RLR V. 3- 2024

RLR V. 3- 2024

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2024-07-30 - 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

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2024 Nyakanga, 2024 Law Reports V. 3 - 2024 July, 2024

Page 3

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

RWANDA LAW REPORTS Icyegeranyo V. 3 - 2024 Nyakanga, 2024 Law Reports V. 3 - 2024 July, 2024

Page 5

v

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii I. ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA................................................................................iii II. KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ......................................... iv IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO................................. ix INYITO ...................................................................................... ix AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... xi IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE .................................................... xv AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................ xxi Re MURANGWA (ADD) .......................................................... 1 Re MURANGWA (Fond) ......................................................... 21

AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE

RWANDA Ltd yahindutse

SANLAM

ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI .............................................. 105 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA ................................................................................................. 133 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD ............................................ 179 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE ...................... 203 KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA ..................................... 225

Page 6

vi

ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI ................................ 239 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB .................................... 273 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ

RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd) ............................................................................. 291 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA .......................... 317 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI ........... 375

Page 7

vii

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

I.

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO

BATEGUYE

IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

Page 8

viii

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umwanditsi wa Komite, Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

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

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé :

KALIHANGABO Isabelle :

Umuyobozi Mukuru wa ILPD

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru

KALIWABO Charles :

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire

Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’inkiko

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE Bibiane : Visi Perezida wa Komisiyo y`u Rwanda ishinzwe Ivugururwa ry`amategeko

Page 9

ix

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Umugenzuzi w’inkiko

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Dr. BIDERI Diogene : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

MUREREREHE Saouda :

NINAHAZWE Roselyne : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

Lt Col CYUBAHIRO NSENGIYUMVA Narcisse :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace :

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

Umwarimu muri INES - Ruhengeri

Page 10

x

KAMALI Jean Damascene

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine :

Umwarimu muri ULK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umwarimu muri University Of Kigali

Umwarimu muri UNILAK

Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi

Page 11

xi

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Tunejejwe no kubagezaho Icyegeranyo cy’Ibyemezo by’Inkiko, Volime 3 [2024]. 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 icumi (10) zikurikira: urubanza rumwe (1) rwerekeranye n’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko Itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, urubanza rumwe(1) z’imbonezamubano, urubanza rumwe (1) rw’umurimo, imanza eshatu (3) z’ubucuruzi, manza ebyiri (2) z’inshinjabyaha n’imanza ebyiri zirebana n’imiburanishirizey’imanza. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga akaba na Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

Page 13

xiii

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

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2024] 3 RLR

Page 15

xv

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO

a. Amategeko akoreshwa ubu Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015, ingingo ya 3, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43 n’iya 61………….3 ingingo ya 3, 13,14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43, 61 n’iya 142……27 ingingo ya 29………………………………………………378 Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside, ingingo ya 3…………………..320 Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 16 Ukuboza 1966 yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki, ingingo ya 14……………………………………………..320 Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu, ingingo ya 8……………………………………………27 Itegeko-Ngenga ryo ku wa 08/07/1976 rigenga ibigo bya Centres publics d'action sociale (CPAS), ingingo ya 110………………138 Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 n’iya 70…………………... ingingo ya 17, 38, 45, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 70, 73, 76 n’iya 107…………………………………………….27 ingingo ya 155…………………………………………….320 ingingo ya 160, 162 n’iya 168…………………………...378 Itegeko n˚ 62/2018 ryo ku wa 25/08/2018 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ingingo ya 84………………………………………………...276 Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko,

Page 16

xvi

ingingo ya 72…………………………………………..……..4 ingingo ya 65 n’iya 73……………………………………..27 ingingo ya 63………………………………………….…..109 ingingo ya 31 n’iya 49…………………………………....138 ingingo ya 105………………………………….…………320 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 178……………………………………………138 ingingo ya 12……………………………………………..181 ingingo ya 12……………………………………………..205 ingingo ya 74, 158……………………………………….227 ingingo ya 3 n’iya 33…………………………………….275 Itegeko Nº 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu Rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 10……………………………………..…………..4 ingingo ya 3, 9 n’iya 10……………………………………28 Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 6 n’iya 20……………………..138 Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, Ingingo ya 64, 113…………………………………………………109 Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4……………………………..242 Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3………………………………………………..205 ingingo ya 3………………………………………………..181 ingingo ya 65 n’iya 119…………………………………..320

Page 17

xvii

Iteka rya Perezida N° 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo, ingingo ya 66……………………………………...109 Itegeko-Teka N° 35/2005 rigena mu buryo bweruye ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, naho ihame riguma ari uko kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kutemererwa, ingingo ya 3…….138

b. Amategeko yakuweho ariko yakoreshwaga igihe ikibazo cyavukaga Itegeko Ngenga N° 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 132…………………..320 Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 184…………………………………………………………………..320 Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 6, iya 9 niya 11……………………294 Itegeko Nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 1, 15, 33 n’iya 47…………………………..181 Itegeko N° 06/2003 ryo ku wa 22/03/2003 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko-Teka ryo ku wa 22/08/1974 rigena ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi, ingingo ya 2……………………...181 Itegeko Nº 51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 17, 29 n’iya 33……………………………..181 Itegeko-Teka N° 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 rigena ubwishingire, ingingo ya 11………………………………………110

Page 19

xix

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Hon Justice Ovie Whiskey (1981) All N.L.R 1……………………………………………………………………….5 A.G. of Dendel State v A.G. of Nigeria (1983) ANLR 208……………………………………………………………………...5 (Application no 37971/97), Société Colas Est and others v. France, judgment Strasbourg 16 April 2002, mu gika cya 46……………………………………………………………………...29 Conseil d’État (Belgique), décision n° 58.810 du 26 mars 1996, Christiaens Auto-Industries et crts; Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 63.963 du 10 janvier 1997, Commune de Momignies………………………………………………………….139 Conseil d'État (France), 6ème - 5ème chambres réunies, Lecture du jeudi 23 septembre 2021………………………………………139 Cour de Cassation (France), Chambre commerciale financière et économique, 3 mai 2018, Pourvoi n° 16-15.114……………….139 Cour de Cassation (France), Civ 1er, 11 Mai 2017, n° 16-15.549 et 16-60115………………………………………………………...139 Ferreira Clive v Levin Allan and Others, CCT 5/95 of 06/12/1995…………………………………………………………….4 Gaertner and Others v. Minister of Finance and Others (CCT 56/13) [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) (14 November 2013) Klass and Others v Germany, Judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A, n° 28…………………………………………………………4

Page 20

xx

Minister of Police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] ZACC 21; 2016 (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016)……………………………………………………….28 Minstry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others (CCT13/97) [1998] ZACC 10; 1998 (4) SA 1127; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (29 May 1998)………………………………………29 National Westminster Bank Plc V Spectrum Plus Ltd & Others [2005] UKHL 41, igika cya 31, 36 n’icya 41…………………...139 Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and security and Others ([2014] ZACC 14)…………………………………………………………….29 Phoenix Metal na Rwanteli Ntagara Innocent, RSOCAA 0023/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 18/06/2010…………………………………………………………...29 R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617……………………………………5 Re Me Kabuye Ngendahayo, RS/ICONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/02/2022……………..4 Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/12/2021……………..4 Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021……………..4 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/01/2019……………..4 Re Bisengimana Jerome, RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/11/2012, igika cya 7……………………………………………………………………….4 Re Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire, RS/CONST/0002/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/10/2012………………………..4

Page 21

xxi

Re Ntawuburintimba Alivéra, RS/INCONST/002/10/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/04/2012, igika cya 5………….4 Re Uwimana Jeannette, RS/INCONST/CIV 0002/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/06/2010, igika cya 5………..….4 Re Mutebwa Alfred, RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/01/2008………………………..4 Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12……………………………………………………………………...4 RS/INCONST/RCOM00001/2022/SC, Re Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/05/2023…………………………………………………………...28 Re Kabasinga Florida, RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019……………..28 Re Murangwa Edward, RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2019/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019……………..28 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 24/04/2019……………..28 Re Murorunkwere Spéciose, RS/INCONST/PÉN0001/08/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/09/2008………..……28 Rutagarama Eliseus, RS/RECT/RC00001/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/05/2019……………………..138 Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada [1975] 1 SCR 138……5 Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] ZAECELLC 8; 2014 (1) SACR 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013)…………………………………………………………………29.

Page 22

xxii

Ubushinjacyaha v Nsengumuremyi Richard n’Abagenzi be, RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/11/2018………………………………………………….139 UK Law Commission Report No 396, search warrant, 7 October 2020, p.129, para 5.70…………………………………………...…29 Ubushinjacyaha v Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019……………………...321 Ubushinjacyaha v Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, ICTR-98-44-T……………………………………………………321 Ubushinjacyaha na Simon Bikindi, ICTR –2001 -72 –T. …….321 Ubushinjacyaha na Yussuf Munyakazi, ICTR-97-36A-A…….321 Ubushinjacyaha na Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A………………………………………………………321 Ubushinjacyaha na Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T……….321 Ubushinjacyaha na Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A……..321 Ubushinjacyaha na Ntagerura André na bagenzi be, ICTR-99- 46- A…………………………………………………………………...321 Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-T. ………....321 Ubushinjacyaha na Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, ICTR- 99-52-A…………………………………………………………….321 (CCT253/15) [2016] (9) BCLR 1237(CC); 2016(2) SACR 473(CC) (27 July 2016), Minister of police and Others v Kunjana………………………………………………………………28 11S v Coetzee and Others (CCT50/95) [1997] ZACC 2; 1997 (4) BCLR 437; 1997 (3) SA 527 (6 March 1997)……………………29

Page 23

xxiii

Katz v. United States, 389U.S.347(1967), rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika………………29 Mapp v. Ohio 367U.S.643 (1971) No.236 Argued March 29,1961 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika ku wa 19/06/1961…………………………………………29

Page 25

xxv

AMAGAMBO MPINE 1.Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Uburyozwe – Uwishingiwe ukoze amakosa yo kutubahiriza inshingano afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga abizi kandi abishaka ntabwo arengerwa n’ayo masezerano.

AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI……………………....105 2. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso n’itangwa ryabyo – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha – Ibimenyetso bishingiye ku buhamya – Agaciro k’ibimenyetso bishingiye ku buhamya – Urukiko nirwo rufite inshingano zo kwemeza ibimenyetso bigomba guhabwa agaciro rumaze kumva abatangabuhamya – Umucamanza ashobora guha agaciro igice kimwe cy'ubuhamya, ikindi ntigihabwe agaciro – Mu gihe ubuhamya bubiri buvuguruzanya, nyuma yo kumva abatangabuhamya, urukiko ni rwo rwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka aribwo bufite ishingiro UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA………...317 3. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Inshingano – Inshingano yo kwishyura umwenda ihuriweho – Iyo abantu benshi basangiye umwenda, uwo bawugomba ashobora kubishyuriza hamwe cyangwa se umwe ku wundi. Ariko ashobora gusaba kwishyurwa umwenda wose n’umwe mu basangiye uwo mwenda, uwishyuye agasigara akurikrana bagenzi be NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE………203

Page 26

xxvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imiburanishirize y’imanza – Kugaragaza ko uberewemo umwenda – Uvuga ko aberewemo umwenda agomba kubitangira ibimenyetso NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE………203 4. Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside n’ibyaha byibasiye inyoko muntu –Icyaha cy'ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside – Nubwo kidateganyijwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ni icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA..……….317 5. Amategeko agenga imanza z’umurimo – Amasezerano y’umurimo – Umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano y’umurimo – Afatwa nk’umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano ariko atanditse, umukozi umaze nibura igihe kigeze ku mezi atandatu yikurikiranye kandi mu buryo buhoraho akorera umukoresha umwe – Umukozi uvuga ko agomba gufatwa muri ubwo buryo, agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso byerekana ko yakoze koko icyo gihe mu buryo buhoraho TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD……………………179 Amasezerano y’umurimo – Abakozi b’igihe gito – Ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi – Buri mukozi agomba gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize n’ubwo yaba akora mu buryo bw’imirimo idashingiye ku masezerano y’akazi yanditse (secteur informel) cyangwa mu gihe yaba akora imirimo igihe gito. TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD……………………..179 6.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Gusimbuza umucamanza – Urubanza rukiburanishwa – Iyo umucamanza asimbuye

Page 27

xxvii

AMAGAMBO MPINE

undi mu rubanza rukiburanishwa agafata icyemezo cyo gukomereza aho uwo yasimbuye yaragejeje iburanisha, ntiyatesha agaciro ibyemezo byafashwe nuwo yasimbuye. KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA………..……….225 Kugobokeshwa ku gahato mu bujurire – Uwagobokeshejwe bwa mbere mu bujurire afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira byibuze rimwe – Mu gusuzuma ubujurire bwa kabiri ntabwo Urukiko rwajuririwe rwavuga ko nta bubasha rufite mu gihe hari uwagobokeshejwe bwa mbere mu bujurire.

AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI………………………105 7.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ifungwa n’ifungurwa – Ifungurwa ry’agateganyo – Umuntu ufunzwe mu rwego rw’urubanza yaciriwe mu mizi, ntashobora kujurira anenga icyemezo yafungiweho by’agateganyo ashingiye ku kuba inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha zitarubahirije amategeko arebana n’ifatwa n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA………...317 Uburyozwa cyaha –Kugirwa umwere – Nta muburanyi ushobora kwitwaza ko urubanza rwaciwe n'urundi rukiko rwamugize umwere mu gihe atarubayemo umuburanyi UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA………...317 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Iburanisha ry’uwihishe cyangwa uwatorotse ubutabera – Iyo uwaciriwe urubanza nk’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera aramutse abonetse (yishyikirije inzego zibishinzwe cyangwa afashwe), ibyakozwe mbere byose bigomba guta agaciro, akabazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha akongera

Page 28

xxviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuregerwa urukiko bundi bushya (mu gihe izo nzego zisanze ari ngombwa).

UBUSHINJACYAHA v.

ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI…………………………………..………..375 Ubujurire – Ubujurire ku rubanza rwaciwe nk’urubanza rw’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera, buburanishwa mu buryo bumwe(kamere) n’urubanza rwajuririwe.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v.

ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI……………………………………………375 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Iperereza – Isaka – Isaka ni igikorwa cy’iperereza riyoborwa n’umugenzacyaha cyangwa umushinjacyaha ariko hashingiwe ku ruhushya rw’isaka rwatanzwe n’ubuyobozi bw’ubushinjacyaha, rikorwa hagamijwe gushaka cyangwa kuzuza ibimenyetso mu rubanza nshinjabyaha Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………...21 8. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Ububasha bwo kurega – Sosiyete zishyize hamwe – Ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego – Sosiyete iri mu zishyize hamwe igira ububasha bwo kuregera Urukiko mu izina ryayo gusa, ku ruhare rwayo rwonyine mu gihe ari rwo iregera, ariko nta bubasha iba ifite bwo kuregera umwenda wose wa Sosiyete zishyize hamwe, mu izina ryazo, mu gihe itareze mu nyungu zazo. BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB………………..273 9. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Gutakamba – Itakamba ritasubijwe n’umuyobozi mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko – Nubwo ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 5 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018

Page 29

xxix

AMAGAMBO MPINE

ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nta rengayobora yateganyije ku ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation”, ntibuvuze ko kudasubiza bikwiye gufatwa nko kwemerera uwatakambye ibyo yasabaga yaba abifitiye uburenganzira cyangwa ntabwo abifitiye cyangwa se bitanashoboka ko abugira. RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA……………………………………………133 Gutakamba – Ihame “silence vaut acceptation” – Irengayobora ku ihame “silence vaut acceptation” – Irengayobora ni ngombwa rikaba ryagena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, ibisigaye byose bigafatwa ko utasubijwe aba yahakaniwe cyangwa kugena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko guhakanirwa noneho ku bindi byemezo byose bisigaye uwatakambye yaba adasubijwe agafatwa ko yemerewe ibyo yasabaga RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA……………………………………………133 Gutakamba – Ihame “silence vaut acceptation – Irengayobora – Ibyemezo bidakwiye gukoresha ihame “silence vaut acceptation ni ibyemezo bijyanye 1o n’umutekano w’igihugu, umutekano cyangwa ituze rusange rya rubanda, ukwishyira no kwizana kw’abaturage, uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa andi mategeko ashyiraho uburenganzira bw’ibanze; 2o Ibijyanye n’inshingano z’igihugu ku rwego rw’Akarere cyangwa mpuzamahanga; 3o Ibijyanye no kwishyura cyangwa kwishyuza amafaranga Urwego rwa Leta; 4 oIbitareba uburenganzira bwite bw’uwatakambye; 5o Ibyo

Page 30

xxx ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

amategeko cyangwa amabwiriza abigenga asanzwe ateganya ko kudasubizwa ari uguhakanirwa; 6o Ibijyanye no gutakambira cyangwa kujuririra ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi bitemerera umuntu ibyo yasabaga); 7oIbijyanye n’imikoranire hagati y’urwego rw’ubuyobozi n’abakozi barwo; 8oIbijyanye n’inyandiko cyangwa ibyangombwa bitangwa n’inzego z’ubuyobozi RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA……………………………………………133 10.Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza zisubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Uwatanze ikirego cy’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi mu rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Utarasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntiyagira ibyo asaba mu iburanisha ry’urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane

AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI………………………105 11. Amategeko agenga ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Ingwate – Abatanze umutungo watanzweho ingwate nta burenganzira bafite bwo kwivanaho umutungo wari ubanditseho ubwo amasezerano y’ingwate yakorwaga batabiherewe uburenganzira mu nyandiko ndetse bakabyemererwa. ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI…….239 12.Amategeko agenga umusoro – Umusoro ku Nyongeragaciro(TVA) – Gusonerwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro(TVA) – Ubwikorezi bukorwa mu rwego rwo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa nubwo bwaba bukorwa

Page 31

xxxi

AMAGAMBO MPINE

n’uwabiherewe uruhushya ariko atari wo murimo w’ibanze, bufatwa nka serivisi yunganira (accessoire) icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze cyo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa, iyo icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze kidasonewe TVA, n’ubwo bwikorezi ntibusonerwa – Ubwikorezi busonewe TVA ni ubukorwa n’abantu bakora umwuga w’ibanze wo gutwara ibintu (professionnels du transport) – Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 6 niya 9. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)………………………..291 13. Amategeko agenga Urugaga rw’Abavoka – Umwavoka – Ibisabwa kuba umwavoka – Umuntu wifuza kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, kimwe mu byo agomba kuba yujuje ni ukuba atarirukaniwe amakosa y’imyitwarire, byaba byarabaye akerekana ko yahawe ihanagurabusembwa. RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA……………………………………………133 14. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu z’utanga ikirego – Mu gusuzuma inyungu z’urega hagomba kurebwa ibi ibintu bikurikira, kuba hariho kimwe muri byo bikaba byihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu. – Niba hari itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego – Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba aribyo bihesha umuntu

Page 32

xxxii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

uwo ari we wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Niba uwatanze ikirego ari umwavoka, uyu akaba mu nyungu z’ubutabera, yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko kabone nubwo nta nyungu we ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego Re MURANGWA (ADD)……………………………...1 Ihame ryo kutavogera uburenganzira bwa muntu – Gusakwa – Kuba uruhushya rw’isakwa rwatangwa n’urwego runaka ubwabyo ntibyafatwa nk’uburenganzira usakwa ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo biha inshingano urwego rugiye gukora isaka ukwitwara kinyamwuga no kubahiriza amategeko Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………...21 Uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye – Ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere – Mu gihe inzego zishinzwe iperereza zikorana n’itangazamakuru mu rwego rwo kumenyesha rubanda iby’iperereza ririmo gukorwa, zigomba gukora ibishoboka byose kugira ngo hubahirizwe ihame ry’uko umuntu afatwa nk’umwere igihe cyose icyaha kitaramuhama Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………...21 Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga –Kuregera urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga – Umuburanyi ntashobora kuregera Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga arusaba guhindura, kuvana cyangwa kongera amagambo mu ngingo y’Itegeko, bitewe n’uko atamunyuze cyangwa kuri we ayagombaga gukoreshwa atariyo Umushingamategeko yakoresheje Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………..21

Page 33

IBIREGO BYIHARIYE

Page 35

IKIREGO GISABA KWEMEZA KO ITEGEKO RINYURANYE N’ITEGEKO

NSHINGA

Page 37

1

Re MURANGWA (ADD) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC – (Mukamulisa, P.J., Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Muhumuza na Karimnda J.) 16 Ukuboza 2022] Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga – Inyungu z’utanga ikirego – Mu gusuzuma inyungu z’urega hagomba kurebwa ibi ibintu bikurikira, kuba hariho kimwe muri byo bikaba byihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu. – Niba hari itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego – Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba aribyo bihesha umuntu uwo ari we wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga – Niba uwatanze ikirego ari umwavoka, uyu akaba mu nyungu z’ubutabera, yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko kabone nubwo nta nyungu we ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego. Incamake y’ikibazo: Murangwa yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga aregera ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku

Page 38

2 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranye n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Asaba kandi ko mu gihe izo ngingo zaba zitavanweho, Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rwaziha umurongo utuma zitagira uwo zihutaza kandi mu buryo butabangamiye inshingano z’inzego z’umutekano. Yasabye kandi Urukiko gutegeka Leta n’inzego zifite aho zihuriye n’iperereza guhagarika kwereka itangazamakuru abakekwaho ibyaha no kubahatira kuvugana naryo ndetse rugategeka abayobozi b’ibitangazamakuru, imbuga nkoranyambaga harimo na youtube n’umuntu uwo ariwe wese, guhanagura burundu mu bubiko bwabo amafoto n’amashusho y’abakekwaho ibyaha bafashe. Mbere yo gusuzuma ubu busabe bwa Murangwa, habanje gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba afite inyungu muri uru rubanza kuko avuga ko afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zivanwaho atabanje gutegereza ko zimugiraho ingaruka. Avuga ko kuregera ingingo ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mbere y’uko ikugiraho ingaruka ari nko kwikingiza mbere y’uko urwara, ko mu gihe rero abona ingingo aregera zibangamiye uburenganzira bwe bw’ibanze buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, nta kibuza ko aziregera kandi ko bidakwiye ko Urukiko rufata icyo kibazo nk’ikitariho nyamara itegeko ryarasohotse mu Igazeti ya Leta ndetse akaba asabwa gukora icyo ritegeka cyangwa kudakora icyo ribuza. Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko inyungu zo kurega ari impamvu y’ingenzi kugira ngo ikirego cyakirwe, ko bidakwiye ko uwo ari we wese yemererwa kurega no mu gihe

Page 39

3 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

yaba adafite inyungu kuko bishobora gutera akajagari ndetse bikaba byaburizamo ibirego by’abari babifitemo inyungu. Bakomeza bavuga ko Murangwa agaragaza inyungu rusange gusa aho kugaragaza inyungu bwite, ko ikirego cye kiramutse cyakiriwe cyaba cyitiranyijwe n’icyatanzwe mu nyungu za rubanda. Nubwo bikwiye ko Urukiko rwagura ububasha bw’abatanga bene ibi birego mu rwego rwo kurengera inyungu rusange, umurongo rwatanze uzitira ababitanga ku bw’impamvu zitazwi cyangwa izo kwimenyekanisha kandi ko ibyo bifasha mu gukumira ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kugira ingaruka ku itangwa ry’ubutabera bunoze. Incamake y’icyemezo: Urega agira inyungu mu manza zisaba gukuraho itegeko rinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, iyo, ku buryo bw’umwihariko, we cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo arebwa niryo tegeko, kuba rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo no kuba uwatanze ikirego ari umwavoka ubyemerewe, mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko. 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 3, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43 n’iya 61. Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 n’iya 70.

Page 40

4 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, ingingo ya 72. Itegeko Nº 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu Rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 10. Imanza zifashishijwe: Re Me Kabuye Ngendahayo, RS/ICONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/02/2022. Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/12/2021. Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/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. Re Bisengimana Jerome, RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/11/2012, igika cya 7. Re Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire, RS/CONST/0002/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/10/2012. Re Ntawuburintimba Alivéra, RS/INCONST/002/10/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/04/2012, igika cya 5. Re Uwimana Jeannette, RS/INCONST/CIV 0002/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/06/2010, igika cya 5. Re Mutebwa Alfred, RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/01/2008. Ferreira Clive v Levin Allan and Others, CCT 5/95 of 06/12/1995.

Page 41

5 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12. A.G. of Dendel State v A.G. of Nigeria (1983) ANLR 208. R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617. Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Hon Justice Ovie Whiskey (1981) All N.L.R 1. Klass and Others v Germany, Judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A, n° 28. Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada [1975] 1 SCR 138. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Blandine Rolland, Procédure Civile, in Panorama du Droit de Guillaume Bernard, Studyrama, 2005, p.5. Cédric Tahri, Procédure civile, Lexifac-Droit, Bréal, 2007, p.84. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Ku wa 15/01/2022, Murangwa Edward yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Yasabye kandi ko mu gihe ingingo zaregewe ko zinyuranyije n’ingingo z’Itegeko

Page 42

6 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nshinga zaba zitavanweho, Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rwaziha umurongo utuma zitagira uwo zihutaza kandi mu buryo butabangamiye inshingano z’inzego z’umutekano. [2] Murangwa Edward asaba kandi Urukiko gutegeka Leta n’inzego zifite aho zihuriye n’iperereza guhagarika kwereka itangazamakuru abakekwaho ibyaha no kubahatira kuvugana naryo, ndetse rukanategeka abayobozi b’ibitangazamakuru, imbuga nkoranyambaga harimo na youtube, n’umuntu uwo ariwe wese, guhanagura burundu mu bubiko bwabo amafoto n’amashusho y’abakekwaho ibyaha bafashe. [3] By’umwihariko, Murangwa Edward avuga ko: a. Kuba ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo iteganya impamvu n’ibihe Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rushobora gusaka umuntu cyangwa ibintu, kwinjira mu nyubako cyangwa ahantu nta ruhushya rwo gusaka, kuba rwakora isaka rudafite urupapuro rw’isaka, ari ukuvogera uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. b. Kuba ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha zifite aho zihuriye n’ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko zose zijyanye n’isaka ry’umuntu, ahantu, ingo, ibiro cyangwa ahandi aho

Page 43

7 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

ariho hose hakekwa ko habereye cyangwa hafitanye isano n’ikorwa ry’icyaha, zikaba kandi ziteganya ko uruhushya rwo gusaka rutangwa n’urwego rubarizwa mu butegetsi nyubahirizategeko (executive), nyamara ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza ari bwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, ari nabwo bukwiye gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka. c. Kuba ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ziteganya igenzura ry’itumanaho mu iperereza n’ikurikiranacyaha, isaka, gukoresha isaka ryo ku mubiri cyangwa mu mubiri, ifatira n’itambamira ry’ibintu, uburenganzira bwo gusaka no kujya ahashobora kuboneka ibimenyetso, abafite ububasha bwo gutanga urwandiko rwo gusaka ndetse no kugenzura ukekwaho icyaha hifashishijwe ikoranabuhanga, bibangamiye uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ibyo abisobanura mu buryo bukurikira: i. 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 nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ari nayo mpamvu kurinda ubwo burenganzira bigomba gukorwa

Page 44

8 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza (judiciary) kuko arirwo rwego rwabishinzwe n’Itegeko Nshinga; ii. Uburenganzira bw’umuntu ni ntavogerwa, Itegeko Nshinga rikaba rigena uko burindwa, uko bwubahirizwa ndetse n’Urwego rw’Ubutegetsi rufite inshingano zo kuburinda, bivuze ko, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 yaryo ivuga ko Itegeko Nshinga ari ryo risumba ayandi kandi ko Itegeko ryose, icyemezo cyangwa igikorwa cyose binyuranyije naryo nta gaciro bigira, ingingo z’Itegeko zanyuranya n’uko Itegeko Nshinga ryabiteganyije nta gaciro zifite; iii. Mu gihe hatanzwe urupapuro rw’isaka cyangwa mu gihe habayeho gusaka nta rupapuro, gusaka umuntu ku mubiri n’imbere mu mubiri, inyubako, mu rugo n’ahakorerwa imirimo, hagomba kubahirizwa ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere k’ukekwaho icyaha kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ndetse n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga atandukanye u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono; iv. Mu gihe uruhushya rw’isaka, kumviriza, kugenzura, gusaka ku mubiri no mu mubiri cyangwa ibindi bikorwa bivugwa mu ngingo z’amategeko zasabiwe ko zakurwaho, rutanzwe n’Urwego rutagenwe n’Itegeko Nshinga byaba bivuze ko icyo gikorwa n’amategeko gishingiyeho binyuranye n’ingingo ya 23, agace

Page 45

9 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

ka 2 n’aka 3, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo bikaba nta gaciro bifite; d. Kuba ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru by’uko umuntu uwo ari we wese ashobora gutegekwa gutanga amakuru yafasha mu iperereza ndetse n’ukekwaho icyaha akaba yagaragarizwa itangazamakuru ngo agire ibyo aritangariza bibangamiye ibiteganywa n’ingingo zikurikira: • Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda iteganya uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye cyane cyane ihame ry’uko umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha; • Ingingo ya 73 n’iya 107 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ziteganya ibanga mu gihe cy’iperereza mu manza nshinjabyaha n’ufite inshingano zo gutanga ibimenyetso muri bene izo manza; e. Kuba hashingiwe ku burenganzira ku butabera buboneye, uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite by’ukekwaho icyaha, umuryango we n’aho yakoraga ndetse n’inshingano z’inzego zishinzwe gukumira no kurwanya ibyaha, uru Rukiko rukwiye gutanga umurongo usobanura uburyo amagambo, impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso

Page 46

10 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bikomeye, yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru akwiye kumvikana n’imbibi zayo, ibi bigakorwa mu nyungu z’itegeko; [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 18/10/2022, Murangwa Edward yunganiwe na Me Rugemintwaza Jean Marie Vienney na Me Bahati Védaste, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéciose na Me Kayitesi Pétronille, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cyabyukijwe n’Urukiko cyo kumenya niba Murangwa Edward afite inyungu muri uru rubanza. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO.

1. Kumenya niba Murangwa Edward afite inyungu muri uru rubanza [5] Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira bavuga ko, nk’umuntu urebwa n’itegeko ryose risohotse mu Igazeti ya Leta, akaba asabwa gukora icyo ritegeka cyangwa kudakora icyo ribuza, ingingo aregera zibangamiye inyungu ze kuko zigena imihango ikurikizwa mu gihe cy’isaka kandi zigashyiraho urwego rufite ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rw’isaka. Basobanura ko izo ngingo zijyanye n’ikurikiranacyaha zireba buri wese uri mu Rwanda, harimo na we ubwe n’umuryango we, bakaba basanga uburyo izo ngingo zabiteganyije binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga cyane cyane mu ngingo yaryo ya 43, ariyo mpamvu afite uburenganzira bwo gusaba ko ingingo

Page 47

11 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

z’Itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zivanwaho atabanje gutegereza ko zimugiraho ingaruka. [6] Bavuga ko kuregera ingingo ko inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga mbere y’uko ikugiraho ingaruka ari nko kwikingiza mbere y’uko urwara, ko mu gihe rero abona ingingo aregera zibangamiye uburenganzira bwe bw’ibanze buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, nta kibuza ko aziregera, kandi ko bidakwiye ko Urukiko rufata icyo kibazo nk’ikitariho nyamara Itegeko ryarasohotse mu Igazeti ya Leta. Avuga ko ibisobanuro by’inyungu afite muri uru rubanza abishingira ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 72, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko.1 Avuga ko mu gusesengura iyo ngingo, uru Rukiko rwatanze umurongo mu rubanza rwa Me Mugisha Richard2, aho rwavuze ko mu birego bijyanye no kwemeza ko hari ingingo z’Itegeko zinyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga, umuburanyi ashobora gusaba ko itegeko rivaho agamije kurengera inyungu rusange za rubanda bitabaye ngombwa ko agaragaza inyungu bwite abifitemo. [7] Bavuga ko kuba umuntu ashobora gusaba ko itegeko rivaho bitabaye ngombwa kugaragaza ko ryakoreshejwe kuri we, byemejwe n’izindi nkiko harimo n’Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira bwa muntu mu rubanza Klass n’abandi baburanagamo n’Ubudage,3 ndetse n’Inkiko zishinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga nk’uko bigaragazwa

1 Iteganya ko umuntu ku giti cye, ikigo cyangwa umuryango ufite ubuzimagatozi bashobora kuregera Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranije n’Itegeko Nshinga iyo babifitemo inyungu. 2 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ku wa 18/01/2019. 3 Reba urubanza Klass and Others v Germany, Judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A, n° 28.

