantie, it gives access to her home, she has been deprived of the easement, therefore, she has interest to claim it.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade representing RLMUA submits that the Court should hear this case and examine whether Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had standing and interest to sue even before, because all these issues were heard in the previous judgements. With regard to the above mentioned judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00022/218/SC rendered by the Supreme Court, Counsel Mbonigaba maintains that this case has nothing to do with the current subject-matter, because the Court pointed out the objection that bars the hearing and which is raised before the Court adjudicating the case on the grounds of injustice, the instant case intends to determine whether the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was admissible even before and this issue has UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 459

158

been heard in the judgments RC0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG which have already became final.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade further submits that the Court is entitled to declare that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has no interest into this case, given that she can not prove the right she has on the disputed land, because from the beginning the subject- matter was to order to Rwanda Natural Resources Authority to demarcate the passage from the land title and this could not be possible before she proved the rights she has on the land emanating from the judgment she won and that granted to her the subject-matter of her claim, or mutual agreement with Habimana Anselme, the land owner.

He also submits that the inadmissibility of the claim is based on the fact that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane relies on the letter written by MINITRAPE to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille notifying her that the disputed plot should remain a public land, basing on article 11 of the law governing land, her claim is inconsistent with article 37 of the same law that provides for servitude. Basing on article 12, paragraph 6 of the law governing land in Rwanda, he finds that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane is claiming the land which does not belong to her, the reason why he states that she lacks interest in this case. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 63 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determing the jurisdiction of courts provides that when the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 460

159

judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties.

Article 3 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “a claim is admissible in court only if the claimant has standing, interest and capacity to sue”, whereas article 83, paragraph 4 of the same law provides that “a plea of inadmissibility of a claim is any plea seeking to have the other party’s claim declared inadmissible without being heard on the merits considering such other party as having no right to act such as lack of standing, capacity and interest to sue”.

Article 129, paragraph one of the above mentioned Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 provides that “the reasons for inadmissibility of a case are indicated in writing in the defence submissions. If the objection is of a public order nature such as going beyond time limits for appeal, lack of standing, capacity or interest to act, the objection may be raised by a party or the court on its initiative at any time”.

With regard to the interest to sue, legal scholars Jean Vincent and Serge Guinchard, in their book Procédure civile state that the interests to sue must be immediate, already real, and based on the existing object, not on the probability. This is similar with the statements of Serge Guinchard in the book Droit et pratique de la procédure civile where he writes that the interests must be personal, real and current, the fact that the interests are personal indicates that the claim is filed by the involved party, because nobody is mandated to sue for another person’s interests. With regard to the standing to sue, another legal scholar, Melina Douchy-Oudot, in her book Procédure civile clarifies that the UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 461

160

standing is entitled to the person with interest to sue, given that the standing to sue is often associated with the interest to sue .

The case file indicates that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane filed a claim in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge praying it to order to the former Rwanda Natural Resources Authority to demarcate a public passage from the land title Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2012, later replaced by the one of 18/04/2016, the claim was registered as RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE. In the instant case, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge declared unfounded the objections for inadmissibility raised by the respondents, it declared unfounded the claim filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane because it should not order to the Authority to demarcate a public passage decided by the High Court in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG of 16/01/2015 which became final. The judgment was then appealed before the High Court and the appeal was registered as RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG (But in the copy of the judgement, the case was mistakenly recorded as RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG), it was examined whether Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had standing and interest to sue in this case, and the Court held that all her claims had been heard in the final judgments, and thus declared her claim inadmissible.

With regard to whether Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had standing and interst to sue, the Supreme Court, in the judgment RS/INJUST/RC00022/2018/SC, analysed article 62 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, and finds that it denotes that before ordering the review of a judgment vitiated by injustice, the President of the Supreme Court firstly considers the reports submitted by competent organs; when he finds that there is no objection to the hearing on RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 462

161

the merits, he orders that the case should be re-adjudicated; the reason why article 63 of the same law provides that any court requested to review a case vitiated by injustice has to hear it on the merits. The Court further indicates that by so providing, the legislator beared in mind that all issues related to objections are already settled, unless a litigant proves a special objection such as error on time limit to file a claim .

The Court finds that by the ruling of the above judgement of the Supreme Court which decided that no objection should be raised in the review of the cases vitiated by injustice, unless a litigant proves a special objection such as error on time limit to file a claim, the Court did not indicate the types of objections to be raised, the reason why the Court does not limit itself to the time limit to file a claim, especially that the law provides that when the objection of inadmissibility is of public order, it may be raised by a party or by the Court at its own initiative at any time , therefore it declared unfounded the allegations of the claimant’s representatives who state that in the review of the judgments vitiated by injustice, no other objections are raised.

The Court finds that the passage under litigation as indicated in the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was granted to her late mother Nyirambabazi Vénantie by MINITRAPE, as above detailed, she developed it so that herself and her visitors had easy access to her home by foot or car, therefore, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has capacity to sue because she inherits the rights held by her mother on the passage. The fact that it is now impossible to easily have acess to her home and her own car is locked in her home because Habimana Anselme blocked the passage indicates the interest of Uwimana UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 463

162

Mbabazi Liliane to sue for such passage because she has been affected by the fact that Habimana Anselme blocked it.

The Court finds that the allegations of the respondents that the passage is public and does not belong to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane so that she has standing and interest to sue for it without proving the rights granted by the Government, are unfounded, because the fact that it is public does not deprive her of the rights to it as easement to her home and she developed it after being granted the requested authorisation, she spent money for having easy access to her home, but she is currently deprived of such rights.

Basing on the aforementioned explanations, the Court finds that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has standing and interest to sue, she derives the standing from the rights granted to her mother, and she has interest in case, her claim is declared grounded, she shall have easy access to her home, therefore, the objection for inadmissibility raised by Habimana Anselme is not founded. 2. Whether the High Court did not examine the grounds of appeal filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane that the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG had not become final as regards the rectification of the registration title and did not adjudicate that issue.

Counsel Bagabo Faustin assisting Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane submits that there had been various judgments and it was mistakenly asserted that they became final. He states that the first case originated from the claim filed by Habimana Anselme requesting the invalidation of the decision of Gasabo District, the RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 464

163

judgment RAD 0057/13/TGI/NYGE was rendered, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge maintained the decision of Gasabo District, by the ruling of the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC, the High Court declared invalid the decision of Gasabo District basing on the fact that the District is not the Court, the rectification should be done by the competent organs.

He also submits that, following the judgment ruling, the professional bailiff named Kamanzi executed the judgment, his client filed a claim against such execution, the Court held that the execution was legally performed, but Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane estimated that the executed judgments were not final as regards the rectification of the registration certificate, she requested Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority to demarcate from the title of Habimana Anselme the passage granted to her mother and it refused to do so, she filed a claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge which was recorded on RC 0129/15/TGI/ NYGE, the Court ruled that the chamber hearing the civil matters did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim she filed, then after she lodged the claim before the chamber hearing the administrative matters and the case was recorded on RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE (mistakenly recorded as civil case) and by that judgment, the Court ruled that both judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/2014/HC were final. Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane appealed to the High Court and the case was recorded on RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG, the judge did not decide on the subject-matter which was to determine whether the above mentioned judgments were final as regards the rectification of the registration title, rather the ruling was made on the claim admissibility. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 465

164

He further explains that the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/ NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG were not final as regards the rectification of the registration certificate; by the judgment RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE, the Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction, and any other decision was taken on the merits of the case, while in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, the High Court only examined whether Gasabo District had competence to decide on the issue and whether the decision of the District should be nullified, and any other decision was taken about the appeal grounds, the Court held that the decision of Gasabo District should be nullified, the party which challenges the registration title could lodge a claim before the court according to legal procedure; the judgment was final as regards the decision of Gasabo District, but it was not final as regards the rectification of the registration title as requested by MINITRAPE.

Counsel Bagabo Faustin further states that in 2016 RLMUA wrote to Habimana Anselme requesting him to return back his land title for rectification by demarcating the public passage because it should not be registered to anyone as evidenced by the letter sent by MINITRAPE in 1992 to Rwendeye Mbonimpa Donatille, but later Counsel Munderere Léopold indicated to RLMUA that there are final judgements, Habimana Anselme should be granted the rights to annex the disputed passage to the plot registered on his tilte, RLMUA referred to such judgements and wrote to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane that her request to rectify the land title of 18/04/2016 with number 1120 which was number 5056 located in Remera –Rukiri I registered to Habimana Anselme and his wife Irere Marie Claire and to demarcate the public passage is not possible, therefore the Government should be held liable for not having enforced its commitment, because from the time when MINITRAPE wrote to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 466

165

Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille to bring back her land title to be corrected, she never did it and that is the same title that Habimana Anselme used in the application for refurbishment and blocked the passage for his client.

Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo assisting Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane adds that the judgment RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE was final on the issue pertained to the fact that her claim was not under the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Chamber hearing the civil matters, and the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG was final on the issue pertained to the decision of Gasabo District, therefore those judgments were not final on the request of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane to correct the registration title.

Habimana Anselme and his legal Counsel Munderere Léopold sustain that in the paragraph 15 of the judgment for review on the grounds of injustice, the High Court clearly explained that the issue related to the registration certificate was settled by the judgments RC 0129/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG as it was examined by the courts which adjudicated the cases and the respondent as well as Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane were parties, the aggrieved party should have lodged appeal, therefore, they rely on that fact to assert that the judgments were final.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade representing RLMUA sustains that the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/ and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG were final since the subjet-matter was adjudicated and became final because by the time the Court analysed the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, it ruled that it has the jurisdiction to order the rectification of the registration certificate, but it did not order to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane to UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 467

166

seize a court nor to change the procedures of filing her claim, since the only procedure she had was the extraordinary appeal provided under articles 161 to 176 of the law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. He further states that she intended to implement the subject-matter of her claim she filed against RLMUA, as evidenced by the letters written before the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, and the letter of 05/07/2015 written by the Authority without being aware that the judgments were final, and then after it provided the orientation on the issue.

