Re. MUTSINDASHYAKA

Re. MUTSINDASHYAKA

Article 176 of Law No 12/2007 is not unconstitutional because the prohibited acts are specified in preceding articles and the penalty is provided in article 176. The separation of offense and penalty in different articles does not violate the Constitution. Ambiguity requiring judicial interpretation does not amount to unconstitutionality. The petition lacks merit.

Citation
RS/ INCONST/PEN 0001/10/CS
Parties
Petitioner: MUTSINDASHYAKA Théoneste; Respondent: Government of Rwanda
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
26 March 2010
Case Number
RS/ INCONST/PEN 0001/10/CS
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Statutes, Principle of Legality, Public Procurement Offenses, Judicial Interpretation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Public Procurement Constitutionality of Statutes Principle of Legality Public Procurement Offenses Judicial Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MUTSINDASHYAKA Théoneste

Petitioner

Government of Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether article 176 of Law No 12/2007 on public procurement is unconstitutional for failing to specify criminalized acts and thus violating articles 18 and 20 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the separation of provisions for prohibited acts and penalties in different articles renders the law unconstitutional
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity in the law that requires judicial interpretation is a ground for unconstitutionality

Ratio Decidendi

Article 176 of Law No 12/2007 is not unconstitutional because the prohibited acts are specified in preceding articles and the penalty is provided in article 176. The separation of offense and penalty in different articles does not violate the Constitution. Ambiguity requiring judicial interpretation does not amount to unconstitutionality. The petition lacks merit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition is admissible but dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Article 176 of Law No 12/2007 is not contrary to the Constitution.