Page 48

12 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’urubanza Ferreira yaburanaga na Allan Levin na bagenzi be rwaciwe n’Urukiko rwa Afurika y’Epfo rushinzwe kurinda iremezo ry’Itegeko Nshinga,4 urubanza Rev. Christopher Mtikila yaburanaga na The Attorney General rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Tanzaniya,5 urubanza IRC yaburanaga na National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd rwo mu Bwongereza,6 urubanza Thorson yaburanaga na Attorney General of Canada,7 urubanza Adesanya yaburanaga na President of Nigeria & Another8 n’urubanza A.G. of Dendel State yaburanaga na A.G. of Nigeria.9 [8] Me Kabibi Spéciose na Me Kayitesi Petronille bahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda, bavuga ko inyungu zo kurega ari impamvu y’ingenzi kugira ngo ikirego cyakirwe. Basobanura ko bidakwiye ko uwo ari we wese yemererwa kurega no mu gihe yaba adafite inyungu kuko bishobora gutera akajagari ndetse bikaba byaburizamo ibirego by’abari babifitemo inyungu. Bavuga ko umuhanga Blandine Rolland mu gitabo cye cya Procédure civile, avuga ko urega agomba kuba afite inyungu bwite kandi itagenekereje mu gihe cyo gutanga ikirego,10 naho

4 Ferreira Clive v Levin Allan and Others, CCT 5/95 of 06/12/1995. 5 Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12. 6 R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617. 7 Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada [1975] 1 SCR 138. 8 Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Hon Justice Ovie Whiskey (1981) All N.L.R 1. 9 A.G. of Dendel State v A.G. of Nigeria (1983) ANLR 208. 10 L’intérêt pour agir correspond à l’avantage que l’action est susceptible de procurer au plaideur. …. Cette condition est essentielle et traditionnelle, comme en témoigne la maxime: Pas d’intérêt, pas d’action. L’intérêt peut être pécuniaire (évaluable en argent), ou bien seulement moral. Il est donc patrimonial ou extrapatrimonial. Mais il doit en plus revêtir certaines caractéristiques. Il doit exister au jour de l’action (être né et actuel) et être

Page 49

13 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

Cédric Tahri, nawe mu gitabo cyitwa Procédure civile akongeraho ko iyo nta nyungu ihari nta n’ikirego cyakagombye kubaho, ndetse ko iyo nyungu igomba kuba igaragara aho gushingira ku byifuzo by’utanga ikirego.11 [9] Bavuga ko ibijyanye n’inyungu bwite byasobanuwe neza n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza rwa Byansi Samuel Baker,12 uru Rukiko rutanga umurongo w’uko inyungu z’urega zivugwa mu ngingo ya 72 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ari impamvu y’ingenzi kugira ngo ikirego cyemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyakirwe, kandi ko izo nyungu zigomba kumvikana nk’inyungu bwite kandi zitaziguye zerekana ko urega abangamiwe n’ingingo z’amategeko asaba ko zivanwaho. Ku bireba Murangwa Edward, bavuga ko agaragaza inyungu rusange gusa aho kugaragaza inyungu bwite, ko ikirego cye kiramutse cyakiriwe cyaba cyitiranyijwe n’icyatanzwe mu nyungu za rubanda (public interest litigation). Bavuga ko nubwo bikwiye ko Urukiko rwagura ububasha bw’abatanga bene ibi birego mu rwego rwo kurengera inyungu rusange, umurongo rwatanze uzitira ababitanga ku bw’impamvu zitazwi cyangwa izo kwimenyekanisha kandi ko ibyo bifasha mu gukumira ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kugira ingaruka ku itangwa ry’ubutabera bunoze.

légitime, personnel et direct. Reba Blandine Rolland, Procédure Civile, in Panorama du Droit de Guillaume Bernard, Studyrama, 2005, p.5. 11 Le titulaire d’une action doit justifier d’une intention à agir, défini comme l’avantage moral ou matériel que l’action est susceptible de procurer au plaideur. La maxime: pas d’intérêt, pas d’action” reflète ce principe. ....... En outre, il doit être né et actuel et pas seulement éventuel ou hypothétique. Reba Cédric Tahri, Procédure civile, Lexifac-Droit, Bréal, 2007, p.84. 12 Reba urubanza rubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021.

Page 50

14 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 72, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko ivuga 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. [11] Ikibazo cy’inyungu z’urega mu rubanza rusaba kuvanaho ingingo z’Itegeko kuko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyasuzumwe n’uru Rukiko mu manza zitandukanye. Mu rubanza rwa Mutebwa Alfred,13 urwa Uwimana Jeannette,14 urwa Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire,15urwa Bisengimana Jérôme,16 n’urwa Ntawuburintimba Alivéra,17 uru Rukiko rwasanze buri wese afite inyungu zo gutanga ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga kubera ko bari

13 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/01/2008. 14 Ku byerekeye ikirego cyatanzwe na Uwimana Jeannette, … afite inyungu yo gutanga icyo kirego kuko aburana urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru asanga ingingo aregera ishobora kumubangamira mu bujurire bwe. Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/CIV 0002/09/CS rwaciwe ku wa 18/06/2010, igika cya 5. 15 Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire afite inyungu yo gutanga ikirego kigamije gukuraho ingingo z’amategeko (aregera) kubera ko afite urubanza rw’inshinjabyaha aburana mu Rukiko Rukuru akurikiranweho icyaha cyo gupfobya Jenoside n’icyigengabitekerezo ya jenoside. Reba urubanza RS/CONST/0002/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/10/2012. 16 Bisengimana yifuza ko agace k’ingingo aregera kavanwaho kugira ngo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Rusizi ruzakire ubujurire bwe, runaburanishe urubanza rwe mu mizi kugira ngo azarenganurwe. Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 30/11/2012, igika cya 7. 17 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/002/10/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 27/04/2012, igika cya 5.

Page 51

15 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

bafite ibirego bitegereje kuburanishwa mu nkiko zisanzwe. Inyungu z’urega muri izi manza zari zishingiye ku kuba hari urubanza rusanzwe uwatanze ikirego afite, agasaba Urukiko rumuburanisha kuba rutegereje guca urubanza kugira ngo abanze agaragaze ko ingingo y’Itegeko urwo Rukiko ruzashingiraho acirwa urubanza inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [12] Naho ikibazo cy’inyungu z’umuburanyi udafite urundi rubanza mu Rukiko rusanzwe cyangwa utaratangira kugirwaho ingaruka n’ingingo z’Itegeko aregera ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga cyasuzumwe mu buryo bwimbitse mu rubanza rwa Me Mugisha Richard.18 Guhera ku gika cya 20 kugeza ku cya 32 by’urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye ko kuregera itegeko ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga bikwiye gufatwa nk’ikibazo gikomeye kandi kigomba gukemurwa aho gufatwa nk’ikibazo kitariho, inyungu z’uwatanze ikirego zikaba zishingiye ku kuba asaba Urukiko kwemeza ko hari ingingo z’itegeko zibangamiye uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa zituma intego igamijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga itagerwaho nyamara igomba kurengerwa. Kuba ingingo z’Itegeko riregerwa ziriho ubwabyo bihesha urega inyungu zo gutanga ikirego asaba ko zivanwaho bitabaye ngombwa gutegereza ko zimugiraho ingaruka. Mu yandi magambo, muri bene ibi birego, inyungu zishobora kuba ari iziriho cyangwa izishobora kubaho. [13] Uru Rukiko rwasanze kandi inyungu zigomba kumvikana mu buryo bwagutse bitewe n’uko akamaro k’urubanza ruciwe kuri bene ibi birego karenga inyungu bwite z’uwatanze ikirego nk’uko bizwi mu manza zisanzwe kakagera no kuri rubanda, hakaba nta wundi wakongera kuregera izo ngingo zari

18 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, ku wa 18/01/2019.

Page 52

16 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

zararegewe ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Iki ni nacyo cyatumye Umushingamategeko ateganya ko imanza zivanyeho ingingo z’Itegeko kubera ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zitangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta kugira ngo abaturage bose babimenyeshwe. [14] Urukiko rurasanga iby’uko inyungu iregerwa mu manza zisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyunyije n’Itegeko Nshinga igomba kurebwa mu buryo bwagutse byaragarutsweho na none mu rubanza rwa Me Kabuye Ngendahayo.19 Muri urwo rubanza, uru Rukiko rwasanze ingingo z’Itegeko ryerekeye imicungire y’umutungo w’abashyingiranywe, impano n’izungura zaregewe ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zireba umuntu wese uri muri sosiyete nyarwanda kubera ko ishyingiranwa, izungura ndetse n’uburenganzira ku mutungo ntawe bikumira, bivuze ko buri munyarwanda wese harimo na Kabuye Ngendahayo, ashobora kurikoresha cyangwa rikamugiraho ingaruka. Kuba rero ari mubo itegeko rireba kandi nawe akaba ashobora kuryifashisha kabone nubwo yaba atarahura n’ikibazo ngo ingingo zaryo zimugireho ingaruka akaba aribyo bimuhesha inyungu zo kuba yaregera ko hari ingingo zaryo zinyuranyije n’uburenganzira bwe buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. [15] Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwa Byansi Samuel Baker rwaciwe ku wa 10/12/202120 ndetse n’urwaciwe ku wa 24/12/2021,21 uru Rukiko nyuma yo kwibutsa umurongo

19 Reba urubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/ICONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 18/02/2022 20 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021. 21 Reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/12/2021.

Page 53

17 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

watanzwe mu rubanza rwa Me Mugisha Richard, rwasobanuye ko mu rwego rwo kwirinda ibirego bitari ngombwa bishobora kubangamira imikorere y’inkiko, uwatanze ikirego afite inshingano zo kugaragaza umwihariko w’inyungu we ku giti cye aharanira mu rubanza. Rwasanze Byansi Samuel Baker yari afite umwihariko w’uko yari umunyamakuru uregera ivanwaho ry’ingingo z’amategeko yavugaga ko zibangamiye ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru, ubwo kugaragaza ibitekerezo n’ubwo guhabwa amakuru. Mu rubanza rwaciwe ku wa 24/12/2021, Urukiko rwasanze 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. [16] Urukiko rwasanze kandi, Byansi Samuel Baker, nk’umunyamakuru w’umwuga, yari akomatanyirije hamwe inyungu rusange n’inyungu bwite zo gutanga ikirego nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. Ku bireba inyungu rusange, yarebewe mu kuba ingingo z’Itegeko riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange, zireba abaturage muri rusange nawe arimo, zikaba zishobora kumubangamira mu burenganzira bwe. Naho inyungu bwite ireberwa mu kuba ari umunyamakuru w’umwuga uharanira iterambere ry’ubwisanzure bw’itangazamakuru n’amategeko arigenga aho kureberwa mu ngaruka ingingo z’amategeko yaregeraga zamugizeho. Kuba yari umunyamakuru byamuhaga umwihariko watumye muri izo manza Urukiko rubona ko amategeko aregera ko anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ari amwe mu mategeko amugenga mu mwuga we, bityo bikaba bitari ngombwa gutegereza ko abanza kumugiraho ingaruka kugira ngo yemererwe kugaragaza ko anyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.

Page 54

18 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[17] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga mu gusuzuma inyungu z’urega hagomba kurebwa ibintu bikurikira, kuba hariho kimwe muri byo bikaba byihagije kugira ngo Urukiko rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu: f. Niba hari itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego. Urugero ni nk’Itegeko rireba abanyamakuru, abaganga, abarimu, n’abandi; g. Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba aribyo bihesha umuntu uwo ari we wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; h. Niba uwatanze ikirego ari umwavoka, uyu akaba mu nyungu z’ubutabera, yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko kabone nubwo nta nyungu we ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego. [18] Ku bireba uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga Murangwa Edward avuga ko ingingo z’amategeko aregera zijyanye n’ibikorwa bimwe by’iperereza, isaka, itambamira ry’ibintu cyangwa igenzura ry’itumanaho, uburyo bikorwamo bikaba bibangamiye uburenganzira bw’ibanze buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga harimo n’ubwo kubahiriza icyubahiro n’agaciro ka muntu no kutavogera imibereho bwite, iy’umuryango, iy’urugo rwe cyangwa ubutumwa yohererezanya n’abandi. Avuga na none ko izo ngingo ziha ububasha bw’umurengera Ubugenzacyaha

Page 55

19 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

n’Ubushinjacyaha kuko hari aho ziteganya ko isaka rishobora gukorwa hatabanje gutangwa urupapuro rw’isaka, ariko ko no kuba rushobora gutangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha asanga bivogera inshingano z’Ubucamanza zo kurinda uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu ziteganywa n’ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga. [19] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru ndetse no ku byagaragajwe mu gika cya 17 (2), Urukiko rurasanga iyo ingingo z’Itegeko ziregerwa ziri mu rwego rw’ingingo zireba buri wese nk’uko bimeze ku ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, icyo gihe bihesha uwaziregeye nk’umwe mubo zireba inyungu zo gutanga ikirego atabanje gutegereza ko we ku giti cye zimugiraho ingaruka. [20] Urukiko rurasanga rero Murangwa Edward, nk’umwe mu barebwa n’ingingo z’Itegeko rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo ndetse n’iz’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, afite inyungu zo gusaba kwemeza ko zimwe mu ngingo z’ayo mategeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga.

Page 56

20 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [21] Rwemeje ko Murangwa Edward afite inyungu yo kuregera kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza; [22] Rwemeje ko iburanisha ry’uru rubanza rizakomeza ku itariki umuburanyi azamenyeshwa n’Ubwanditsi bw’Urukiko.

Page 57

21

Re MURANGWA (Fond) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC – (Ntezilyayo, J. P., Cyanzayire, Mukamulisa, Hitiyaremye na Kazungu, J.) 22 Ukuboza 2023] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Iperereza – Isaka – Isaka ni igikorwa cy’iperereza riyoborwa n’umugenzacyaha cyangwa umushinjacyaha ariko hashingiwe ku ruhushya rw’isaka rwatanzwe n’ubuyobozi bw’ubushinjacyaha, rikorwa hagamijwe gushaka cyangwa kuzuza ibimenyetso mu rubanza nshinjabyaha. Itegeko Nshinga – Ihame ryo kutavogera uburenganzira bwa muntu – Gusakwa – Kuba uruhushya rw’isakwa rwatangwa n’urwego runaka ubwabyo ntibyafatwa nk’uburenganzira usakwa ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo biha inshingano urwego rugiye gukora isaka ukwitwara kinyamwuga no kubahiriza amategeko. Itegeko Nshinga – Uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye – Ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere – Mu gihe inzego zishinzwe iperereza zikorana n’itangazamakuru mu rwego rwo kumenyesha rubanda iby’iperereza ririmo gukorwa, zigomba gukora ibishoboka byose kugira ngo hubahirizwe ihame ry’uko umuntu afatwa nk’umwere igihe cyose icyaha kitaramuhama. Itegeko Nshinga – Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga –Kuregera urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga – Umuburanyi ntashobora kuregera Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga arusaba guhindura,

Page 58

22 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuvana cyangwa kongera amagambo mu ngingo y’Itegeko, bitewe n’uko atamunyuze cyangwa kuri we ayagombaga gukoreshwa atariyo Umushingamategeko yakoresheje. Incamake y’ikibazo: Murangwa yareze mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’amategeko zijyanye n’isaka rikorwa hatanzwe uruhushya cyangwa ntarwatanzwe ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, asaba kandi gutegeka Leta n’n’inzego zifite aho zihuriye n’iperereza guhagarika kwereka itangazamakuru abakekwaho ibyaha no kubahatira kuvugana naryo, ndetse rukanategeka abayobozi b’ibitangazamakuru, imbuga nkoranyambaga harimo na youtube, n’umuntu uwo ariwe wese, guhanagura burundu mu bubiko bwabo amafoto n’amashusho y’abakekwaho ibyaha bafashe. Izo ngingo avuga ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga ni ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zikaba zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Uwatanze ikirego asobanura ko ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 10 y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru ari ukuvogera uburenganzira buteganyijwe mu Itegeko Nshinga, aho iteganya impamvu n’ibihe Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rushobora gusaka umuntu cyangwa ibintu, kwinjira mu nyubako cyangwa ahantu nta ruhushya rwo gusaka, kuba rwakora isaka rudafite urupapuro rw’isaka. Akomeza avuga

Page 59

23 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

ko ibi bifite aho bihurira n’ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru kuko zose zijyanye n’isaka rya hantu ahariho hose hakekwa ko habereye cyangwa hafitanye isano n’ikorwa ry’icyaha, zikaba kandi ziteganya ko uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’urwego rubarizwa mu Butegetsi Nyubahirizategeko (Executive), nyamara ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza ari bwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, ari nabwo bukwiye gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka. Akomeza avuga ko inshingano zo gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka zakagombye gukorwa n’Urukiko ku busabe bw’Umushinjacyaha, Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Polisi, rugatangwa ari uko Umucamanza amaze kugaragarizwa impamvu zifatika kugira ngo abatazubahiriza imbibi zashyizweho n’Urukiko bazabibazwe. Uko bikorwa ubu bituma iyo uwatanze uruhushya rw’isaka ahutaje uburenganzira bw’ukekwaho icyaha habura umugenzura ngo amukebure cyangwa abimubaze, kuko atakwifatira ibihano we ubwe, ibi bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 61 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Bivuze ko kuba isaka rikorwa n’Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha bifite imbogamizi z’uko bashobora kuzimangatanya ibimenyetso byari kuzarengera ukekwaho icyaha, ariyo mpamvu inyandiko y’isaka igomba gutangwa n’Urukiko rumaze kugaragarizwa ibigiye gusakwa, kugirango habeho gukumira amakosa ashobora gukorwa n’Ubushinjacyaha n’Ubugenzacyaha. Avuga kandi ko mu gihe hakorwa isaka hatanzwe urupapuro rw’isaka cyangwa mu gihe habayeho gusaka nta rupapuro hagomba kubahirizwa ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere k’ukekwaho icyaha kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha

Page 60

24 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rumuhamije icyaha nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga atandukanye u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono. Ngo guhatira ukurikiranyweho icyaha kuvugana n’itangazamakuru bibangamiye ihame ry’uko ntawutegetswe kwishinja icyaha kuko Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha arizo nzego zifite inshingano zo kugenza ibyaha, kubishakira ibimenyetso ndetse no kubishinja. Iyi migirire ituma itangazamakuru rihinduka nk’Urukiko n’imyumvire ya rubanda ikaba yagira ingaruka ku cyerekezo cy’Urukiko mu gihe cyo guca urubanza. Uwatanze ikirego asoza asaba uru Rukiko ko rukwiye gutanga umurongo usobanura uburyo amagambo: impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru akwiye kumvikana n’imbibi zayo, ibi bigakorwa mu nyungu z’itegeko. Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda muri uru rubanza, bavuga ko Uwatanze ikirego ntaho agaragaza ko ingingo baregera zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ko bibanda ahanini ku miterere y’Ubushinjacyaha, bakabushyira mu Butegetsi Nyubahirizategeko ariko bakibagirwa ko bunafatwa nk’igice cy’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza. Bavuga ko itandukaniro ry’imikurikiranire y’icyaha mu Rwanda no mu bindi bihugu, ari uko mu Rwanda igenzura ry’inyandiko z’isaka rikorwa n’inkiko nyuma y’isaka, mu gihe mu bindi bihugu urupapuro rw’isaka cyangwa urwo kumviriza itumanaho rushyirwaho umukono n’Umucamanza mbere y’uko rukoreshwa. Ubu buryo bwo mu bindi bihugu ntibwarutishwa ubukoreshwa n’u Rwanda bworoshya imikorere n’imikoranire hagati y’inzego.

Page 61

25 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Bakomeza bavuga ko inyandiko z’isaka zitangwa mu Rwanda zitagereranywa n’izitangwa mu bindi bihugu kubera ko izitangwa ari iz’agateganyo kuko ukurikiranyweho icyaha agomba guhita ashyikirizwa Urukiko kugira ngo rubifateho icyemezo. Ibi bivuze ko imiterere n’ububasha by’inzego z’ubutabera idatuma Umucamanza ava ku rukiko ngo ajye kugenza ibyaha, ko izo nshingano ari iz’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha, bityo ko n’ubwo uburyo u Rwanda rukoresha butaboneka mu bihugu byinshi aribwo bwiza kuko bukora neza, inzego zikuzuzanya kandi ko ntaho bubangamiye Itegeko Nshinga. Leta y’u Rwanda kandi isobanura ko mu Rwanda inshingano zo gutanga urwandiko rw’isaka zimuriwe mu Nkiko byaba bizinjije mu iperereza mbere y’uko ziregerwa, ibi bikaba byaburizamo ubwigenge n’ukutabogama (independence and impatiality) zisanganywe. Ibi bikaba byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 61 y’Itegeko Nshinga ku birebana n’imikoranire, ubwuzuzanye n’ubwigenge by’inzego z’ubutegetsi. Bityo, ikaba isanga nta mpamvu zo kwimurira mu bucamanza inshingano z’iperereza, ahubwo ko inkiko zigomba kugumana ububasha bwo kugenzura niba ibyakozwe byarubahirije amategeko ku buryo n’ukekwaho icyaha uvuga ko yahungabanye ahabwa umwanya wo kubigaragariza ibimenyetso. Ku kijyanye n’isaka ryakorwa nta ruhushya, Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko ibijyanye n’isaka nta ruhushya bitanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, haba mu ngingo yaryo ya 61 ndetse n’izindi zigaragazwa n’Urega mu mwanzuro we. Bavuga ko bidakwiye ko ingingo zaregewe zikurwaho kuko Itegeko Nshinga ubwaryo ryateganyije ayo mategeko mu ngingo zaryo za 23 na 43, kugira ngo azateganye ku buryo burambuye ibyo ryo ritashoboraga guteganya hanagendewe ku busumbane bw’amategeko.

Page 62

26 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ku birebana no kuba ukurikiranyweho icyaha aba agifatwa nk’umwere, Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda basobanura ko amategeko ateganya uburyo amakuru ajyanye n’imikorere y’icyaha atangwa, ko umuntu wese wisobanura ku cyaha abanza kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa, akagaragarizwa ko arimo kubazwa, akamenyeshwa n’uburenganzira bwe harimo n’ubwo guceceka, kutishinja ndetse no kubazwa yunganiwe. Ibi bikaba bigaragaza iyubahirizwa ry’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa mu ngingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga. Bakomeza bavuga ko gutanga amakuru bitavuze kuyatangira imbere y’itangazamakuru cyangwa ko uyatanga agomba kuba ufunzwe, ahubwo ko icyangombwa ari uko mu gihe abajijwe amakuru ategetswe kuyatanga mu rwego rwo gufasha mu iperereza. Kuri iyi ngingo, basoza bavuga ko ntaho ingingo iregerwa iteganya ko ukekwaho icyaha agomba kwiregurira imbere y’itangazamakuru, ndetse ko nta n’indi ngingo y’Itegeko Urega agaragaza yaba ibiteganya ityo. Bityo, bakaba basaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ko icyifuzo cy’Urega cyo gutegeka inzego za Leta zifite aho zihurira n’iperereza kudashyira ukekwaho gukora icyaha mu itangazamakuru, rutagisuzuma ngo rugifateho icyemezo kuko bidafitanye isano n’icyaregewe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Isaka ni igikorwa cy’iperereza riyoborwa n’umugenzacyaha cyangwa umushinjacyaha ariko hashingiwe ku ruhushya rw’isaka rwatanzwe n’ubuyobozi bw’ubushinjacyaha, rikorwa hagamijwe gushaka cyangwa kuzuza ibimenyetso mu rubanza nshinjabyaha.

2. Kuba uruhushya rw’isakwa rwatangwa n’urwego runaka ubwabyo ntibyafatwa nk’uburenganzira usakwa ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo biha inshingano urwego rugiye gukora isaka ukwitwara kinyamwuga no kubahiriza amategeko.

Page 63

27 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

3. Mu gihe inzego zishinzwe iperereza zikorana n’itangazamakuru mu rwego rwo kumenyesha rubanda iby’iperereza ririmo gukorwa, zigomba gukora ibishoboka byose kugira ngo hubahirizwe ihame ry’uko umuntu afatwa nk’umwere igihe cyose icyaha kitaramuhama.

4. Umuburanyi ntashobora kuregera Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga arusaba guhindura, kuvana cyangwa kongera amagambo mu ngingo y’Itegeko, bitewe n’uko atamunyuze cyangwa kuri we ayagombaga gukoreshwa atariyo Umushingamategeko yakoresheje. Ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo z’itegeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, nta shingiro gifite. Ikirego gisaba gutanga umurongo mu nyungu z’itegeko, ntigikwiye gusuzumwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 3, 13,14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43, 61 n’iya 142. Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu, ingingo ya 8. Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 17, 38, 45, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 70, 73, 76 n’iya 107. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 65 n’iya 73. Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena

Page 64

28 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 3, 9 n’iya 10. Andi mategeko yashingiweho: Article 32, 87 et 88 du Code d’Instruction Criminelle mise à jour au 07/08/2018. Article. 10, al.4 du Code de Procédure Pénale (Loi No 1/09 du 11/05/2018). Article 81, al.1, du Code de procédure pénale, édition 2016. Article 12, 16 et 177 du Code de Procédure Pénale du 27 Juillet 2005. Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Rules & article 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 2023 version. Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha (Criminal Procedure Act, 1977), ingingo ya 21. Imanza zifashishijwe: RS/INCONST/RCOM00001/2022/SC, Re Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/05/2023. RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga Florida, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019. RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/ 2019/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019. RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/ 2018/SC, Re Mugisha Richard, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 24/04/2019. RS/INCONST/PÉN0001/08/CS, Re Murorunkwere Spéciose, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/09/2008. (CCT253/15) [2016] (9) BCLR 1237(CC); 2016(2) SACR 473(CC) (27 July 2016), Minister of police and Others v Kunjana.

Page 65

29 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and security and Others ([2014] ZACC 14). (Application no 37971/97), Société Colas Est and others v. France, judgment Strasbourg 16 April 2002, mu gika cya 46. 11S v Coetzee and Others (CCT50/95) [1997] ZACC 2; 1997 (4) BCLR 437; 1997 (3) SA 527 (6 March 1997). 389U.S.347(1967), Katz v. United States, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika. 367U.S.643 (1971) Mapp v. Ohio No.236 Argued March 29,1961 rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika ku wa 19/06/1961. UK Law Commission Report No 396, search warrant, 7 October 2020, p.129, para 5.70. Gaertner and Others v. Minister of Finance and Others (CCT 56/13) [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) (14 November 2013). Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others (CCT13/97) [1998] ZACC 10; 1998 (4) SA 1127; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (29 May 1998). Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] ZAECELLC 8; 2014 (1) SACR 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013). Minister of Police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] ZACC 21; 2016 (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016). Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Michel Franchimont et les Autres, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier,2012, p.

515. John M. Scheb and John M. Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure, Toronto, Thomson and Wadsorth, 2005, p.380.

Page 66

30 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Etienne du Toit and Others, Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act, Juta, Cape Town, 1996, p. 2-3. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 15/01/2022, Murangwa Edward yatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga arusaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda (Itegeko Nshinga muri uru rubanza). Yasabye kandi ko mu gihe ingingo zaregewe ko zinyuranyije n’ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga zaba zitavanyweho, Urukiko, mu bushishozi bwarwo, rwaziha umurongo utuma zitagira uwo zihutaza kandi mu buryo butabangamiye inshingano z’inzego z’umutekano. [2] Murangwa Edward asaba kandi Urukiko gutegeka Leta n’inzego zifite aho zihuriye n’iperereza guhagarika kwereka itangazamakuru abakekwaho ibyaha no kubahatira kuvugana naryo, ndetse rukanategeka abayobozi b’ibitangazamakuru, imbuga nkoranyambaga harimo na youtube, n’umuntu uwo ariwe wese, guhanagura burundu mu bubiko bwabo amafoto n’amashusho y’abakekwaho ibyaha bafashe.

Page 67

31 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[3] By’umwihariko, Murangwa Edward avuga ko: a. Kuba ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo iteganya impamvu n’ibihe urwo rwego rushobora gusaka umuntu cyangwa ibintu, kwinjira mu nyubako cyangwa ahantu nta ruhushya rwo gusaka, kuba rwakora isaka rudafite urupapuro rw’isaka, ari ukuvogera uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. b. Kuba ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70, z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha zifite aho zihuriye n’ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko zose zijyanye n’isaka ry’umuntu, ahantu, ingo, ibiro cyangwa ahandi aho ariho hose hakekwa ko habereye cyangwa hafitanye isano n’ikorwa ry’icyaha, zikaba kandi ziteganya ko uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’urwego rubarizwa mu Butegetsi Nyubahirizategeko (Executive), nyamara ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza ari bwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, ari nabwo bukwiye gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka. c. Kuba ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ziteganya igenzura ry’itumanaho mu iperereza n’ikurikiranacyaha, isaka, gukoresha isaka ryo ku mubiri

Page 68

32 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyangwa mu mubiri, ifatira n’itambamira ry’ibintu, uburenganzira bwo gusaka no kujya ahashobora kuboneka ibimenyetso, abafite ububasha bwo gutanga urwandiko rw’isaka ndetse no kugenzura ukekwaho icyaha hifashishijwe ikoranabuhanga, bibangamiye uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Ibyo abisobanura mu buryo bukurikira: i) 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 nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 41 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ari nayo mpamvu kurinda ubwo burenganzira bigomba gukorwa n’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza (Judiciary) kuko ari rwo rwego rwabishinzwe n’Itegeko Nshinga; ii) Uburenganzira bw’umuntu ni ntavogerwa, Itegeko Nshinga rikaba rigena uko burindwa, uko bwubahirizwa ndetse n’Urwego rw’Ubutegetsi rufite inshingano zo kuburinda. Bivuze ko, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 yaryo ivuga ko Itegeko Nshinga ari ryo risumba ayandi kandi ko itegeko ryose, icyemezo cyangwa igikorwa cyose binyuranyije naryo nta gaciro bigira, ingingo z’Itegeko zanyuranya n’uko Itegeko Nshinga ryabiteganyije nta gaciro zifite; iii) Mu gihe hatanzwe urupapuro rw’isaka cyangwa mu gihe habayeho gusaka nta rupapuro, gusaka umuntu ku mubiri n’imbere mu mubiri, inyubako, mu

Page 69

33 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

rugo n’ahakorerwa imirimo, hagomba kubahirizwa ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere k’ukekwaho icyaha kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga atandukanye u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono; iv) Mu gihe uruhushya rw’isaka, kumviriza, kugenzura, gusaka ku mubiri no mu mubiri cyangwa ibindi bikorwa bivugwa mu ngingo z’amategeko zasabiwe gukurwaho, rutanzwe n’urwego rutagenwe n’Itegeko Nshinga, byaba bivuze ko icyo gikorwa hamwe n’amategeko gishingiyeho binyuranye n’ingingo ya 23, agace ka 2 n’aka 3, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo bikaba nta gaciro bifite. d. Kuba ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru by’uko umuntu uwo ari we wese ashobora gutegekwa gutanga amakuru yafasha mu iperereza ndetse n’ukekwaho icyaha akaba yagaragarizwa itangazamakuru ngo agire ibyo aritangariza bibangamiye ibiteganywa n’ingingo zikurikira: i) Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye cyane cyane ihame ry’uko umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha; ii) Ingingo ya 73 n’iya 107 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ziteganya ibanga mu gihe cy’iperereza mu manza z’inshinjabyaha n’ufite

Page 70

34 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inshingano zo gutanga ibimenyetso muri bene izo manza. e) Kuba hashingiwe ku burenganzira ku butabera buboneye, uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite by’ukekwaho icyaha, umuryango we n’aho yakoraga ndetse n’inshingano z’inzego zishinzwe gukumira no kurwanya ibyaha, uru Rukiko rukwiye gutanga umurongo usobanura uburyo amagambo impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru akwiye kumvikana n’imbibi zayo, ibi bigakorwa mu nyungu z’itegeko. [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 18/10/2022, Murangwa Edward yunganiwe na Me Rugemintwaza Jean Marie Vianney na Me Bahati Védaste, naho Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéçiose na Me Kayitesi Pétronille, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cyabyukijwe n’Urukiko cyo kumenya niba Murangwa Edward afite inyungu muri uru rubanza. [5] Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 16/12/2022, Urukiko rwasanze mu gusuzuma ko urega afite inyungu hagomba kurebwa: a. Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba urega cyangwa icyiciro abarizwamo by’umwihariko ku buryo afite inyungu ku giti cye zo gutanga ikirego. Urugero ni nk’itegeko rireba abanyamakuru, abaganga, abarimu, n’abandi;

Page 71

35 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

b. Niba itegeko riregerwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga rireba abaturage muri rusange ku buryo rishobora kugira ingaruka ku burenganzira bwabo, ibyo bikaba aribyo bihesha umuntu uwo ari we wese rishobora kuzagiraho ingaruka, inyungu zo kuriregera ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga; c. Niba uwatanze ikirego ari Avoka, uyu akaba mu nyungu z’ubutabera, yemerewe gutanga ikirego mu rwego rwo guteza imbere amategeko cyangwa uburenganzira bw’abarebwa n’iryo tegeko kabone n’ubwo nta nyungu we ku giti cye yaba afite muri icyo kirego. [6] Urukiko rwasanze imwe mu mpamvu zimaze kuvugwa yihagije kugira ngo rwemeze ko urega afite inyungu, bityo ko mu gihe ingingo z’Itegeko ziregerwa ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ziri mu rwego rw’ingingo zireba buri wese, ibyo bihesha uwaziregeye nk’umwe mubo zireba, inyungu zo gutanga ikirego atabanje gutegereza ko we ku giti cye zimugiraho ingaruka. Urukiko rwemeje ko Murangwa Edward, nk’umwe mu barebwa n’ingingo z’Itegeko rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo ndetse n’iz’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, afite inyungu zo gusaba kwemeza ko zimwe mu ngingo z’ayo mategeko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. Iburanisha ku mizi y’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 24/05/2023. [7] Uwo munsi iburanisha ryabereye mu ruhame, Murangwa Edward yunganiwe nka mbere na Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe nka mbere; hasuzumwa ibibazo bikurikira:

Page 72

36 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

a. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8 y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga; b. Kumenya niba amagambo impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 10 by’umwihariko mu gace kayo ka 3, a, b na c y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushizwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, akwiriye gutangwaho umurongo mu nyungu z’Itegeko. [8] Urukiko rwatangaje ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 21/07/2023, ariko kuri iyo tariki ntibyashoboka ko rusomwa, isomwa ryarwo ryimurirwa ku wa 15/09/2023, ryongera kwimurirwa ku wa 06/10/2023, kubera impamvu zatanzwe n’Urukiko. [9] Kuri iyi tariki Urukiko rwamenyesheje ababuranyi ko urubanza rutasomwe mu mizi nk’uko byari biteganyijwe, kubera ko mu gihe rwari rwiherereye ngo ruce urubanza, hagati aho ku itariki ya 04/08/2023 hasohotse Itegeko Nshinga (ryo ku wa 04/08/2023) rivugurura Itegeko Nshinga ryo mu mwaka wa 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015, iri uwatanze ikirego akaba ariryo yavugaga ko ingingo z’amategeko yaregeraga zinyuranye

Page 73

37 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

naryo, rusanga ari ngombwa kongera gupfundura iburanisha kugira ngo Murangwa Edward ahuze ikirego cye n’ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga rivuguruye. Hagati aho kandi hari umwe mu bacamanza bari bagize inteko wahawe izindi nshingano, bituma inteko ihinduka. [10] Iburanisha ryapfunduwe ku wa 28/11/2023, urega yunganiwe nka mbere, na Leta y’u Rwanda ihagarariwe nka mbere. Murangwa Edward yasabye Urukiko guhagarika no gufatira by’agateganyo ikomeza ry’urubanza ku bw’inyungu z’ubutabera, kugeza igihe amategeko yaregeye ari mu nzira z’ivugururwa azatangarizwa mu Igazeti ya Leta, akareba niba ibyo yari yaregeye byarakemutse ku buryo bitaba ngombwa ko akomeza ikirego, cyangwa niba bitarakemutse akabona guhuza ikirego n’Itegeko Nshinga rivuguruye nk’uko byasabwe n’Urukiko. Yavuze ko ibyo abishingira ku muhango (procedure) udateganyijwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, ukoreshwa muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika, witwa motion in arrest of judgement. [11] Urukiko rwasanze nta bisobanuro bifatika yatanze bishyigikira icyifuzo cye cyo guhagarika urubanza, akaba ataranabashije guhuza ibyo yifashisha bikorwa ahandi n’icyo asaba. Ku bijyanye no guhuza ikirego n’Itegeko Nshinga rivuguruye, Murangwa Edward yavuze ko ingingo z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015 yari yashingiyeho arega zitahindutse mu Itegeko Nshinga rishya, asaba ko aho yari yakoresheje amagambo Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, byahinduka Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Urukiko rwemeje ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku wa 22/12/2023.