He adds that on basis of its reading, the judgment RADA 0025/2014/HC sustained the issues as they were previously, Habimana Anselme had and kept the land title and the cadastral certificate, it provided the orientation on the procedure for rectification of the title by Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority or submitting the issue before the court, and it was not taken into account by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane because she never sued Habimana Anselme for demarcation of the area from his plot of land. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 3 of the Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 of the law of evidence and its production states that every litigant should prove the veracity of his/her allegations while article 14 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “a case that has been definitively decided cannot again be litigated for the same facts, between the same parties acting with respect to the same cause”. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 468

167

A legal Scholar Serge Guinchard states that a judgment becomes final if the court had adjudicated the claim on the merits and took a final decision…The judgment remains valid as long as there is no other decision that quashes it by the appeal procedure.

The case file indicates that Habimana Anselme sued Gasabo District together with Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge praying it to nullify the District’s decision that prejudiced him. But in the judgment RAD 0057/13/TGI/NYGE, the Court ruled in favour of the District’s decision that ordered him to give back his land title for demarcation of the public passage. Habimana Anselme was not satisfied with the court’s ruling and appealed against it before the High Court, and in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG of 16/01/2015, the High Court ruled that Gasabo District did not have power to decide over this issue, and the Court, therefore, invalidated the District’s decision. With regard to the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane for correction of the registration certificate, the Court ruled that the subject-matter to be examined does not concern the rectification of Habimana’s land registration certificate for analysing the elements of evidence he provides as the subject-matter to be examined is to determine whether Gasabo District was competent to take the decision it took.

The case file indicates that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane sued Habimana Anselme before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge praying it to invalidate his land title, the claim was recorded as RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE but the Court did not examine it, because it found that the claim was logded before the civil chamber which does not have the jurisdiction to hear it, UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 469

168

rather it is within the jurisdiction of the chamber hearing the administrative matters.

Following the abovementioned judgment, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane filed another claim before the administrative chamber of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge suing RLMUA together with Habimana Anselme praying the Court to order to RLMUA (the former Rwanda Natural Resources Authority) to demarcate the public passage on the land title Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2012 replaced by that of 18/04/2016, the claim was recorded as RC 00131/2017/TGI/NYGE (though it was an admistrative case) it was examined whether there had been the final judgement between both parties so that the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane can be declared inadmissible, whether the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane can be declared inadmissible because she lacks standing and interest to sue, whether the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane can be declared inadmissible because she filed it before the civil chamber instead of the administrative chamber, whether the Court can order to Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority to demarcate the passage officially provided by the land title Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2012 and whether the damages claimed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane can be awarded to her and repaid the procedural fees.

Having examined the abovementioned issues, and by its decision of 18/04/2019, the Court found that the judgments RC 00129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG were not final for RLMUA, Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had standing and interest to sue (paragraph 11), even if RLMUA was not party to the aforementioned cases, the claimant did not indicate any ground for suing it, except requesting to be ordered to demarcate RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 470

169

the passage from the challenged title, it ruled that (paragraph 23) the subject-matter of the claim filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane against Habimana Anselme had been heard in the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, and these judgments have been final between her and Habimana Anselme.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane appealed before the High Court, praying it to examine whether the judgments RC0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG had really became final and whether they ruled about the correction of the registration certificate challenged in this case; to determine whether the registration certificate with n0 Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2016 replaced by UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 of 18/04/2016 can be corrected by demarcating the passage under litigation, to determine whether Habimana Anselme can be held liable for the loss incurred by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane for her car locked in her house due to the fact that the passage was blocked. The representative of RLMUA filed the cross appeal claiming the payment of the proceeding expenses and Habimana Anselme raised again the objection related to the fact that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has no standing nor interest to sue.

Concerning the cross appeal, the High Court rendered the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG under review on the grounds of injustice (though the copy of the judgement was numbered RADA 00159/2019/HC/KIG), and held that the appeal filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was inadmissible for her claim for which the decision was taken in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 16/01/2015.

The Court of Appeal finds that by the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG the High Court did not examine on the UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 471

170

merits the appeal lodged by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane related to determine whether the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG had became final on the correction of the challenged registration certificate and whether the same Court adjudicated on that issue in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG, rather it examined the issue related to determine whether Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had standing and interest to sue; instead of ruling on the issue, it decided in the paragraph [17] that her claim was inadmissible because it has been held in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG which has been final, while it is obvious that it had not yet examine the issue related to the judgment that became final as it was analysed in the paragraphs [18]-[24].

The Court finds that by the analysis of paragraphs [18]- [24], the High Court limited itself to decide that the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court and the judgment RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge had became final, but it did not clarify if they had been final as regards the rectification of the registration certificate and whether those judgments ruled about that registration certificate.

The Court finds that the fact that the High Court did not determine whether Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had standing and interest to file this claim, whether the judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG had became final about the rectification of the registration certificate, and whether they ruled about it, as she requested by her appeal, indicates the injustice incurred by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane through the judgment for which she applied for review on the grounds of injustice. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 472

171

With regard to whether those judgements had been final about the correction of the registration certificate, the Court of Appeal finds that in the judgment RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Chamber hearing the civil matters declared its incompetence to hear the claim of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane that sought the rectification of the registration certificate for demarcation of the challenged passage, and thus it is obvious that it did not decided on it. The subject- matter in the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG was the request for invalidation of Gasabo District’s decision that allegedly affected Habimana Anselme, the Court decided that the decision of the District was nullified because it was taken by incompetent officer, the claim filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane requesting the correctionof the registration certificate should not be analysed, because it did not constitue the subject-matter as the subject-matter was to determine whether Gasabo District was competent to take the decision as it did.

The Court of Appeal finds that the fact that by the judgement RC 0129/15/TGI/NYAGE the claim was not admitted on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction, while the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG only ruled about the nullification of Gasabo District’s decision, indicates that the judgments did not rule about the rectifiction of the registration certificate, and they became final on the analysed issues, and as the legal scholar, Serge Guinchard explained it in his aforementioned book, (page 15, paragraph 14), for a judgement to be final, the Court must have tried the filed claim on the merits and take a final decision. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 473

172

The Court therefore finds that the statements of Habimana Anselme and RLMUA that those judgments had became final and ruled about the registration certificate are unfounded.

The Court finds that Habimana Anselme could not rely on those judgements to request to the professional bailiff to execute them by granting to him the challenged passage and RLMUA could not rely on them for granting to him the rights over the passage, because those judgments did not take any decision granting to him the rights over the area. 3. Whether the registration certificate number Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2012 replaced by UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 of 18/04/2016 can be corrected for demarcation of the passage

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane submits that her mother Nyirambabazi Vénantie wrote to MINITRAPE on 22/12/1990, requesting to develop the former sewer in front of her home for easy access to her home because her neighbor had blocked the passage serving for easement; on 20/02/1991, MINITRAPE replied to her granting her the requested passage and ordering to her to develop it at her convenience.

She adds that, in the meantime, and on unkown date, Mrs Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Danatille wrote to MINITRAPE requesting for the same passage, and it was granted to her, but on 15/01/1992, MINITRAPE noticed that it was mistakenly granted, and on 15/09/1992 it wrote to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille notifying her of the invalidation of the decision granting the area, by the time of the reception of the letter, she should no longer use such area, because it is public , not only she was deprived of the right over the area, but also she was requested by MINITRAPE RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 474

173

to bring back the title awarded to her for being corrected, because the Ministry requested to the competent organs to harmonize the title with former boundaries of her plot of land. She states that on basis of the inspection carried out by the civil engineer and other officers of Gasabo District, it was found out that Habimana Anselme built on the public passage and he must be held liable for that fact, she requests the Court to hold that the public passage be maintained and demarcated from the land title UPI : 1/02/13/1120 granted to Habimana Anselme, because he built on the area by disregarding the letters requesting him to bring back the title for being corrected and he refused to do so.

Counsel Bagabo Faustin representing Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane sustains that the demarcation of the passage should be based on three elements: a) Since Mrs Nyirambabazi Vénantie requested for the passage and it was granted to her, and since MINITRAPE wrote to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille requesting her to bring back her land title for rectification, because the place granted to her was public, there has never been any other decision that granted to Habimana Anselme the public passage, apart from the land title and the registration certificate that were mistanely granted by MINITRAPE and the judgments that were allegedly final while it was not the case. b) Since 1992, the passage was a public road giving access to the home of Nyirambabazi Vénantie, and all persons who lived there knew that it was a public passage, and when Habimana Anselme was contructing the fence with Ruliba bricks, he left the passage which was used until 2016 when he blocked it, basing on the judgments UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 475

174

allegedly final, therefore she notes that Habimana Anselme should demolish the fence which blocks the passage to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane for replacing it at where it was, as RLMUA notified him that the area should remain passable. c) The report drafted by the engineer of Remera Sector indicates the modalties in which the plot was granted and concludes by stating that the passage was public and should be demarcated from Habimana Anselme’s registration certificate.

Counsel Bagabo Faustin avers that the allegations of the respondents that the land title granted to Habimana Anselme was delivered to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille before Nyirambabazi Vénantie requested for the area are not true because on 22/12/1990 she requested for the place where was the sewer and it was granted to her on 20/02/1991 while Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille got it on 15/01/1992, she was given a land title on 01/02/1992 and her right on it was withdrawn on 15/07/1992. He adds that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane is not claiming for the passage, rather she is suing for the passage officially granted and later was annexed to the plot of Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille while it was developed by her mother on her own expenses for easement to her home.

Counsel Bagabo Faustin sustains that, on basis of the letters he produced, Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille was requested to bring back the title for rectification but she did not do so, and when Habimana Anselme was requested to do so he refused to comply with, those irregularities should be corrected, because Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane requested RLMUA to demarcate the passage from Habimana Anselme’s title and it RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 476

175

replied to her by contradictory statements, advancing that it cannot demarcate the passage while there are pending cases, even if the Authority was aware that the judgments were not final as regards the registration certificate.

Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo who also assists Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane submits that Nyirambabazi Vénantie was granted by official competent organ the right to develop a public passage, it can be understandable if the official organs regain it for public interest, but Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane cannot be deprived of it for being granted to another person who does not justify the public interest. He sustains that the passage should be reinstated because the statements of Habimana Anselme that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has the passage in front of her house are not true, because there is a talus so that one of her cars was locked in the home and the other one is packed in the neighbor’s home.

Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo states that the respondents’allegations that the land title cannot be challenged are inconsistent because Habimana Anselme was granted the building permit in 2016 on the basis of the judgments which were allegedly final, disregarding the letters delivered to him requesting him to apply for its rectification and the letter authorising Nyirambabazi Vénantie to develop the passage.

Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo adds that the explanations provided by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane are consistent with the inspection findings which indicate that the disputed area was a public passage instead of Habimana Anselme’s plot where he constructed a pit latrine and a bungalow, the statements of the respondents that the sewer had two parts are not true, because the mother of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane did not take the title nor UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 477

176

the part of the sewer to annex it to the land registered on her title, instead, she requested, granted and developed the area usable by any one and the Court noted that on the fence there is number 55 of Habimana Anselme and number 53 of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane which is invisible because it has been blocked, it is only visible from the side where there is a pit latrine of Habimana Anselme constructed in the front of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane’s gate, this indicates that it was later constructed, because before the number was visible as it is written on her gate blocked by Habimana Anselme.

Habimana Anselme supports that the allegations of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane that she needs a passage are not true because she has it already, the disputed passage is indicated on the land title, the reason why nobody should claim for it as per the provisons of article 23 of the Ministerial Order n0 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration which provides that the ownership title cannot be challenged, the reason why on 01/08/2016 he was authorized to construct the fence.

He further sustains that he blocked the fence giving access to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane’s home because she had access to the road on opposite side, given that the decision of Gasabo District was invalidated, and the report findings indicated that she has another passage, and she holds documents of different organs from City of Kigali to Remera Sector, on basis of those documents and the final judgments, the registration certificate issued to him cannot be challenged.

Counsel Munderere Léopold submits that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane insists on the letter of 1991, but she disregards that the article 34 of the Law of 20 July 1920 relating to immovable property provides that the property title cannot be RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 478

177

challenged, thus, MINITRAPE retracted from the decision provided in the letter written to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille, because she held documents including the property title issued in 1992 and other decisions conveyed by the letters later issued. He sustains that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has another passage on the opposite side, the other passage she claims should be through Habimana Anselme’s plot which he does not rent, but for which he holds the registration certificate.

Regarding the laws granting the rights to Habimana Anselme, he refers to article 38 of the Law n0 43/2013 of 16/06/2016 governing land in Rwanda which reads that the landowner shall not refuse passage, in case Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane needs the passage giving access to her home, she had to negotiate with Habimana Anselme, but she refused to do so.With regard to Remera Sector report included in the case file, he states that the City of Kigali report of 26/02/2016 indicates that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane is escalating provocation because she has the passage, and the Master Plan indicates that there is no road planned on the disputed area. Regarding the statements of the claimant who submits that she has no easement to her home, he avers that Habimana Anselme indicates the way in which he settled the issue for having access to her home, there is a talus in front of her home and he wonders why Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane cannot develop the area on the opposite side for enabling her car to enter into the home.

He states that the fact that Habimana Anselme demolished the fence (which did not block the disputed passage) does not constitute a problem, because it is his right guaranteed by law, he did not construct it on basis of the judgments, rather he did it on basis of the registration certificate while Uwamahoro UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 479

178

Mbabazi Liliane has no basis to state that he had no right to construct it.

Counsel Munderere Léopold submits that, as noted by the Court during the investigation, the fact that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane has no passage is not true, because the Court judges accessed to her home through the passage on the opposite side, the issue is not that she has no passage, as she puts that anyone passes where he/she wants and she wants to have access to both roads, while her all neighbours pass by the road on the opposite side, if she needs to pass by the plot of Habimana Anselme, she must prove that such road is planned on the Master plan.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade representing RLMUA sustains that the statements of the counsel of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane that the disputed area was taken from one party to be handed to the other, are not true, because Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille applied requesting for this area, even if she already had the ownership title thereof since 1/02/1992, MINITRAPE wrote to her on 15/09/1992 notifying her that the disputed area remains a public passage, but this was not respected, because she already had the ownership title for such plot.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade further explains that the statements of the paragraph 3 of the investigation report that Uwamahoro indicated that she passed through the plot are erroneous because she mentioned that the area on the sewer was initially water drainage and she later annexed it to her land, he wonders whether she annexed it after having requested for it as the disputed area was granted to Habimana Anselme. He submits that the statements that she could pass through anywhere she wanted are not true, rather she passed by the area where she RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 480

179

enjoyed the easement, thus he notes that in case the claim is the passage and whether the Court finds that she has the passage, it has to hold that it lacks merits, in case it finds that she does not have the passage, it has to analyse whether she uses the right procedure to get it, given that she can get it in case she agrees with Habimana Anselme with the intention to buy it.

He also adds that the claimant requets for easement, not for the ownership right, she does not sue RLMUA, since it does not co-own the land with Habimana Anselme, and the Court cannot decide on basis of the letter, as by that fact it invalidates other documents for which a claim was not filed.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade was asked to explain why MINITRAPE wrote to Nyirambabazi Vénantie authorizing her to develop the disputed area, he explained that Mrs Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille already had the ownership title, and she later requested to annex the disputed area to her land, he also adds that though MINITRAPE wrote to Mrs Rwendeye Nzabonimpa requesting her to return back her land title for rectification as it has realized that it erred, the reason why MNITRAPE did not change her title, it could be worse if it had demarcated the passage from the land of Rwandeye Nzabonimpa Donatille who had the ownership title.

Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade submits that in the course of the investigation conducted by the Court, the latter found out that the allegations about the so-called public passage are not true, because a public passage has starting and closing coordinates. He requests the Court to consider that the claimant has access to the road on the opposite side and there is no planned road which gives access to her home through Habimana Anselme’s plot of land. He adds that the letters of 1991 cannot serve as basis for granting to UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 481

180

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane the passage under litigation because they are no longer valid because they have been nullified by other official decisions issued by the same organs which indicated that she cannot be granted such passage, the reason why each one should maintain the plot of land granted, since each party annexed a part of sewer to his/her plot of land. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 3 of the above mentioned law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production states that “Each party has the burden of proving his/her allegations”.

Article 23 of the Ministerial Order n0 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 dermining modalities for land registration states that “The Certificate of Registration on the Register of Titles is full evidence for the right of ownership, empyteutic lease or real rights or encumbrances (real charges) that are specified on it. The right of ownership which is recorded thereon cannot be challenged, even though the Certificate was drawn on basis of a cancellable or invalid contract of alienation, or a court order obtained by surprise. Nonetheless, when the right of ownership over the property is still with the acquirer, causes of rescission or invalidity of the alienation that was made to him give rise for the assignor to a cause of action for reassignment of the property with damages, if need be.”

In the letter of 22/12/1990, Mrs Nyirambabazi Vénantie (mother of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane) wrote to the Ministry of Public Works and Energy ( MINITRAPE) requesting for the passage giving access to her plot located in Remera I, where there was the sewer located in the front of her home, it replied to her RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 482

181

on 20/02/1991, it recognized her request for a passage on the place where there was a sewer, but she was requested to develop it at her convenience, without encroaching on the neighbours’plots nor damaging the existing tree fence.

The case file also contains the letter of 15/09/1992 written by MINITRAPE to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille informing her of the nullification of the title issued to her through the letter of 15/01/1992 recognizing her request of annexing the land between the neighors’plots and her plot number 5056, by the date of reception of the letter, she was requested to dispossess herself of that land as it is considered as public passage used by anyone at his/her wish, it requested the competent organs of MINITRAPE (Director of Cadastre Division and Director of Domain Division ) to implement the decision, the land title delivered to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatile should be corrected, the boundaries of the plot of Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille had to be rectified to maintain its initial sizes as per the statement of land measurement and demarcations number 3200 of 01/04/1981.

The report drafted on 04/07/2007 by the General Inspection of Kigali City upon the request of the Management of the City which intended to solve the issue of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, indicated that the mistakes were committed by the time of establishing the ownership title on which they mentioned the wrong plot with different measurements to which MINITRAPE referred.

The case file contains the letter of 2016 written by Engineer Sagashya Didier, Deputy Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority to Habimana Anselme requesting him to bring back his ownership title n0 Vol.RTXXXIV Folio 93 of UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 483

182

18/06/2012 for being granted the right ownership title with the exact measurements of his plot, which bears number RTXXXIII Folio 140 of 18/04/2012. There is also the letter written by RLMUA to Habimana Anselme requesting him to bring back his title for rectification.

The case file also contains the elements of evidence produced by Habimana Anselme including the registration certificate of 10/10/2005 later replaced by that of 22/08/2012, UPI : 1/02/13/03/1120 issued to him on 18/04/2016, the letter written by the Deputy Director of Rwanda Natural Resources Authority, Land management and geo-information services Department of 22/10/2012 addressed to the Mayor of Gasabo District requesting to submit to the Authority the former files of plot number 5056 (previously 589) Remera and plot number 5058 Remera for allowing it to settle the complaint filed by Nyirambabazi Vénantie, the letter of 15/12/2014 delivered by the Mayor of Kigali City to Irere Marie Jeanne Claire authorizing her to construct a fence, the letter of 2/07/2016 issued by the Executive Secretary of Remera Sector authorizing Habimana Anselme to contruct a pit latrine, and the document of 2016 authorizing him to build a fence and he started to build by 30/05/2016. The above mentioned Authority also wrote to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane the letter of 01/08/2016 notifying her that the rectification of ownership title Vol.RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 18/06/2016 of Habimana Anselme replaced by that of 18/04/2016 for the plot number 1120, former 5056, can only be possible on basis of the mutual agreement of the concerned parties, or a court’s ruling.

