Re BYANSI

Re BYANSI

The Court held that Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not violate the Constitution, as they establish necessary and proportionate limitations on freedom of expression and the press to protect privacy, dignity, public order, and justice. However, Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign heads of state and diplomats, creates unjustified privilege and is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of expression, and is therefore void.

Citation
RLR V. 4 -2022
Parties
Applicant: BYANSI Samuel Baker; Respondent: Leta y’u Rwanda
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of the Press, Right to Privacy, Equality Before the Law, Defamation, Investigative Journalism, Diplomatic Immunity
Source Language
rw, en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Freedom of Expression Freedom of the Press Right to Privacy Equality Before the Law +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 44 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BYANSI Samuel Baker

Applicant

Leta y’u Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Articles 156, 157, 194, 218, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 on offences and penalties are inconsistent with Articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution of Rwanda.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not violate the Constitution, as they establish necessary and proportionate limitations on freedom of expression and the press to protect privacy, dignity, public order, and justice. However, Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign heads of state and diplomats, creates unjustified privilege and is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of expression, and is therefore void.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Article 218 of Law No. 68/2018 declared unconstitutional and void for inconsistency with Articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution.
  • Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 upheld as constitutional.