Page 74

38 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO II.1. Kumenya niba ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a,b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8 y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga [12] Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganiye bavuga ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza ari bwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, ariko ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8 y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru; hamwe n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ziteganya ko gusaka umuntu, ahantu, ingo, ibiro cyangwa ahandi aho ariho hose hakekwa ko habereye cyangwa hafitanye isano n’icyaha cyangwa harimo hakorerwa icyaha bikorwa n’inzego z’ubutabera zibarirwa mu Butegetsi Nyubahirizategeko (Executive). [13] Bavuga ko ingingo z’amategeko zimaze kuvugwa zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga kuko isaka rivogera uburenganzira bwa muntu kubera ko mbere y’uko urupapuro rw’isaka rutangwa bidasuzumwa ngo byemezwe n’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza,

Page 75

39 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

nyamara aribwo ingingo ya 431 y’Itegeko Nshinga iha inshingano zo kurinda no kubahiriza uburenganzira ntavogerwa bwa muntu. Bavuga ko ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga ishyiraho ihame ry’ubusumbane bw’amategeko, Itegeko Nshinga rikaba ariryo riri hejuru y’ayandi mu gihugu, bivuze ko ingingo z’amategeko yaregeye nta gaciro zikwiye kugira kuko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [14] Bavuga ko mu gihe hatangwa urupapuro rw’isaka (search warrant), mu gihe hasakwa nta rupapuro (warrantless search), cyangwa mu gihe hasakwa umuntu ku mubiri n’imbere mu mubiri, inyubako zituwemo n’ahakorerwa imirimo (residences or professional places of work), uburenganzira bw’ukekwaho icyaha, harimo n’ubwo gufatwa nk’umwere igihe cyose ataragihamywa n’Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha, bugomba kurindwa, kubahirizwa no kwitabwaho nk’uko biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga atandukanye u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono2. [15] Basobanura ko Umushinjacyaha ayobora Umugenzacyaha, uyu nawe akayobora Polisi, nyuma bose

1 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza aribwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu. 2 Ayo masezerano ni aya akurikira: “Univerversal declaration of Human Rights” u Rwanda rwasinye tariki ya 18 ukwezi kwa cyenda 1962; “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Rwanda acceded to the Convention on 1 March 1975 with neither reservations nor derogations; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Rwanda acceded to the Convention on 1 March 1975. It initially had a reservation, which read, The Rwandese Republic [is] bound, however, in respect of education, only by the provisions of its Constitution, but this was withdrawn in October 2008; The African Charter on Human and Peoples’Rights. Rwanda signed the Charter on 11 November 1981 and ratified it on 1 July 1983.

Page 76

40 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bakayoborwa na Minisitiri w’Ubutabera cyangwa undi Minisitiri, ko icyemezo cy’isaka ryaba rikozwe hari urupapuro rw’isaka cyangwa ntarwo, iyo byihutirwa gifatwa n’Umushinjacyaha, uyu akongera akaba ari nawe ubaza ukekwaho icyaha, akaba ari nawe umufatira icyemezo cya nyuma ndetse akazaza no kumushinja mu Rukiko. Bavuga ko ibi bikorwa byose binyuranye n’ihame ryo kureshyeshya ababuranyi (equality of arms between parties) riteganywa n’ingingo ya 126 y’Itegeko rigena imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha ndetse n’amahame akurikira ateganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga: a. Ihame ry’uko inzego z’ubutegetsi zigenzurana (three co-equal arms of government, principal of checks and balance between the three co-equal branches of government); b. Ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye; c. Ihame ry’uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu, iy’umuryango we, aho akorera n’ubutumwa yohererezanya n’abandi ndetse n’uburenganzira ku bwisanzure. [16] Basobanura ko mu Rwanda inzego z’ubutabera zubatse ku buryo buri rwego rw’Ubushinjacyaha rufite n’Urukiko ruri ku rwego rwarwo, ko rero inshingano zo gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka zakagombye gukorwa n’Urukiko ku busabe bw’Umushinjacyaha, Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Polisi, rugatangwa ari uko Umucamanza amaze kugaragarizwa impamvu zifatika kugira ngo abatazubahiriza imbibi zashyizweho n’Urukiko bazabibazwe. Kuri bo, uko bikorwa ubu bituma iyo uwatanze uruhushya rw’isaka ahutaje uburenganzira bw’ukekwaho icyaha habura umugenzura ngo amukebure cyangwa abimubaze, kuko atakwifatira ibihano we ubwe; ibyo

Page 77

41 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

rero bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 61 y’Itegeko Nshinga ivuga ko ubutegetsi uko ari butatu butandukanye, bwigenga ariko kandi bwuzuzanya. [17] Batanga urugero rw’uko mu bihe byashize, umuyoyobozi w’Akarere yakomatanyaga izo nshingano n’izo kuyobora Inama Njyanama bigatuma hatabaho kwigenzura no kwikebura (checks and balances) mu gihe yakoze amakosa. Basobanura ko no mu bikorera, umuyobozi w’inama y’ubutegetsi ataba n’umuyobozi mukuru w’ikigo cy’ubucuruzi. [18] Bavuga ko nubwo inshingano zo kurinda umutekano, ubusugire bw’Igihugu, gukumira ndetse no kugenza ibyaha ari ingenzi kandi inzego zibishinzwe zikaba zikeneye ubufasha n’ubushobozi bwo gukora izo nshingano, uburyo zishyirwa mu bikorwa bigomba kubahiriza ibiteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Basobanura ko ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, bigaragara ko iyo ingingo ya 24, iya 41 n’iya 43 z’Itegeko Nshinga zisomewe hamwe, zumvikanisha ko Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza ari bwo bufite inshingano n’ububasha bwo gusuzuma no kwemeza ko hari impamvu zifatika kandi zikomeye zatuma abashinzwe gukumira no kurwanya ibyaha bavogera uburenganzira bwa muntu ku bw’ituze rya rubanda n’inyungu rusange.

Page 78

42 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[19] Bakomeza bavuga ko uburenganzira buteganywa mu ngingo ya 413 n’iya 434 z’Itegeko Nshinga buhagarikwa gusa n’ibihe bidasanzwe, nabyo byemezwa hagendewe ku ihame ry’igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi, ari nayo mpamvu bigomba gukorwa n’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza. Basanga ibikorwa by’isaka, kumviriza, kuvogera, kugenzura, gusaka ku mubiri no mu mubiri, gusaka mu rugo, ahakorerwa imirimo, ubucuruzi n’ibindi bikorwa byose bivugwa mu ngingo z’amategeko zaregewe, cyane cyane iyo bikozwe n’urwego Itegeko Nshinga ritagennye, bihagarika by’agateganyo uburenganzira bw’ukurikiranyweho icyaha busanzwe burengerwa n’ingingo ya 235 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ndetse bikavogera imibereho ye bwite n’iy’umuryango; ariyo mpamvu ingingo zaregewe ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zigomba kuvanwaho. [20] Bavuga ko Umucamanza Mbuyeseli Madlanga wo mu Rukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga muri Afurika y’Epfo, mu rubanza rwa “Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and security

3 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. 4 Iyo ngingo igira iti: “Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza nibwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu. Iyo nshingano yubahirizwa mu buryo buteganywa n’iri Tegeko Nshinga n’andi mategeko”. 5 Iyo ngingo iteganya ibi bikurikira: 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.

Page 79

43 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

and Others ([2014] ZACC 14)”, yasobanuye ko nubwo hagomba kubahirizwa ingamba zo kurengera umutekano no kurwanya ibyaha, abakora isaka batemerewe kubangamira uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu n’iy’umuryango we. [21] Bavuga ko mu rubanza Johnson yaburanaga na Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika6, urwo Katz yaburanaga na Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika7, urwo Mapp yaburanaga na Leta ya Ohio8, urwo Minister of Police n’abandi baburanaga na Kunjana9 n’urwo Société Colas Est n’abandi baburanaga n’Ubufaransa10,

6Mu rubanza rwa Johnson v. United State (N° 329), 333U.S.10 (1948), Umucamanza yasobanuye urwego rwagombye gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka. 7 Mu rubanza rwa Katz v. United States, 389U.S.347(1967), Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika rwagaragaje aho kumviriza ubutumwa byakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. 8 Mu rubanza rwa Mapp v. Ohio, 367U.S.643 (1971) Mapp v. Ohio No.236 Argued March 29,1961 Decided June 19,1961 367U.S.643, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwa Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika (Justice Thomas Campbell Clark) rwagaragaje uburemere buhabwa uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite ya muntu n’umuryango we no kugaragaza ko urupapuro rw’isaka rutanzwe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha ari iby’ingenzi mu gutanga ubutabera buboneye. 9 Mu rubanza rwa Minister of police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] (9) BCLR 1237(CC); 2016(2) SACR 473(CC) (27 July 2016), Urukiko rwa Afrika y’Epfo rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga rwagaragaje urwego rukwiye gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka ndetse rwemeza ko uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite y’umuntu n’iy’umuryango (right to privacy of person and sancitity of a family and home and all his corespondences) ari ingenzi kandi bukomoka ku gaciro gahabwa ikiremwa muntu. Muri urwo rubanza, hasobanuwe ubushishozi bukenerwa mu gutanga urupapuro rw’isakwa ndetse n’ibigomba kwitonderwa n’Urukiko rugiye kurutanga hashingiwe ku buremere bw’uburenganzira bwo kubaha imibereho bwite y’umuntu n’umuryango we. 10 Mu rubanza rwa Société Colas Est and others v. France (Application no 37971/97) judgment Strasbourg 16 April 2002, mu gika cya 46, Urukiko rw’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu (European Court of Human Rights, Second Section), rwerekanye urwego rugomba gutanga urupapuro

Page 80

44 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

inkiko zimaze kugaragaza uburemere bw’Itegeko Nshinga n’akamaro k’amasezerano mpuzamahanga, zemeje ko gusuzuma, kwemeza ndetse no gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka bikorwa n’Urukiko. Basanga hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga, inkiko z’u Rwanda arizo zajya zitanga inyandiko y’isaka kuko zidafite aho zibogamiye. [22] Basobanura ko iyo ibikorwa by’isaka bikomeje hatarengewe uburenganzira bwa muntu nk’umunyagitinyiro bishobora guhungabanya uwabikorewe n’umuryango we, kuko mu Rwanda abantu bafata ibintu uko biboneye batitaye ku kumenya impamvu zabyo, ku buryo iyo habaye isaka, abavandimwe, umuryango, abaturanyi na rubanda bafata uwasatswe nk’uwahamwe n’icyaha, we n’umuryango we bagashyirwa mu kato ku buryo byabahungabanya. Bavuga ko gutanga urupapuro rw’isaka bidakwiye gufatwa nk’umuhango kuko ubwarwo ari igikorwa cy’ingenzi mu butabera, ko bifashwe nk’umuhango abacamanza bakajya barusinya gusa hanyuma Ubushinjacyaha bukiyuzurizaho ibyo bushaka nk’uko bimeze mu bihugu bimwe na bimwe byatanzweho urugero na Leta y’u Rwanda, byaba bitakiri ubutabera, kuko ubutabera bugomba kureberwa ku ruhande rw’urega n’urw’uregwa. [23] Bavuga ko kuba isaka rikorwa n’Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha bifite imbogamizi z’uko bashobora kuzimangatanya ibimenyetso byari kuzarengera ukekwaho icyaha, ariyo mpamvu inyandiko y’isaka igomba gutangwa n’Urukiko rumaze kugaragarizwa ibigiye gusakwa. Ibi babishingira ku kuba inshingano z’Ubushinjacyaha

rw’isaka runasobanura ko mu gihe atari rwo rwarutanze binyuranyije n’ingingo z’amasezerano y’ubumwe bw’uburayi zirengera imibereho bwite ya muntu n’umuryango we.

Page 81

45 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

n’Ubugenzacyaha ari ugukora iperereza, izi nzego rero akaba atarizo zari zikwiye gufata icyemezo cyo gusaka kuko atari inshingano zazo, ko ahubwo izo nshingano ari iz’Urwego rw’Ubucamanza. [24] Bavuga ko icyo basaba atari ugukuraho igikorwa cy’isaka cyangwa kwambura Ubushinjacyaha inshingano zabwo nk’uko ziteganywa n’ingingo ya 142 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo ari ukugira ngo urwandiko rw’isaka rugire aho rutangirira n’aho rugarukira kubera ko uburyo isaka rikorwamo binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Basaba uru Rukiko gukumira amakosa ashobora gukorwa n’Ubushinjacyaha n’Ubugenzacyaha, rukemeza ko amategeko agenga isaka yubahiriza amahame ateganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, isaka rikajya rikorwa cyangwa ritangirwa uruhushya n’Inkiko nk’urwego rudafite aho rubogamiye. [25] Ikindi Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira bavuga, ni ukuba ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru, ariyo Ubugenzacyaha bushingiraho bugashyira ukekwaho icyaha mu itangazamakuru ngo agire ibyo aritangariza, nyamara ingingo ya 29, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko ukurikiranyweho icyaha afatwa nk’umwere igihe cyose urubanza rutaramwemeza icyaha burundu. Iyo ngingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, igira iti: hakurikijwe amategeko abigenga, RIB ifite ububasha bukurikira: […] 8° gutegeka umuntu gutanga amakuru no kubaza umuntu uwo ari we wese ukekwaho ko afite amakuru yafasha mu iperereza […]. [26] Bavuga ko mu rwego rwo gushyira mu bikorwa ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ingingo ya 73 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza

Page 82

46 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

z’inshinjabyaha yateganyije ko iperereza rikorwa mu ibanga; naho iya 107, igika cya 2, y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko ukurikiranyweho icyaha akomeza kuba umwere igihe ataracirirwa urubanza rwa burundu rumuhamya icyaha, kandi ko muri icyo gihe nta nshingano afite zo gutanga ibimenyetso byo kwiregura. Basanga kandi guhatira ukurikiranyweho icyaha kuvugana n’itangazamakuru bibangamiye ihame ry’uko ntawutegetswe kwishinja icyaha kuko Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha arizo nzego zifite inshingano zo kugenza ibyaha, kubishakira ibimenyetso ndetse no kubishinja. [27] Basobanura ko uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye budatangirira imbere y’Urukiko, ko ahubwo butangira umuntu agitangira gukurikiranwa n’inzego z’ubutabera cyangwa agifatwa; ko rero umuntu ataba afatwa nk’umwere igihe icyaha kitaramuhama, ngo ahatirwe gutanga amakuru ku mikorere yacyo mu itangazamakuru. Bavuga ko Urwego rw’Ubugenzacyaha rukunze kwitwaza ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru rugashyira abakekwaho icyaha imbere y’itangazamakuru harimo na televiziyo zo kuri youtube, bakabazwa ku mikorere y’ibyaha bakekwaho bambaye amapingu cyangwa bahambiriye. Bavuga ko iyi migirire ituma itangazamakuru rihinduka nk’Urukiko n’imyumvire ya rubanda ikaba yagira ingaruka ku cyerekezo cy’Urukiko mu gihe cyo guca urubanza. [28] Bakomeza bavuga ko ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru irimo ibirenze ibikenewe kuko, uretse kuba amagambo kubaza umuntu uwo ari we wese ukekwaho ko afite amakuru yafasha mu iperereza anyuranyije n’ihame

Page 83

47 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

ry’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, mu magambo “umuntu uwo ari we wese harimo n’ukekwaho icyaha ndetse n’Urukiko ku buryo umuntu yasabwa kwishinja icyaha cyangwa Urukiko akaba arirwo rusabwa amakuru ku muntu rufitiye dosiye. [29] Bavuga ko mu rubanza Coetzee n’Abandi baburanaga na Leta ya Afurika y’Epfo, Urukiko rw’icyo Gihugu rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga rwashimangiye ko uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere no kudahatirwa kwishinja cyangwa gutanga amakuru ari ntayegayezwa11. Basaba uru Rukiko narwo kubona ko ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka 2°, y’Itegeko Nshinga; rukemeza ko ivuyeho ndetse rugategeka inzego za Leta zose zifite aho zihuriye n’iperereza kudashyira imbere y’itangazamakuru ukurikiranweho icyaha kugira ngo uburenganzira bwe ku butabera buboneye bwubahirizwe. [30] Bavuga na none ko mu gihe Urukiko rwasanga ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo idakwiye kuvaho kuko itanyuranyije n’ihame ku butabera buboneye riteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, rwakwemeza ko ijambo gutegeka” rivanywemo, naho amagambo umuntu uwo ari we wese akongerwamo usibye ukurikiranyweho icyaha” , kugira ngo harengerwe uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye.

11 S v Coetzee and Others (CCT50/95) [1997] ZACC 2; 1997 (4) BCLR 437; 1997 (3) SA 527 (6 March 1997).

Page 84

48 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[31] Basoza basaba Urukiko gushingira ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko Nshinga ivuga ko ingingo z’amategeko zinyuranyije naryo nta gaciro zigira, rukemeza ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a,b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8 y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga, bityo ko nta gaciro zifite, rukazivanaho zose cyangwa bimwe mu bice byazo bikavanwaho. [32] Me Kabibi Spéçiose na Me Kayitesi Petronille bahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira ntaho bagaragaza ko ingingo baregera zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ko bibanda ahanini ku miterere y’Ubushinjacyaha, bakabushyira mu Butegetsi Nyubahirizategeko ariko bakibagirwa ko bunafatwa nk’igice cy’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza. Bavuga ko kuba amategeko y’u Rwanda aha Ubushinjacyaha umwihariko wo gufata ibyemezo by’agateganyo bituma habaho ubwizerane n’ubwuzuzanye hagati y’Ubushinjacyaha n’Ubucamanza ku bijyanye n’ikurikiranacyaha. [33] Bavuga ko itandukaniro ry’imikurikiranire y’icyaha mu Rwanda no mu bindi bihugu, ari uko mu Rwanda igenzura ry’inyandiko z’isaka rikorwa n’inkiko nyuma y’isaka (contrôle a posteriori), mu gihe mu bihugu nka Leta Zunze Ubumwe za

Page 85

49 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Amerika, Ubwongereza, Ubufaransa, Ububiligi na Kameruni12, urupapuro rw’isaka cyangwa urwo kumviriza itumanaho rushyirwaho umukono n’Umucamanza mbere y’uko rukoreshwa, ariko ko n’ubundi byagaragaye ko muri ibyo bihugu Urukiko rudashobora kwima Ubushinjacyaha izo mpapuro, ko hari n’aho Umucamanza asinya ku rupapuro noneho Ubushinjacyaha bukiyuzuriza andi makuru uko bubyifuza, ibintu bituma uruhare rw’Urukiko rufatwa nk’umuhango. Basanga uburyo bwa contrôle a priori bukoreshwa mu bihugu bimaze kuvugwa haruguru butarutishwa ubukoreshwa n’u Rwanda bworoshya imikorere n’imikoranire hagati y’inzego. [34] Bavuga ko inyandiko z’isaka zitangwa mu Rwanda zitagereranywa n’izitangwa mu bindi bihugu kubera ko izitangwa mu Rwanda ari iz’agateganyo, bitewe n’uko nyuma yazo ukurikiranyweho icyaha agomba gushyikirizwa Urukiko vuba bishoboka kugira ngo nk’urwego rushinzwe kurinda uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu rubifateho icyemezo, ko ari n’uko bigenda ku byafatiriwe. Basobanura ko imiterere n’ububasha by’inzego z’ubutabera idatuma Umucamanza ava ku rukiko ngo ajye kugenza ibyaha, ko izo nshingano ari iz’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha, bityo ko n’ubwo uburyo u Rwanda rukoresha butaboneka mu bihugu byinshi aribwo bwiza kuko bukora neza, inzego zikuzuzanya kandi ko ntaho bubangamiye Itegeko Nshinga. [35] Naho ku bijyanye n’iby’uko urwego rubarizwa mu Butegetsi Nyubahirizategeko rutakora ibikorwa bifatwa nk’iby’Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza (judicial acts), bavuga ko mu ngingo ya 61 y’Itegeko Nshinga, u Rwanda n’Abanyarwanda

12 www. lawreview-5693-miller (2).pdf (Prosecution dominance of the warrant decision: A study of the current practice), visited on 7/7/2022.

Page 86

50 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bahisemo uburyo inzego z’ubutegetsi zikorana zikanuzuzanya, buri rwego mu bwigenge bwarwo. Basobanura ko kuba mu bihugu byavuzwe haruguru, Umucamanza ari we ushyira umukono ku mpapuro zitangiza ikurikiranacyaha bidakuraho ko muri ibyo bihugu byose Umushinjacyaha Mukuru ari we ugena ikurikiranwa ry’uwakoze icyaha13, ko mu Rwanda inshingano zo gutanga urwandiko rw’isaka zimuriwe mu Nkiko byaba bizinjije mu iperereza mbere y’uko ziregerwa, ibi bikaba byaburizamo ubwigenge n’ukutabogama (independence and impatiality) zisanganywe. [36] Bavuga ko urubanza Johnson yaburanaga na Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika n’urwo Katz yaburanaga na Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika Murangwa Edward ashingiraho, zigarukira gusa ku kugaragaza ahagiye gusakwa n’igihe icyo gikorwa kiri bumare, ko ntaho zivuga ku muntu nyakuri ugiye gusakwa cyangwa niba koko ahagiye gusakwa hari ibimenyetso bifatika, ko kandi ibi byatewe n’uko inkiko zasanze inzego zishinzwe iperereza ziba zifitiwe icyizere ndetse hari n’uburyo inkiko zishobora gusuzumira mu rubanza ikitaragenze neza. Basobanura ko nta nyungu bwite Ubushinjacyaha buba bufite mu iperereza, ko inyungu zabwo ari ukugaragaza uburyo icyaha cyakozwe, kandi ko iyi ari inyungu rusange, ariyo mpamvu umukozi wese ushinzwe iperereza agomba gufatwa nk’indakemwa mu gihe ari mu mirimo ye. [37] Basanga nta mpamvu zo kwimurira mu bucamanza inshingano z’iperereza, ahubwo ko inkiko zigomba kugumana ububasha bwo kugenzura niba ibyakozwe byarubahirije amategeko ku buryo n’ukekwaho icyaha uvuga ko yahungabanye ahabwa umwanya wo kubigaragariza ibimenyetso. Bavuga ko

13 www.lawreview-5693-miller (1).pdf.

Page 87

51 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

mu bihugu bimwe aho urwandiko rw’isaka rutangwa n’Urukiko, haba hari “Juge d’Instruction” na “Juge de Détention”, aba bakaba batandukanye n’abacamanza basanzwe. Kuri bo, inshingano z’iperereza zihawe abacamanza byaba bivuze ko Ubushinjacyaha n’inkiko bigiye kujya bikora ikintu kimwe, ibi bikaba byakongera imanza n’ibirarane mu Nkiko ndetse hakabaho no gusesagura umutungo wa Leta. [38] Bavuga ko iyo ingingo ya 23, igika cya gatatu, n’ingingo ya 43 z’Itegeko Nshinga zisomewe hamwe, zumvikanisha ko zafunguriye andi mategeko kuba yagena uburyo inyandiko zitandukanye zikoreshwa mu isaka cyangwa kumviriza ukurikiranyweho icyaha zitangwamo. By’umwihariko ingingo ya 23, igika cya 2, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko hadashobora gukorwa isakwa mu rugo cyangwa kurwinjiramo kubera impamvu z’igenzura nyirarwo atabyemeye, keretse mu bihe no mu buryo biteganyijwe n’amategeko, uyu murongo ukaba ari wo washyizwe mu buryo burambuye mu ngingo ya 38 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha igira iti: mu iperereza n’ikurikiranacyaha, iyo kugira ngo ukuri ku byaha bifitanye isano n’umutekano w’Igihugu, ibyaha bya ruswa n’ibyaha byo kunyereza umutungo wa Leta bikurikiranywe kugaragare, abayobozi b’inzego za Leta zishinzwe umutekano ziteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi n’Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha, bashobora, babiherewe uruhushya rwanditswe n’Umushinjacyaha Mukuru, kumva, kumenya no gufata mu majwi cyangwa mu mashusho inyandiko, interineti, ibiganiro, telegaramu, amakarita y’iposita, itumanaho ry’ubuhanga buhanitse n’ubundi buryo bwose bwo gutumanaho kuri ibyo byaha igihe itumanaho ririmo gukorwa.

Page 88

52 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[39] Bavuga kandi ko ingingo ya 5514, iya 5615 n’iya 5716 z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zatanze ububasha ku nzego bireba ndetse ziteganya uburyo zizakora n’ibihe zizabukoresha nta guhungabanya uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu bibayeho. Basanga ingingo ya 23 n’iya 43 z’Itegeko Nshinga zarahaye Umushingamategeko inshingano zo gushyiraho Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, n’Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, kugira ngo aya mategeko yombi agene ibindi bizakorwa mu buryo butateganyijwe n’Itegeko Nshinga, kubera ko Itegeko Nshinga ritarondora ibikenewe byose. [40] Bakomeza bavuga ko ingingo ya 142 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko Ubushinjacyaha bushinzwe gukora iperereza no gukurikirana ibyaha mu gihugu hose bushaka ibimenyetso bishinja ndetse n’ibishinjura, bityo ko kuba isaka ari kimwe mu

14 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko iyo ukekwaho icyaha afatiwe mu cyuho cyangwa asa n’uwagifatiwemo, ibijyanye no kwitwaza uruhushya rw’isaka ku mugenzacyaha cyangwa kubahiriza amasaha y’isaka bishobora kutubahirizwa. 15 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko mu ishakisha ry’ibimenyetso, isaka ryo ku mubiri cyangwa mu mubiri rishobora gukoreshwa n’Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha yifashishije umuntu ubifitiye ubumenyi cyangwa akoresheje ikoranabuhanga ryabugenewe, kandi igatanga imbibi ku buryo bwo gukora iryo saka. 16 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha ashobora gufatira ibintu cyangwa gutambamira umutungo utimukanwa aho byaba biri hose no mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose iyo bishobora kunyagwa mu buryo bwateganyijwe n’itegeko n’ibindi byose bishobora kuba ibimenyetso bihamya cyangwa birengera uregwa.

Page 89

53 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

bikorwa by’iperereza rikorwa hagamijwe gushaka ibimenyetso, byumvikana ko Itegeko Nshinga ryabishyize mu bubasha bw’Ubushinjacyaha. [41] Ku bijyanye n’isaka nta ruhushya, bavuga ko kuba Ubugenzacyaha cyangwa Ubushinjacyaha bwakora isaka nta ruhushya rw’isaka rwatanzwe kandi bigakorwa mu bihe biteganywa n’itegeko, cyane cyane mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ndetse n’iya 55 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda, ahubwo binakorwa no mu bindi bihugu. Batanga urugero rw’ingingo ya 2217 y’Itegeko rya Afurika y’Epfo rigenga ikurikiranacyaha. [42] Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda basanga ibijyanye n’isaka nta ruhushya bitanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, haba mu ngingo yaryo ya 61 ndetse n’izindi zigaragazwa n’urega mu mwanzuro we. Basoza bavuga ko bidakwiye ko ingingo zaregewe zikurwaho, kuko Itegeko Nshinga ubwaryo ryateganyije ayo mategeko mu ngingo zaryo za 23 na 43, kugira

17 “A police official may without a search warrant search any person or container or premises for the purpose of seizing any article referred to in section 20: if the person concerned consents to the search for and the seizure of the article in question, or if the person who may consent to the search of the container or premises consents to such search and the seizure of the article in question; or if he on reasonable grounds believes: i. that a search warrant will be issued to him under paragraph (a) of section 21(1) if he applies for such warrant; and ii. that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object of the search.”

Page 90

54 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ngo azateganye ku buryo burambuye ibyo ryo ritashoboraga guteganya hanagendewe ku busumbane bw’amategeko. Bavuga kandi ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, cyane cyane mu ngingo yaryo ya 61, uruhare rw’Umucamanza mu gutanga inyandiko (warrants) rutasimbujwe, ahubwo Ubucamanza bworoherejwe akazi muri bwa budasa mu mikorere y’inzego z’ubutegetsi bw’u Rwanda yo gukora mu bwigenge n’ubwuzuzanye, ndetse ko mu bihugu bimwe na bimwe byateye imbere uru ruhushya rwo gusaka atari ngombwa, mu gihe mu bindi bihugu rutangwa n’Umucamanza bitewe n’uburyo itegeko ribigenga riteye. [43] Ku byerekeye ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8°, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha, rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira bayivugisha ibyo itavuga, kuko ntaho ivuga ko ukurikiranyweho icyaha ari we uhatirwa gutanga amakuru, ahubwo ko ivuga umuntu uwo ari we wese, ibyo bikaba bivuze undi muntu utari ukurikiranweho icyaha, bishaka kumvikanisha ko uwo muntu ari umutangabuhamya ubungezacyaha bukeka ko afite amakuru yabufasha mu iperereza. [44] Bavuga ko bemeranywa na Murangwa Edward ko umuntu wese ukurikiranweho icyaha akomeza gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha, ariko ko umuntu uri imbere y’Urukiko akwiye gutandukanywa n’ukiri mu nzego z’iperereza aho ibimenyetso biba bicyegeranywa; bakaba basanga rero ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga yerekeye ubutabera buboneye ishyiraho

Page 91

55 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

amahame agomba kubahirizwa mu gihe cy’iburanisha gusa, bityo ikaba idakwiye gushingirwaho mu gihe cy’iperereza. [45] Bavuga kandi ko ingingo ya 17 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ishyiraho inzego zishinzwe iperereza ndetse ko ariyo Umugenzacyaha ashingiraho agitangira iperereza ry’ibanze, ikaba iri no mu zimuha ububasha bwo kubaza uwo ari we wese akeka ko afite amakuru ku mikorere y’icyaha. Basobanura ko amagambo umuntu uwo ari we wese atavuze ukurikiranweho icyaha kubera ko mu iperereza ry’ibanze ukurikiranweho icyaha aba ataramenyekana, ko hari n’igihe umuntu atangira abazwa nk’umutangabuhamya bikarangira bigaragaye ko ari we ugomba gukurikiranwa. [46] Basanga gutanga amakuru no kwishinja ari ibintu bibiri bitandukanye, ko kwishinja bishoboka gusa iyo wamenyeshejwe ibyaha uregwa, ugategekwa kubitangira ibisobanuro, naho gutanga amakuru bikaba bidakorwa gusa n’abaregwa, ko niyo bayatanze aba aribo babishatse. Basobanura ko amategeko ateganya uburyo amakuru ajyanye n’imikorere y’icyaha atangwa, ko umuntu wese wisobanura ku cyaha abanza kumenyeshwa ibyo aregwa, akagaragarizwa ko arimo kubazwa, akamenyeshwa n’uburenganzira bwe harimo n’ubwo guceceka, kutishinja ndetse no kubazwa yunganiwe. [47] Bakomeza bavuga ko gutanga amakuru bitavuze kuyatangira imbere y’itangazamakuru cyangwa ko uyatanga agomba kuba ufunzwe, ahubwo ko icyangombwa ari uko mu gihe abajijwe amakuru ategetswe kuyatanga, kandi ko ibyo bitandukanye no kwishinja kubera ko amakuru atangwa mu rwego rwo gufasha mu iperereza. Basobanura ko intego y’amakuru atangwa mu gihe cy’iperereza atari ukugira ngo

Page 92

56 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yohererezwe itangazamakuru ahubwo ari ukugaragaza imikorere y’icyaha n’abakigizemo uruhare. [48] Basobanura ko ntaho ingingo iregerwa iteganya ko ukekwaho icyaha agomba kwiregurira imbere y’itangazamakuru, ndetse ko nta n’indi ngingo y’Itegeko Murangwa Edward agaragaza yaba ibiteganya ityo. Bakomeza bavuga ko nubwo Ubugenzacyaha bwitwararika bukabariza abantu ahantu hatuje kandi hatekanye, bitavanaho ko itangazamakuru rishobora kubutanga ahakorewe icyaha, bigatuma mu gihe cy’ibazwa, itangazamakuru rifata uwo muntu amajwi cyangwa n’amashusho Umugenzacyaha atabizi, ariko ko nabyo bidakwiye gufatwa nk’ikibazo cyatuma ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 8°, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru iregerwa nk’inyuranyije n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, kuko ari ikibazo cy’imikorere gishobora gukemurwa hataregewe ivanwaho ry’itegeko kuko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [49] Basoza bavuga ko ibijyanye n’icyifuzo cya Murangwa Edward cy’uko uru Rukiko rwategeka inzego za Leta zifite aho zihuriye n’iperereza kudashyira mu itangazamakuru umuntu ukurikiranyweho icyaha yambaye amapingu cyangwa ahambiriye kugira ngo ahatwe ibibazo bidakwiye gusuzumwa ngo bifatweho icyemezo kuko bidafitanye isano n’icyaregewe.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [50] Ingingo z’amategeko Murangwa Edward asaba Urukiko kwemeza ko zinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga zivuga ku bintu binyuranye, ariko ibyo yagarutseho mu bisobanuro yatanze ni ibirebana n’isaka, kimwe n’ibirebana no gutegeka umuntu gutanga amakuru no kubaza umuntu uwo ari we wese ukekwaho

Page 93

57 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

ko afite amakuru yafasha mu iperereza. Ibyo rero nibyo n’Urukiko rwibandaho mu gusuzuma ikirego yarugejejeho. a. Ibyerekeye isaka i) Ku bijyanye n’ isaka rishingiye ku ruhushya rw’isaka [51] Ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, igice cya mbere cy’agace ka gatatu, y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo iteganya ko hakurikijwe amategeko abigenga, RIB (Rwanda Investigation Bureau) ifite ububasha bukurikira: […] gusaka umuntu, kwinjira mu nyubako cyangwa ahantu hakekwaho kuba hafitanye isano n’amakuru ashakwa hashingiwe ku ruhushya rwo gusaka […]. [52] Ingingo ya 55, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko Umugenzacyaha mu gihe asanga ibimenyetso akeneye bigizwe n’impapuro, inyandiko n’ibindi bintu bibitswe n’ukekwaho icyaha cyangwa se undi wese, ashobora kujya gusaka aho biherereye yitwaje uruhushya rwo gusaka ahabwa n’Ubushinjacyaha. Umushinjacyaha ushinzwe gutegura dosiye y’urubanza ashobora nawe kujya gusaka aho icyaha cyakorewe cyangwa ahandi hantu hose hashobora kuboneka ibimenyetso byatuma ukuri kujya ahagaragara. Umushinjacyaha ashobora gushinga iyo mirimo Umugenzacyaha. [53] Ingingo ya 61 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ko urwandiko rwo gusaka ari icyemezo gitangwa n’Umushinjacyaha bitangiwe uruhushya n’aba bakurikira:

Page 94

58 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

1° Umushinjacyaha Mukuru; 2° Umushinjacyaha Mukuru wa Gisirikare ku bireba abasirikare n’uwo bafatanyije icyaha; 3° Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu; 4° Umushinjacyaha uyobora Ubushinjacyaha ku Rwego Rwisumbuye; 5o Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Ibanze. Urwandiko ruvugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo ruha ugomba kugishyira mu bikorwa uburenganzira bwo kujya ahantu hagenwe mu rwandiko, kugira ngo abe yatahura ibimenyetso cyangwa ibintu byagaragaza ukuri kw’icyaha n’ugikekwaho. [54] Urukiko rurasanga itegeko ubwaryo ridasobanura isaka icyo ari cyo. Abahanga mu mategeko yerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha bavuga ko isaka ari uburyo urwego rubifitiye ububasha rukoresha imbaraga rukinjira mu nyubako cyangwa inkengero zayo, hubahirijwe uburyo buteganywa ndetse n’ibisabwa n’amategeko, kugira ngo hagaragazwe ikorwa ry’icyaha, hakusanywe ibimenyetso by’ikorwa ry’icyaha, hagire ibifatirwa cyangwa hafatwe abakekwaho icyaha cyangwa ibyitso byabo18. Basobanura ko isaka rikorwa iyo hari impamvu zifatika zituma habaho gukeka ko hari ikintu gifitwe n’umuntu runaka

18 “La perquisition est le moyen de coercition par lequel l’autorité compétente pénètre dans une demeure ou une dépendance de celle-ci, dans les conditions et les formes prévues par la loi, afin d’y constater une infraction, de rassembler les preuves relatives à une infraction, de procéder à des saisies ou d’arrêter les auteurs ou complices présumés de celle-ci”; Michel Franchimont et les Autres, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier,2012, p. 515.