The case file contains also the report drafted by Nsengiyumva Kagabo Antoine in charge of Cadastre (he did not RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 484

183

indicate the District where he works) on 26/07/2016 about the plot number 1120 and number 1985 located in Remera nearby SONATUBE in Gasabo District, in the report conclusion, he indicates that in case the plot of land under litigation between Habimana Anselme and Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane is considered as a road, the plot n01120 will no longer keep its actual size of 2,085 sqm.

As indicated in the investigation report of 10/02/2021 conducted by the Court of Appeal in Gasabo District, Remera Sector, Rukiri I Cell , on the above date, the Court visited the location of the subject-matter, observed the measurement of the plot, and the litigants indicated where there was the sewer which was developed by Nyirambabazi Vénantie, the mother of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, so as to have a passage giving access to her gate (number 53), between the fence number 51 and the fence number 55 of Habimana Anselme. On that place, there are assets of Habimana Anselme including the sitting room of the clients coming to his bar (bungalow) and the pit latrine constructed to the gate of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane and connected to his fence. The investigation team entered into the home of Mbabazi Uwamahoro Liliane by the road on the opposite side, accessed to the pedestrian passage, entered into her home by the stairs she laid on the talus so that she can have access to the road, noted the car of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane locked in the home because the road she used had been blocked.

The Court finds that the issue of this case is the right that MINITRAPE granted to Nyirambabazi Vénantie authorizing her to freely develop the area where was the sewer so as to have the road giving access to her home, she developed the area so that she easily accessed to her home and any other person could pass UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 485

184

by there, but later MINITRAPE granted the same area to Mrs Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille who requested it for annexing it to her plot of land, without delays, MINITRAPE remarked that it mistakenly granted it to her and notified her of the nullification of the decision of granting it to her, she was requested to dispossess herself of that plot and her title should be rectified, but this was not done until she sold her plot of land, she gave the uncorrected documents to Habimana Anselme who bought the plot, when the latter was requested to apply for correction of the documents he refused to do so, rather he relied on those mistakes to apply for the new title UPI: 1/02/13/1120 of 18/04/2016, he sued Gasabo District which requested him to apply for the rectification of the land title on basis of the report prepared by its staff.

The Court finds that the subjet-matter in this case is not the request for the passage as stated by Habimana Anselme and RLMUA representative , rather it is the right to the public passage giving access to the home of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane of which she was deprived, and she holds such right from her mother who was granted the passage by MINITRAPE, therefore, the statements of Habimana Anselme and RLMUA representative that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane did not claim for the passage according to the procedure provided under the law, that she should comply with the provision of the article 38 of the Law No 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, she should mutually agree with Habimana Anselme who could grant to her the passage, are baseless, given that the disputed area is not the land of Habimana Anselme where there should be the passage, rather it is the easement to the public passage giving access to her home as it was the case before it was blocked. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 486

185

The Court finds that, as indicated by the aforementioned elements of evidence included in the case file and its findings during the investigation it carried out, the passage giving access to the home of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was used from the time it was developed by Nyirambabazi Vénantie in 1991 until when Habimana Anselme was given the building permit by Gasabo District (Director of Housing in Gasabo District) in May 2016, he demolished the fence made of Ruliba bricks previously erected and shifted it, and he blocked the passage giving access to the home of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane where she used to drive her car.

The Court finds that the statements of Habimana Anselme and his counsel Munderere Léopold together with RLMUA representative that the documents issued to him should not be invalidated because the plot under litigation is recorded to him and has the documents related to it including the registration certificate and the ownership title, are baseless, because nothing precludes the document rectification in case it is pointed out that they were mistakenly granted and he unlawfully enjoyed the rights entitled by them. In addition, as above explained, the judgments on which Habimana Anselme referred to for shifting his fence and building the pit latrine and the bungalow did not grant to him the right to the disputed passage where he erected the contructions, therefore, he could not block the gate and the road giving access to the home of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane granted to her by the competent organs as public passage.

The Court also finds that the understanding of the respondents in this case that the owner of the property is the one to whom is registered, cannot always be considered as true, because there are reasons for which the owner of the property is UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 487

186

not necessarily the one to whom it is registered, for example, when it is evident that he/she illegally acquired it (fraudulently acquired), or he/she did not prove its acquisition mode. This position is reflected in different judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court whereby those Courts ruled that property registration alone is not enough to qualify as the rightful owner of a property, one has to prove its acquisition mode. Though Habimana Anselme produces the property documents that include the registration certificate and the ownership title issued by RLMUA, due to the fact that he and RLMUA advance that he obtained the documents related to the disputed land on basis of the final judgments RC 0129/15/TGI/NYGE and RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG and it has been pointed out that those judgments do not grant to him the right on the disputed land, nothing precludes the rectification of the documents issued to him as regards the surface of the disputed land for demarcation of the disputed public passage giving access to the home of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane.

Basing on the aforementioned legal provisions and explanations, the Court finds that the area used as public passage shall be demarcated from the registration certificate with number Vol. RTXXXIV Folio 93 of 01/02/13/1120 of 18/6/2016 replaced by UPI : 1/02/13/03/1120 of 18/04/2016 of Habimana Anselme and Irere Marie Jeanne Claire, their plot shall maintain the initial sizes as before it was requested by Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille and mistakenly granted to her by MINITRAPE in its letter of 15/01/1992, this shall be executed by Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA).

The Court also finds that, due to the fact that Habimana Anselme built a fence on basis of the documents illegally RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 488

187

acquired and the professional bailiff awarded to him the area while the issue had not been adjudicated nor ordered in the judgments allegedly considered as final about the subject-matter , it is him who shall be held responsible for the consequences of his acts, he shall remove the constructions which replaced the existing buildings (fence), he shall clear the area as he erected the constructions on the area knowing well that there was a public passage, and he has no supporting court ruling that grants to him the right on that area, therefore, he has to remove the constructions erected on that area within a period of one (1) month calculated from the date of the judgment pronouncement, in case he fails to do so, the judgment shall be compulsorily executed. 4. Whether Habimana Anselme is liable for the damages related to the loss emanating from the period during which the car of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was locked in her home.

Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane states that Habimana Anselme is liable for the loss amounting to 42,100,000 Frw for having locked her car from June 2016 to date.

Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo submits that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane incurred a loss inflicted by Habimana Anselme, because from 2016 he built a fence, he blocked her gate, so that it was impossible to use her car, one car was locked in the house, another remained outside, it was necessary for them to rent another car for their activities, she paid 25,000 Frw per day, she paid the parking fees for another car during the night, since 56 months ago, the loss amounts to 17,000 days x 25,000 Frw = 42,100,000 Frw. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 489

188

Concerning the elements of evidence for expenses, he states that they did not request for invoices, but it is undoubtful that the car is locked in the home and was not taken outside during that period while it was normally used, it is evident that there are damages, the car was locked by Habimana Anselme not by the professional bailiff because Habimana Anselme requested him to execute the judgment, the professional bailiff is only prosecuted for the faults personally committed.

Habimana Anselme submits that the passage was blocked by the professional bailiff Kamanzi, the claim related to blocking the passage had been adjudicated between Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane and the professional bailiff Kamanzi and she lost the case so that she cannot file it again for being re-adjudicated, he notes that he has any liability because Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane was requested to remove her car by the time of the execution of the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG and she refused to do so. He also avers that nothing proves that the car was in good conditions and he was authorized to erect the constructions.

Counsel Munderere Léopold sustains that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane cannot claim for 42,100,000 Frw to be paid by Habimana Anselme because the amount is unjustified and she does not produce any supporting element of evidence, she did not exhibit any invoice, for that, she is a losing party. He states that Habimana Anselme is no longer concerned with the acts of blocking the passage because Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane sued the professional bailiff who blocked it and she lost the case, she was requested to remove her car and she refused to do so.

Mbonigaba Eulade representing RLMUA in this case submits that the Court shall examine the issue related to the damages claimed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 490

189

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of article 12 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “The claimant must prove a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case”.

When the Court visited the location of the subject-matter, it found that there was the car of Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane which was locked in the house from the time when the gate and the road (public passage) where the car used to pass were blocked by Habimana Anselme.

The Court finds that the statements of Habimana Anselme together with his legal counsel Munderere Léopold that the damages related to the period during which the car was locked and not used should be paid by the professional bailiff Kamanzi, because he is the one who blocked the gate, are unfounded, because the professional bailiff acted upon the request of Habimana Anselme for executing the judgment RADA 0025/14/HC/KIG , while that judgment did not rule about the right to the passage under litigation, also it is Habimana Anselme who erected the constructions on the passage under litigation.