Page 95

59 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

cyangwa giherereye ahantu runaka kandi gishobora kugaragaza ukuri mu rubanza nshinjabyaha19. [55] Impamvu zifatika zituma habaho isaka (reasonable grounds/probable cause) zibaho iyo inzego zibifitiye ububasha, mu bwitonzi n’ubushishozi bwazo, zabonye amakuru yizewe yatuma zikeka ko hari ibimenyetso bijyanye n’ikorwa ry’icyaha byagaragazwa n’uko hakozwe isaka20. Mu yandi magambo, isaka rikorwa hagamijwe gushaka cyangwa kuzuza ibimenyetso mu rubanza nshinjabyaha. Ni igikorwa cy’iperereza, ibyo bikaba binemezwa n’umuhanga Michel Franchimont21. [56] Ingingo z’amategeko zavuzwe haruguru zumvikanisha ko igikorwa cyo gusaka nk’uko kimaze gusobanurwa, kiyoborwa n’Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha ariko hashingiwe ku ruhushya rw’isaka rwatanzwe n’Ubuyobozi bw’Ubushinjacyaha. Murangwa Edward yemera ko isaka rigomba gukorwa n’Ubugenzacyaha cyangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha; icyo atemera, ari naho hashingiye ikirego cye, ni ukuba uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha aho gutangwa n’Urukiko. Asobanura ko kuba uruhushya rw’isaka rudatangwa n’Urukiko bituma ingingo z’amategeko yaregeye zinyuranya n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga.

19 Etienne du Toit and Others, Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act, Juta, Cape Town, 1996, p. 2-3. 20 Probable cause exists when prudent and caustious police officers have trustworth information leading them to believe that evidence of crime might be obtained through a particular search; John M. Scheb and John M. Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure, Toronto, Thomson and Wadsorth, 2005, p.380. 21 La perquisition est un acte d’instruction […]; Michel Franchimont, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2012, p.516.

Page 96

60 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[57] Urukiko rurasanga nubwo Murangwa Edward afatira hamwe izi ngingo z’Itegeko Nshinga, ziri mu byiciro bitandukanye: a. Icyiciro kirebana n’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure; b. Icyiciro kirebana no guteza imbere no kurinda uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure; c. Icyiciro kirebana n’Inzego z’Ubutegetsi za Leta. [58] Ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24 n’iya 29 ziri mu cyiciro kirebana n’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu. By’umwihariko, ingingo ya 13 n’iya 14 zishyiraho uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa k’umuntu haba mu mutwe cyangwa ku mubiri. Ingingo ya 13 y’Itegeko Nshinga igira iti: umuntu ni umunyagitinyiro kandi ni indahungabanywa. Leta ifite inshingano zo kumwubaha, kumurinda no kumurengera. Naho ingingo ya 14 ikagira iti: umuntu wese afite uburenganzira bwo kudahungabanywa ku mubiri no mu mutwe. Ntawe ushobora kwicwa urubozo, gukorerwa ibibabaza umubiri cyangwa ngo akorerwe ibikorwa by’ubugome, ibikorwa bidakwiye umuntu cyangwa bimutesha agaciro. Ntawe ushobora gukorerwaho igerageza atabyiyemereye. Uburyo bwo kubyemera kimwe n’ubw’iryo gerageza bugenwa n’Itegeko. [59] Ingingo ya 23 n’iya 24 igika cya mbere z’Itegeko Nshinga, zivuga ku burenganzira ku mibereho bwite, ubwisanzure n’umutekano bya muntu. Ingingo ya 23 igira iti: 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

Page 97

61 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

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. Naho ingingo ya 24, igika cya mbere ivuga ko ubwisanzure n’umutekano bya muntu byubahirizwa na Leta... [60] Ingingo ya 24, igika cya kabiri n’icya gatatu, ndetse n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga zishyiraho ihame ry’ubutabera buboneye. Ingingo ya 24, igika cya kabiri n’icya gatatu igira iti: ntawe ushobora gukurikiranwa, gufatwa, gufungwa cyangwa guhanirwa icyaha keretse mu gihe biteganywa n’amategeko akurikizwa mu gihe icyaha akurikiranweho cyakorewe. Ntawe ushobora gukorerwa igenzurwa keretse mu bihe no mu buryo buteganyijwe n’Itegeko kandi kubera impamvu zishingiye ku ituze rusange rya rubanda cyangwa ku mutekano w’igihugu. [61] Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, burimo uburenganzira bwo: 1° Kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa; 2° Gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha; 3° Kuburanira imbere y’Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha; 4° Kudakurikiranwa, kudafatwa, kudafungwa cyangwa kudahanirwa ibyo yakoze cyangwa atakoze, iyo amategeko y’Igihugu cyangwa amategeko mpuzamahanga atabifataga nk’icyaha igihe byakorwaga.

Page 98

62 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ibyaha n’ibihano bijyanye nabyo biteganywa n’amategeko. 5° kutaryozwa icyaha atakoze; uburyozwacyaha ni gatozi ku wakoze icyaha; […] [62] Ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga yo iri mu cyiciro cyo guteza imbere no kurinda uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, igira iti: ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza nibwo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu. Iyo nshingano yubahirizwa mu buryo buteganywa n’iri Tegeko Nshinga n’andi mategeko. Naho ingingo ya 61, igika cya mbere n’icya kabiri, y’Itegeko Nshinga iri mu cyiciro cy’Inzego z’Ubutegetsi bwa Leta, igira iti: inzego z’Ubutegetsi bwa Leta ni izi zikurikira: 1° Ubutegetsi Nshingamategeko; 2° Ubutegetsi Nyubahirizategeko; 3° Ubutegetsi bw’Ubucamanza Ubu butegetsi uko ari butatu buratandukanye kandi buri butegetsi burigenga, ariko bwose bukuzuzanya […]. [63] Urukiko rusanga ahari ipfundo ry’ikibazo, ari ukumenya niba kuba uruhushya rw’isaka rudatangwa n’Urukiko ahubwo rugatangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha, byaba binyuranyije na zimwe cyangwa ingingo zose z’Itegeko Nshinga zavuzwe haruguru nk’uko Murangwa Edward abivuga. [64] Iyo icyaha gikozwe, inzego zibishinzwe ziba zigomba kwihutira gushaka no kwegeranya ibimenyetso byafasha gutahura uwagikoze. Muri uko gushaka no kwegeranya ibimenyetso, hakenerwa gukora isaka ahantu hose hakekwa ko byaboneka harimo aho abantu batuye, aho bakorera, n’ahandi. Ni

Page 99

63 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

igikorwa kiba kigomba kuba mu buryo bwihuse, kugirango hatabaho kurigisa cyangwa kwangiza ibimenyetso. [65] Ingingo ya 23 y’Itegeko Nshinga ibuza kuvogera umuntu, mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, mu mibereho ye bwite, iy’umuryango we, urugo rwe, no mu butumwa yohererezanya n’abandi. Iyi ngingo yemera ariko ko hashobora kubaho isakwa mu bihe no mu buryo buteganywa n’itegeko. Ingingo ya 24 y’Itegeko Nshinga yongeraho ko igenzurwa (mesures de sûreté) rishobora kubaho mu bihe no mu buryo buteganyijwe n’Itegeko kandi kubera impamvu zishingiye ku ituze rusange rya rubanda cyangwa ku mutekano w’igihugu. Ibi bivuze ko ihame ryo kutavogerwa riteganywa n’izi ngingo atari ndakuka (absolu), ahubwo rifite imbibi rigarukiraho (limitations), ariko gusa mu bihe no mu buryo bugenwa n’itegeko. Izi ngingo kandi ntiziha ububasha bwo gusaka urwego runaka, cyangwa ngo zigene uburyo isaka rigomba gukorwamo, ahubwo ziha itegeko ububasha bwo kubigena. [66] Mu rwego rwo gushyira mu bikorwa ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo za 23 na 24 zimaze kuvugwa, hashyizweho Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ndetse n’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. Muri aya mategeko yombi, Umushingamategeko yasobanuye uburyo isaka rigomba gukorwamo, aha n’ububasha bwo gusaka inzego zishinzwe iperereza, ni ukuvuga Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 9,2o y’ Itegeko N°

Page 100

64 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/201722; n’ingingo ya 17, igika cya 1 n’icya 2, y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/201923. [67] Ubushinjacyaha nk’urwego rukuriye igikorwa cy’iperereza, nibwo itegeko ryahaye ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rwo gusaka. Mu bihugu uruhushya rwo gusaka rutangwa n’Umucamanza, hari ibigira Umucamanza wihariye uba ushinzwe gukora iperereza no gukurikirana ibikorwa by’iperereza bita “juge d’instruction”, ukora ku madosiye aba yashyikirijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha. Uyu mucamanza ntajya mu iburanisha, kugirango hatabaho kubangikanya imirimo yo gukurikirana ibyaha no kubiburanisha, itagomba ubundi kubangikanywa. Urugero rw’ibyo bihugu ni nk’Ubwami bw’Ububiligi, Ubufaransa, Kameruni n’ibindi. [68] Mu Bwami bw’Ububiligi, “juge d’instruction” nawe ubwe ashobora gusaka abisabwe cyangwa abyibwirije inyubako y’ukekwaho icyaha cyangwa ahandi hantu aho ariho hose kugira ngo afatire impapuro cyangwa ibindi ibintu byatuma hagaragazwa ukuri24. Ni ukuvuga ko muri icyo gikorwa juge

22 Inshingano za RIB ni izi zikurikira: 1o […]; 2o Gukora iperereza rigamije gushakisha, guhagarika no kuburizamo ibyaha biri gukorwa […] 23 Iperereza rikorwa n’Ubushinjacyaha bwifashishije Ubugenzacyaha. Icyakora, iperereza ry’ibanze rikorwa n’Ubugenzacyaha bubyibwirije, buregewe cyangwa bubitegetswe n’Ubushinjacyaha. 24 Article 87 du Code d’Instruction Criminelle mise à jour au 07/08/2018: “Le juge d'instruction se transportera, s'il en est requis, et pourra même se transporter d'office dans le domicile [de l'inculpé], pour y faire la perquisition des papiers, effets, et généralement de tous les objets qui seront jugés utiles à la manifestation de la vérité. <L 10-07- 1967, art. 1, 52°>.

Page 101

65 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

d’instruction ari urwego rw’iperereza. Ibi ni nako bimeze mu Bufaransa, aho juge d’instruction akora cyangwa agakurikirana ibikorwa byose bijyanye n’iperereza (birimo n’igikorwa cyo gusaka)25. [69] Mu gihugu cya Kameruni, inyandiko y’isaka ishobora gutangwa n’Umushinjacyaha cyangwa na juge d’instruction26, uyu akaba ashobora no gukora isaka ubwe27. Mu Bwami bw’Ububiligi naho Umushinjacyaha ashobora gusaka atagombye guhabwa uruhushya na juge d’instruction, igihe habayeho gufatirwa mu cyuho28.

Art. 88 du même code: Le juge d'instruction pourra pareillement se transporter dans les autres lieux où il présumerait qu'on aurait caché les objets dont il est parlé dans l'article précédent.” 25 Article 81, al.1, du Code de procédure pénale, édition 2016: “Le juge d'instruction procède, conformément à la loi, à tous les actes d'information qu'il juge utiles à la manifestation de la vérité. Il instruit à charge et à décharge.” 26 Article 12 du Code de Procédure Pénale du 27 Juillet 2005: “(1) Le Procureur de la République peut décerner: a) des mandats de comparution, d'amener, de perquisition et d'extraction; b) […] (2) Le Juge d'Instruction peut décerner mandat de comparution, d'amener, de perquisition, d'arrêt, de détention provisoire et d'extraction”. L’article 16 du même Code: “Le mandat de perquisition est l'ordre donné à l'officier de police judiciaire par le Procureur de la République, le Juge d'Instruction ou la juridiction de jugement, de pénétrer dans tout lieu public ou privé, de le fouiller aux fins de rechercher et de saisir tous objets ou documents qui ont servi à la commission d'une infraction ou qui apparaissent comme le produit d'une infraction”. 27 Article 177 du Code de Procédure Pénale du 27 Juillet 2005:(1) “Le Juge d'Instruction peut se transporter sur toute l'étendue du ressort territorial de sa juridiction pour effectuer tous les actes d'information utiles à la manifestation de la vérité, et notamment procéder à des perquisitions et à des saisies”. 28 Article 32 du Code d’Instruction Criminelle mise à jour au 07/08/2018: “Dans tous les cas de flagrant délit, lorsque le fait sera de nature à entraîner

Page 102

66 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[70] Hari ibindi bihugu uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’Urukiko, nko muri Afurika y’Epfo, muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika, mu Bwongereza29, muri Canada n’ahandi. Muri Afurika y’Epfo, ingingo ya 21, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha (Criminal Procedure Act, 1977) ivuga ko uruhushya rw’isaka rushobora gutangwa n’Urukiko iyo, nyuma y’indahiro y’urusaba, Urukiko rugaragarijwe ko hari impamvu zifatika zituma habaho gukeka ko hari ikintu gifitwe cyangwa kigenzurwa n’umuntu runaka cyangwa giherereye mu nyubako iri mu ifasi yarwo. Iyi ngingo iteganya ko urwo ruhushya rushobora no gutangwa n’Umucamanza mu gihe cy’iburanisha iyo bimugaragariye ko ari ngombwa30.

une peine [criminelle], le [procureur du Roi] se transportera sur lieu, sans aucun retard, pour y dresser les procès-verbaux nécessaires à l'effet de constater le corps du délit, sont état, l'état des lieux, et pour recevoir les déclarations des personnes qui auraient été présentes, ou qui auraient des renseignements à donner. Le [procureur du Roi] donnera avis de son transport au juge d'instruction, sans être toutefois tenu de l'attendre pour procéder ainsi qu'il est dit au présent chapitre”. 29Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Rules & article 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 2023 version. 30 (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 22, 24 and 25, an article referred to in section 20 shall be seized only by virtue of a search warrant issued - (a) by a magistrate or justice, if it appears to such magistrate or justice from information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any such article is in the possession or under the control of or upon any person or upon or at any premises within his area of jurisdiction; or (b) by a judge or judicial officer presiding at criminal proceedings, if it appears to such judge or judicial officer that any such article in the possession or under the control of any person or upon or at any premises is required in evidence at such proceedings”.

Page 103

67 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[71] Muri Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika, naho ingingo ya 41 b) ya “Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 2021” iteganya ko uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’Urukiko ku busabe bw’umukozi w’ubutabera ubifitiye ububasha31. Umucamanza utanga uruhushya rwo gusaka aba ari ako kazi ashinzwe (neutral and detached judge)32. [72] Mu Bwongereza, uruhushya rwo gusaka rutangwa habanje kubaho iburanisha ryitabirwa n’uwarusabye, ahibereye cyangwa binyuze mu buryo bw’iyakure, bigakorwa mu masaha y’akazi cyangwa nyuma yayo33. Abacamanza bagira umunyamategeko ushinzwe kubafasha, hakaba n’uduce tugira

31 At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government: “(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district—or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district—has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district; (2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; (3) a magistrate judge—in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism—with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district […]”. 32 Urubanza Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), para 1, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/443/ 33 “No search warrant can be granted without a private hearing in the presence of the applicant. An applicant need not be physically present: hearings may take place in person, by live link or over the telephone. These hearings will usually take place during court hours, but if the application is particularly urgent it can be heard outside court hours”; UK Law Commission Report No 396, search warrant, 7 October 2020, p.129, para 5.70.

Page 104

68 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

abacamanza cyangwa inkiko zishinzwe gusa ako kazi34. Kimwe mu bibazo byagaragajwe na Komisiyo ishinzwe kuvugurura amategeko muri icyo Gihugu, ni icyo kuba imirimo isanzwe y’inkiko ishobora kubangamirwa n’akazi ko gutanga impushya zo gusaka35; kandi gutinda kuzitanga bikaba bishobora gutuma hari ibimenyetso bibura36. [73] Urukiko rusanga imwe mu mpamvu zituma bimwe mu Bihugu byavuzwe haruguru biteganya ko isaka rigomba gutangirwa uruhushya n’Urukiko, harimo no kutizera ubunyamwuga bw’inzego nyubahiriza tegeko. Mu rubanza Park Ross yaburanaga na “Director, Office for Serious Economic Offences”, Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga muri

34 “The Justices Clerks Society stated that in the South-East region applicants book themselves in for a hearing using an online diary and then email the application to the court. The application is then held by telephone with a justice supported by a legal adviser, who deal with no other types of business”; ibidem, para 5.88. “The West London Magistrates’ Bench informed us that West London has dedicated search warrant courts. A single magistrate hears applications from across London during 30-minute telephone slots which must be booked in advance. The magistrate will read emailed applications and question the applicant during a telephone conference in which a legal adviser also participates. The legal adviser can note additional information provided by the applicant and make minor amendments to the search warrant. The West London Magistrates’ Bench commended the dedicated search warrant court model for saving police and court time”; ibidem, para 5.87. 35 “[…] The second issue, as noted above, is the impact on the running of the courts. Court business may be disrupted and the courts may be put under pressure to deal with warrant applications with undue haste [ …]”; ibidem, para 5.101. 36 “[…] The longer it takes to obtain and execute a search warrant, the higher the risk of evidence being lost and the longer the period of potential offending and therefore harm being caused to members of the public”; ibidem, para 5.129.

Page 105

69 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Afurika y’Epfo rwavuze ko akamaro ko guha Urukiko ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rw’isaka ari ukugira ngo ruhagarare hagati y’umuturage n’inzego z’iperereza, rusuzume niba koko impamvu zatanzwe n’urwego ruri gusaba uruhushya zifatika37, hirindwe ko inzego z’iperereza zakwinjirira bikabije uburenganzira bw’umuturage38. [74] Mu rubanza McDonald yaburanaga na Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasanze uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite ari ingenzi cyane ku buryo butaguma mu maboko y’abashinzwe iperereza no gukurikirana abanyabyaha cyane cyane ko Polisi itizewe mu buryo ikoresha ububasha bwayo.39 Naho mu rubanza Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika zaburanaga na United States District Court, urwo Rukiko rwasanze kurekera ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rw’isaka mu maboko y’abashinzwe iperereza bishobora gutuma bashaka ibimenyetso bishinja gusa ndetse bikaba byatuma birengagiza ibyo kurengera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite40.

37 Park Ross v Director, Office for Serious Economic Offences 1995 (2) SA 148 (C) at 172, https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2000/12.pdf 38 Urubanza National Unions of South African Students v Divisional Commissioner South African Police 1971 (2) SA 553 (C). 39 “It was done so that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrestof criminals. Power is a heady thing, and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted […]”; McDonald v United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-456, 69 S. Ct 191, 195-96, 93 L.Ed. 153, 158 (1948), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/451/ 40 “[ …] unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy […]”; United States v United States District Court, 407 U.S. at 317, 92 S. Ct 2136, 32 L.Ed. 2d at 766, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/407/297.

Page 106

70 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[75] Ikigaragara mu ngero z’ibikorwa mu Bihugu bitandukanye zatanzwe, ni uko buri Gihugu gishyiraho “system” kibona ikwiye, hashingiwe ku mikoro gifite, ku miterere y’inzego zishinzwe ubutabera, ku cyatuma igikorwa cyo kwegeranya ibimenyetso kihuta, ku cyizere gihabwa inzego zishinzwe iperereza no gukurikirana ibyaha, n’ibindi. Urukiko rusanga ingamba yo gutuma uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’Urukiko igamije ahanini gukumira ko inzego z’iperereza zagira uburenganzira bw’umuturage zahungabanya. Ibi byumvikanisha ko, icy’ingenzi ari ukubahiriza uburenganzira bw’umuturage ugiye gusakwa, kugira ngo isaka ritaba urwitwazo cyangwa impamvu yo kuvogera uburenganzira ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga; naho kuba uruhushya rwatangwa n’urwego runaka ubwabyo bikaba bitafatwa nk’uburenganzira usakwa ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu yandi magambo, uruhushya rwatangwa n’Urukiko cyangwa n’urundi rwego, inshingano z’urwego rugiye gukora isaka ni ukwitwara kinyamwuga no kubahiriza amategeko. [76] Urukiko rusanga kuba isaka ryemejwe n’Urukiko bitabuza byanze bikunze ugiye gukora isaka kuvogera uburenganzira bw’usakwa. Mu rubanza Ernest n’abandi baburanaga na Leta y’Ububiligi mu Rukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu, abarega bavugaga ko nubwo isaka bakorewe ryemejwe na juge d’Instruction, inzego z’iperereza zavogereye urugo rwabo ndetse ntizubahiriza uburenganzira bwabo ku mibereho bwite kuko hari amakuru bwite zafatiriye zitabanje kuyakorera urutonde, ntibamenyeshwa irengero ryayo n’icyo yari kuzazimarira. Urukiko rwasanze uruhushya rw’isaka rwaratanzwe hatabanje kugaragazwa icyaha cyakozwe cyangwa gikekwa kuba cyakozwe ngo binamenyeshwe abagomba gusakwa, rwandikwa

Page 107

71 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

mu mvugo rusange, ntirwavuga igihe ruzarangirira, aho isaka rizakorerwa n’ibigomba gufatirwa. Nubwo isaka ryari ryemejwe n’Umucamanza, Urukiko rwanzuye ko ritubahirije icyari kigambiriwe, bityo ko ryanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 8 y’Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi ku burenganzira bwa muntu41. [77] Urukiko rurasanga urubanza rumaze kuvugwa haruguru rushimangira ko kuba uruhushya rw’isaka rwatangwa n’Urukiko atari byo bituma mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryarwo hubahirizwa uburenganzira ugiye gusakwa asanzwe ateganyirizwa n’Itegeko Nshinga. Urukiko rurasanga ahubwo kugira ngo uburenganzira bw’ugiye gusakwa budahungabanywa, hagomba kubaho amategeko asobanura mu buryo bwumvikana ibigomba kubahirizwa. Hagomba kuba kandi harateganyijwe uburyo ayo mategeko ashyirwa mu bikorwa n’inzego zibishinzwe, ububasha

41 “116 […] la Cour, rappelant qu'aucune infraction n'était reprochée aux requérants, se doit de constater que les différents mandats de perquisition étaient rédigés en termes larges [ …] En effet, le conseiller instructeur ordonna, le 23 juin 1995, la série des perquisitions « à l'effet d'y rechercher et d'y saisir tous documents et objets utiles à l'instruction » (paragraphe 13 ci- dessus), sans aucune limitation. Ces mandats de perquisition, qui ne donnaient aucune information sur l'instruction en cause, sur les lieux précis à visiter et sur les objets à saisir, octroyaient ainsi de larges pouvoirs aux enquêteurs […] Un grand nombre d'objets, dont des disquettes informatiques et des disques durs des ordinateurs des requérants, furent effectivement saisis; le contenu de certains documents et supports magnétiques fut copié. En outre, le Gouvernement admet que les requérants ne reçurent pas d'information sur les poursuites qui ont rendu l'opération nécessaire. Ils ont ainsi été laissés dans l'ignorance quant aux motifs concrets des perquisitions effectuées chez eux.

117. Au vu de tout ce qui précède, [ …] la Cour estime que les perquisitions n'ont pas été proportionnées aux buts légitimes recherchés. Il y a donc eu violation de l'article 8 de la Convention; Ernest et autres c. Belgique, (Requête no 33400/96), 15/10/2003, para 116-117”, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-65779%22]}.

Page 108

72 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bw’izo nzego, ndetse n’inzira umuturage yanyuramo agaragariza inkiko ko ibyo amategeko ateganya bitubahirijwe kugirango bikosorwe. [78] Uyu murongo w’uko igikenewe mu isakwa ari amategeko asobanutse no gushyiraho ingamba z’uburyo yubahirizwa niwo Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwashimangiye mu rubanza Funke, Crémieux et Miaihle yaburanaga n’Ubufaransa aho rwagize ruti: ibihugu bihura n’ibibazo bikomeye bikomoka ku mikorere igoranye y’amabanki n’uburyo amafaranga ahererekanywa harimo n’imyishyuranire ku rwego mpuzamahanga, ibi byose bikoroshywa n’ibyuho bigaragara ku mipaka. Urukiko ruremera rero ko ibihugu bishobora gusanga ari ngombwa gushyiraho ingamba, nko gusaka amazu, gufatira, kugira ngo haboneke ibimenyetso by’ibyaha bijyanye n’ivunja ry’amafaranga no gukurikirana ababigizemo uruhare mu gihe ari ngombwa. Icyakora amategeko n’imigenzo y’uburyo ashyirwa mu bikorwa bigomba kuba birimo ingamba zikwiriye kandi zihagije zikumira kurengera42.

42 “[…] les États rencontrent de sérieuses difficultés résultant de l’étendue et de la complexité des réseaux bancaires et des circuits financiers ainsi que des multiples possibilités de placements internationaux, facilitées par la relative perméabilité des frontières. La Cour reconnaît donc qu’ils peuvent estimer nécessaire de recourir à certaines mesures, telles les visites domiciliaires et les saisies, pour établir la preuve matérielle de délits de change et en poursuivre le cas échéant les auteurs. Encore faut-il que leur législation et leur pratique en la matière offrent des garanties adéquates et suffisantes contre les abus […]”; urubanza Crémieux c. France, Requête n° 11471/85, 25 février 1993, para 39, https://justice.pappers.fr/decision/ca6a962984423bde369ab76a694fb6cc?q= Cr%C3%A9mieux%20c.%20France,% 20Requ%C3%AAte%20n%C2%B0%2011471/85, %2025%20f%C3%A9vrier%201993.

Page 109

73 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[79] Uyu murongo wongeye gushimangirwa no mu zindi manza harimo urwo Ernest n’abandi baburanaga na Leta y’Ububiligi rwavuzwe haruguru43, n’urwo Klass na bagenzi be baburanaga n’Ubudage44. Ingingo z’amategeko zigomba kuba zumvikana (clear), zirondora ibikenewe byose (detailed) kandi zishyiraho ingamba zikumira kurengera (safeguards against possible abuse)45. [80] Mu rubanza Colon yaburanaga n’Ubuholandi, Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwasanze kuba uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha nk’uko bubyemererwa n’ingingo ya 52 ya Arms and Ammunitions Act atari ikibazo. Icy’ingenzi ni ukuba hari amategeko ajyanye n’ibigomba kubahirizwa igihe cy’isaka, kandi akaba yarashyizwe mu bikorwa, harimo no gusobanura impamvu uruhushya rutanzwe, uko ruzashyirwa mu bikorwa, kugena aho isaka rizakorerwa kandi urwo ruhushya ntirurenze igihe cyagenwe n’Itegeko46. Ikibazo Urukiko rwari

43 Ibidem, para 114. 44 Urubanza Klass et Autres c. Allemagne, Requête n° 5029/71), 6/09/ 1978, para 50, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-62068 45 Urubanza Kruslin v. France, no 11801/05, 24 April 1990, para. 36, https://www.google.com/search?q=Kruslin+v.+France%2C+no+11801%2F0 5%2C+24+April+1990&rlz=1C1GCEU_en -GBRW1045RW1046&oq=Kruslin+v.+France%2C+no+11801; n’urubanza Petri Sallinen v. Finland, no 50882/99, 27 September 2005, para 90, https://www.stradalex.eu/en/se_src_publ_jur_eur_cedh/document/echr_5088 2-99. 46 In areas that have been designated by the Burgomaster as security risk areas in accordance with section 151b, subsection 1 of the Municipalities Act, the public prosecutor may order that any individual can be subjected to a search of his clothing to establish whether he has firearms, ammunition or offensive weapons in his possession. The public prosecutor’s order shall describe the designated area and state the order’s period of validity, which may not exceed

Page 110

74 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwagejejweho muri urwo rubanza, cyari icy’umuntu wavugaga ko mu gice cy’Umujyi wa Amsterdam kizwiho kurangwamo umutekano muke, Umushinjacyaha yahawe ububasha bwo kuvogera uburenganzira bwe ku mibereho bwite atabanje kubiherwa uruhushya n’Umucamanza, bikaba binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 8 y’amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu47. [81] Muri urwo rubanza kandi, Urukiko rwagaragaje ko hari imanza zinyuranye rwagiye rwemeramo ko, n’ubwo ibyiza ari uko uruhushya rwo gusaka rutangwa n’Umucamanza mu gihe bibaye ngombwa kuvogera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite,

twelve hours. The order shall also explain the facts and circumstances that form the basis for concluding that it is necessary to exercise the power to subject any individual to a search of his clothing to establish whether he has weapons or ammunition in his possession […] given the legal framework surrounding such searches and above all the fact, as apparent, that they were effective for their intended purpose, the Court finds that the reasons given by the Government are “relevant” and “sufficient”; Colon v. Netherlands (dec.), n° 49458/06, 15/05/2012, para 93 & 95. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001- 111347&filename=COLON%20v.%20THE%20NETHERLANDS.docx&log Event=False. 47 “The applicant complained that the public prosecutor had been given the power, within the part of Amsterdam city centre designated as a security risk area and for up to twelve hours at a time, to invade his privacy without any form of prior judicial control. He argued that this constituted a violation of Article 8 which, in its relevant part, provides as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private [...] life [ ...]; 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”; Ibidem, para 62.

Page 111

75 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

hari igihe bitashoboka; muri ibyo bihe, uruhushya rw’Umucamanza rukaba atari ngombwa, hapfa kuba haragenwe izindi ngamba zihagije48. [82] Mu rubanza Delta Pekárny A.S. c. République Tchèque rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu, sosiyete irega yavugaga ko igenzura ryakorewe mu biro byayo bidatangiwe uruhushya n’Umucamanza ritubahirije uburenganzira bwayo ku mibereho bwite, buteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 8 y’amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu yavuzwe haruguru49. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko iyo amategeko y’ibihugu yemera ko hakorwa isaka bidatangiwe uruhushya n’Umucamanza, rugomba gushishoza n’ubwo ibihugu byemererwa kuba byareba igikwiye. Urwo Rukiko rwagaragaje ko mu manza zirebana no kurengera abantu ku bikorwa by’ubutegetsi bishobora kuvogera uburenganzira buteganywa n’ingingo ya 8 y’amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu, rwagiye rwemeza ko kuba nta ruhushya rwo gusaka rwatanzwe n’Umucamanza bidatera ikibazo igihe habayeho igenzura rikozwe nyuma n’Urukiko.50

48 “The Court has accepted in past cases that prior judicial control, although desirable in principle where there is to be interference with a right guaranteed by Article 8, may not always be feasible in practice; in such cases, it may be dispensed with provided that sufficient other safeguards are in place”; Ibidem, para 75. 49 “La société requérante allègue que l’inspection effectuée dans ses locaux sans aucun contrôle judiciaire a enfreint notamment son droit au respect du domicile et de la correspondance tel que prévu par l’article 8 de la Convention […]”; Delta Pekárny A.S. c. République Tchèque, no 97/11, 2 octobre 2014, para 62, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-146675 50 “Lorsque le droit national habilite les autorités à conduire une perquisition sans mandat judiciaire, la Cour doit redoubler de vigilance, et ce nonobstant la marge d’appréciation qu’elle reconnaît en la matière aux États

Page 112

76 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[83] Nanone mu rubanza rwa Modestou n’Igihugu cy’Ubugereki, Umushinjacyaha yari yategetse abapolisi gusaka aho urega atuye n’ibiro bye biherereye ahantu hatandukanye, mu rwego rwo gushaka amakuru y’ibanze ku cyaha cyari cyakozwe51. Urega yavugaga ko isaka ryakorewe aho atuye n’aho akorera ritubahirije uburenganzira buteganywa mu ngingo ya 8 y’amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye uburenganzira bwa muntu52. Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwaregewe rwasanze uruhushya rwatanzwe n’Umushinjacyaha rwaranditswe mu magambo ari rusange, rugaragaza ko ariko mu bihe nk’ibyo, cyane cyane iyo amategeko y’igihugu adateganya igenzura rikozwe mbere n’Umucamanza, hagomba guteganywa ubundi buryo bwatuma ibitakozwe neza mu itangwa n’ iyandikwa ry’uruhushya rw’isaka

contractants. Ainsi, dans les affaires concernant la protection des individus contre des atteintes arbitraires de la puissance publique aux droits garantis par l’article 8, elle a eu l’occasion d’affirmer que l’absence d’un mandat de perquisition peut être compensé par un contrôle judiciaire effectif, réalisé ex post facto […]”; Ibidem, para 83. 51 “Le 23 septembre 2010, le procureur près la cour d’appel d’Athènes ordonna à la Direction de la police de l’Attique, dans le cadre d’une enquête préliminaire conduite dans une affaire concernant S.G. et I.G. ainsi que d’autres personnes qui n’étaient pas nommées, de procéder à des perquisitions à l’adresse de quinze résidences et bureaux situés dans différents endroits à Athènes et dans l’Attique, dont celle du requérant”; Modestou c. Grèce, no 1693/13, 16 mars 2017, para 7, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-171973. 52 “Le requérant allègue que la perquisition effectuée à son domicile privé et professionnel dans le cadre d’une enquête préliminaire a entraîné une violation de l’article 8 de la Convention”; Ibidem, para 25.

Page 113

77 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

bidatera ikibazo53. Ibi ni nabyo byemejwe mu rubanza Leotsakos yaregagamo Igihugu cy’Ubugereki54. [84] Mu rundi rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu, Gutsanovi yaregagamo Igihugu cya Bulgarie, hari hakozwe isaka mu rugo rw’urega nta ruhushya rwatanzwe n’Umucamanza, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha muri icyo Gihugu55. Urukiko rwasobanuye ko mu bihe nk’ibyo, impungenge z’uko nta ruhushya rwatanzwe n’Umucamanza zivanwaho n’igenzura rishobora gukorwa nyuma n’Urukiko ku bijyanye no kuba iryo saka ryari ngombwa kandi ko ryubahirije amategeko56.

53 “La Cour constate que le mandat litigieux était rédigé dans des termes généraux [….] Toutefois, dans de tels cas, et en particulier lorsque la législation nationale ne prévoit pas de contrôle judiciaire ex ante factum sur la légalité et la nécessité de cette mesure d’instruction, il devrait exister d’autres garanties, notamment sur le plan de l’exécution du mandat, de nature à contrebalancer les imperfections liées à l’émission et au contenu du mandat de perquisition”; ibidem para 46 & 48. 54 Arrêt Leotsakos c. Grèce, no 30958/13, 4 octobre 2018, para 49, https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/sites/dalloz- actualite.fr/files/resources/2018/10/affaire_leotsakos_c._gr_ce.pdf. 55 “Dans la présente affaire la perquisition au domicile des quatre requérants a été effectuée sans l’autorisation préalable d’un juge. En effet l’article 161, alinéa 2, du CPP permet aux organes de l’enquête de procéder à de telles perquisitions dans des cas urgents où il existe un danger d’altération de preuves”; Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie, no 34529/10, 15 octobre 2013, para 221, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001- 126982&filename=Case%20OF%20Gutsanovi%20v.%20 Bulgaria%20%5BExtracts%5D.docx&logEvent=False. 56 “La Cour a déjà eu l’occasion d’affirmer que, dans de telles situations, l’absence d’un mandat de perquisition peut être contrecarrée par un contrôle judiciaire ex post factum sur la légalité et la nécessité de cette mesure d’instruction”; Ibidem para 222.

Page 114

78 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[85] Mu rubanza Heino yaburanaga na Finland, Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwasanze igishobora kubangamira uburenganzira bw’usakwa ari ukuba adashobora kwiyambaza Urukiko mbere cyangwa nyuma y’isaka. Kuba umuntu wasatswe adashobora kwiyambaza inkiko nyuma y’isaka kugira ngo agaragaze inenge ziri mu cyemezo cy’isaka cyangwa uburyo isaka ryakozwe, bituma uwo muturage atarengerwa bihagije n’itegeko nyamara ari uburenganzira bwe mu gihugu kigendera ku mategeko na demokarasi57. [86] Uyu murongo wongeye kwemezwa mu rubanza Zosymov yaburanaga na Ukraine, aho Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwasanze kuba itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha rya Ukraine riteganya ko nta muntu wasatswe wemerewe kuregera icyemezo cy’isaka cyangwa uburyo isaka ryagenze adahuje ikirego cye n’icy’Ubushinjacyaha ku cyaha cyatumye isaka rikorwa binyuranyije n’uburenganzira umuturage ateganyirizwa n’ingingo ya 8 y’Amasezerano y’Ibihugu by’Uburayi yerekeye

57 “[…] in the present case the applicant did not have any effective access, a posteriori, to a court to have both the lawfulness of, and justification for, the search warrant reviewed. The applicant's right to respect for her home was thus violated by the fact that there was no prior judicial warrant and no possibility to obtain an effective judicial review a posteriori of either the decision to order the search or the manner in which it was conducted [ …] The situation was aggravated by the fact that the search took place in an attorney's office.

46. The Court therefore concludes that, even if there could be said to be a general legal basis for the impugned measures in Finnish law, that law does not provide sufficient judicial safeguards either before the granting of a search warrant or after the search. The applicant was thus deprived of the minimum degree of protection to which she was entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society”; urubanza Heino v. Finland, no 56720/09, 15 February 2011, para 45, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001- 103394.

Page 115

79 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

uburenganzira bwa muntu. Muri urwo rubanza, ikirego cy’umuntu wasatswe cyari cyanze kwakirwa kuko nyuma y’isaka Ubushinjacyaha bwamaze imyaka myinshi nta kirego buratanga, ari nabyo byaburijemo ikirego cy’uwari warasatswe wavugaga ko uburenganzira bwe bwavogerewe58. [87] Mu bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa ku byo amategeko y’ibihugu binyuranye ateganya ku bijyanye n’urwego rufite ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rw’isaka, ndetse no ku byasobanuwe n’inkiko zinyuranye kuri icyo kibazo, Urukiko rusanga humvikanamo ibintu by’ingenzi bikurikira: a. “System” z’ibihugu ziratandukanye; hari aho uruhushya rw’isaka rutangwa n’Umucamanza wihariye ushinzwe gukora no gukurikirana iperereza, hari aho rutangwa n’Urukiko, hari aho rutangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha, hari

58 “The applicant’s efforts to obtain subsequent judicial review of the lawfulness of the measure were unsuccessful. In particular, as follows from the judgment of 24 December 2004 taken by the Court of Appeal, the relevant complaint could only be brought within the framework of the criminal trial of the case initiated by the police following the disputed visit, in the event that the investigative authority ever brought the case to that stage. In the meantime, by the time the applicant lodged the present application, the relevant criminal proceedings had remained stagnant for several years, and the applicant had not been able to obtain any procedural status in these proceedings, in spite of his numerous efforts. The Court notes that in its recent judgment in the case of Kotiy […] it has already found that a situation where the only possibility for the applicant to challenge the investigator’s conduct had been under Article 234 of the CCP (after the criminal case against him had been committed for trial) was incompatible with Article 8… In particular, it concludes that domestic law did not provide requisite guarantees against arbitrariness in respect of the police’s actions complained of and did not meet the requirement of quality of law for the purposes of the Convention”; urubanza Zosymov v. Ukraine, n° 4322/06, 7 July 2016; para 61, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001- 164467.

Page 116

80 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’aho bikorwa byombi ni ukuvuga aho rutangwa n’Urukiko ndetse n’Ubushinjacyaha; b. Kuba uruhushya rw’isaka rwatangwa n’urwego uru n’uru, ubwabyo ntacyo bibangamiyeho amahame ateganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo igikuru ni uko hashyirwaho uburyo butuma habaho kubahiriza uburenganzira bw’umuturage ugiye gusakwa; c. Kugirango uburenganzira bw’ugiye gusakwa budahungabanywa, hagomba kubaho amategeko asobanura mu buryo bwumvikana ibigomba kubahirizwa, n’ingamba zikumira kurengera; d. Hagomba kandi kubaho inzira umuturage yanyuramo kugirango agaragarize inkiko ibitubahirijwe mu byo amategeko ateganya, kugirango bikosorwe. By’umwihariko, mu bihugu bidateganya ko uruhushya rwo gusaka rutangwa n’Umucamanza (contrôle a priori/ex ante factum), hagomba kubaho igenzura rikozwe nyuma n’Urukiko (contrôle a posteriori/ex post factum). [88] Mu Rwanda, urwego rw’Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru rwahawe ububasha bwo gukora iperereza no gukurikirana ibyaha mu gihugu hose, hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 142, igika cya 1, y’Itegeko Nshinga. Nk’urwego rushinzwe gukora no gukurikirana ibikorwa by’iperereza, ni narwo amategeko yahaye ububasha bwo gutanga uruhushya rw’isaka nk’uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 55, igika cya 1; n’iya 61 z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha.

Page 117

81 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[89] Mu rwego rwo kubahiriza uburenganzira bw’usakwa no kugirango hatabaho kurengera, Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 rimaze kuvugwa ryasobanuye mu buryo bwumvikana ibigomba kubahirizwa n’uwahawe uruhushya rwo gusaka, birimo: a. Kuba agomba kwerekana ikarita y’akazi igifite agaciro n’urupapuro rumuha uburenganzira bwo gukora iyo mirimo rushyizweho umukono n’umuyobozi ubifitiye ububasha (ingingo ya 60); b. Kuba isaka ridashobora gukorwa mbere ya saa kumi n’ebyiri za mu gitondo na nyuma ya saa kumi n’ebyiri za nimugoroba (ingingo ya 55, igika cya 3); c. Kuba isaka rikorwa hari abahagarariye ubuyobozi bw’inzego z’ibanze bw’aho icyo gikorwa kibera (ingingo ya 55, igika cya 4); d. Kuba gusaka bikorwa imbere y’ukekwaho icyaha cyangwa se bene urugo uretse igihe badahari (ingingo ya 55, igika cya 5); e. Kuba iyo isaka riri bukorerwe ahakorera umukozi ubarizwa mu mwuga wihariye, usakwa cyangwa umuhagarariye byemewe n’amategeko agomba kuba ahari, keretse iyo badashobora kuboneka (ngingo ya 55, igika cya 6); f. Kuba iyo usakwa afite urugaga abarizwamo, iryo sakwa rikorwa hari uhagarariye urwo rugaga (ingingo ya 55, igika cya 7); g. Kuba, uretse igihe umuntu afatiwe mu cyuho, Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha adashobora gukoresha isaka umuntu yambitswe ubusa cyangwa mu

Page 118

82 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mubiri atabiherewe uruhushya n’Umushinjacyaha uyobora urwego rw’Ubushinjacyaha akoreramo, kandi iryo saka rikaba rikorwa na muganga wenyine (ingingo ya 56, igika cya 2); h. Kuba, umuntu ugomba gusakwa yambitswe ubusa cyangwa mu mubiri ashobora kwihitiramo umuherekeza w’umuganga, uwo bashyingiranywe cyangwa undi muntu wese mukuru yihitiyemo (ingingo ya 56, igika cya 3). i. Kuba Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha umaze gukora isaka agomba gukora inyandikomvugo yaryo (ingingo ya 55, igika cya 8), kopi yayo igahabwa abarebwa n’icyo gikorwa (ingingo ya 64). [90] Urukiko rurasanga ingamba zashyizweho n’ingingo za 55, 56, 60 na 64 z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru zisobanutse kandi zumvikana ku bijyanye no kubahiriza uburenganzira bw’umuturage ugiye gusakwa, no gukumira ko habaho kurengera. Ku bijyanye n’inzira umuturage yanyuramo kugirango agaragarize inkiko ibitubahirijwe mu byo amategeko ateganya, kandi asabe ko bikosorwa, ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko Nshinga iha inkiko inshingano zo kuba umurinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bwa muntu, naho ingingo yaryo ya 23, igika cya kabiri, igateganya ko isaka rigomba gukorwa mu bihe no mu buryo biteganyijwe n’amategeko. [91] Urukiko rusanga iyo hari ibiteganywa n’amategeko bitubahirijwe mu gihe cy’isaka, uwakorewe isaka ashobora kwiyambaza inkiko kugirango aharanire uburengazira bwe bwahungabanyijwe. Muri urwo rwego, ingingo ya 76,2o y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iha Umucamanza inshingano zo gusuzuma ibyakozwe mu gihe cy’iperereza

Page 119

83 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

bitubahirije amategeko, iyo asuzuma ikirego ku ifunga n’ifungurwa ry’agateganyo. Iyo ngingo iteganya ko Umucamanza uburanisha ibirego by’ifunga ry’agateganyo afite inshingano zirimo izo gusuzuma ko ibihe by’ifunga n’ubundi burenganzira bw’ukekwaho icyaha bwubahirijwe mu gihe cy’iperereza. [92] Na none, uregwa ashobora kugaragariza Umucamanza uburanisha urubanza rwe mu mizi ibyo asanga bitarubahirije amategeko mu gihe cy’iperereza, harimo n’ibyerekeye isaka. Igihe Umucamanza asanze hari ibimenyetso byabonetse mu isaka ridakurikije amategeko, abitesha agaciro. Ku muntu waba warakorewe isaka, ariko ntakorerwe dosiye ngo agezwe imbere y’Umucamanza, aba afite uburenganzira bwo kuregera indishyi ku byaba byarakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko mu rubanza mbonezamubano. ii) Ku bijyanye n’isaka ritatangiwe uruhushya [93] Ingingo ya 55, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iteganya ko iyo ukekwaho icyaha afatiwe mu cyuho cyangwa asa n’uwagifatiwemo, ibijyanye no kwitwaza uruhushya rw’isaka ku mugenzacyaha cyangwa kubahiriza amasaha y’isaka bishobora kutubahirizwa. Buri gihe isaka rikorwa hari abahagarariye ubuyobozi bw’inzego z’ibanze bw’aho icyo gikorwa kibera. Naho ingingo ya 56, igika cya 2, y’iryo Tegeko ikagira iti: uretse igihe umuntu afatiwe mu cyuho, Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha ntashobora gukoresha isaka umuntu yambitswe ubusa cyangwa mu mubiri atabiherewe uruhushya n’Umushinjacyaha uyobora urwego rw’Ubushinjacyaha akoreramo. Iryo saka rikorwa na muganga wenyine.

Page 120

84 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[94] Ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo iteganya ko Urwego rw’Ubugenzacyaha rushobora gusaka umuntu cyangwa ibintu, kwinjira mu nyubako cyangwa ahantu nta ruhushya rwo gusaka iyo hari impamvu zikurikira: a. Impamvu zifatika zituma rukeka ko icyaha kirimo gukorwa cyangwa kigiye gukorwa; b. Ibimenyetso bifatika byerekana ko mu nyubako cyangwa ahantu hari ikintu cyakoreshejwe mu gukora icyaha cyangwa gikenewe ku mpamvu z’iperereza; c. Ibimenyetso bikomeye bigaragaza ko umuntu wakoze icyaha ari aho hantu kandi agomba guhagarikwa. Muri icyo gihe, hakorwa inyandikomvugo y’isaka hakanakorwa raporo igaragaza impamvu iryo saka ryakozwe nta ruhushya rwo gusaka […]. [95] Urukiko rurasanga isaka nta ruhushya rigamije kwirinda ko gutinda kuruhabwa biburizamo icyo iryo saka ryari rigamije. Ntabwo Umushinjacyaha cyangwa Umugenzacyaha yarebera ikorwa ry’icyaha cyangwa ngo yirengagize ibimenyetso abonye by’uko hari icyaha cyakozwe cyangwa kigiye gukorwa. Ahubwo afite inshingano zo kwita ndetse no kuba yafatira ibimenyetso abonye atabiteganyaga bimugaragariza ko hari icyaha cyakozwe, kirimo gukorwa cyangwa kirimo gutegurwa. [96] Urukiko rurasanga akenshi abagenzacyaha biyambazwa mu buryo bwihutirwa, hari nubwo basabwa guherekeza abapolisi bagiye gutabara ahantu runaka cyangwa gutegura imitego yatezwe n’abashaka gukora ibyaha. Ubwihutirwe bwa bene ibyo bikorwa nibwo bwatumye Umushingamategeko ateganya ko

Page 121

85 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha ashobora kutabona umwanya wo kujya gusaba urwego rubishinzwe uruhushya rw’isaka iyo umuntu ugomba gusakwa afatiwe mu cyuho, asa n’ugifatiwemo cyangwa se iyo hari imwe mu mpamvu zivugwa mu ngingo ya 3 y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 zavuzwe haruguru. [97] Urukiko rusanga mu rwego rwo gukumira ko uburenganzira bw’umuntu ugiye gusakwa nta ruhushya bwavogerwa, itegeko ryateganyije ko isaka iryo ariryo ryose rikorerwa inyandikomvugo59. Ku muntu ufatiwe mu cyuho cyangwa usa n’ugifatiwemo, isaka rigakorwa hari abayobozi b’inzego z’ibanze, Umugenzacyaha akaba agomba gukora raporo igaragaza impamvu zatumye isaka rikorwa nta ruhushya ritangiwe. Urukiko rusanga izi ngamba zashyizweho n’Umushingamategeko zigamije gukumira ko habaho kurengera kw’abashinzwe igikorwa cy’isaka, kandi nk’uko byasobanuwe harugu, igihe habayeho kutubahiriza amategeko, uwakorewe isaka aba afite uburenganzira bwo kwiyambaza inkiko. [98] Hashingiwe ku mategeko yagaragajwe no ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga kuba uruhushya rw’isaka rudatangwa n’Urukiko ahubwo rugatangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha, cyangwa kuba harateganyijwe ibihe isaka rishobora gukorwa ritatangiwe uruhushya, bitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga.

59 Ingingo ya 55, igika cya 8, y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshijabyaha iteganya ko Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha umaze gukora isaka akora inyandikomvugo y’isaka.

Page 122

86 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

b. Ibyerekeye gutegeka umuntu gutanga amakuru no kubaza umuntu uwo ari we wese ukekwaho ko afite amakuru yafasha mu iperereza [99] Ingingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo iteganya ko hakurikijwe amategeko abigenga, RIB ifite ububasha bwo gutegeka umuntu gutanga amakuru no kubaza umuntu uwo ari we wese ukekwaho ko afite amakuru yafasha mu iperereza. [100] Naho ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka 2°, y’Itegeko Nshinga iteganya ko buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, burimo uburenganzira bwo: […] gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha. [101] Urukiko rurasanga ihame ry’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye ryaragarutsweho mu rubanza rwa Kabasinga Florida rwaciwe n’uru Rukiko ku wa 04/12/2019. Muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko ibigize ubwo burenganzira bitarondowe byose mu ngingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga, ariko rugaragaza ko ubwo burenganzira buri mu byiciro bibiri: a. Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku migendekere, ni ukuvuga uruhererekane rw’ibigomba kubahirizwa mu migenzo y’urubanza hashingiwe ku mahame ateganywa n’amategeko; b. Ubutabera buboneye bushingiye ku biteganywa n’itegeko, ni ukuvuga ibuza ry’ishyirwaho ry’amategeko

Page 123

87 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

cyangwa izindi ngamba zidashyira mu gaciro zibangamira uburenganzira bw’umuturage60. [102] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga idatandukanya ubwo bwoko bwombi bw’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye n’igihe butangirira kubahirizwa. Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye butangirira imbere y’inkiko, ariko mu myanzuro yabo ntibagaragaza aho babishingira. Mu rubanza rwa Kabasinga Florida rwavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko mu manza nshinjabyaha, uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye butangirana n’ibikorwa by’iperereza, bugakomereza ku bikorwa by’ikurikiranacyaha, iby’iburanisha n’itangwa ry’ibihano ku byaha biteganyijwe n’amategeko ahana61. [103] Urukiko rurasanga rero, uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, cyane cyane ubwo kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha umuntu akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa, n’ubwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha, bidatangirana no kuregerwa Urukiko nk’uko abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bashaka kubyumvikanisha. Urukiko rurasanga ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rufatiye icyemezo ndakuka, rigomba kubahirizwa mu migenzo yose y’urubanza kugeza igihe icyemezo ndakuka gifatiwe. Iri hame riha uruhande rurega inshingano zo kuba arirwo rugaragaza

60 Urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC rwa Kabasinga Florida, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 04/12/2019, igika cya 13. 61 Ibidem, igika cya 14

Page 124

88 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ibimenyetso byemeza icyaha nta shiti, rikaba rireba inzego zose62 (harimo n’Ubushinjacyaha). [104] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, ikibazo kigomba gusubizwa ni icyo kumenya niba ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, hari aho bibangamiye ihame ry’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye rimaze gusobanurwa, by’umwihariko uburenganzira bwo gufatwa nk’umwere kugeza igihe Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha ruhamirije umuntu icyaha. [105] Urukiko rurasanga, nubwo ijambo amakuru rivugwa mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru ryasemuwe mu cyongereza no mu gifaransa nka “information”, ritagomba gufatwa ryonyine (isolated) kandi ngo rihabwe igisobanuro cy’ibanze cyangwa cya rusange (generic definition) kirihuza n’itangazamakuru cyangwa abanyamakuru. Ntabwo intego y’Umushingamategeko ubwo yashyiragaho iyo ngingo kwari ukugira ngo Urwego rw’Ubugenzacyaha ruzajye rushakira abanyamakuru ababaha inkuru ku mikorere y’ibyaha. Niyo mpamvu ijambo amakuru rigomba guhuzwa n’amagambo yafasha mu iperereza” nayo agaragara muri iyo ngingo.

62 Urubanza Henrikas Daktaras v Lithuania, n° 42095/98, European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 11 January 2000, para 6, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-5987 Michel Franchimont, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2012, p. 1132.

Page 125

89 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[106] Urukiko rurasanga Ubugenzacyaha bumenya imikorere y’icyaha nibura mu buryo butatu: ibirego by’abahohotewe (victims’complaints), igenzura ry’Ubugenzacyaha (investigation) cyangwa amakuru yatanzwe n’uwo ari we wese (denunciation). Mu gihe cy’iperereza rishingiye kuri bumwe muri ubu buryo, Ubugenzacyaha bushobora kubona ko hari ahandi bwakura ibisobanuro byimbitse kurusha ibyo bufite, cyangwa ibimenyetso by’inyongera bishobora gutuma iperereza rigera ku ntego zaryo zo kugaragaza icyaha cyakozwe, abakigizemo uruhare, aho cyakorewe, igihe cyakorewe, abagikorewe cyangwa izindi ngaruka cyateye. Ibyo bisobanuro cyangwa ibyo bimenyetso bigamije kunoza iperereza ry’Ubugenzacyaha nibyo Umushingamategeko yise amakuru. [107] Kuba urwego rushinzwe kugenza ibyaha rushobora kubaza uwo ariwe wese rukeka ko yarufasha kubona amakuru ku cyaha cyakozwe, si umwihariko w’u Rwanda. Ingingo ya 10, igika cya 4, y’Itegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha mu Gihugu cy’u Burundi, iteganya ko abagenzacyaha babaza abantu bakeka ko bafite amakuru ku cyaha cyakozwe63. Mu Gihugu cya Singapore, ingingo ya 22 y’Itegeko rigenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha iha abashinzwe gukora iperereza ububasha bwo kumva umuntu wese ukekwaho kugira amakuru ku cyaha cyakozwe, kandi uwo muntu akaba ategetswe kuyatanga, keretse ayo abona ko ashobora

63 Art. 10, al.4 du Code de Procédure Pénale (Loi no 1/09 du 11/05/2018): “[…] Ils procèdent à l’audition des personnes susceptibles de donner des renseignements sur l’infraction et sur ses auteurs. Ils interrogent ces auteurs et recueillent leurs explications”.

Page 126

90 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kumushinja64. Ibi ni nako bimeze muri Burkinafaso65, muri Côte d’Ivoire66, no mu bindi bihugu bitarondowe aha. [108] Urukiko rusanga nanone, amagambo uwo ariwe wese avugwa mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo

64 Art. 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010: “(1) In conducting an investigation under this Part, a police officer, or a forensic specialist acting in the course of his or her duty as such in accordance with the written authorisation of the Commissioner under the Police Force Act 2004 and the lawful directions of the police officer or law enforcement officer he or she assists, may examine orally any person who appears to be acquainted with any of the facts and circumstances of the case — (a) whether before or after that person or anyone else is charged with an offence in connection with the case; and (b) whether or not that person is to be called as a witness in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under this Code in connection with the case. (2) The person examined is bound to state truly what the person knows of the facts and circumstances of the case, except that the person need not say anything that might expose the person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture”. Available on https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CPC2010. 65 Art. 251-10, al. 1 et 2, du Code de Procédure Pénale 2019: “(1) L’officier de police judiciaire peut appeler et entendre toute personne susceptible de fournir des renseignements sur les faits ou sur les objets et documents saisis. (2) Les personnes convoquées par lui sont tenues de comparaître et de déposer. Si elles ne satisfont pas à cette obligation,

avis en est donné au procureur du Faso qui peut les contraindre à comparaître par la force publique”, https://sgbv-ihrda.uwazi.io/fr/entity/i41i84se8d?page=22. 66 Art. 61 du Code de Procédure Pénale 2018: “L'officier de police judiciaire procède à l' enquête. Il entend toute personne susceptible de fournir des renseignements sur les faits et toutes celles qui se prétendent lésées par l'infraction. Il procède aux constatations utiles”. Art. 62 du même Code: “La personne convoquée par l'officier de police judiciaire est tenue de comparaître et de déposer. Si la personne convoquée ne satisfait pas à cette obligation, avis en est donné au procureur de la République qui peut la contraindre à comparaître par la force publique”, https://www.caidp.ci/uploads/997a8149124ebaffe41282e96908d822.pdf.

Page 127

91 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru, asobanura umuntu wese udakurikiranyweho icyaha waba ufite amakuru yafasha mu gikorwa cy’iperereza, akaba adasobanura ukurikiranyweho icyaha nk’uko Murangwa Edward ashaka kubyumvikanisha, kuko we abazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha nk’ugomba gutanga ibisobanuro ku byo akurikiranyweho. Ibi Umushingamategeko yabigaragaje neza mu ngingo ya 45 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. Mu gika cyayo cya 2, iyo ngingo igira iti: umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha abaza ukekwaho icyaha kandi agashyira mu nyandikomvugo ibisobanuro bye. Ibazwa rikorwa mu rurimi ubazwa yumva neza; naho mu gika cyayo cya 3, igateganya ko Umugenzacyaha cyangwa Umushinjacyaha ashobora kandi kubaza umuntu wese akeka ko ashobora kugira ibisobanuro atanga no kumusaba gutanga ubuhamya amaze kurahira mu buryo buteganywa mu ngingo ya 47 y’iri Tegeko. Uwo muntu wese uvugwa muri iki gika, ni nawe uvugwa mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017. [109] Mu gihe kandi ukekwaho icyaha abazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha cyangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ku mikorere y’icyaha, mu burenganzira agomba kumenyeshwa buteganywa n’ingingo ya 54, 2o y’ Itegeko No 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, harimo ubwo kutagira icyo atangaza (droit au silence/right to silence); bivuga ko atari mu bategetswe gutanga amakuru bavugwa mu gace ka 8 k’ingingo ya 10 y’ Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru. [110] Urukiko rurasanga rero, mu gihe Ubugenzacyaha bwaba bushyikiriza abakekwaho icyaha itangazamakuru kugira ngo ribahate ibibazo ku mikorere y’icyaha bubakurikiranyeho,

Page 128

92 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bukabikora bambaye amapingu nk’uko Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira babivuga, butaba bubishingira ku ngingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru kubera ko ntaho iyo ngingo ivuga ko Ubugenzacyaha bushobora gushyikiriza ukekwaho icyaha abanyamakuru kugira ngo abe aribo bamubaza ku mikorere y’icyaha akurikiranweho cyangwa abazwe amakuru yafasha mu iperereza. Iyo migirire (pratique) iramutse iriho, Urukiko rusanga itakosorerwa mu kwemeza ko ingingo imaze kuvugwa inyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga. [111] Icyakora, Urukiko rwatanga inama ko mu gihe inzego zishinzwe iperereza zikorana n’itangazamakuru mu rwego rwo kumenyesha rubanda iby’iperereza ririmo gukorwa, zigomba gukora ibishoboka byose kugira ngo hubahirizwe ihame ry’uko umuntu afatwa nk’umwere igihe cyose icyaha kitaramuhama. Ibimaze kuvugwa byashimangiwe mu rubanza Allenet De Ribemont v. France, aho Urukiko rw’Ibihugu by’Uburayi rushinzwe uburenganzira bwa muntu rwagaragaje ko ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere ritabuza abayobozi kumenyesha rubanda iby’iperereza ririmo gukorwa, ariko ko bagomba kubikora bitwararitse kugirango batarenga ku ihame ryo gufatwa nk’umwere igihe umuntu atarahamwa n’icyaha67.

67“Freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected”; Allenet de Ribemont v. France (Application no. 15175/89), 10 February 1995, para 38, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001- 57914.

Page 129

93 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[112] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira bavuga ko n’ubwo uru Rukiko rwasanga ingingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru itanyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, rwategeka ko ijambo “gutegeka” rivanwa muri iyo ngingo, naho amagambo umuntu uwo ari we wese akongerwamo usibye ukurikiranweho icyaha kugira ngo harengerwe uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, Urukiko rurasanga iki atari ikibazo kirebana no gusuzuma ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo ari ikibazo kirebana no kugena ibijya mw’itegeko, bikaba bitategekwa n’uru Rukiko kuko bitari mu nshingano zarwo. Ibyagiye bikorwa n’uru Rukiko rubyibwirije mu zindi manza, byabaga ari ukuziba icyuho cyasigara mu ngingo y’itegeko igihe hari igice cyayo kivanyweho68, cyangwa gutanga inama gusa ku bikwiye kwitabwaho cyangwa kunozwa mu ngingo y’itegeko igihe rwabaga rusanga ari ngombwa, ariko ntirubitegeke69. [113] Ntabwo rero umuburanyi ashobora kuregera Urukiko rushinzwe kurinda Itegeko Nshinga arusaba guhindura, kuvana cyangwa kongera amagambo mu ngingo y’Itegeko, bitewe n’uko atamunyuze cyangwa kuri we ayagombaga gukoreshwa atariyo Umushingamategeko yakoresheje. [114] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu

68 Urugero reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/ 2018/SC rwa Mugisha Richard, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 24/04/2019, ibika bya 55 na 132; kimwe n’urubanza RS/Inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS rwa Murorunkwere Spéciose, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 26/09/2008, igika cya 31. 69 Urugero reba urubanza RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC rwa Murangwa Edward, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 29/11/2019, igika cya 105.

Page 130

94 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo ntaho bibangamiye ihame ry’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye riteganywa n’ingingo ya 29, igika cya mbere, agace ka 2°, y’Itegeko Nshinga. [115] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a,b na c ndetse n’agace ka 5, aka 7 n’aka 8 y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. II.2. Kumenya niba amagambo impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu Rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, akwiriye gutangwaho umurongo mu nyungu z’Itegeko [116] Murangwa Edward n’abamwunganira bavuga ko amagambo “impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye” ari mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3 a, b na c z’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru yanditswe mu buryo bwa rusange ku buryo uyakoresha bimugora kumenya icyo avuze, ndetse akaba yarabaye urwitwazo ku nzego z’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha rwo gukora isaka nta rupapuro rw’isaka (warrantless search). Basanga ayo magambo agomba gusobanurwa mu buryo bwumvikana hakamenyekana

Page 131

95 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

impamvu zifatika izo arizo, ibimenyetso bifatika ibyo aribyo, ndetse n’ibimenyetso bikomeye ibyo aribyo. [117] Bavuga ko rimwe mu mahame Leta y’u Rwanda yiyemeje kugenderaho no kubahiriza riboneka mu ngingo ya 10, igika cya kane, y’Itegeko Nshinga ari ukugendera ku mategeko no kubaka ubutegetsi bwa demokarasi, ko ntacyakazitiye uburenganzira bw’umuturage kereka mu buryo no mu nzira biteganywa n’ingingo ya 41 y’iryo Tegeko Nshinga, ivuga ko uburenganzira bwa muntu buzitirwa gusa n’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure by’abandi, imyitwarire iboneye, ituze rusange rya rubanda n’imibereho myiza muri rusange biranga Igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. [118] Bakomeza bavuga ko icyo bagamije atari ugusaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko amagambo “impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye ari mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 yibukijwe haruguru atuma iyo ngingo inyuranya n’Itegeko Nshinga, ahubwo ko bifuza ko mu gihe Umushingamategeko atarahindura iyo ngingo, Urukiko rwashingira ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 73 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, rugaha ibisobanuro ayo magambo kugira ngo uyikoresha yirinde kugenekereza no kurengera. [119] Bavuga ko umurongo watangwa n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu nyungu z’itegeko wagira akamaro gakomeye mu rwego rwo kurengera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite n’umuryango ndetse n’uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye by’ukurikiranyweho icyaha. Bakomeza bavuga ko batirengagiza ko uburenganzira bushobora kugabanywa cyangwa guhagarikwa iyo ari ngombwa, ariko ko Itegeko Nshinga n’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga u

Page 132

96 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono biteganya ko nabyo bikorwa hubahirizwa isura y’igihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. [120] Basobanura ko ijambo umurongo riri mu ngingo ya 73 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru rigomba kumvikana nk’irivuga ibikorwa (practice), ari nayo mpamvu basaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko imikorere iranga inzego z’iperereza, Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha mu gihe cy’isaka ritatangiwe uruhushya bivanwaho. Basaba uru Rukiko kwifashisha imirongo ikurikira yemejwe n’inkiko z’ahandi kugira ngo rubashe guha ibisobanuro bikwiye amagambo avugwa mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru: a. Gusuzuma niba ingingo z’itegeko ziteganya isaka rikozwe nta ruhushya zitanditse mu buryo bwa rusange ku buryo byagira ingaruka ku burenganzira bw’imibereho bwite ya muntu n’umuryango we no kureba niba ku bintu bimwe na bimwe ari ngombwa ko isaka rikorwa nta ruhushya70;

70 Gaertner and Others v Minister of Finance and Others (CCT 56/13) [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) (14 November 2013); Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others (CCT13/97) [1998] ZACC 10; 1998 (4) SA 1127; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (29 May 1998). “To sum up: irrespective of legitimate expectations of privacy which may be intruded upon in the process, and without any predetermined safeguards to minimise the extent of such intrusions where the nature of the investigations makes some invasion of privacy necessary, section 28(1) gives the inspectors carte blanche to enter any place, including private dwellings, where they reasonably suspect medicines to be, and then to inspect documents which may be of the most intimate kind”.