The Court finds that the damages amounting to 42,100,000 Frw claimed by Uwamaharo Mbabazi Liliane to be paid by Habimana Anselme for having locked her car so that she rented another car cannot be awarded as she claims, because she did not produce supporting elements of evidence. However, it finds that it is evident that the car is parked in the home since 2016 and not used by its owner on the ground that it was locked by the time of the execution of the abovementioned judgment UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 491

190

upon the request of Habimana Anselme, it is obvious that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane had been deprived of the right of using it as usual, therefore, for having been deprived of such right, she shall be paid by Habimana Anselme the damages awarded in the Court’s discretion amounting to ten (10.000.000 Frw) million Rwandan francs. 5. Whether the procedural fees and the lawyer’s fees shall be awarded in this case

Counsel Kayijuka Ngabo submits that Habimana Anselme must pay 10,000,000 Frw to Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane as the lawyer’s fees and the procedural fees from the beginning of the case, the fees claimed by the legal counsel of Habimana Anselme cannot be awarded to his client, because it is him who dragged Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane to file a claim, RLMUA does not deserve the fees it claims because it issued to Habimana Anselme the land titles on which he based by blocking the passage so that she seized the courts. Habimana Anselme together with his legal counsel submit that Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane does not deserve the fees she claims because she does not produce any supporting element of evidence and she dragged herself into all lawsuits which she lost, rather Habimana Anselme must be paid by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane 5,000,000 Frw as lawyer’s fees, 1,000,000 Frw as procedural fees and 3,000,000 Frw as moral damages for disturbances due to his plot of land for a period of 8 years. Counsel Mbonigaba Eulade avers that he cannot retort about the damages, because the Authority he represents is not liable for them, rather Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane must pay to RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 492

191

RLMUA 3,000,000 Frw as the procedural fees and for having dragged into the lawsuits the Authority he represents. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “the claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted”. The Court finds that the amount of 10, 000,000 Frw as the procedural fees and the lawyer’s fees claimed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane from Habimana Anselme is excessive, she is awarded, in the court’s discretion, 3,000,000 Frw including the lawyers’fees and the procedural fees. Concerning the procedural fees and the lawyer’s fees they claim from Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane, they cannot be awarded them as they are losing party. III. DECISION OF THE COURT Holds that the objection of the claim inadmissibility raised by Habimana Anselme is unfounded. Holds that the application filed by Uwamahoro Mbabazi Liliane for the review of the judgment RADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 27/02/2020 on the grounds of injustice is founded. UWAMAHORO v. HABIMANA ET AL.

## Page 493

192

Holds that the judgmentRADA 00071/2019/HC/KIG rendered by High Court on 27/02/2020 is quashed. Orders to Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA) to demarcate the passage under litigation from UPI: 1/02/13/03/1120 of 18/04/2016, the plot of Habimana Anselme and Irere Marie Jeanne Claire shall maintain its former dimensions as it was before MINITRAPE mistakenly granted it to Rwendeye Nzabonimpa Donatille in the letter of 15/01/1992. Orders to Habimana Anselme to remove the constructions he erected on the passage under litigation within a period of one month from the date of this judgment pronouncement, in case he fails to voluntarily proceed, the judgment shall be compulsorily executed. Orders to Habimana Anselme to pay to Uwamahoro Mbababazi Liliane the damages amounting to10,000,000 Frw for being deprived of her rights to use her car, and 3,000,000 Frw as the procedural fees and the lawyer’s fees. Declares that the court fees are borne by the Public Treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 494

193

CASE IN MERITS

## Page 495

194

## Page 496

195

CIVIL CASE

## Page 497

196

## Page 498

197

NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RC 0008/2017/SC (Mugenzi, P.J, Kayitesi and Cyanzayire, J.) September 28, 2018] Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal – Contradictory court decisions – Issues related to contradictions that arise among final court decisions are resolved by the Court of Appeal. Facts: The case started before the Mediation Committee where Umuhoza sued Mukandekezi for having registered the property left by Ndayambaje in her names while it does not belong to her. The mediators ruled that the forest belongs to Ndayambaje. Such decision became final since none of the parties lodged an appeal. Umuhoza also sued her mother-in-law Mukandekezi before the Primary Court of Kacyiru for having registered herself to the property of late Ndayambaje, making it her family’s property while she had inherited it from her husband. The Court heard the case and held that it lacks merit. Umuhoza lodged an appeal to Intermediate Court of Gasabo but the case was later struck off the docket for default to appear. She later reintroduced the case, and the Court ruled in favor of Umuhoza. Mukandekezi later applied for case review before Intermediate Court of Gasabo. While the application for review of the judgment was still pending trial, Ndayisenga Protais seized the Supreme Court, suing Umuhoza, praying the very Court to resolve the contradictions that arose between the decision of the Mediation Committee of Kimironko Sector and the ruling of the 197

## Page 499

198

Primary Court of Kacyiru of 23/07/2007, a ruling that has been appealed to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, stating that both cases were decided at last instance. Umuhoza alleges that the application filed by Ndayisenga Protais requesting this Court to resolve the contradictions between the aforementioned decisions should not be admitted, because it was filed in the absence of an existing law which provides that the contradictions that arise among decisions are resolved by the Supreme Court. She further states that even in the current Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts, no court has been entrusted with the jurisdiction over contradictory decisions. Ndayisenga states that the raised objection is unfounded, that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this claim, because even though these conflicting judgment decisions have became final, there are other cases originating from them, which were tried after the publication of the said Organic Law entrusting the Supreme Court with the jurisdiction over contradictory court decisions, and the current law of 2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts, does not preclude the Supreme Court from trying claims arising from conflicting court decisions. Held:1. Issues related to contradictions that arise among final court decisions are resolved by the Court of Appeal, because contradictory court decisions are regarded as ordinary issues compared to the special jurisdiction entrusted to the Supreme Court, therefore the application filed by Ndayisenga is transferred to the Court of Appeal. Objection of lack of jurisdiction sustained; The case is transferred to the Court of Appeal; Court fees cover expenses incurred in this case. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 500

199

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 52; Organic Law No 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Subparagraph 12, article 29. No cases were referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Umuhoza Annonciata sued to the Mediation Committee of Kimironko Sector her mother-in-law Mukandekezi Euphrasie, stating that when Goboka carried out an expropriation of the property she inherited from her husband late Ndayambaje Pierre, the defendant registered the said property in her own name while it is the claimant who has to manage it on behalf of the four (4) children she had with the deceased.

The Mediation Committee of Kimironko Sector resolved the issue on 15/07/2005, where it held that the modern forest that was sold does not belong to Ndayambaje Pierre, and ordered that Gapfizi, Mukandekezi Euphrasie's husband, should be given another forest in exchange, because the forest that was sold belonged to him (Gapfizi). This decision became final since it was not subject to appeal.

Umuhoza also sued her mother-in-law Mukandekezi before the Primary Court of Kacyiru for having registered herself NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 501

200

to the property of late Ndayambaje Pierre, turning it her family's property while Umuhoza inherited the said property from her husband, and should be used to raise their children.

The Court heard the case RC 0770/05/TD/KCY on 23/03/2007, and declared that Umuhoza Annonciata lost the case. It ordered that the proceeds of sale of the forest amounting to 423,570 Frw paid by Goboka and taken by Mukandekezi Euphrasie should be apportioned to the four (4) children of late Ndayambaje Pierre, but given that Umuhoza Annonciata was awarded excessive amount to what was supposed to be awarded to her children, they should not receive any amount of money. The Court also ordered that the money paid for the houses of the late Ndayambaje Pierre be distributed to his four children, meaning 893,810 Frw for each child; and children under the care of Umuhoza Annonciata be given 1,899,404 Frw. The very Court also ordered Umuhoza Annonciata to return 159,709 Frw to the children of Ndayambaje Pierre, who are under the care of Mukandekezi Euphrasie because she was unduly paid such amount, and ordered her to pay the judicial fees, deduction made of court fees deposit.

Umuhoza Annonciata appealed such decision to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo and her appeal was registered under RCA 0064/07/TGI/GSBO. Goboka was forced to intervene, but the appeal was later struck off the docket on 21/11/2008, due to the fact that Umuhoza Annonciata who appealed, did not appear.

Umuhoza Annonciata reintroduced the case on 16/06/2009, explaining the reasons for her failure to appear, and the Court admitted her reasons and proceeded with the hearing of the case on the merits. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 502

201

The Intermediate Court of Gasabo tried the case RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO on 25/02/2010 and held that the appeal of Umuhoza Annonciata has merit, and accordingly ordered Mukandekezi Euphrasie to take the property she was allocated on behalf of her children Uwambaje Liliane and Uwitonze Diane back to the property of late Ndayambaje Pierre for Umuhoza Annonciata to manage it on behalf of the children as ruled by the Court. The very Court also ordered to Mukandekezi Euphrasie to pay Umuhoza Annonciata 1,500,000 Frw as damages as well as 13,900 Frw for court fee. This case RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO was delivered on 25/02/2010 and was complemented by the interpretative judgment RCA 0499/10/TGI/GSBO rendered on 21/01/2011.

Mukandekezi Euphrasie immediately filed another claim before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo requesting the review of the judgment RC 00249/2017/TGI/GSBO, and her claim was registered to RC 00249/2017/TGI/GSBO, and the pre-trial conference was scheduled on 02/03/2018, but the case is not yet tried.

While the case RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO under review was still pending trial before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Ndayisenga Protais sued Umuhoza Annonciata before the Supreme Court, praying it to resolve the contradiction between the decision of the Mediation Committee of Kimironko Sector of 07/09/2005 and that of the case RC 0770/05/TD/KCY taken by the Primary Court of Kacyiru on 07/23/2007 that was appealed to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo and to adjudicate the case RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO. He states that both cases were rendered at the last instance, and the application was registered to RC 00008/2017/CS. NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 503

202

Counsel Nsengimana Emmanuel assisting Umuhoza Annonciata states that, would the application filed by Ndayisenga Protais be dismissed, his client should be awarded consolidated damages amounting to 1,000,000 Frw.

Counsel Twizeyimana Innocent representing Ndayisenga Protais sustains that the damages claimed from his client should not be awarded, since Umuhoza Annonciata is the person responsible to have dragged her family in all lawsuits, and in addition she should not be awarded counsel fee.