Page 133

97 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

b. Gushyiraho igipimo ngenderwaho hagati y’uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite n’inshingano za Leta zo kurinda ituze rya rubanda no kurwanya ibyaha71; c. Gusuzuma niba kuvogera uburenganzira ku mibereho bwite n’agaciro ka muntu bishingiye ku mpamvu zisobanutse kandi zumvikana mu gihugu kigendera kuri demokarasi. Muri icyo gihe, Urukiko rugomba kwita ku ngamba eshanu zikurikira: 1) ubwoko bw’uburenganzira bugiye kuvogerwa, 2) akamaro ko kubushyiriraho irengayobora, 3) aho irengayobora rigarukira, 4) isano riri hagati y’iryo rengayobora n’intego igamijwe, 5) kumenya niba gushyiraho irengayobora aribwo buryo bwonyine buhari kugira ngo intego igamijwe igerweho72. [121] Basoza bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo gutanga umurongo mu nyungu z’itegeko kandi ko amagambo impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika ndetse

71 Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] Zaecellc 8; 2014 (1) Sacr 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013). [i] “in determining whether an individual's right to privacy has been infringed a balance must be struck between the protection of that right on the one hand and the State's constitutionally mandated task of prosecuting crime on the other”; Van der Merwe v Minister of Police and Another (2530/2018) [2019] Zafshc 118 (11 July 2019). 72 Minister of Police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] ZACC 21; 2016 (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016): “[…] it must be assessed whether the infringement of the rights to privacy and dignity is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society… Section 36 of the Constitution governs the situations in which constitutional rights may be limited”. “It enjoins a court to balance five relevant factors, which are: the nature of the right; the importance of the purpose of the limitation; the nature and extent of the limitation; the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose”.

Page 134

98 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ibimenyetso bikomeye ari mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 30 a, b na c y’Itegeko N° 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo yanditse mu buryo bwa rusange ku buryo ikoreshwa ryayo rishobora gutuma uburenganzira bw’umuturage buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga buvogerwa, ari yo mpamvu basaba uru Rukiko, rushingiye ku mirongo yatanzwe haruguru, gutanga umurongo ugaragaza uburyo ayo magambo agomba kumvikana. [122] Abahagarariye Leta y’u Rwanda bavuga ko ibijyanye no guhindura umurongo mu nyungu z’itegeko bisobanurwa mu ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko kandi ko umurongo ugomba kumvikana nk’icyemezo cy’Urukiko aho rwasesenguye ikibazo rwashyikirijwe. Basobanura ko nta murongo uriho ku buryo waregerwa guhindurwa, ndetse ko batabona n’aho Murangwa Edward watanze iki kirego ashingira ububasha bwo kugitanga kuko itegeko riteganya ko gitangwa n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka cyangwa n’Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru. Basaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko iyi ngingo itagomba kwakirwa ngo isuzumwe kuko yatanzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [123] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, irebana n’ibirego byerekeranye no guhindura umurongo wafashwe n’inkiko mu nyungu z’Itegeko, mu gika cyayo cya mbere n’icya kabiri, iteganya ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rufite ububasha bwo gusubiramo umurongo wafashwe n’inkiko ku manza zarangije inzira z’ubujurire hagamijwe kurengera itegeko no gutanga

Page 135

99 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

umurongo ngenderwaho rubisabwe n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka cyangwa Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru. Mu mwanzuro utanga ikirego, uhagarariye Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda cyangwa Ubushinjacyaha Bukuru agaragaza umurongo anenga wafashwe n’Urukiko n’impamvu ashingiraho asaba ko wahinduka. [124] Ingingo ya 73 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko igira iti: ikirego gisaba guhindura umurongo mu nyungu z’Itegeko kiburanishwa hashingiwe ku nyandiko Urukiko rwashyikirijwe. Icyakora, mu gihe Urukiko rusanze hari amakuru rukeneye kurushaho rushobora gutumiza uwatanze ikirego cyangwa undi uwo ari wese kugira ngo agire ibyo arugaragariza. Urukiko kandi rushobora kwemerera impuguke zinyuranye zibisabye kuba mu rubanza nk’inshuti y’Urukiko. Icyemezo cy’Urukiko kigaragaza ikibazo kigaragara mu murongo wari usanzweho, kikanatanga umurongo mushya ngenderwaho. [125] Murangwa Edward avuga ko asaba ko mu gihe Umushingamategeko atarahindura ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rwashingira ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 73 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, rugaha ibisobanuro amagambo avugwa mu duce tumaze kuvugwa tw’ingingo ya 10, kugira ngo uyikoresha yirinde kugenekereza no kurengera. [126] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo asaba ntaho bihuriye n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 73, isobanura imiburanishirize y’ibirego bivugwa mu ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018

Page 136

100 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ryavuzwe hejuru, kuko umurongo uvugwa muri izo ngingo ari uwafashwe n’inkiko mu manza. Uretse n’ibyo kandi, Urukiko rusanga ibirego bijyanye no guhindura umurongo wafashwe n’inkiko mu nyungu z’itegeko, bivugwa mu ngingo za 65 na 73 zimaze kuvugwa, ari ibirego byihariye bifite inzira binyuramo, bitangwa n’inzego zigenwa n’itegeko, bikaba bitasuzumirwa mu kirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo binyuranye n’Itegeko Nshinga. Mu rubanza RS/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC rwa Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, rwaciwe ku wa 19/05/2023, uru Rukiko rwasobanuye ko ikiba kigamijwe mu birego bisaba gukuraho ingingo z’itegeko bivugwa ko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, ari ukugira ngo mu gihe Urukiko rusanze koko iryo tegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, rivanweho73. Ntabwo rero ikiba kigamijwe ari ugusobanura amagambo ari mu itegeko. [127] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo Murangwa Edward asaba ntaho bihuriye n’ikirego gisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n’Itegeko Nshinga, bikaba rero bitakwirirwa bisuzumwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [128] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Murangwa Edward gisaba kwemeza ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, agaka ka a, b, c n’agace ka 5, aka 7, n’aka 8, y’Itegeko Nº 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere

73 Urubanza RS/INJUST/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC rwa FAST TRUCK INTERIOR AND HARDWARE LTD, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 19/05/2023, igika cya 28.

Page 137

101 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

byarwo ; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zinyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, nta shingiro gifite. [129] Rwemeje ko ingingo ya 10, agace ka 3, agaka ka a, b, c n’agace ka 5, aka 7, n’aka 8, y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo ; n’ingingo ya 38, iya 55, iya 56, iya 57, iya 60, iya 61 n’iya 70 z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, zitanyuranyije n’ingingo ya 13, iya 14, iya 23, iya 24, iya 29, iya 43 n’iya 61 z’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. [130] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Murangwa Edward gisaba gutanga umurongo mu nyungu z’itegeko ku magambo impamvu zifatika, ibimenyetso bifatika n’ibimenyetso bikomeye yakoreshejwe mu ngingo ya 10, agace ka 3, a, b na c y’Itegeko No 12/2017 ryo ku wa 07/04/2017 rishyiraho Urwego rw’Igihugu rushinzwe Ubugenzacyaha rikanagena inshingano, ububasha, imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, kidakwiye gusuzumwa.

Page 139

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

Page 141

105

AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Karimunda na Hitiyaremye J.) 31 Ukuboza 2021] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Kugobokeshwa ku gahato mu bujurire – Uwagobokeshejwe bwa mbere mu bujurire afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira byibuze rimwe – Mu gusuzuma ubujurire bwa kabiri ntabwo Urukiko rwajuririwe rwavuga ko nta bubasha rufite mu gihe hari uwagobokeshejwe bwa mbere mu bujurire. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza zisubiriswamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Uwatanze ikirego cy’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi mu rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane – Utarasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntiyagira ibyo asaba mu iburanisha ry’urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Amategeko agenga amasezerano – Amasezerano y’ubwishingizi – Uburyozwe – Uwishingiwe ukoze amakosa yo kutubahiriza inshingano afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga abizi kandi abishaka ntabwo arengerwa n’ayo masezerano. Incamake y’ikibazo : Uru rubanza rwatangiye Mbonyinshuti n’abandi barega Saham Assurance Rwanda Ltd (yahindutse Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc) mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma bayisaba kwishyura indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka

Page 142

106 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yakozwe n’imodoka yo mu bwoko bwa Fuso igahitana Sinzabakwira mu bantu 52 yari itwaye inyuma. Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yireguye ivuga ko nta ndishyi igomba kuryozwa kuko imodoka yahitanye Sinzabakwira yari yafashwe n'Akarere ka Kirehe, ipakiye abantu barenga umubare w’abo yishingiye, ndetse itwawe n’umuntu udafite uruhushya rwo kuyitwara. Urukiko rwemeje ko Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc igomba gutanga indishyi z’impozamarira ku bareze kuko ibyo ivuga bitayikuraho inshingano yo kwishyura abangirijwe n'icyo kinyabiziga kuko itagaragaza ko umunsi Akarere ka Kirehe kakoresheje iyo modoka, yari yasheshe amasezerano y'ubwishingizi yari ifitanye n'uwishingiwe. Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, inasaba ko hagobokeshwa ku gahato abazungura ba Gatashya n’Akarere ka Kirehe kugira ngo baryozwe indishyi yaciwe ziturutse ku makosa bakoze. Abaregeye indishyi bireguye bavuga ko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite. Urukiko, rwemeje ko ukugobokeshwa ku gahato kw’Akarere ka Kirehe n’Abazungura ba Gatashya gufite ishingiro. Rwemeje kandi ko Gatashya n’Akarere ka Kirehe bishe amasezerano y’ubwishingizi kuko batwaye abantu 52 ahatwarwa imizigo, bemera kandi ko imodoka itwarwa n’umuntu utabifitiye uruhushya, rutegeka ko indishyi Sanlam Assurances Générales yaciwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe zishyurwa na Succession Gatashya ifatanyije n’Akarere ka Kirehe ku buryo bungana. Akarere ka Kirehe kajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kavuga ko kavukijwe amahirwe yo gutumirwa mu nama ntegurarubanza kandi kari kagobokeshejwe ku gahato bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru, ko kandi Urukiko rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi yakozwe hagati ya Sanlam

Page 143

107 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

Assurances Générales Plc n’uwishingiwe. Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rwasanze indishyi zagenwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe zitageze ku ziteganywa n’amategeko rwemeza ko ubujurire butakiriwe ko kuko butari mu bubasha bwarwo. Akarere ka Kirehe kandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gasaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yemeje ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. Akarere ka Kirehe kavuze ko umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe ku gahato mu bujurire akagira ibyo acibwa yemerewe kujurira inshuro imwe, kandi kakaba katarabaye umuburanyi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye. Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe rwemeza ko kujurira inshuro imwe ari uburenganzira bw’umuburanyi utaranyuzwe n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza yagobokeshejwemo, rwemeza ko ubujurire bw’Akarere ka Kirehe bwagombaga kwakirwa n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kuko bwari ubwa mbere kajuriye. Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yazamuye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba abaregera indishyi hari icyo bakwiye gusaba muri uru rubanza kandi ataribo basubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane abaregera indishyi bavuga ko kuba batarasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bitabavutsa uburenganzira bwo gusobanura ubujurire bari barashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, isuzumwa ryabwo rikaburizwamo n’uko ikirego kitakiriwe. Bakaba bumva ko ubwo urubanza rusubiwemo mu mizi bundi bushya, hakwiye gusuzumwa ibibazo byose byarubayemo, buri muburanyi akagaragaza icyo atishimiye

Page 144

108 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko nyuma yo gusanga Akarere ka Kirehe ari ko konyine kasabye ko urubanza rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, rwavuze ko kuba hari ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe n’abaregera indishyi mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ntibusuzumwe kubera ko ubujurire bw’iremezo butakiriwe, ntibagire icyo banenga icyo cyemezo, bigaragaza ko nta nyungu bari bagifite muri ubwo bujurire, bityo rwemeza ko no mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane badakwiye kugarura ingingo z’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bari batanze mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire. Ku bijyanye no Kumenya ukwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka y’imodoka ivugwa muri uru rubanza, Uburanira Akarere ka kirehe avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, ntaho rwashingiye ruca Akarere ka Kirehe indishyi kuko rutagaragaje amakosa kaba karakoze, naho abaregera indishyi bavuga ko amategeko agenga ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri ateganya ko impanuka yose, hatitawe ku cyayiteye, yishyurwa n’umwishingizi hanyuma akazikurikiranira uwamuteje igihombo. Asobanura ko Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc ariyo ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi. Uburanira Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc ko imodoka yakoze impanuka yari igenewe gutwara imizigo, kuba yarakoze impanuka itwaye abagenzi bikaba bivanaho inshingano z’umwishingizi kubera ko uwishingiwe atubahirije amasezerano. Urukiko rwemeje ko indishyi zigomba gucibwa abazungura ba Gatashya (nyiri modoka) bonyine kuko ari we utarubahirije inshingano yari afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi kandi abishaka bityo ntashobora kurengerwa n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi haba ku bimureba cyangwa abangirijwe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe kuko yapakiye abantu benshi mu modoka itwara imizigo kandi igatwarwa n’udafite uruhushya rwo gutwara ibinyabiziga.

Page 145

109 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

Incamake y’icyemezo :1. Utarasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane ntiyagira ibyo asaba mu iburanisha ry’urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Bityo uwatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rutakiriwe kubera iburabubasha ry’Urukiko ntiyasaba ko ubwo bujurire busuzumwa mu iburanisha ry’urwo rubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane byarasabwe n’undi muburanyi kuko bifatwa nkaho we yanyuzwe n’icyemezo cyarufashwemo.

2. Uwagobokeshejwe bwa mbere mu bujurire afite uburenganzira bwo kujurira byibuze rimwe. Bityo mu gusuzuma ubujurire bwa kabiri ntabwo Urukiko rwajuririwe rwavuga ko nta bubasha rufite mu gihe hari uwagobokeshejwe bwa mbere mu bujurire.

3. Uwishingiwe ukoze amakosa yo kutubahiriza inshingano afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga abizi kandi abishaka ntabwo arengerwa n’ayo masezerano. Bityo, iyo imodoka ikoze impanuka itwawe n’umushoferi udafite uruhushya rwo gutwara ikinyabiziga rwihariye (category) ndetse no ikanapakira abantu barenze kure abateganyijwe mu masezerano ahantu ubundi isanzwe ipakira imizigo, nyirimodoka niwe wenyine ugomba kubiryozwa. Ikirego cy’ubujurire cyari cyaratanzwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire cyagombaga kwakirwa Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 63, Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, Ingingo ya 64, 113

Page 146

110 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Iteka rya Perezida N° 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo, Ingingo ya 66 Itegeko-Teka N° 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 rigena ubwishingire, Ingingo ya 11 Ingingo rusange z’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri ku butaka ya CORAR S.A. yaje kwihuza na SORAS AG Ltd ku wa 29/06/2010, Ingingo ya 22,23, 24 Imanza zifashishijwe: Urubanza RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC rwa AYALA CO Ltd v. APROETEC ASBL na EPTC Ltd rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/10/2020 Urubanza RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2020/SC rwa Whitefield Investment Company Ltd v. Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/09/2021. Urubanza rubanziriza urundi mu rubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC KAMUGWIZA Phoebe aburana na Sakina Hashim na bagenzi be rwaciwe ku wa 29/10/2021 urubanza RCAA00045/2016/SC rwa Mukaruhanga Alexia v. Nyirahabimana Emertha na Kold Hansen Jesper rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/05/2019, Urubanza RS/INJUST/RC00007/2020/SC rwa Twagirayezu Alice na bagenzi be v. Twagirayezu Albert n’undi rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021. Urubanza rwa City of Johnstown v Bankers Standars Insurance Co., 877 F 2d, at 1150 (2nd Cir.1989). Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe :

Page 147

111 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

Yvonne Lambert-Faivre et Laurent Leveneur, Droit des assurances, Paris, Dalloz, 2005, p. 201 ; p. 292 Barry Zelma, Insurance Law, Erlanger, The National Underwriter Company, 2015, p.

71. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Ngoma, Hatunguramye Prosper ahagarariye umwana we Tuyishimire Charles (wari utarageza ku myaka y’ubukure), Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Ndagijimana Eugène barega SAHAM Assurance Rwanda Ltd (ubu yahindutse Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc), bayisaba ko yakwishyura indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yabaye ku wa 14/11/2014, ubwo imodoka Mitsubishi Fuso ibaruye kuri RAA 089 W ya Gatashya Ezra yakoraga impanuka igahitana Sinzabakwira Prosper mu bantu 52 yari itwaye inyuma (muri carosserie). Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yireguye ivuga ko nta ndishyi igomba kuryozwa kuko imodoka yahitanye Sinzabakwira Prosper yari yafashwe n'Akarere ka Kirehe, ipakiye abantu barenga umubare w’abo yishingiye, ndetse itwawe n’umuntu udafite uruhushya rwo kuyitwara kuko yari afite urwagenewe gutwara Moto, isaba guhabwa indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza n'igihembo cya Avoka. [2] Mu rubanza RC00238/2018/TGI/NGOMA rwaciwe ku wa 11/10/2018, Urukiko rwasanze kuba Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc ivuga ko imodoka yafashwe n'Akarere ka Kirehe yari ipakiye abantu barenga umubare yari yemerewe gutwara, ndetse ikaba yari inatwawe n’utabifitiye uruhushya rwo

Page 148

112 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuyitwara bitayikuraho inshingano yo kwishyura abangirijwe n'icyo kinyabiziga kuko itagaragaza ko umunsi Akarere ka Kirehe kakoresheje iyo modoka, yari yasheshe amasezerano y'ubwishingizi yari ifitanye n'uwishingiwe; rwasanze kandi imodoka yarakoreshwaga na nyirayo ikaba yari itwawe n’umukozi we, rwanzura ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Hatunguramye Prosper ahagarariye Tuyishimire Charles, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Ndagijimana Eugène gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rutegeka Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc kubaha indishyi mpozamarira zingana na 540.000Frw kuri buri muntu, yose hamwe akaba 1.620.000Frw, runayitegeka kubishyur 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [3] Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, inasaba ko hagobokeshwa ku gahato abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra n’Akarere ka Kirehe kugira ngo baryozwe indishyi yaciwe ziturutse ku makosa bakoze yo kuba imodoka yaratwawe n’umushoferi utabifitiye uruhushya, agatwara umubare urenze uw’abantu bishingiwe ahagenewe gutwarwa imizigo. Yavuze kandi ko Urukiko rwabanje rwagize imyumvire itariyo ku masezerano y’ubwishingizi yakorewe iyo modoka ndetse no ku isesengura ry’amategeko ajyanye n’ubwishyu igihe habaye impanuka. Abaregeye indishyi bireguye bavuga ko ubujurire bwa Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc nta shingiro bufite, basaba ko hagumaho imikirize y'urubanza rwajuririwe. [4] Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rwabanje kwemeza ko ukugobokeshwa ku gahato kw’Akarere ka Kirehe n’Abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra gufite ishingiro, hanyuma mu rubanza RCA00078/2018/HC/RWG rwaciwe ku wa 17/06/2019, rusanga Gatashya Ezra n’Akarere ka Kirehe barishe amasezerano

Page 149

113 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

y’ubwishingizi kuko batwaye abantu 52 ahatwarwa imizigo, imodoka bemera ko itwarwa n’umuntu utabifitiye uruhushya, ibyo bikaba bitaryozwa Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc, bityo ko ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro. Rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 n’iya 260 z’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, rwategetse ko indishyi Sanlam Assurances Générales yaciwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe zishyurwa na Succession Gatashya Ezra ifatanyije n’Akarere ka Kirehe ku buryo bungana, runategeka Hatunguramye Prosper, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Ndagijimana Eugène gufatanya kwishyura Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc 700.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza. [5] Akarere ka Kirehe kajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kavuga ko kavukijwe amahirwe yo gutumirwa mu nama ntegurarubanza kandi kari kagobokeshejwe ku gahato bwa mbere mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ko kandi urwo Rukiko rwirengagije ibiteganywa n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi yakozwe hagati ya Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc n’uwishingiwe. [6] Mu rubanza RCAA00025/2019/CA rwaciwe ku wa 24/07/2020, Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rwasanze indishyi zagenwe mu rubanza rwajuririwe zitageze kuri 75.000.000Frw ateganywa n’ingingo ya 52, y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ndetse ko nta n’indi mpamvu iteganywa n’iyo ngingo Akarere ka Kirehe kagaragaje yatuma ubujurire bwa kabiri buba mu bubasha bwarwo, rwanzura ko butakiriwe kuko butari mu bubasha bwarwo, rutegeka Akarere ka Kirehe kwishyura Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka no kwishyura abazungura ba Gatashya

Page 150

114 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ezra, bahagarariwe n’umugore we Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie, 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. [7] Akarere ka Kirehe kandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga gasaba ko urubanza RCAA00025/2019/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 24/07/2020, rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Mu cyemezo n° 168/CJ/2021 cyafashwe ku wa 21/05/2021, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yemeje ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [8] Mu myanzuro yako, Akarere ka Kirehe kavuze ko ingingo ya 116, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ivuga ko umuburanyi umuburanyi ugobokeshejwe ku gahato mu bujurire akagira ibyo acibwa yemerewe kujurira inshuro imwe. Kasobanuye ko iyo ngingo yihagije kandi isobanutse ku buryo Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rutari kwanga kwakira ubujurire bwako rwitwaje ko agaciro k’ikiburanwa katari mu bubasha bwarwo kuko ibijyanye n’ububasha ku bujurire bwa kabiri urwo Rukiko rwasuzumye bitakarebaga kuko katari karabaye umuburanyi mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye. Kasabye ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ruvanwaho kugira ngo kabone uko kagaragaza akarengane katewe n’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rwagategetse kwishyura indishyi ngo kuko katubahirije amasezerano y’ubwishingizi nyamara ntaho ayo masezerano akareba. [9] Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles na Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène bavuze ko basanga Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwarakoze amakosa yo kutakira ubujurire

Page 151

115 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

bw’Akarere ka Kirehe, basaba uru Rukiko kubikosora, ariko mu mizi y’urubanza rukemeza ko indishyi ziryozwa Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc nk’uko babigaragaje mu nkiko zabanje. [10] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 17/11/2021, Akarere ka Kirehe kaburanirwa na Me Kayitesi Petronille, Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc iburanirwa na Me Nduwamungu Jean Vianney, abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra bahagarariwe n’umugore we Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie aburanirwa na Me Habakurama Francois Xavier naho Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles ndetse na Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène baburanirwa na Me Banguwiha Vianney. [11] Habanje gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba hari amakosa yaba yarakozwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire mu kwemeza ko, nubwo Akarere ka Kirehe kari kagobokeshejwe ku gahato mu rwego rw’ubujurire, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rutari kwakira ubujurire bwako harebwe agaciro k’ikiburanwa. [12] Nyuma yo kumva icyo ababuranyi bose bavuga kuri iyi ngingo, aho bose bemeranywa ko ubujurire bw’Akarere ka Kirehe bwagombaga kwakirwa kuko bwari ubwa mbere kajuriye, Urukiko rwafatiye icyemezo mu ntebe rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 116, igika cya kabiri y’Itegeko n° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi no ku mirongo rwafashe mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwo Whitefield Investment Company Ltd yaregagamo Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs ndetse n’urwo AYALA CO Ltd yaburanaga

Page 152

116 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

na APROETEC ASBL na EPTC Ltd,1 rusanga kujurira inshuro imwe ari uburenganzira Umushingamategeko yahaye umuburanyi utaranyuzwe n’umwanzuro wafashwe mu rubanza yagobokeshejwemo, rwemeza ko ubujurire bw’Akarere ka Kirehe bwagombaga kwakirwa kuko bwari ubwa mbere kajuriye, bityo urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, rukaba ruhindutse, hagasumwa ingingo z’ubujurire rwari rwashyikirijwe. [13] Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yazamuye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba abaregera indishyi hari icyo bakwiye gusaba muri uru rubanza kandi ataribo basubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Icyo kibazo nicyo cyabanje gusuzumwa mbere yo gusuzuma icyo kumenya ugomba kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yatewe n’imodoka ibaruye kuri RAA 089 A. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. 1.Kumenya niba umuburanyi utarasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ashobora kuririra ku busabe bw’undi akagira ibyo asaba urukiko ku bimureba. [14] Me Nduwamungu Jean Vianney, uburanira Sanlam Assuraces Générales Plc, avuga ko umuntu utarasubirishejemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane akwiye kumvwa nk’utanga amakuru gusa ariko atagize icyo asaba, akaba asanga ari uko

1 Reba urubanza n° RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 16/10/2020 n’urubanza Nº RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/09/2021

Page 153

117 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra bakwiye gufatwa kuko no mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, batigeze bajurira. [15] Me Kayitesi Petronille, uburanira Akarere ka Kirehe, avuga ko umuburanyi ubangamiwe n’imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa nyuma, arusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bityo ko kuba abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra, Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles na Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène batarabikoze ari uko bari banyuzwe n’icyemezo cy’Urukiko, icyakora ko ubu ntacyabuza ko hagira ibihinduka no ku ruhande rw’utarasabye ko urwo rubanza rusubirwamo. [16] Me Banguwiha Vianney, uburanira Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles na Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène avuga ko iyo Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ntacyabuza Urukiko gusuzuma ikibazo umuburanyi uregwa arugaragarije, kuko bitagenze uko haba hasuzumwe ibibazo by’uruhande rumwe, bityo ko gusuzuma akarengane bidakwiye kugarukira ku muburanyi urega gusa. [17] Me Habakurama Francois Xavier, uburanira Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie uhagarariye abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra, avuga ko nubwo ataribo basubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane, icyo Umushingamategeko yari agamije mu ngingo ya 63 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ari uko urubanza rwongera kuburanishwa bundi bushya ababuranyi bose bahamagajwe, bityo ko ababuranyi bataza guhagarara mu Rukiko gusa. Asobanura ko nubwo Akarere ka Kirehe ari ko kajuriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire; abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra nabo bari batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi, ko kuba batarasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane bitabavutsa uburenganzira bwo

Page 154

118 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

gusobanura ubujurire bari barashyikirije Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, isuzumwa ryabwo rikaburizwamo n’uko ikirego kitakiriwe kubera impamvu z’iburabubasha, ariyo mpamvu ubwo urubanza rusubiwemo mu mizi bundi bushya, hakwiye gusuzumwa ibibazo byose byarubayemo, buri muburanyi akagaragaza icyo atishimiye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Ingingo ya 63 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko iteganya 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”. [19] Ku bijyanye n’imbibi z’isuzuma rishya rivugwa mu ngingo ya 63 y’Itegeko No 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, Urukiko rurasanga byarasobanuwe mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwo Kamugwiza Phoebe aburana na Sakina Hashim na bagenzi be.2 Uru Rukiko rwasanze “gusuzuma urubanza mu mizi bundi bushya bidakwiye kumvikana nko kwirengagiza izindi ngingo zikubiye muri iryo tegeko zigaragaza uburyo umuburanyi wumva yararenganyijwe mu rubanza asaba ko rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu y’akarengane, ibyo agomba kugaragaza mu busabe bwe, inzego zifite ububasha bwo kubusuzuma n’urwego rufite ububasha bwo kwemeza ko urubanza rusubirwamo.” Urukiko rwasobanuye ko ingingo ya 56, igika cya mbere, n’iya 58 z’iryo Tegeko ziteganya ibihe byo

2 Reba urubanza rubanziriza urundi mu rubanza n° RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC rwaciwe ku wa 29/10/2021.

Page 155

119 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

gusaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane n’inzego ubwo busabe bwohererezwa, umuburanyi utaranyuze muri iyo nzira akaba atakuririra ku kirego cyatanzwe n’uwasubirishijemo urubanza ngo nawe asabe Urukiko gusuzuma ibyo atishimiyemo. [20] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga Akarere ka Kirehe ari ko konyine kasabye ko urubanza no RCAA00025/2019/CA rwaciwe n'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire ku wa 24/07/2020 rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, kuba hari ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi abaregwa bari baratanze mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ntibusuzumwe kubera ko ubujurire bw’iremezo butakiriwe bitewe n’uko Urukiko rwasanze butari mu bubasha bwarwo, ariko abari batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi ntibagire icyo banenga icyo cyemezo basaba ko urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bigaragaza ko nta nyungu bari bagifite muri ubwo bujurire, bityo no muri uru rubanza bakaba badakwiye kugarura ingingo z’ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bari batanze mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire.

2. Kumenya ukwiye kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka y’imodoka yari ibaruwe kuri RAA 089 W [21] Me Kayitesi Petronille, uburanira Akarere ka Kirehe, avuga ko nta bantu Akarere ka Kirehe kapakiye muri Mitsubishi Fuso ibaruye kuri RAA 089 W, ko n’umushoferi wari utwaye iyo modoka atariko kamuhaye akazi, ko ahubwo Gatashya Ezra ku bushake bwe yagiye kwakira Umukuru w’Igihugu nk’abandi baturage, atwara abaturanyi be mu mudoka ye ku bushake bwe. Asobanura ko nta mpamvu n’imwe yari gutuma Akarere ka Kirehe gacibwa indishyi z’impanuka yahitanye Sinzabakwira Prosper, ahubwo ko Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yageretse inshingano zayo ku Karere ka Kirehe igamije kwigobotora

Page 156

120 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

indishyi yari yaciwe ku rwego rwa mbere, yirengagiza ko yamaze kwishyura ababyeyi n’umwe mu bavandimwe ba Sinzabakwira Prosper waguye mu mpanuka. [22] Avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ntaho rwashingiye ruca Akarere ka Kirehe indishyi kuko rutagaragaje amakosa kaba karakoze, ko amakosa aramutse yarabaye, abaregera indishyi aribo bafite inshingano zo kuyagaragaza kandi kugeza ubu bakaba baterekana uruhare rwako mu mpanuka y’imodoka Fuso ibaruye kuri RAA 089 W. Asobanura ko abakomerekeye mu mpanuka bahawe inka kuko bari bahungabanye, naho Gatashya Ezra akaba yarahawe 9.000.000Frw kuko yari yasabye kugobokwa, ko kuba Akarere karatanze iyo ngoboka bitavuze ko kemeraga amakosa cyangwa se ko buri gihe iyo ngoboka ishobora gutangwa, ahubwo ko byatewe n’uko byari ngombwa kugoboka abaturage bako bakoze impanuka bagiye mu gikorwa kateguye. Asaba uru Rukiko kubona ko katarebwa n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi, rukemeza ko indishyi kaciwe zikuweho. [23] Me Banguwiha Jean Vianney, uburanira Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Tuyishimire Charles, avuga ko ingingo ya 22 mu ngingo rusange z’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri, iteganya ko impanuka yose, hatitawe ku cyayiteye, yishyurwa n’umwishingizi hanyuma akazikurikiranira uwamuteje igihombo. Asobanura ko Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc ariyo ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi, kandi ko hari izindi manza zaciwe zijyanye n’impanuka iburanwa, Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc ikishyura, ariyo mpamvu asaba uru Rukiko kuyitegeka kwishyura 540.000Frw y’indishyi zahawe buri muvandimwe wa Nyakwigendera.

Page 157

121 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

[24] Me Habakurama Francois Xavier, uburanira Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie uhagarariye abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra, avuga ko Bamporiki wari utwaye imodoka nta ruhushya rwo kuyitwara yari afite, ko yari yashatswe n’Akarere ka Kirehe ari nako kari kumuha insimburamubyizi. Avuga ko Akerere ka Kirehe kiyambaje imodoka itwara imizigo kugira ngo ubwitabire muri gahunda kari kateganyije bwiyongere, gapakira abantu ahatwarwa imizigo aho gushaka imodoka zemerewe gutwara abagenzi, imodoka zose zitabiriye icyo gikorwa akaba ariko kazishyuriye amavuta kuri station ya Nyakarambi, ko naho impanuka ibereye, imodoka zako arizo zatabaye, ndetse ko hashingiwe kuri devis Gatashya Ezra yari yahawe na garage, kamwishyuye 9.000.000Frw, ariyo mpamvu asanga hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 104 n’iya 108 z’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yakwishyura abaregera indishyi nta mananiza hanyuma ikikurikiranira Akarere ka Kirehe. [25] Me Nduwamungu Vianney uburanira Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc avuga ko ku rwego rwa mbere, Urukiko rutasobanukiwe neza n’uburyo amasezerano y’ubwishingizi asesengurwa, ko imodoka yakoze impanuka yari igenewe gutwara imizigo, kuba yarakoze impanuka itwaye abagenzi bikaba bivanaho inshingano z’umwishingizi kubera ko uwishingiwe atubahirije amasezerano. Asobanura ko ayo makosa ariyo yakosowe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko uburyozwe ari ubwa nyir’imodoka n’Akarere ka Kirehe bumvikanye gutwara abagenzi mu modoka igenewe imizigo. Avuga ko kugeza ubu abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra batagaragaza ko yemeye gutanga imodoka ye ari ku ngoyi. Naho ku bijyanye n’izindi manza Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc yaba yaratsinzwe ikishyura, avuga ko bitatewe n’uko yemeraga umwanzuro w’Urukiko muri

Page 158

122 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

izo manza ahubwo ko ibihe byo kujurira byabaga byayirenganye. Asoza avuga ko uru Rukiko rubibonye ukundi, rukemeza ko Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc iryozwa indishyi rwaba rushyizeho umurongo watuma abantu bajya batwara abantu barenze abishingiwe mu modoka cyangwa bakumva ko imodoka zemerewe gukora ibyo zitafatiye ubwishingizi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano iteganya ko amasezerano akozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye, akaba yaseswa ari uko abayagiranye babyumvikanyeho cyangwa ku zindi mpamvu zemewe n’amategeko. Naho ingingo ya 113, igika cya mbere, y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko amasezerano agira inkurikizi hagati y’abayagiranye gusa, akaba atabangamira undi cyangwa ngo amugirire akamarohejuru y’ibyayateganyijwemo bimufitiye akamaro. [27] Ingingo ya 66, igika cya 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo iteganya ko “umuyobozi w’ikinyabiziga, uw'ikinyamitende itatu cyangwa ine bifite moteri abujijwe gutwara abantu mu bice by'inyuma bya karisoro y'icyo kinyabiziga cyangwa ya romoruki yacyo”. [28] Ingingo ya 11, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko-Teka N° 20/75 ryo ku wa 20/06/1975 rigena ubwishingire iteganya ko “Nubwo nta ngingo yaba ibivuguruza, uwishingira ntashobora kwishingira ibyaha byatewe n’ikosa rikozwe nkana n’uwishingiwe.”

Page 159

123 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

[29] Ingingo ya 22 y’ingingo rusange z’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ibinyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri ku butaka ya CORAR S.A. yaje kwihuza na SORAS AG Ltd ku wa 29/06/2010,3 ubu bikaba aribyo byabaye Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc, iteganya ko “igihe cyose uwishingiwe atubahirije amasezerano atakaza uburenganzira bwo kugobokwa. Ubwo ariko iyo CORAR S.A. igomba kwishyura abangirijwe uko byagenda kose kubera amategeko ariho, ifite uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza uwishingiwe ibyo yamutangiye, bitayibujije ndetse n’ubundi burenganzira bwose yaba imufiteho.” [30] Ingingo ya 23 n’iya 24 z’ayo masezerano zivuga ko uwishingiwe afite inshingano zo gukumira impanuka, bityo kugira ngo agobokwe akaba agomba kugaragaza ko nta makosa afite cyangwa se ko aho bishobokeye yihutiye kubahiriza amasezerano. Impamvu zishobora gutuma uwishingiwe atagobokwa harimo n’iy’uko mu gihe cy’impanuka ikinyabiziga cyari gitwawe n’umuntu utabifitiye uruhushya rugenwa n’amategeko. [31] Ku bijyanye n’isesengura ry’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi, abahanga mu mategeko y’ubwishingizi barimo Yvonne Lambert-Faivre na Laurent Leveneur, bavuga ko Urukiko arirwo rufite inshingano zo gusesengura amasezerano y’ubwishingizi, ko iyo ingingo zayo zisobanutse, zumvikana kandi zitarimo urujijo, zigomba kubahirizwa uko zanditswe kuko kubibona ukundi byaba ari uguhindurira ireme ry’ayo masezerano (dénaturation du contrat) bikaba byatuma mu bihugu

3Reba Certificate of Amalgamation yatanzwe na Rwanda Development Board ku wa 29/06/2010;

Page 160

124 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bifite Inkiko zisesa imanza urwo rubanza ruseswa.4 Naho Barry Zalma avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rurimo gusesengura amasezerano y’ubwishingizi rugomba gushaka icyo abakoranye amasezerano bari bagamije. Asobanura ko nk’uko bisanzwe mu yandi masezerano, amagambo yakoreshejwe mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi agomba guhabwa ibisobanuro bisanzwe kubera ko intego nyamukuru ari uguha ishingiro icyo impande zombi zumvikanye mu nyandiko.5 [32] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza irimo amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’ikinyabiziga camion Fuso gifite plaque RAA 089 W yo ku wa 11/11/2014, yateganyaga ko ubwishingizi bw’icyo kinyabiziga bwari ubwo gutwara ibicuruzwa, ndetse hakishingirwa n’imyanya 3. Ababuranyi nta mpaka bafite kuri aya masezerano, haba ku kuba imodoka yari yishingiwe ari iyo gutwara imizigo ndetse no kuba hari hishingiwe abantu batatu. Ababuranyi kandi nta mpaka bafitanye ku kuba ubwo iyo modoka yakoraga impanuka yari itwawe n’umushoferi udafite uruhushya rwo kuyitwara kuko urwo yari afite ari urwa moto, ndetse no kuba yari ipakiye abantu 52 ahantu isanzwe ipakira imizigo nabyo ntibigibwaho impaka.

4 “Ce sont les juges du fond qui interprètent les clauses des polices d’assurance. Si celles-ci sont claires, précises et licites, elles doivent être appliquées, sinon la décision du juge encourt le risque de cassation pour dénaturation du contrat.” Yvonne Lambert-Faivre na Laurent Leveneur, Droit des assurances, Paris, Dalloz, 2005, p. 201 5 “Rules of insurance contract interpretation are applied by courts with the intent to fulfill the desires of all parties to the contract. The construction of insurance contract should be governed by the same rules of construction applicable to all contracts…Its terms are given their ordinary and generally accepted meaning and the primary goal of the court is to give effect to the written expression of the parties’ intent.” Barry Zelma, Insurance Law, Erlanger, The National Underwriter Company, 2015, p. 71.

Page 161

125 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

[33] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko kuva ku gika cya 17 kugeza ku cya 21 by’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, urwo Rukiko rwasanze abantu barapakiwe mu modoka n’Ubuyobozi bw’Akarere ka Kirehe na nyir’imodoka, ndetse bashyiraho n’umushoferi udafite uruhushya rwo gutwara imodoka yo mu bwoko bwa Fuso ahubwo wemerewe gutwara moto, bityo ko habayeho kunyuranya n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi ndetse no kutubahiriza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 66, igika cya 4, y’Iteka rya Perezida N° 85/01 ryo ku wa 02/09/2002 rishyiraho amabwiriza rusange agenga imihanda n’uburyo bwo kuyigendamo ibuza abatwaye imodoka gushyira abagenzi ahagenewe imizigo. [34] Urukiko rurasanga nyuma yo kubona indishyi zaragombaga gushingira ku kuba Gatashya Ezra atarubahirije amasezerano y’ubwishingizi, ntiyari kuryozwa indishyi hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 n’iya 260 z’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe kuko izo ngingo zitareba uburyozwe bushingiye ku kutubahiriza amasezerano (responsabilité contractuelle) ahubwo zirebana n’ubw’amakosa akozwe ku bushake n’ibisa nayo (responsabilité délictuelle et quasi- délictuelle). Kuba hataratandukanyijwe uburyozwe bushingiye ku masezerano n’ubushingiye ku makosa akozwe ku bushake n’ibisa nayo byatumye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rukora amakosa yo guhuriza hamwe Gatashya Ezra, wari warasinye ayo masezerano y’ubwishingize n’Akarere ka Kirehe katarebwaga nayo, bituma rwanzura ruvuga ko “nyir’imodoka n’Akarere ka Kirehe, aribo bagomba kuryozwa indishyi”

Page 162

126 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[35] Uru Rukiko, mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwo Mukaruhanga Alexia yaburanaga na Nyirahabimana Emertha na Kold Hansen Jesper,6 ndetse n’urwo Twagirayezu Alice na bagenzi be baburanaga na Twagirayezu Albert n’undi, rwasanze ihame rusange riri mu ngingo ya 64 n’iya 113, igika cya mbere, z’Itegeko N° 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano ari uko, uretse mu gihe ibyateganyijwemo bifitiye undi akamaro, amasezerano agira inkurikizi ku bayagiranye gusa,7 bityo mu gihe Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana rutari rwabanje kugaragaza uburyo Akarere ka Kirehe kari kungukira mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi hagati ya Gatashya Ezra na Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc, ntaho rwari gukura umwanzuro w’uko kagomba kurebwa n’inkurikizi zayo. [36] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Akerere ka Kirehe kaba karifuje imodoka ijyana abantu mu gikorwa cyo kwakira Umukuru w’Igihugu kagahabwa Camion Fuso, yakora impanuka kakohereza imodoka zako gutabara inkomere kugira ngo zigezwe kwa muganga, kuba nyuma yaho karahaye inka abari bahungabanyijwe n’iyo mpanuka cyangwa kuba karishyuriye Gatashya Ezra 9.000.000Frw yo gusana imodoka yakoze impanuka, ibyo nta sano bifitanye n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi bw’imodoka yakoze impanuka kuko nta kigaragaza ko kabikoze mu rwego rwo kubahiriza inshingano runaka kari gafite zikomoka kuri ayo masezerano, bityo bikaba bitumvikana uburyo Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rwemeje ko ako Karere kishe amasezerano y’ubwishingizi.

6 Reba urubanza n° RCAA 00045/2016/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 24/05/2019, kuva ku bika bya 25 kugeza ku cya 34 7 Reba urubanza RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 10/12/2021

Page 163

127 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

[37] Urukiko rurasanga Gatashya Ezra yaremeye gutwara abagenzi ahapakirwa imizigo, atwara abantu 52 kandi azi ko afite ubwishingizi bw’abantu batatu gusa, yemera kandi ko imodoka ye y’ikamyo itwarwa n’umushoferi udafite uruhushya rwo kuyitwara, ibi rero ntabwo ari uburangare busanzwe (négligence ordinaire) ubundi butaganisha ku guteganya cyangwa gushaka impanuka, nta n’ikigaragaza ko yari agambiriye indonke (risques calculés),8 ahubwo ni amakosa yo kutubahiriza inshingano yari afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi, ayo makosa akaba yarayakoze abizi kandi abishaka kuko kugeza ubu abazungura be batabasha kugaragaza impamvu ikomeye yatumye ayakora. [38] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko abahanga mu mategeko y’ubwishingizi babivuga, ingaruka zo kuba nyir’imodoka yarakoze amakosa yo kutubahiriza inshingano afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi abizi kandi abishaka ni uko ayo makosa adashobora kurengerwa n’amasezerano y’ubwishingizi9 haba ku bimureba cyangwa abangirijwe n’ikinyabiziga cyishingiwe, ariyo mpamvu ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza indishyi zigomba gucibwa abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra bonyine kuko ari we utarubahirije inshingano yari afite mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi.

8 ordinary negligence does not constitute an intention to cause damage, and a calculated risk does not amount to an expectation of damage...” Reba City of Johnstown v Bankers Standars Insurance Co., 877 F 2d, at 1150 (2nd Cir.1989). 9 Introduire la garantie du fait intentionnel dans l’opération d’assurance en fausserait donc radicalement les prémisses : la technique d’assurance exige que le risqué assure soit un événement aléatoire, dont la réalisation ne dépend pas de la volonté de l’assuré ou du bénéficiaire du contrat. La réalisation volontaire du risqué par l’assuré ou le bénéficiaire demeure donc hors du champ contractuel : c’est une exclusion légale de risque…” Yvonne Lambert- Faivre na Laurent Leveneur, Droit des assurances, Paris, Dalloz, 2005, p. 292

Page 164

128 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[39] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zingana na 1.620.000Frw zategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, kwishyurwa Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Tuyishimire Charles zikomoka ku mpanuka baburiyemo umuvandimwe wabo, zigombwa kuryozwa abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra bonyine.

3. Ku birebana n’indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza. [40] Akarere ka Kirehe kavuga ko kugeza ubu Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc itagaragaza amakosa kakoze yari gutuma gakururwa mu manza kugeza ubwo kabiryorejwe indishyi, ariyo mpamvu gasaba uru Rukiko kuyitegeka kukishyura 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuko yagashoye mu manza ku maherere. [41] Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Tuyishimire Charles bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, rwabategetse kwishyura Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc 700.000Frw y’indishyi nyamara aribo bari bazikwiye, ariyo mpamvu basaba uru Rukiko kuzivanaho ahubwo rukayitegeka kubaha 2.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kubera gusiragizwa mu nkiko, na 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka mu nzego zose. [42] Abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra bavuga ko Akarere ka Kirehe na Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc babasiragije mu nkiko ariyo mpamvu bakwiye gufatanya kubaha 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [43] Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc ivuga ko indishyi zisabwa n'Akarere ka Kirehe nta shingiro zifite, ko nta

Page 165

129 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

n’impamvu yatuma izaciwe Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Tuyishimire Charles mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, zikurwaho kuko badakwiye kuririra ku kirego cy’Akarengane cy’Akarere ka Kirehe mu gihe bo nta bujurire bigeze batanga cyangwa ngo basubirishemo urubanza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [44] 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.” [45] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza Akarere ka Kirehe gasaba zifite ishingiro, Abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra akaba aribo baziryozwa. Kubera ko bigaragarira Urukiko ko 1.000.000Frw asabwa ari umurengera kandi akaba nta bimenyetso yatangiwe bihamya ko ariyo yagiye kuri uru rubanza, mu bushishozi bwarwo, Akarere ka Kirehe kagenewe 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [46] Ku bijyanye n’amafaranga yo gusiragizwa mu manza angana na 2.000.000Frw, ndetse n’ay'igihembo cya Avoka angana na 2.000.000Frw asabwa na Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène ndetse na Tuyishimire Charles, Urukiko rurasanga kuba baraburanye bahagarariwe na Avoka ubihemberwa bakwiye guhabwa igihembo cya Avoka, icyakora

Page 166

130 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuko ayo basaba ari umurengera, mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko, bose hamwe bagenewe 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, akaba 800.000Frw, agatangwa n’abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra. [47] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zingana na 700.000Frw Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Tuyishimire Charles baciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, basaba ko zikurwaho, uru Rukiko rurasanga ntaho rwehera rusuzuma ishingiro ryabyo, kuko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, umumburanyi utarasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane atakurira ku busabe bw’undi muburanyi ngo agire icyo asaba. [48] Naho ku bijyanye n’indishyi za 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra basaba Akarere ka Kirehe na Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc kubera kubasiragiza mu nkiko, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro zifite kuko batsinzwe urubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO. [49] Rwemeje ko ikirego cy’ubujurire cyari cyaratanzwe n’Akarere ka Kirehe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire gifite ishingiro; [50] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCA00078/2018/HC/RWG, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ruhindutse ku bireba indishyi zaciwe Akarere ka Kirehe; [51] Rutegetse abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra kwishyura Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na

Page 167

131 AKARERE KA KIREHE VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd yahindutse SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc N’ABANDI

Tuyishimire Charles bose hamwe indishyi zingana na 1.620.000Frw zategetswe n’inkiko zabanje; [52] Rutegetse abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra kwishyura Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène na Tuyishimire Charles ibihumbi magana inani (800.000Frw) akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza; [53] Rutegetse abazungura ba Gatashya Ezra kwishyura Akarere ka Kirehe 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza.

Page 169

133

RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2022/SC – (Nyirinkwaya, J. P., Hitiyaremye na Karimunda, J.) 14 Mata 2023] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Gutakamba – Itakamba ritasubijwe n’umuyobozi mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko – Nubwo ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 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 nta rengayobora yateganyije ku ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation”, ntibuvuze ko kudasubiza bikwiye gufatwa nko kwemerera uwatakambye ibyo yasabaga yaba abifitiye uburenganzira cyangwa ntabwo abifitiye cyangwa se bitanashoboka ko abugira. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Gutakamba – Ihame “silence vaut acceptation” – Irengayobora ku ihame “silence vaut acceptation” – Irengayobora ni ngombwa rikaba ryagena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, ibisigaye byose bigafatwa ko utasubijwe aba yahakaniwe cyangwa kugena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko guhakanirwa noneho ku bindi byemezo byose bisigaye uwatakambye yaba adasubijwe agafatwa ko yemerewe ibyo yasabaga. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubutegetsi – Gutakamba – Ihame “silence vaut acceptation – Irengayobora – Ibyemezo bidakwiye gukoresha ihame “silence vaut acceptation ni ibyemezo bijyanye 1o n’umutekano w’igihugu, umutekano

Page 170

134 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyangwa ituze rusange rya rubanda, ukwishyira no kwizana kw’abaturage, uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa andi mategeko ashyiraho uburenganzira bw’ibanze; 2o Ibijyanye n’inshingano z’igihugu ku rwego rw’Akarere cyangwa mpuzamahanga; 3o Ibijyanye no kwishyura cyangwa kwishyuza amafaranga Urwego rwa Leta; 4 oIbitareba uburenganzira bwite bw’uwatakambye; 5o Ibyo amategeko cyangwa amabwiriza abigenga asanzwe ateganya ko kudasubizwa ari uguhakanirwa; 6o Ibijyanye no gutakambira cyangwa kujuririra ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi bitemerera umuntu ibyo yasabaga); 7oIbijyanye n’imikoranire hagati y’urwego rw’ubuyobozi n’abakozi barwo; 8oIbijyanye n’inyandiko cyangwa ibyangombwa bitangwa n’inzego z’ubuyobozi. Amategeko agenga Urugaga rw’Abavoka – Umwavoka – Ibisabwa kuba umwavoka – Umuntu wifuza kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, kimwe mu byo agomba kuba yujuje ni ukuba atarirukaniwe amakosa y’imyitwarire, byaba byarabaye akerekana ko yahawe ihanagurabusembwa. Incamake y’ikibazo: Rukundo yifuje kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka ariko igihe cyo kurahira cyegereje avanwa ku rutonde rw’abazarahizwa. Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwamumenyesheje ko rwamenye ko yirukaniwe amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire ubwo yari akiri umushinjacyaha kandi ko icyemezo kimwirukana kigifite agaciro, bityo ko atemerewe kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. Rukundo yatakambiye icyo cyemezo (recours gracieux) ariko Perezida w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka amumenyesha ko itakamba nta shingiro rifite. Rukundo yajuririye icyo cyemezo ku Nama y’Urugaga. Hashize ukwezi nta gisubizo, yatanze ikirego mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe, ashingira ku

Page 171

135 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

ngingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 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, asaba Urukiko Rukuru kwemeza ko kuba yaratakambiye icyemezo cya Perezida w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka ntasubizwe mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko, itakamba rye rifite ishingiro, Urukiko rukaba rugomba gutegeka ko arahizwa nka Avoka. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko ikirego cya Rukundo kitakiriwe kuko kitari mu bubasha bwarwo. Urwo rubanza Rukundo yarusubirishijemo ku mpamvu z’akararengane. Nyuma yo gusanga Urukiko Rukuru rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Rukundo, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko urubanza rukomeza mu mizi, Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruhamagazwa mu rubanza. Mu mizi y’urubanza, Rukundo yashimangiye ko nta kindi Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rugomba gusuzuma uretse kwemeza gusa ko yubahirije imigenzo y’itakamba, rugategeka ko kuba atarasubijwe mu bihe biteganywa n’amategeko, agomba kurahizwa nka Avoka, kuko ku bw’Itegeko, kudasubizwa bivuze kwemererwa ibyo yatakambiye. Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwo ruvuga ko Urukiko rudakwiye gukoresha ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 5 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru uko yanditse gusa hatitawe kucyo Umushingamategeko yari agamije ayishyiraho kuko ingaruka zabyo zaba ari kwemeza ko uwatakambye ahabwa n’uburenganzira atemerewe cyangwa budashoboka bitewe n’uko gusa atasubijwe mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko. Uru Rukiko rwasuzumye ikibazo cyo kumenya niba kuba Rukundo atarasubijwe n’Inama y’Urugaga ibyo yasabaga byo

Page 172

136 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kurahizwa nka Avoka bivuze ko agomba kubyemererwa hatarebwe ishingiro ry’uburenganzira yatakambiye, n’icyo kumenya niba umuntu wirukaniwe amakosa y’imyitwarire yemerewe kwinjira mu rugara rw’Abavoka. Ku kibazo cya mbere, Urukiko rwasanze ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 5 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru nta rengayobora yateganyije, bivuze ko iramutse ikoreshejwe uko yanditse byahesha uwatakambye ibyo yatakambiye yaba abifitiye uburenganzira cyangwa ntabwo abifitiye cyangwa se bitanashoboka ko abugira, rubona icyo ari icyuho mu itegeko kuko umushingamategeko atari agamije ko hagira ubona uburenganzira no ku byo atemerewe ngo ni uko atashubijwe. Mu rwego rwo kuzuza iyo ngingo kugira ngo amagambo yayo ahuzwe n’icyari kigenderewe n’Umushingamategeko, Urukiko rwasanze kudasubizwa bitafatwa nko kwemererwa no ku byo umuntu adafiteho uburenganzira, rugaragaza ingero z’ibyemezo aho kudasubiza bidakwiye gufatwa nko kwemerera uwatakambye ibyo yasabaga. Ku bikazo cya kabiri, Urukiko rwasanze umuntu wifuza kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, kimwe mu byo agomba kuba yujuje ari ukuba atarirukaniwe amakosa y’imyitwarire, byaba byarabaye akerekana ko yahawe ihanagurabusembwa. Nyuma yo kubona ko Rukundo yirukaniwe bene ayo makosa mu Bushinjacyaha aho yakoraga, Urukiko rwemeje ko atujuje ibisabwa n’amategeko kugira ngo abe yarahizwa nk’umwavoka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Nubwo ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 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 nta rengayobora yateganyije ku ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation”, ntibuvuze ko kudasubiza

Page 173

137 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

bikwiye gufatwa nko kwemerera uwatakambye ibyo yasabaga yaba abifitiye uburenganzira cyangwa ntabwo abifitiye cyangwa se bitanashoboka ko abugira.

2. Irengayobora ni ngombwa rikaba ryagena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, ibisigaye byose bigafatwa ko utasubijwe aba yahakaniwe cyangwa kugena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko guhakanirwa noneho ku bindi byemezo byose bisigaye uwatakambye yaba adasubijwe agafatwa ko yemerewe ibyo yasabaga.

3. Ibyemezo bidakwiye gukoresha ihame “silence vaut acceptation” ni ibyemezo bijyanye 1o n’umutekano w’igihugu, umutekano cyangwa ituze rusange rya rubanda, ukwishyira no kwizana kw’abaturage, uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa andi mategeko ashyiraho uburenganzira bw’ibanze; 2o Ibijyanye n’inshingano z’igihugu ku rwego rw’Akarere cyangwa mpuzamahanga; 3o Ibijyanye no kwishyura cyangwa kwishyuza amafaranga Urwego rwa Leta; 4 oIbitareba uburenganzira bwite bw’uwatakambye; 5o Ibyo amategeko cyangwa amabwiriza abigenga asanzwe ateganya ko kudasubizwa ari uguhakanirwa; 6o Ibijyanye no gutakambira cyangwa kujuririra ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi bitemerera umuntu ibyo yasabaga); 7oIbijyanye n’imikoranire hagati y’urwego rw’ubuyobozi n’abakozi barwo; 8oIbijyanye n’inyandiko cyangwa ibyangombwa bitangwa n’inzego z’ubuyobozi.

4. Umuntu wifuza kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, kimwe mu byo agomba kuba yujuje ni ukuba atarirukaniwe amakosa y’imyitwarire, byaba byarabaye akerekana ko yahawe ihanagurabusembwa. Bityo, Rukundo Innocent yirukaniwe bene ayo makosa mu Bushinjacyaha aho yakoraga bigatuma atujuje ibisabwa n’amategeko kugira ngo abe yarahizwa nk’umwavoka.

Page 174

138 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kudasubizwa ubwabyo ku butakambe, ntibivuzeko yemerewe ibyo yatakambiraga. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 31 n’iya 49. 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 178. Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 6 n’iya 20. Andi mategeko yifashishijwe: Itegeko-Ngenga ryo ku wa 08/07/1976 rigenga ibigo bya Centres publics d'action sociale (CPAS), ingingo ya 110. Article 20 de la Loi générale sur la procédure administrative du 7 Août 1990 (n° 241). Article 43 de la Loi N° 30/1992, du 26 novembre 1992, de régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común (LRJAPC), BOE, n° 285, 27 nov.1992. Itegeko-Teka N° 35/2005 rigena mu buryo bweruye ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, naho ihame riguma ari uko kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kutemererwa, ingingo ya 3. Imanza zifashishijwe: Rutagarama Eliseus, RS/RECT/RC00001/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/05/2019.

Page 175

139 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

Ubushinjacyaha v Nsengumuremyi Richard n’Abagenzi be, RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/11/2018. National Westminster Bank Plc V Spectrum Plus Ltd & Others [2005] UKHL 41, igika cya 31, 36 n’icya 41. Cour de Cassation (France), Civ 1er, 11 Mai 2017, n° 16-15.549 et 16-60115. Cour de Cassation (France), Chambre commerciale financière et économique, 3 mai 2018, Pourvoi n° 16-15.114. Conseil d'État (France), 6ème - 5ème chambres réunies, Lecture du jeudi 23 septembre 2021. Conseil d’État (Belgique), décision n° 58.810 du 26 mars 1996, Christiaens Auto-Industries et crts; Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 63.963 du 10 janvier 1997, Commune de Momignies Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Philippe Malaurie na Patrick Morvan, Introduction au droit, LGDJ, Paris, 2020, p.453. Armand Desprairies, La décision implicite d’acceptation en droit administrative français, Thèse de doctorate n droit, Université Paris 1, Panthéon Sorbone, 12 décembre 2019, pp. 154-155. Aurélien Desgree, Le silence de l’Administration: Recherche sur la décision implicite, Thèse de doctorate n droit, le 14 juin 2021, pp.321-322. Maryse Deguergue, Le silence de l’Administration en droit administratif français, in Les Cahiers de droit, Volume 56, numéro 3-4, Septembre–Décembre 2015. François Terré et Nicolas Molfessis, Introduction générale au droit, Paris, Dalloz, 2021, p.792-793.

Page 176

140 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985- 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 31-32. Romain Jordan, Le devoir de sincérité de l’Avocat, Anwalts Revue De L’avocat, Avril 2018, p.175. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kirego Rukundo Innocent yatanze mu Rukiko Rukuru mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. Avuga ko abinyujije ku muyobozi w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, ku itariki ya 07/01/2022, yandikiye Ubuyobozi bw’Inama y’Urugaga atakambira icyemezo cyo ku wa 04/01/2022 kimubuza kuba Avoka kubera amakosa akomeye yakoze ubwo yari Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rwisumbuye yatumye yirukanwa burundu. Avuga ko nyuma y’uko itakamba rye ridasubijwe, ashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 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, yaregeye Urukiko Rukuru arusaba gutegeka Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda kubahiriza uburenganzira bwe akarahizwa, agashyirwa ku rutonde ndetse akemererwa gukora imirimo y’ubwavoka. [2] Mu rubanza RAD 00002/2022/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku wa 17/03/2022, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze icyemezo Rukundo Innocent aregera kitarafashwe n’Inama y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, ahubwo cyarafashwe n’Umuyobozi w’urwo Rugaga kandi izo

Page 177

141 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

nzego zitandukanye nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 20 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo,1 bityo ko icyo kirego kitari mu bubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru. Urukiko rwasanze hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 31, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko,2 ikirego cya Rukundo Innocent gikwiye gufatwa nk’ikitarahariwe izindi nkiko ubundi kiri mu bubasha bw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye. [3] Rukundo Innocent yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza RAD 00002/2022/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 17/03/2022 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ubujurire amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, yandikiye Perezida w'Urukiko rw'Ikirenga asaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo. Mu cyemezo nimero 153/CJ/2022 cyo ku wa 26/08/2022, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yategetse ko urwo rubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe. [4] Iburanisha mu ruhame ryabaye ku wa 14/11/2022, Rukundo Innocent yunganiwe na Me Nsengiyumva Enos na Me Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham, habanza gusuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwari rufite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ikirego cya Rukundo Innocent.

1 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko inzego zigize Urugaga ni izi zikurikira: 1º Inama Rusange; 2º Inama y’Urugaga; 3º Umukuru w’Urugaga. 2 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko “Inkiko Zisumbuye ziburanisha mu rwego rwa mbere imanza zose zitahariwe kuburanishwa n’izindi nkiko.

Page 178

142 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[5] Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi rwaciwe ku wa 02/12/2022, Urukiko rwasanze mu gihe Inama y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka ariyo yatakambiwe, ariko ntisubize mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko ko itakamba rifite cyangwa ridafite ishingiro, ubwabyo byarashyiraga ikirego cya Rukundo Innocent mu bubasha bw’Urukiko Rukuru hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 49, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’Inkiko, rwanzura ko icyo kirego cyagombaga kwakirwa kigasuzumwa, rutegeka ko iburanisha mu mizi y’urubanza rizakomeza ku munsi n’isaha Ubwanditsi buzamenyesha ababuranyi, runasaba ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruhamagarwa mu rubanza. [6] Urubanza rwongeye kuburanishwa ku wa 28/03/2023, Rukundo Innocent yitaba yunganiwe na Me Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham, naho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ruhagarariwe na Me Bimenyimana Eric na Me Sebaziga Museruka Sophonie. [7] Ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku bibazo byo kumenya niba itakamba ritasubijwe n’umuyobozi mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko, rihita rihabwa ishingiro n’icyo kumenya niba Rukundo Innocent agomba kwemererwa kurahizwa mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba itakamba ritasubijwe n’umuyobozi mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko, rihita rihabwa ishingiro [8] Rukundo Innocent na Me Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham umwunganira bavuga ko icyemezo cy’uko atemerewe kurahira

Page 179

143 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

kugira ngo yinjire mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka yakimenyeshejwe ku wa 04/01/2022, agitakambarira ku wa 07/01/2022, ategereza igisubizo araheba. Bavuga ko nyuma y’ukwezi nta gisubizo Rukundo Innocent ahawe, ku bw’itegeko yari afite uburenganzira bwo kurahizwa mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka hatitawe ku mpamvu Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwashingiyeho rumuvana ku rutonde rw’abarahira. Basobanura ko ingingo ya 178, igika cya 53, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ntaho iteganya ko Urukiko rugomba gusuzuma niba itakamba rye rifite cyangwa ridafite ishingiro, ahubwo ko rugomba kubona ko Rukundo Innocent yatakambiye icyemezo kimubuza kurahira, hagashira ukwezi adasubijwe, rugategeka ko ahabwa uburenganzira bwo kurahizwa nka Avoka. [9] Me Bimenyimana Eric uburanira Urugaga rw’Abavoka avuga ko ubundi umuntu watakambiye umuyobozi ntasubizwe mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko aba yemerewe ibyo yatakambiye, ariko ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rusaba uru Rukiko gusuzuma “à titre subsidiaire” niba Rukundo Innocent yakwemererwa kurahira nka Avoka bitewe nuko gusa itakamba rye ritasubijwe cyangwa niba yabyemererwa ari uko itakamba rye ryari rifite ishingiro.

3 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko […] iyo nta gisubizo yahawe kandi atasubijwe uburenganzira bwe, ashobora gusaba urukiko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi gutegeka ko uburenganzira bwe bwubahirizwa. Icyo kirego gitangwa mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe (1) mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe.

Page 180

144 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 178, igika cya 3 n’icya 5, 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 Umuyobozi utakambiwe agomba gusubiza ubwo butakambe mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe (1) kubarwa uhereye umunsi yabuboneyeho. Iyo adasubije, ubutakambe bufatwa nk’aho bufite ishingiro… Iyo nta gisubizo (uwatakambye) yahawe kandi atasubijwe uburenganzira bwe, ashobora gusaba urukiko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi gutegeka ko uburenganzira bwe bwubahirizwa. Icyo kirego gitangwa mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe (1) mu buryo bw’inyandiko nsobanurakirego itanzwe n’umuburanyi umwe. [11] Ikibazo kigibwaho impaka ni icyo kumenya niba amagambo ashobora gusaba Urukiko ruburanisha imanza z’ubutegetsi gutegeka ko uburenganzira bwe bwubahirizwa ari mu gika cya gatanu cy’ingingo ya 178 yibukijwe haruguru yumvikana kandi asobanutse ku buryo icyo Urukiko rusabwa ari ukwemeza gusa. Ingingo y’itegeko ifatwa ko yumvikana kandi isobanutse iyo idateye urujijo cyangwa gushidikanya ku bantu basobanukiwe (une règle est claire lorsqu’elle n’est pas de nature à faire naître un doute dans un esprit éclairé),4 nta kiyiburamo kandi yihagije. Rukundo Innocent niko abona igika cyavuzwe haruguru. Naho Urugaga rw’Abavoka rukavuga ko nubwo icyo gika cyumvikana kandi gisobanutse, Urukiko rufite inshingano zo gusuzuma niba uwatakambye yari yemerewe uburenganzira asaba ko bwemezwa.

4 Reba Philippe Malaurie na Patrick Morvan, Introduction au droit, LGDJ, Paris, 2020, p.453.

Page 181

145 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

[12] Urukiko rurasanga ibiteganywa mu gika cya gatatu n’icya gatanu by’ingingo ya 178 yavuzwe haruguru atari umwihariko w’u Rwanda, kuko no mu bindi bihugu hagiye hibazwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba uwatakambye akwiye guhabwa uburenganzira atemerewe cyangwa budashoboka bitewe nuko gusa yatakambye ntasubizwe mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko. Ubutaliyani, Espagne n’Ubufaransa biri mu bihugu bya mbere mu Burayi byashyizeho ihame rya silence vaut acceptation. Mu Butaliyani ryashyizweho n’ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko N° 241 ryo ku wa 7/08/1990.5 Icyakora ingingo ya 20, igika cya 4, y’iryo Tegeko iteganya ko iryo hame ridakwiye gukoreshwa ku busabe bujyanye n’umuco, ibidukikije, umutekano w’igihugu, ituze rusange, abimukira, impunzi, gusaba ubwenegihugu n’ubuzima rusange (santé publique/public health) cyangwa mu gihe hari amategeko y’Umuryango w’Ubumwe bw’Uburayi ategeka ko ubuyobozi iyo bwatakambiwe bugomba gusubiza.6 [13] Urukiko rurasanga umuhanga Aurélien Desgree avuga ko ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation” ritinjijwe mu Butaliyani nk’ihame ry’imiyoborere ahubwo ryazanywe no guhangana n’ibirarane mu nzego z’ubuyobozi ndetse ko nyuma y’aho ritangiye gukoreshwa, Urukiko rushinzwe imanza z’ubutegetsi (Conseil d’Etat) rwasanze rigomba gushyirirwaho imbibi,

5 Loi générale sur la procédure administrative du 7 Août 1990 (n° 241). 6 l’article 20 alinéa 4 de la loi générale de la procédure administrative du 7 août 1990 prévoit que “le silence positif ne s’applique pas aux demandes des administrés en matière de patrimoine culturel et paysager, d’environnement, de défense nationale et de sécurité publique, d’immigration, d’asile et citoyenneté et de santé publique. Il en est de même quand le droit de l’Union européenne impose un acte administratif express.” Reba Armand Desprairies, La décision implicite d’acceptation en droit administratif français, Thèse de doctorat en droit, Université Paris 1, Panthéon Sorbone, 12 décembre 2019, p. 155.