The hearing of this case was conducted on 04/09/2018, Ndayisenga Protais being assisted by Counsel Twizeyimana Innocent while Umuhoza Annonciata was assisted by Counsel Nsengimana Emmanuel. At the beginning of the trial, Nsengimana Emmanuel raised an objection of inadmissibility of the application filed by Ndayisenga Protais due to lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters relating to the application for resolving the conflicts that arose between the aforementioned decisions, the objection relating to the fact that one of such conflicting decisions of which application for case review was submitted to Intermediate Court of Gasabo is still pending, and another objection related to lack of interest by the claimant, an objection that the later withdrew in the course of hearing. In examining the objections raised, the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the instant Court is to be analysed.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 504

203

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether the application for resolving the contradictions arising among court decisions falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Counsel Nsengimana Emmanuel, assisting Umuhoza Annonciata, states that the application filed by Ndayisenga Protais requesting this Court to resolve the contradictions arisen between the aforementioned judgment decisions, should not be admitted on ground that there is no existing law that stipulates that such contradictions are resolved by the Supreme Court. He motivates that the aforementioned contradictory court decisions were rendered before the adoption of Organic Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which came into force on 13/06/2012. He elucidates that the decision of the Mediation Committee was taken on 15/07/2005 and the judgment RC 0770/05/TD/KCY was rendered on 23/03/2007, and the judgment RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO that was rendered on 25 /02/2010, due to the fact that the above judgments had been rendered before the promulgation of the law on which the claimant bases the jurisdiction of the instant Court, such Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim based on the provisions of articles 87, 91 and 92 of the aforementioned Law no 03/2012/OL. He further states that even in the current Law determining the jurisdiction of Courts, no court has been entrusted the jurisdiction over contradictory decisions.

Counsel Twizeyimana Innocent assisting Ndayisenga Protais states that this objection is unfounded, and that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this claim, because even NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 505

204

though these conflicting decisions became final, there are other cases originating from them, including the case of Mukandekezi Euphrasie about the rectification of the judgment and the interpretative judgment, all of which were tried after the adoption of the said Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL, and he therefore finds that such law continued to be applied on those contradictory cases until 2017, and that the current law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts does not in any way preclude the Supreme Court from examining claims relating to conflicting court decisions. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT a. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on contradictory claims at the time of the application of the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining organization and functioning of the Supreme Court.

The Court finds that the jurisdiction of the Court should not be considered on the basis of the time of the judgment trial, rather the time on which the Court was seized. Regarding the application of Ndayisenga Protais on the aforementioned contradicting judgments, it appears that it was submitted to this Court on 13/07/2017 while the Organic Law n° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which entrusted the Supreme Court jurisdiction over contradictory judgment decisions in its article 29, subparagraph 12, was still into force, because it was repealed on 02/06/2018. Accordingly, the Court finds that it had jurisdiction to admit and examine the application. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 506

205

b. Whether the Supreme Court still has jurisdiction to hear cases relating to contradictions arisen from court decisions based on the Law nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts

The Court finds that the Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts does no where entrust this Court with the jurisdiction to resolve contradictions arising among court decisions and no other court has been entrusted with such jurisdiction.

The Court finds however that the fact that this jurisdiction was not provided, does not entail that the legislator intended that such claims should remain untried, rather it is evident that such provisions have been forgotten, therefore, a court to hear such claims should be determined.

The instant Court finds that the direction taken by the legislator in the new Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts is that almost all cases that were tried by the Supreme Court were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal as of article 52 of this law.

The Court finds therefore that since the contradictions arising among final decisions fell within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in article 29, paragraph 12° of Law no 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012, such jurisdiction over contradictory court decisions should also be entrusted to the Court of Appeal, and accordingly, this case should be transferred to such Court, especially that it was not among the cases that were already under trial which shall be tried by this instant Court on basis of the provisions of Article 105 of Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts which reads NDAYISENGA v UMUHOZA

## Page 507

206

that “From the day this Law comes into force, except cases already under trial, all cases that are no longer in the jurisdiction of the court seized are transferred to the court with jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Law”. The proceedings and decisions taken in this case remain valid”.

With regard to the issue of one of the contradictory judgments1 which has not yet been decided as well as the damages claimed in this case, the Court finds that they should be considered by the Court of Appeal, since it is the one that has the jurisdiction over the case. IV. DECESION OF THE COURT

Holds that the objection of lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court raised by Umuhoza Annonciata has merit;

Holds that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim relating to contradictions of court decisions filed by Ndayisenga Protais;

Orders that the case is transferred to the Court of Appeal;

Orders that deposited court fees cover expenses incurred in this case.

1 The decision of the Mediation Committee of Kimironko Sector of 09/07/2005. -Judgment RCA 0138/09/TGI/GSBO (originating from the judgment RC 0770/05/TD/KCY) rendered on 25/02/2010 of which Mukandekezi Euphrasie applied for review that is still pending. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 508

207

COMMECIAL CASE

## Page 509

208

## Page 510

209

IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS- CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA 00012/2017/SC, (Kayitesi, Z., P.J., Cyanzayire, and Mutashya J.) April 23, 2019] Contract law – Claiming for refund of “works performance security” – A contractor for supervisory services cannot invoke the expiration of the contractual period to claim for the refund of works performance security before he/she submits a statement of work completion. Facts: This case started from Nyarugenge Commercial Court whereby IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, sued the Government of Rwanda on behalf of MININFRA, for breaching its contractual obligations as it did not pay for 5 invoices by IGIP mbH Ingéniers-Conseils over supervising ESPINA Company works. The claimant also sued the Government of Rwanda for a refund of works performance security. In the ruling, the Court declared that the claim filed by IGP mH Ingénieurs - Conseils is unfounded and the claimed debt and damages shall not be awarded to it because it did not produce to the Court the sufficient elements of evidence. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils was not satisfied with the ruling and, it therefore appealed to the Commercial High Court. In its appeal, it alleged that the previous court disregarded the produced evidence and misinterpreted the Public Procurement Law by interpreting the contract concluded with MININFRA. The Commercial High Court ruled that the appeal lodged by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- 209

## Page 511

210

Conseils is hereby unfounded, and therefore it maintained the appealed judgement. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commercial High Court did not order to be paid the debt related to the accomplished works, yet it had produced relevant evidence that included original invoices received by MININFRA, the latter has never reject them, neither has ever alleged that the works were not completed. It sustained that the report of completed works was submitted to MININFRA, and a related copy has been submitted to the Court. The State Attorney in the instant case argues that this appeal is unfounded. As it has always been clarified, the main issue of this case is the production of evidence; such as invoices signed by the supervising official which the claimant has so far not produced, though it attempts to claim to have submitted them and that the Courts have disregarded them. With regard to the project work completion, he explains that those in charge of it, requested for the provisional acceptance of the works, but following the preliminary technical acceptance, a lot of related irregularities were observed, therefore both provisional and final acceptances of the works were immediately halted. It is thus clear that the works had not been accomplished. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils further states that the Court misinterpreted the tender security, which is normally a prior deposit by the successful bidder before the commencent of works; and the Court took it for works performance security which is deducted from every invoice submitted to the procuring entity; and this is the very security that is being claimed for. It further submits that the fact that ESPINA Campany failed to complete all works cannot preclude it from being repaid 10% deducted from all invoices submitted to MININFRA RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 512

211

In his explanations, the State Attorney states that the claims by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils are unfounded, though ESPINA had to execute the works, it was up to IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils to supervise the works and their completion and report any inadequacies thereof. This is why the agreement between the Government of Rwanda and IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils provided for the works performance securtity only refundable once the works are completed and approved. Due to the fact that ESPINA abandoned the works unfinished, and IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils did not produce any report indicating such irregularities of ESPINA so that the tender was cancelled before the work completion, they cannot hereby claim to have duly accomplished their contractual obligations. Held: A contractor for supervisory services cannot invoke the expiration of the contractual period to claim for the refund of work performance security while he/she does not indicate the completed works. The appeal lacks merit. Court fee covered expenses incurred in this case. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 75; Law No 12//2007 of 27/03/2007 on Public Procurement, articles 75 and 101. No cases were referred to.

IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 513

212

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case stems from the service contract no 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB of 23/06/2006, between the Government of Rwanda represented by the former Ministry in charge of Water Resources (MINITERE) and IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, a contract entitled “Contrat de consultants pour prestations de services de validation des études d’exécution établies par l’Entreprise, contrôle et surveillance des travaux de renforcement d’AEP de la Ville de Kigali à partir de la nappe phréatique de la Nyabarongo”. The above contract was valued at 428,275 Euros and 31,700,000 Frw, and the works were to be completed within 14 months, but that period was extended. For the first time, the contract was extended from 24/04/2008 to 30/11/2008 (Addendum Nº 1 for contract Nº096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB), which was again extended from 24/12/2008 to 31/03/2009 (addendum Nº 2 for contract Nº 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB). [2] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils states that on 31/03/2009 it continued working up to 30/11/2009 without contract. It states that when the Minister of Justice, Attorney General advised MININFRA that for IGIP mbH Ingénieurs – Conseils to be paid for the works done from 31/03/2009 to 30/11/2009, a written contract for the works done within that period should be signed. On 14/05/2010, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs - Conseils and MININFRA concluded a contract entitled “Contract of consultancy service for supervision of the works for the project to supply water to Kigali City from Nyabarongo ground water resources”. The contract was for a period of eight (8) months; that is from 31/03/2009 to 30/11/2009, and the claim is filed before the Courts for failure to comply with such contract. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 514

213

[3] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils sued MININFRA before Nyarugenge Commercial Court for the following (5) invoices: • Invoice N° 29A with 18,886.93 Euro, and N° 29B with 8,180,146 Frw, unpaid yet submitted to MININFRA on 17/04/2009; • Invoice N° 30A of 83,889.20 Euro, and Invoice N° 30B of 5,276,600 Frw, relating to the amount deducted and retained as “works performance security”, submitted to MININFRA on 22/01/2010; • Invoice N° 31B claiming for 2,874,458 Frw, submitted to MININFRA on 20/01/2010. The total outstanding invoices amount to 102,786,13 Euro and 16,331,204 Frw. According to IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, MININFRA has so far refused to pay those invoices and it is therefore requesting to be paid the due amount with an annual late debt interest of 18% accruing from 2009, 2010 and until the entire debt is covered. They have also claimed for damages over courts procedural costs amounting to 2,000,000 Frw and a counsel fee amounting to 7% of the total owed debt. [4] The seized Court heard the case RCOM 00307/2016/TC/NYGE on 29/07/2016 and held that the claim filed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils lacks merit and it decided that the claimed debt and damages should not be awarded. The Court explained that the claimant failed to produce sufficient elements of evidence to prove that the disputed invoices were really submitted to MININFRA and that the latter disregarded them. The Court therefore found no base to compel MININFRA to pay the claimed Rwandan francs and Euros. The Court again explained that IGIP MbH Ingénieurs-Conseils never submitted to the Court with its IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 515

214

contract concluded with MININFRA on14/04/2009; it instead submitted the contract of 14/05/2010, and it failed to explain the link between the two contracts, neither did it indicate which one should serve as basis. [5] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils was not satisfied with the court’s ruling and therefore appealed to the Commercial High Court claiming that the previous court unjustly treated it for two grounds: firstly, where it ruled that the contract amendment violated the article 74 of the Law n° 12/2007 of Public Procurement, and secondly, where it decided that there were no elements of evidence to prove that original invoices were submitted to MININFRA. It also stated that the Court did not relate the contents of the contract amendment with the provision of the law, because it provides for the amendment to the contract while there was no amendment, rather it was a mere extension of execution period done by the Permanent Secretary in MININFRA upon the request of IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils. It further states that it is also claiming for a refund of work performance security that amounts to 10%. [6] MININFRA argues that the appeal grounds are not founded, because due to the fact that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils admits that the contract was extended but denies the contract amendment, it disregards the fact thata amending the contract duration is the very amendment provided under the aforementioned article 74. With regard to the work performance security claimed by the appellant, MININFRA states that it should not be refunded since the appellant failed to prove that the work was completed. [7] The Commercial High Court adjudicated the case RCOMA 00494/2016/CHC/HCC on 06/01/2017 and held that the appeal lodged by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils lacks merits and maintained the apealed judgement. With regard to whether there was a need for a special agreement RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 516

215

over the contract extension, the Commercial High Court rectified the stance of the Commercial Court, by indicating that due to the fact that the amendment was only made on the execution period upon the request by the contractor and the procuring party approved in writing the extension period claimed, there was no need for a special agreement since no amendment was made, therefore, what was done does not contravene the law. Concerning the performance security amounting to 102,786.13 Euros claimed by the appellant, the Court found it baseless because the appellant not only failed to prove that the claimed performance security was really retained, but also it failed to indicate that the works were completely executed, and finally received as per the requirement of the applicable laws. [8] IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Commercial High Court to have held that invoices submitted to MININFRA were not sufficient enough to prove a debt owed to it, rather the elements of evidence should be produced to prove that the performance security was submitted before the work commencement, since the subject matter of the appeal was not the work performance security, rather the debt payment for the works completed but not paid and the refund of the money deducted by MININFRA from the invoices as work performance security. [9] Through the defence submissions against the appeal by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, the State Attorney raised the objection over the Supreme Court lack of jurisdiction. He submitted that the value of the subject matter is not 50,000,000 Frw and the damages awarded is the case do not amount to 50,000,000 Frw and that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils has lost the case on the first and second instances due to the similar reason which is the lack of evidence. IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 517

216

[10] The Court heard the case about the raised objection on 13/06/2012, it ruled 20/04/2018, it found it void and therefore, ordered the hearing to be resumed on 19/06/2018. On this day, the case was not heard due to the then ongoing legal reforms and it was adjourned on 02/10/2018, whereby the hearing was conducted in public, Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel represented IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils and Counsel Umwali Munyentwari Claire represented the Government of Rwanda (MININFRA), and the Court fixed the judgment pronouncement on 09/11/2018. As the Court was still in deliberations, Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel produced elements of evidence not debated by parties. These included the general terms and special terms of the contract and a letter allegedly written by the Permanent Secretary of MININFRA on 06/12/2009. [11] Referring to article 75 of the Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure and to the effects of the evidence produced by Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel on the ruling, the Court found that the judgment reopening was necessary for the parties to debate about them, and such hearing was fixed on 15/01/2019. [12] On that date, all parties appeared and debated on those elements of evidence produced after the hearing had alread been closed. Having heard what each of the parties had to say about the elements of evidence, the Court decided on the bench that before trying the case, it was necessary to ask to MININFRA about the letter signed on 06/12/2009 by Marie Claire Mukasani as Permanent Secretary while the Permanent Secretary was named Mukasine Marie Claire, since the Court wanted MININFRA to explain whether the letter really emanated from her and that was just a typographical error. The case was adjourned on 19/03/2019, and the hearing was held in public on the very day, starting RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 518

217

by examining MININFRA’s reply to the Court; whereby it disclaimed the letter of 06/12/2009 stating that it was not written by Mukasine Marie Claire, its former Permanent Secretary, instead revealed a copy of another letter of 07/05/2009. The court also examined other elements of evidence that Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel produced following the closure of the hearing. On the very day, the hearing was not closed since the Court deemed it necessary to first have a few issues clarified before deciding on the issue. It therefore requested Counsel Umwali Munyentwari Claire to seek for detailed information on the project including related relevant documents. [13] The Court also requested the Court Registry to summon an employee from MININFRA able to elucidate to then the following issues: - the finished and unfinished works on the project; - the modalities of invoices reeption and the person in charge of it. - the manner in which the article 6.4, iii of the Special Terms was complied with, whether its provisions have been executed or not; - the works that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils claims to have supervised and completed while the State Attorney states that ESPINA, the supervisee, did not accomplish the works; - To determine whether provisional and final receptions of works took place; as well as other relevant issues about the project. The hearing was adjourned on 09/04/2019, and on the very day, all parties appeared as well as Niwenshuti Emmanuel, Officer in charge of construction in MININFRA, Yaramba Albert, in IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 519

218

charge of water distribution studies at WASAC, and Mwesigye Sam, MININFRA’s Legal Adviser. [14] Niwenshuti Emmanuel indicated to the Court that the project had not been completed, the contractors had requested for provisional reception of works, but the preliminary technical reception revealed that much had not yet been done; consequently, provisional and final receptions did not take place. He elucidated that the role of IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils was to supervise the performance of the project’s works, including identification of the observed irregularities. He also stated that in case IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils had submitted a provisional report on the actual status of the works, with a clear reporting on the works well completed and not well completed, it could be refunded 5% of works performance security, but that was not done. [15] With regard to the reception of invoices and the person in charge thereof, Niwenshuti Emmanuel stated before the Court that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils used to submit invoices to MININFRA together with the report of the completed works; these documents were also handed to the engineer in charge of follow up, who had to verify if they meet the requirements and approve them before submitting them to Finance Office for payment. [16] As to the compliance with the article 6.4, iii of the Special Terms, Yaramba Albert explained to the Court that the performance security to be refunded was 10%, of which 5% was to be reimbursed following a provisional reception of works, and the other 5% to be refunded after final reception. He states that the works have not been completed, and this resulted into no reception of the works, no submission of the work reports, and therefore, no performance security was refunded. He explained that the progress reports were submitted by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 520

219

Conseils, and that the refund of works performance security was not supposed to be effected on each single invoice, but it had to be done after the provisional and final reception of works. [17] The main issues to be analyzed in the instant case are related to debts claimed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils from MININFRA for the completed works, and the work performance security it alleges to be deducted from each invoice, but not refunded. II. LEGAL ISSUES AND THEIR ANALYSIS A. Whether the Government of Rwanda (MININFRA) owes a debt to IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils for the unpaid completed works [18] Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel representing IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils states that the reason for the appeal was that the Commercial High Court had not ordered the payment of the debt for the completed works, yet he had produced relevant evidence that included original invoices received by MININFRA, and the latter never denied them nor ever declared that the works were not completed. He explains that the contract was signed in 2006 and that the one signed in 2010 is similar and complementary, and that the 2010 contract was signed after the Minister of Justice advised MININFRA that in order to effect the payment for the completed works without contract, another contract relating to those works should be signed, therefore it is not considered as an addendum, rather a contract made to extend the work execution period. [19] He submits that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils performed and completed the works and it was later awarded IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 521

220

additional works, it was not possible to be awarded additional works without finishing the previous works. He states that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils respected all the contracts it concluded, and the completed works are evident. He adds that the report of the completed works was submitted to the Court, and the law provided that in case a report is submitted and there is no feedback within a period of 60 days, such report is considered as approved. Concerning the issue of whether there were work reports made by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils before requesting for payment, Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel submits that reports were prepared and approved by the staff of the ELECTROGAZ or PNEAR ((Programme National d’Alimentation en Eau Potable), this is proven for example by the first and second invoices which were paid following the submission of the reports. [20] Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel states that the testimony given by the staff members of MININFRA and WASAC should not be taken into consideration because they are among those who are involved in the present lawsuit, had they done what they were supposed to do, this issue would have been concluded. He states that it is Niwenshuti Emmanuel who signed on the disputed invoice n0 29B. [21] Counsel Umwali Munyantwari Claire argues that the main issue in this case is the production of evidence, such as an invoice signed by the supervising official, but the appealant has so far failed to prove it. She further states that the ruling of this case should be based on article 101 of the Law nº 12/2007 of 27/03/2007 on public procurement, the unpaid invoices of IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils are subject to doubt as the person who received them is not indicated, except that Ir Bosco is mentioned on them, RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 522

221

therefore they cannot be considered as a proof of a debt that Government owes to it. [22] With regard to invoices 29A with amount of 18,886.93 Euros and 29B with 8,180,146 Frw, the State Attorney asserts that those invoices were established in 03/2009 and received by MININFRA on 30/04/2009, and they are based on the contract expired on 31/03/2009, and the claim filed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils is related to the contract of 14/05/2010 meant to have been commenced on 01/04/2009. Therefore, the claim of IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, not only lacks evidence, but also it is out of the scope of the contract on which it relied by filing the claim. [23] State Attorney Umwali Munyentwari Claire states that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils did not submit the reports of the completed works, and the invoice allegedly signed by Niwenshuti Emmanuel is not a proof, as it simply carried French words “pour vérification”; which means that probably after verification, they observed that it did not meet the requirements more so that it was not even supported by the report. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [24] The money claimed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils for the unpaid finished works amounts to 18,886.93 Euros for invoice 29A and 8,180,146 Frw for invoice 29B. It is obvious that those invoices were issued on 17/04/2009 for payment of the works completed in March 2009. There is also an amount of 2,874,458 Frw mentioned on invoice 31B obviously issued on 25/11/2010 for the works allegedly completed between April to November 2009. It is evident that the works allegedly carried out in March 2009, are based on addendum no 2 for the extension IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 523

222

of the contract no 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB and that is, from 24/12/2008 to 31/03/2009; whereas the works allegedly carried out from April to November 2009 are based on the contract no 334/UPPR/010 signed on 14/05/2010 meant to be executed from 01/04/2009 to 30/11/2009. [25] The contract no 096/S/2006/IR/MINITERE/NTB of 23/11/2006 has attached documents that are also part of the contract and they are namely the general terms of the contract, the special terms of the contract and the appendices. The terms of these documents should be applied to the contract of 14/05/2010 as per the provisions of article 2 which states that the contractor shall carry out the works in accordance with the provisions of the preliminary contract related to the project of water supply to Kigali City from Nyabarongo River. [26] Article 6.4 of the general terms of the contract reads that the payment will be made only if the provisions of the special terms related to the payment are complied with, and that the contractor (consultant) should have issued an invoice indicating the amount to be paid. Paragraph 4, iii of the article 6 of Special Terms sets out the requirements for the payment of works, and it stipulates that a monthly payment of 7% of the total cost shall be effected, all in 13 installments and it will be conditioned to submission and approval of a monthly report. It was also agreed that the very last invoice will be cleared once the final report of the work is submitted. [27] Article 101 of the Law no 12//2007 of 27/03/2007 on Public Procurement provides that the payment shall be made if the successful bidder presents an official invoice indicating the amount of money due for payment. The invoice shall be approved and signed by the supervising official. RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 524

223

[28] Provisions of article 101 of the aforementioned law on Public Procurement, coupled with the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 6 of the General Terms together with paragraph 4 iii of article 6 of the Special Terms all concur to clarify that in order for a successful bidder to be paid for the work, there must be an approved report indicating the completed works, and an invoice approved and signed by the competent officer, and in this case, it is the supervising official. [29] With regard to invoices 29A, 29B and 31B that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils states that they are unpaid, the Court never got any report of the completed and approved works; neither did it get invoices approved and signed by the supervising official. Invoices 29A and 29B indicate that they have been submitted to Ir J. Bosco/ELECTROGAZ for verification, and invoice 31B carries a stamp for acknowledgement of receipt by MININFRA, and this alone does not fullfil the requirements for invoice payment as above explained and that is, an approved report of the completed works, and an invoice approved and signed by the competent officer. According to arguments by the representative of IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils whereby he claims that the required reports were prepared are not convincing since he failed to submit them to the Court, yet he is bound to produce evidence as per the provisions of paragraph one of Article 12 of Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure. [30] Given all the elucidations above provided, the Court finds that the requirements provided under the law on public procurement and the agreements signed by both parties for the payment of the contractor, the latter did not comply with them, therefore it finds that there is no basis to hold that the IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 525

224

Government of Rwanda (MININFRA) owes a debt to IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils for the unpaid finished works. B. Whether the Government of Rwanda should refund to IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils the money related to the work performance security. [31] Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel representing IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils states that the Commercial High Court confused the tender security provided under article 75 of the Law no12/2007 of 27/03/2007 on public procurement with the work performance security of 10% deducted from each paid invoice, and which had to be refunded once the works are completed. He argues that the performance security provided under the aforementioned article 75 is submitted by the successful bidder before signing the contract and it is different from the work performance security claimed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, and such security is not required for the consultancy services such as the one awarded to IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils. [32] He further states that the work performance security is highlighted in article 6.4 iii of the contract under the section of Special Terms and the mentioned reports were made and approved by the staff of Electrogaz or PNAER (Programme National d’Alimentation en Eau Potable, a project that was then in MINITERE) who were supervising the works. He stated that all the works were completed as evidenced by the document issued by MININFRA on 06/12/2009 and received on 17/01/2010, indicating the completed works and their duration; the fact that it was not submitted to previous courts is due to the fact that it has not been requested for and it was not yet issued. He also affirms that all invoices have been paid for (from 1st to 28th) as evidenced by the transfers made to account of IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils in Germany and BK Ltd, it remains RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 526

225

10% deducted from the work performance security and that is what is claimed for in invoices 30A and 30B. [33] The Court asked Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel whether his client had provisional and final reports of the works approved by the supervising official, and he replied that the provisional report was not available because it was not provided for in the contract, he simply says there is unsigned final statement, and there is also the invoice 30B received by MININFRA indicating all the works completed. He submits that the unsigned report can be considered as the commencement of evidence as it is backed by the fact that the works were completed and paid for, it remains 10% deducted from the work performance security. With regard to the letter of 06/12/2009 that MININFRA indicated that it was not written by the former Permanent Secretary, he avers that his client withdraws himself to produce it as an evidence; rather the very letter helped them to be aware of the existence of another letter of 07/05/2009 indicating that the works were completed. [34] Counsel Ndagijimana Emmanuel submits that the fact that ESPINA has not completed all its works should not result in the non-refunding of the10% which has been deducted from invoices received and verified by MININFRA, and IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils was paid for. He states that the works were done in different steps, and that at the end of each step, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils issued invoice and was paid, it remained 10% for the work performance security which is claimed for because the works were completed and verified by MININFRA. He therefore sustains that the deducted amount should be refunded for the completed and approved works. [35] State Attorney Umwali Munyentwari Claire representing the Government of Rwanda states that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils cannot produce evidence for its IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 527

226

allegations because, for being refunded the claimed amoun of money, it has to present the invoice received and approved by the supervising official, and the report on the reception of the completed work, namely the provisional and final reports, as provided for in the contract, and as well supported by article 101 of the Procurement Law of 2007. The State Attorney again submits that the contract provides that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils shall be refunded with 5% on the provisional reception and another 5% after final reception, but it failed to prove the existence of any of the receptions. [36] With regard to the statements by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils that provisional reception report was never part of the contract, the State Attorney Umwali Munyentwali Claire explains that there was no particularity for such project, thus such report was to be prepared. She further submits that the fact that MININFRA had informed the Court that the letter of 06/12/2009 was not written by Mukasine Marie Claire, the then Permanent Secretary in the Ministry, and that the Ministry instead possessed a different letter of 07/05/2009, this should be a proof that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils had an intention to fraudlently deceive the Court. She concludes that the letter of 07/05/2009 should in no way serve as an evidence in this case since it was then addressed to ESPINA, the former contractor, and therefore it has nothing to do with IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [37] The money claimed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils amounts to 83,889.20 Euros and 5,276,600 Frw, as earlier mentioned on invoices no 30A and 30B, and the money relates to the work performance security that has been deducted from the invoices no 01 to no 28. The security was provided under the section of Special Terms document, RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 528

227

which is also part of the contract concluded between the two parties as above expounded. That security is therefore different from tender security as thereby confused by the Commercial High Court [38] Paragraph 4, iii of article 6 of the Special Terms stipulates that for each invoice, 10% shall be deducted for the work performance security of which 5% shall be reimbursed in the event of provisional reception of works, and the other 5% shall be refunded following the final reception. The file contains no document submitted to the Court to indicate that either the provisional reception or the final reception took place. Instead, the State Attorney submitted to the Court the respective letters of 04/09/2009 and of 12/10/2009 written by MININFRA, indicating that the contract with their contractor has been prematurely terminated before works reception. IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils as the supervisor of the work, failed to present a report explaining reasons as to why the reception did not take place. [39] The Court finds that the unsigned report that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils brings forth to allege that they fully and duly performed their duties, yet unsigned as they too so admit, should not therefore be relied on to conclude that there was a reception of the works as required by paragraph 4, iii of the aforementioned article 6. A letter of 06/12/2009 produced by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils as an evidence to prove that they have duly performed their duties, though it could not replace the statement of the reception of works, was found to be a forgery and IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils stopped invoking it as an evidence. The Court also voids the arguments by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils by which it alleges that the fact that ESPINA failed to fully perform its duties, should not jeopardize the refund of work performance security. The Court finds that though IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 529

228

the work was supposed to be executed by ESPINA, IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils was bound to supervise the proper execution of works and to thereof highlight any identified irregularity. It is for that reason that, the contract between the Government and IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils, provided a clause of work performance security, only refundable on sole condition that the works are completely done and received in accordance with paragraph 4, iii of article 6 of the same contract. [40] The Court finds that IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils produced no evidence to prove the compliance with paragraph 4, iii of the above mentioned article 6 as a conditional fulfulment for the refund of claimed the work performance security. The Court therefore finds no ground for ordering the Government of Rwanda (MININFRA) to reimburse IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils the money relating to the deducted work performance security. [41] With regard to the claimed 18% due debt interest, the Court finds that it shall not be examined, since the principal debt itself did not exist. The Court also finds that the counsel and procedural fees claimed by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs- Conseils should not be awarded since they won nothing in the case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [42] Holds that the appeal lodged by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils lacks merits; [43] Holds that the judgement RCOMA 00494/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 06/01/2017 by the Commercial High Court is sustained; RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 530

229

[44] Orders that the court fee deposited by IGIP mbH Ingénieurs-Conseils covers the expenses incurred in this case.

IGIP MBH INGÉNIEURS-CONSEILS v GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MININFRA)

## Page 532

Printed by Image Designing Center Tel : (+250) 788 887 218 / 789 332 730 E-mail:imagedesigningcenter@gmail.com