Page 182

146 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwemeza ko ku bijyanye n’inyandiko cyangwa ibyangombwa bitangwa n’ubuyobozi kudasubizwa ku itakamba mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko bikwiye gufatwa nko kutemererwa ibyasabwaga n’uwatakambye.7 Ibi ni nabyo byatumye mu Butaliyani, Umushingamategeko ashyiraho Itegeko-Teka n° 35/2005 rigena mu buryo bweruye ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, naho ihame riguma ari uko kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kutemererwa.8 [14] Muri Espagne ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation” ryashyizweho n’ingingo ya 43 y’Itegeko N° 30/1992 ryo ku wa 26/11/1992.9 Icyakora guhera muri 2015, hashyizweho amarengayobora yazanywe n’ingingo ya 24, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 39/2015, ryo ku wa 1/10/2015 iteganya ko kudasubizwa bivuze guhakanirwa iyo biteganywa n’amategeko y’igihugu, amategeko mpuzamahanga cyangwa ay’Uburayi cyangwa iyo hasabwa ububasha bugenewe inzego za Leta cyangwa uburenganzira bigaragara ko buramutse bwemewe

7 “…le Conseil d’État italien a précisé que le silence-acceptation constitue une fictio iuris, dans la mesure où c’est la loi qui octroie au silence le sens d’un consentement silencieux... De plus, il existe deux sens négatifs du silence en droit public italien: le refus et le rejet. L’illustration du silence- refus donnée par le Conseil d’État … concerne la matière de l’accès aux documents administratifs …, tandis que l’exemple donné pour le second concerne l’hypothèse du défaut de décision expresse dans le cadre d’un recours hiérarchique…” Reba Aurélien Desgree, Le silence de l’Administration: Recherche sur la décision implicite, Thèse de doctorate en droit, le 14 juin 2021, pp.321-322. 8 Reba ingingo ya 3 Decret-loi 35/2005 (enteriné par la loi 80/2005). 9 Loi N° 30/1992, du 26 novembre 1992, de régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común (LRJAPC), BOE, n° 285, 27 nov.1992.

Page 183

147 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

byagira ingaruka mbi ku bidukikije.10 Aurélien Desgree avuga na none ko no mu Budage ihame rya silence vaut acceptation rikoreshwa ku bintu bike cyane.11 Naho mu Bubiligi nta hame rusange rya “silence vaut acceptation” rihari. Ingingo ya 110, igika cya 1, y’Itegeko-Ngenga ryo ku wa 08/07/1976 rigenga ibigo bya “Centres publics d'action sociale” (CPAS) iteganya ko umuyobozi ubishinzwe utatanze amabwiriza cyangwa icyemezo gikenewe mu by’ubwubatsi mu gace ka Buruseli mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko afatwa nk’uwemeye ibyo asabwa.12 Icyakora Urukiko rushinzwe imanza z’ubutegetsi (Conseil d’Etat) rwaje gusanga ari ngombwa gushyiraho imbibi, rwemeza ko kudasubizwa bifatwa nk’ibyemewe, iyo uwasabye agaragaza ko ibyo asaba byubahirije amategeko kandi ko nta kindi cyemezo

10 “En Espagne, la décision implicite d’acceptation est, depuis 1992, le principe général pour l’ensemble des administrations publiques. Pourtant, de nombreux cas d’exceptions au principe ont récemment été mis en place. Ainsi, le silence négatif s’applique si une norme législative, une norme internationale ou du droit de l’Union le prévoit expressément. Le silence de l’administration vaut également rejet s’agissant des demandes qui auraient pour consequence de transférer au requérant, ou à des tiers, des prérogatives relatives au domaine public ou au service public, ainsi qu’aux demandes qui endommageraient l’environnement.” Reba Armand Desprairies, La décision implicite d’acceptation en droit administrative français, Thèse de doctorate en droit, Université Paris 1, Panthéon Sorbone, 12 décembre 2019, pp. 154-155. 11 “L’Allemagne qui, comme nous l’avons vu, n’ignorait pas la fiction juridique du silence avant l’intervention de la directive européenne mais qui, loin d’en faire une règle générale, lui reservait une place très marginale dans son droit public.” 12 “L'autorité qui émet un avis défavorable ou refuse son autorisation ou son approbation au sujet d'une délibération prise par un centre public d'aide sociale en application de la présente loi est tenue de motiver sa décision. Si aucun avis ou décision n'est notifié dans le délai prescrit par la loi, l'autorité de tutelle est censée avoir émis un avis favorable ou avoir donné l'autorisation ou l'approbation requises.”

Page 184

148 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyabifashweho ku buryo kubisaba ariyo nzira rukumbi asigaranye.13 [15] Urukiko rurasanga kugeza mu mwaka wa 2014, Ubufaransa bwaragenderaga ku ihame rya “silence vaut rejet.” Iri hame ryaje kuvugururwa, hongerwamo irya “silence vaut acceptation” ryazanywe n’ingingo ya mbere y’Itegeko N° 2013- 1005 ryo ku wa 12/11/2013.14 Ku wa 23/10/2015, Ubufaransa na none bwashyizeho irengayobora ku ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation.” Ingingo ya D231-2 y’Iteka (Ordonnance) N° 2015- 1341 yo ku wa 23/10/2015 iteganya ko urutonde rw’ibyemezo bigengwa n’ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation” ruzatangazwa kuri murandasi y’Ibiro bya Minisitiri w’Intebe kandi rukagaragaza umuyobozi wandikirwa n’igihe ntarengwa agomba kuba yasubije.15 Naho ingingo L231-4 iteganya ko impamvu eshanu zikurikira ari irengayobora ku ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation”, bityo zaba ziriho kudasubizwa bikaba bivuze guhakanirwa:

13 Reba Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 58.810 du 26 mars 1996, Christiaens Auto-Industries et crts.; Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 63.963 du 10 janvier 1997, Commune de Momignies. 14 “Dans les conditions prévues à l'article 38 de la Constitution, le Gouvernement est autorisé, dans un délai de douze mois à compter de la promulgation de la présente loi, à modifier par ordonnances les dispositions législatives prévoyant que, en l'absence de réponse de l'administration dans un délai que ces dispositions déterminent, la demande est implicitement rejetée, pour disposer que l'absence de réponse vaut décision d'acceptation ou instituer un délai différent.” Reba Loi N° 2013-1005 du 12 novembre 2013 habilitant le Gouvernement à simplifier les relations entre l'administration et les citoyens. 15 “La liste des procédures pour lesquelles le silence gardé sur une demande vaut décision d'acceptation est publiée sur un site internet relevant du Premier ministre. Elle mentionne l'autorité à laquelle doit être adressée la demande ainsi que le délai au terme duquel l'acceptation est acquise.”

Page 185

149 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

- Iyo igisabwa kitareba uburenganzira bw’umuntu ku giti cye; - Iyo igisabwa kidasanzwe giteganywa n’amategeko cyangwa amabwiriza cyangwa se ari ugutakambira ubuyobozi cyangwa kujuririra icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi; - Iyo igisabwa kijyanye n’amafaranga, keretse amafaranga y’ubwiteganyirize hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’itegeko; - Iyo igisabwa kitubahirije inshingano z’Ubufaransa ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’Uburayi, kinyuranya n’inshingano zo kurengera umutekano w’igihugu, ukwishyira no kwizana kw’abaturage, amahame ateganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga ndetse no kurengera umutekano cyangwa ituze rusange; - Iyo igisabwa kijyanye n’imikoranire hagati y’ubuyobozi n’abakozi babwo.16

16 “Article L231-4: Par dérogation à l'article L. 231-1, le silence gardé par l'administration pendant deux mois vaut décision de rejet: 1° Lorsque la demande ne tend pas à l'adoption d'une décision présentant le caractère d'une décision individuelle; 2° Lorsque la demande ne s'inscrit pas dans une procédure prévue par un texte législatif ou réglementaire ou présente le caractère d'une réclamation ou d'un recours administratif; 3° Si la demande présente un caractère financier sauf, en matière de sécurité sociale, dans les cas prévus par décret; 4° Dans les cas, précisés par décret en Conseil d'Etat, où une acceptation implicite ne serait pas compatible avec le respect des engagements internationaux et européens de la France, la protection de la sécurité nationale, la protection des libertés et des principes à valeur constitutionnelle et la sauvegarde de l'ordre public; 5° Dans les relations entre l'administration et ses agents.”

Page 186

150 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[16] Urukiko rurasanga kandi uretse ingero zatanzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, ingingo ya L231-5 iteganya ko Urukiko rushinzwe imanza z’ubutegetsi (Conseil d’Etat) ndetse n’Inama y’Abaminisitiri bishobora kwemeza ko ku bijyanye n’ibyemezo bimwe na bimwe ndetse no ku mpamvu z’imiyoborere myiza, ingingo ya L. 231-1 ishyiraho ihame rya silence vaut acceptation idakwiye gukoreshwa.17Umuhanga Maryse Deguergue avuga ko muri uwo mwaka wa 2015, ihame rya silence vaut acceptation ryari ryashyiriweho amarengayobora 1.12518. Mu rwego rwo gushyira mu bikorwa irengayobora rishingiye ku gutakambira ubuyobozi cyangwa kujuririra icyemezo cy’ubutegetsi, Intara ya Charente mu Bufaransa yasobanuye ko kuba ubuyobozi butasubije ubusabe, itakamba cyangwa ubujurire ubwabyo bitavuze ko umuntu wari wangiwe ibyo yasabaga noneho abyemerewe, ndetse ko ibyo binareba n’ubujurire bw’abantu ku giti cyabo ku byemezo bibangira ibyo basabaga.19 [17] Urukiko Rusesa Imanza mu Bufaransa rwasanze kuba sosiyete yari yarahawe ubutumwa (mandat) bwo kureberera inyungu z’ibindi bigo mu by’ubwenge, kubiha ibihembo byabyo bya buri mwaka no gukurikirana ibijyanye n’ibyangombwa mu

17 “Article L231-5: Eu égard à l'objet de certaines décisions ou pour des motifs de bonne administration, l'application de l'article L. 231-1 peut être écartée par décret en Conseil d'Etat et en conseil des ministres.” 18 Maryse Deguergue, Le silence de l’Administration en droit administratif français, in Les Cahiers de droit, Volume 56, numéro 3-4, Septembre– Décembre 2015. 19 “Le seul silence gardé par l’admnistration sur les recours administratifs (recours gracieux, recours hiérarchiques et recours admnistratifs péalables obligatoires) ne pourra transformer en décision favorable une première décision qui, par essence, ne l’aura pas été. Le législateur y a adjoint les réclamations des admnistrés contre les décisions indviduelles qui leur sont défavorables.” Reba www.charente.gouv.fr byasomwe ku wa 07/04/2023.

Page 187

151 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

by’ubwenge ku rwego rw’Uburayi, yarasabye kongererwa igihe mu kigo cya INPI (Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle) ntisubizwe mu gihe giteganywa n’amategeko itafatwa nk’iyemerewe ubwo burenganzira, ahubwo ko kuba itarasubijwe bivuze ko itari yemerewe guhabwa ibyo yasabaga.20 Urukiko rushinzwe imanza z’ubutegetsi (Conseil d’Etat) narwo rwasanze sosiyete y’ubworozi yatanze dosiye isaba kwemererwa kororera ahantu runaka, ariko ikaba izi ko nyuma yo gutanga iyo dosiye hari ibindi izasabwa bijyanye no kugaragaza ingaruka z’ubwo bworozi kuri aho hantu isaba kororera kugira ngo ihabwe uburenganzira bwo gutangira kuhororera, ntiyakwitwaza ko, kuba ubuyobozi bwaratinze kumusubiza kuri dosiye ya mbere, bivuze ko yemerewe ibyo yasabye.21 [18] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 178, igika cya gatatu n’icya gatanu y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi nta rengayobora yateganyije nk’uko

20 “Encourt dès lors la cassation l'arrêt qui juge que le défaut de réponse par le directeur général de l'INPI à une lettre, adressée par une société tendant à ce qu'elle puisse continuer à exercer les mandats qui lui avaient été confiés par des entreprises pour le paiement des annuités et la réception de toutes notifications relatives au statut des brevets européens, valait décision implicite d'acceptation alors qu'elle constituait une réclamation, de sorte que le défaut de réponse du directeur de l'INPI valait décision implicite de rejet.” Reba Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale financière et économique, 3 mai 2018, Pourvoi n° 16-15.114. 21 “la demande ainsi formée par l'exploitant, dès lors qu'elle est susceptible de rendre nécessaire le dépôt d'une nouvelle demande d'autorisation devant faire l'objet de l'étude d'impact préalable prévue à l'article L. 122-1 du code de l'environnement, relève des exceptions à l'application du principe selon lequel le silence gardé pendant deux mois par l'autorité administrative vaut décision d'acceptation.” Reba Conseil d'État, 6ème - 5ème chambres réunies, Lecture du jeudi 23 septembre 2021.

Page 188

152 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bimeze mu Butaliyani, Espagne n’Ubufaransa. Iramutse ikoreshejwe uko yanditse, byahesha uwatakambye ibyo yatakambiye, yaba abifitiye uburenganzira cyangwa ntabwo afite, cyangwa se bitanashoboka ko abugira. Nubwo byafatwa ko Itegeko ryashatse gukosora imikorere mibi y’ubuyobozi bwarangaye ntibusubize umuturage ku gihe, cyangwa butashatse kumusubiza kandi bubitegetswe cyangwa se bwarenganywe n’ibihe byo kumusubiza kubera ko bwari buhugiye mu bindi bibazo cyangwa se kubera ko bufite ibirarane byinshi by’abagomba gusubizwa, kwemerera uwatakambye guhabwa uburenganzira adakwiriye cyangwa bidashoboka ko abugira, bishobora gutera ibibazo kurusha uko bibikemura. [19] Urukiko rurasanga amagambo yakoreshejwe mu gika cya gatatu n’icya gatanu by’ingingo ya 178 yavuzwe haruguru yumvikana kandi asobanutse, ku buryo hashingiwe ku ihame ry’uko ntawe usesengura igisobanutse kandi cyumvikana (interpretatio cessat in claris/l’interprétation cesse lorsqu’un texte est clair), bitakabaye ngombwa gusobanura ibyo bika. Icyakora, Urukiko rurasanga kwemerera uwatakambye ibyo yatakambiye no mu gihe yaba atabifiteho uburenganzira, ataribyo Umushingamategeko yari agamije ashyiraho ibyo bika. Igiteye urujijo rero si amagambo yakoreshejwe, ahubwo ni ingaruka zikomoka ku ikoreshwa ryayo. Bigaragarira Urukiko ko izo ngaruka zitateganyijwe muri iyo ngingo. [20] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba Urukiko rugomba gusobanura amagambo y’itegeko mu gihe birugaragarira ko adahuye n’icyo Umushingamategeko yari agamije, ni ukuvuga iyo itegeko ritihagije, ingingo ya 9, igika cya kabiri, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo

Page 189

153 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

n’iz’ubutegetsi, iteganya ko Umucamanza ntashobora kandi kwanga guca urubanza yitwaje impamvu iyo ari yo yose, n’iyo ntacyo itegeko ryaba riteganya (loi silencieuse), ridasobanutse mu buryo bwumvikana (loi obscure) cyangwa ridahagije (loi insuffisante). Iyi ngingo yumvikanisha ko iyo bimeze bityo, umucamanza aziba icyuho kirimo agamije gukemura ikibazo afite. [21] Uru Rukiko rwabitanzeho kandi umurongo mu manza zitandukanye. Mu rubanza rwa Rutagarama Eliseus, uru Rukiko rwasanze ingingo ya 140, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko gusaba gukosoza cyangwa gusobanura urubanza bikorwa mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe kuva ruciwe. Nyamara urubanza rwa Rutagarama Eliseus rwari rumaze imyaka itatu ruciwe, ariko banki yari yaratsinzwe yaranze kumwishyura kuko imyirondoro ye yari yaranditswe nabi mu rubanza. Urukiko rwasanze igihe cy’ukwezi kumwe cyarashyiriweho imikorere myiza y’ubutabera ariko ko bitafatwa ko Umushingamategeko yashatse ko amakosa ari mu manza azigumamo ku buryo zitarangizwa cyangwa se zitakwifashishwa n’abandi baba bazikeneye mu bundi buryo.22 [22] Urukiko rurasanga uyu murongo ari nawo wemejwe mu rubanza Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Nsengumuremyi Richard na bagenzi be, aho ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba kugobokeshwa ku gahato mu manza z’akarengane byemewe, uru Rukiko rwasanze ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 116, igika cya nyuma, y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru by’uko kugobokeshwa ku gahato bitemewe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire no mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bidakwiye gukoreshwa

22 Reba urubanza RS/RECT/RC00001/2019/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 31/05/2019, kuva ku gika cya 6 kugeza ku cya 11

Page 190

154 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ku manza zisubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ahubwo ko muri bene izo manza Urukiko urwo ari rwo rwose rusanze ari gombwa kugobokesha umuntu ku gahato mu nyungu zo gutanga ubutabera bwuzuye rugomba kubikora kuko kutabikora bishobora gutuma hari abafatirwa ibyemezo kandi batisobanuye, urubanza rwaciwe ntirubashe kurangizwa ndetse hakaba havuka n’izindi manza nyuma y’icibwa ryarwo.23 [23] Urukiko rurasanga ku kibazo cyo kumenya ikigomba gukorwa iyo ingaruka zo gukoresha itegeko uko ryanditse ari ukugera ku gisubizo gitandukanye n’icyifuzo cy’Umushingamategeko ku buryo hakwibazwa niba icyo gisubizo aricyo koko cyari kigenderewe itegeko rishyirwaho, Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bufaransa rwasanze iyo ikigamijwe n’itegeko kigaragarira mu magambo ryakoresheje nta gushidikanya cyangwa urujijo, kigomba gufatwa nk’icyumvikana, itegeko rigakoreshwa uko ryanditse, ariko hakaba irengayobora iyo ingaruka zo gukoresha itegeko uko ryanditse ari ukugera ku gisubizo giteye gushidikanya cyangwa urujijo (lorsque le sens de la loi, tel qu’il résulte de sa rédaction, n’est ni obscure ni ambigu, (il) doit (…) être tenu pour certain, il y a exception si l’application du texte aboutit à quelque absurdité.)24 Abahanga Francois Terré na Nicolas Molfessis nabo bavuga ko iyo amagambo yakoreshejwe n’Umushingamategeko, kabone nubwo yaba asobanutse cyangwa yumvikana, avuyemo ingaruka ziteye urujijo, icyo gihe habaho irengayobora, ihame rya interpretatio cessat in claris (l’interprétation cesse en cas de

23 Reba urubanza rubanziriza urundi RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2018/SC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 23/11/2018 kuva ku gika cya 31 kugeza ku cya 35. 24 Reba urubanza Civ 1er, 11 Mai 2017, n° 16-15.549 et 16-60115.

Page 191

155 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

clarté) rigasimbuzwa irya claris cessat in absurditas (la clarté cesse en cas d’absurdité).25 [24] Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza National Westminster Bank plc yaburanaga na Spectrum Plus Limited and others, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rw’Ubwongereza rwarasanze impaka hagati y’abaturage ubwabo cyangwa hagati yabo na Leta zigomba gukemurwa hashingiwe ku mategeko, kandi ko ari inshingano z’Urukiko kwemeza uko itegeko rigomba kumvikana. Rwasobanuye ko inshingano nyamukuru y’inkiko ari ugukoresha no gusesengura amategeko, ariko ko kugendera gusa ku magambo y’itegeko (declaratory principle) hatitawe ku cyo ryari rigamije (purposive principle) ataribyo biriha imbaraga ahubwo ko bishobora kurica intege kuko riba ridahujwe n’ibihe, bikaba byatuma n’inzego z’ubutabera zidakora inshingano zazo uko bikwiye.26

25 “Encore convient-il de ne pas exagérer cette exclusion de l’interprétation en cas de termes clairs, parce qu’il est souvent difficile de distinguer un terme clair d’un terme obscur et parce que le sens de certains termes, clair dans le langage courant, peut cesser de l’être dans le language juridique. De toute façon, il est fait exception à la règle si l’application d’un texte clair aboutit à quelque absurdité: claris cessat in absurditas...” Reba François Terré et Nicolas Molfessis, Introduction générale au droit, Paris, Dalloz, 2021, p.792- 793. 26 “When disputes arise, whether between citizens or between a citizen and the government, they are to be resolved in accordance with the law, and that is a matter for the judicial arm of the state. In this regard it is for the judiciary to decide what is the law, not the legislature or the executive…the essential function of the courts in respect of statutes is to apply and give effect to them. Rigidity in the operation of a legal system is a sign of weakness, not strength. It deprives a legal system of necessary elasticity. Far from achieving a constitutionally exemplary result, it can produce a legal system unable to function effectively in changing times.” Reba National Westminster Bank Plc V Spectrum Plus Ltd & Others [2005] UKHL 41, igika cya 31, 36 n’icya 41.

Page 192

156 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Urukiko rurasanga icyakora Lord Tom Bingham avuga ko mu gihe cyo gukoresha “purposive principle”, Urukiko rugomba kwitondera ibi bikurikira kugira ngo rutarengera mu gukoresha ububasha bwarwo: (1) kutinjira mu masezerano abantu ku giti cyabo bakoze ku bushake hakurikijwe amategeko yari ariho kandi bazi ingaruka z’ibyo bemeranyije; (2) kudashyiraho imirongo ubundi igomba gushyirwaho n’Umushingamategeko agena amahame remezo, ibisobanuro n’imbibi byayo; (3) kutinjira mu bibazo bisaba ko hashyirwaho politiki ya Leta ku kintu runaka kitavugwaho rumwe muri sosiyete; (4) kutinjira mu kibazo Umushingamategeko yatangiye gusuzuma; (5) kudasesengura ibibazo bidafite aho bihuriye n’inshingano zisanzwe z’Urukiko.27

27“There are however various situations in which most judges, even the reformist, majoritarian tendancy, would regard one or other of these signs as opposite. Such situations would include: (1) Where reasonable and right- minded citizens have legitimately ordered their affairs on the basis of a certain understanding of the law. As Lord Reid put it: And there is another sphere where we have got to be careful. People rely on the certainty of the law in settling their affairs, in particular in making contracts and settlements. It would be very wrong if Judges were to disregard or innovate on what can fairly be regarded as settled law in matters of this kind. (2) Where, although a rule of law is seen to be defective, its amendment calls for a detailed legislative code, with qualifications, exceptions and safeguards which cannot feasibly be introduced by judicial decisions. Such cases call for a rule of judicial abstinence, particularly where wise and effective reform of the law calls for research and consultation of a kind which no Court of law is fitted to undertake. (3) Where the question involves an issue of current social policy on which there is no consensus within the community… (4) Where an issue is the subject of current legislative activity… (5) Where the issue arises in a field far removed far from ordinary judicial experience…” Reba Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985- 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 31-32.

Page 193

157 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

[26] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe ingingo ya 178, igika cya gatatu n’icya gatanu itari mu bwoko bw’amategeko arebwa n’irengayobora ryavuzwe mu gika kibanza. Biri mu nshingano z’Urukiko kuyuzuza kugira ngo amagambo yayo ahuzwe n’icyari kigenderewe n’Umushingamategeko kuko atari agamije ko uwatakambye ahabwa ibyo adafitiye cyangwa adashobora kugiraho uburenganzira. [27] Ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru birebewe hamwe byumvikanisha ko irengayobora ku ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation” riteganywa n’ingingo ya 178, igika cya gatatu n’icya gatanu y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru ari ngombwa. Irengayobora rishobora kubaho mu buryo bubiri: kugena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko kwemererwa, ibisigaye byose bigafatwa ko utasubijwe aba yahakaniwe cyangwa kugena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bifatwa nko guhakanirwa noneho ku bindi byemezo byose bisigaye uwatakambye yaba adasubijwe agafatwa ko yemerewe ibyo yasabaga. [28] Urukiko rurasanga, rushingiye ku kuba Umushingamategeko yarifuje gushyiraho ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation”, irengayobora rigomba kugena ubwoko bw’ibyemezo aho kudasubizwa bivuze guhakanirwa, noneho ibyemezo byose bitari muri ubwo bwoko bigafatwa ko mu gihe uwatakambye atasubijwe aba yemerewe ibyo yatakambiye. Ibyemezo rero bidakwiye gukoreshwaho ihame rya “silence vaut acceptation” bishobora nko gushyirwa mu byiciro bikurikira: - Ibijyanye n’umutekano w’igihugu, umutekano cyangwa ituze rusange rya rubanda, ukwishyira no

Page 194

158 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kwizana kw’abaturage, uburenganzira buteganywa n’Itegeko Nshinga cyangwa andi mategeko ashyiraho uburenganzira bw’ibanze; - Ibijyanye n’inshingano z’igihugu ku rwego rw’Akarere cyangwa mpuzamahanga; - Ibijyanye no kwishyura cyangwa kwishyuza amafaranga Urwego rwa Leta; - Ibitareba uburenganzira bwite bw’uwatakambye; - Ibyo amategeko cyangwa amabwiriza abigenga asanzwe ateganya ko kudasubizwa ari uguhakanirwa; - Ibijyanye no gutakambira cyangwa kujuririra ibyemezo by’Ubuyobozi bitemerera umuntu ibyo yasabaga (réclamations ou recours administratifs contre une décision défavorable); - Ibijyanye n’imikoranire hagati y’urwego rw’ubuyobozi n’abakozi barwo; - Ibijyanye n’inyandiko cyangwa ibyangombwa bitangwa n’inzego z’ubuyobozi. [29] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, dosiye y’urubanza irimo ibaruwa nimero/Réf.: Let 001/Bat/NM/01/2022 yo ku wa 04/01/2022, Me Nkundabarashi Moïse, nk’Umukuru w’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, yandikiye Rukundo Innocent amumenyesha ko nyuma yo gusanga hari Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe rimwirukana burundu ku murimo w’Ubushinjacyaha yakoraga kandi icyo cyemezo kikaba kikiriho atakwemererwa kurahira. Iki cyemezo nicyo Rukundo Innocent yatakambiye cyangwa yajuririye ku wa 07/01/2022, ariko ntiyasubizwa mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe.

Page 195

159 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

Bigaragarira Urukiko ko ku ikubitiro, Rukundo Innocent yari yahawe ibisobanuro ku mpamvu zatumye avanwa ku rutonde ariko ntiyanyurwa, arinacyo cyatumye abijuririra. [30] Urukiko rurasanga nubwo Rukundo Innocent ari guharanira uburenganzira bwe ku giti cye bwo kuba Avoka, kuba yari yasubijwe ntanyurwe agatakambira icyemezo cyafashwe bishyira itakamba rye mu rwego rw’ibitagengwa n’ihame ry’uko kudasubizwa ari ukwemererwa (silence vaut acceptation), ahubwo kudasubizwa ni uguhakanirwa (silence vaut rejet/refus). Uko guhakanirwa ibyo yumva afiteho uburenganzira nibyo bituma aregera Urukiko kugira ngo rusuzume ishingiro by’ibyo yasabaga urwego rw’ubuyobozi. [31] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Umushingamategeko ajya gushyiraho ingingo ya 178, igika cya gatatu n’icya gatanu, y’Itegeko No 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryavuzwe haruguru, atari agamije ko uwatakambye ntasubizwe ahabwa n’ibyo adafiteho uburenganzira.

2. Kumenya niba Rukundo Innocent agomba kwemererwa kurahizwa mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka [32] Rukundo Innocent na Me Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham umwunganira bavuga ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwangiye Rukundo Innocent kurahira rumuhoye kuba yarirukanywe mu Bushinjacyaha, nyamara rwirengagiza ko ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo ntaho iteganya ko kwirukanwa mu kazi ka Leta ari impamvu ibuza umuntu kuba Avoka, ndetse ko bitanavuze ko agomba kuba igicibwa ku buryo uwirukanwe

Page 196

160 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

atazagira akandi kazi ahabwa mu gihugu. Basobanura ko ubunyangamugayo butareberwa ku kuba umukozi yarirukanywe mu kazi, ndetse ko kwirukanwa mu kazi bidakwiye kuremerezwa cyane kurusha igihano cy’igifungo kuko uwahanishijwe igifungo kiri munsi y’amezi atandatu we yemerewe kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. [33] Bavuga kandi ko atari ubwa mbere umuntu wirukanywe mu bakozi ba Leta yaba arahijwe nka Avoka, aho batanga urugero rw’abitwa Kamagaju Béatrice na Kagabo Théoneste, nabo bahoze ari abashinjacyaha, birukaniwe amakosa y’akazi bemerewe kuba ba Avoka.28 Urundi rugero batanga ni urw’uwitwa Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham wari wangiwe kurahizwa kuko yari yarirukanwe mu bacamanza, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba Urugaga rw’Abavoka kubahiriza amategeko ari nacyo cyavuyemo ko arahizwa nka Avoka. Bavuga ko kugeza ubu Urugaga rw’Abavoka rutabasha kugaragaza ko abirukanwe mu kazi bakaza kurahizwa nk’abavoka aribo bafite imyitwarire mibi kurusha abandi ba Avoka ku buryo ari ngombwa gukumira ko undi mukozi wirukanwe yinjizwa mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. [34] Bakomeza bavuga ko inkiko arizo murinzi w’uburenganzira n’ubwisanzure bya muntu, ariyo mpamvu basaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kwemeza ko Rukundo Innocent akwiye gufatwa nk’abandi kuko kubibona ukundi byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga

28Muri izo ngero atanga harimo Kagabo Théoneste wirukanwe hakurikijwe Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe No 202/03 ryo ku wa 12/09/2019 ubu akaba ari Avoka, afite nimero 1670/T/2020 ndetse na Kamagaju Béatrice wirukanwe hakurijwe Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe No 33/03 ryo ku wa 18/03/2014, nawe akaba ari Avoka, afite nimero 1407/T/2019.

Page 197

161 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe 2015. Basanga iby’Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruburanisha ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 51 y’Itegeko rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo, iteganya ko mu kazi, Avoka agomba kwiyubaha, kugira ikinyabupfura, ubushishozi, kuvugisha ukuri no kurengera inyungu z’abamugana, bityo ko kwirukanwa kwa Rukundo Innocent mu Bushinjacyaha ari ikimenyetso cy’uko izo ndangagaciro ntazo afite, atari ukuri, kuko izo ndangagaciro zireba Avoka warahijwe aho kureba umukandida, kandi Urugaga rukaba rutagaragaza ko kuva aho yirukaniwe yaranzwe n’imyitwarire mibi. [35] Basoza bavuga ko Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka adakwiye gukoreshwa muri uru rubanza ku bw’impamvu zikurikira: - Kuba ayo mategeko ngengamikorere nta gaciro afite kuko atatangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo yayo ya 213;29 - Kuba amategeko ngengamikorere cyane cyane ingingo yayo ya 79 Urugaga ruburanisha adashobora kuvuguruza ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka kuko ntaho iyi ngingo iteganya ko kugira ngo ube Avoka ugomba kugaragaza niba utarigeze uhanirwa amakosa y’akazi, ibi akaba aribyo byatanzweho umucyo n’urwandiko rwa Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku kibazo cya Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham.

29Ingingo ya 213 iteganya ko aya mategeko ngengamikorere atangira gukurikizwa umunsi yemerejweho n’Inama y’Urugaga kandi azatangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda.

Page 198

162 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[36] Me Bimenyimana Eric na Me Sebaziga Museruka Sophonie, baburanira Urugaga rw’Abavoka, bavuga ko inyandiko yitwa déclaration sur honneur ihabwa umukandida wese wifuza kuba Avoka, kugira ngo ahamye ko ari inyangamugayo, uyuzuza akaba asabwa guhamya ko atafatiwe ibihano bitandukanye harimo n’iby’imyitwarire, kandi ko amakuru ayiriho agomba kuza ashimangira ibiri kuri “curriculum vitae na clearance certificate”. Bavuga ko Rukundo Innocent yujuje izo nyandiko ku wa 19/04/2021, abikora yaramaze kwirukanwa, ariko ntiyahingutsa iby’uko yirukaniwe amakosa akomeye mu Bushinjacyaha ndetse na “form” yahawe n’Urugaga ntiyayikoresha kandi ko kutayikoresha yabikoze nkana agamije guhisha ukuri. [37] Basobanura ko ubwo itariki yo kurahira yari yegereje aribwo Urugaga rwamenye ko Rukundo Innocent yirukanwe mu Bushinjacyaha, kandi ko mu byo yazize harimo no kuba yarakaga abaturage ruswa, rusuzumye rusanga hari n’Iteka rya Ministiri w’Intebe N° 011/03 ryo ku wa 07/06/2021 ryatangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta yo ku wa 14/06/2021 rimwirukana burundu kubera amakosa akomeye. Bavuga ko ibi byose bigaragaza ko Rukundo Innocent atari indakemwa mu mico no mu myifatire ku buryo yakwemerewa kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. [38] Bavuga na none ko Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ariyo agenga ibikorwa byarwo bya buri munsi, ko nubwo ataratangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta yemejwe n’Inama y’Urugaga, ko kuva yemezwa yahise atangira gukoreshwa, ndetse ko ingingo ya 79, agace ka 6 a. na b. ariyo yashingiweho hatangwa itangazo rihamagarira abakandida kuza mu Rugaga kandi ko iyo ngingo iteganya ko ushaka kuba avoka agomba kugaragaza ibi bikurikira:

Page 199

163 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

- kuba nta wundi murimo akora itegeko riteganya ko utabangikanywa no kuba Umwavoka; - kuba mu mirimo ye nta kintu yigeze akora cyatuma atemererwa gushyirwa ku rutonde kiramutse kimenyekanye; ndetse no - kuba atarigeze akatirwa, haba muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda cyangwa mu mahanga, igihano mu rwego mpanabyaha cyangwa kubera amakosa y’imyitwarire, kandi akaba atarigeze ahabwa imbabazi cyangwa ngo ahanagurweho ubusembwa biturutse kuri bene icyo gihano. [39] Bavuga ko nyuma y’uko Rukundo Innocent yangiwe kurahira, yasabwe ibisobanuro ku mpamvu atavugishije ukuri, asubiza ko Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe ridakwiye kumugiraho ingaruka kuko ryasohotse nyuma y’itangazo ry’Urugaga rw’Abavoka rihamagarira abantu kuba ba Avoka, nyamara iryo Teka rishyira mu bikorwa ibyemezo by’Inama Nkuru y’Ubushinjacyaha ndetse n’Inama y’Abaminisitiri, Rukundo Innocent yari asanzwe azi. Bavuga ko mu gace ka 8 k’itangazo, abakandida bibukijwe ko buri wese agomba kuba yujuje ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 79 y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere, bityo kuba Rukundo Innocent adahakana ko yirukaniwe amakosa akomeye kandi bikaba byaramenyekanye atararahira, ntacyabuzaga Urugaga guhagarika umugenzo w’iryo rahira. [40] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Rukundo Innocent avuga ko hari abandi bakozi b’Ubushinjacyaha cyangwa b’Ubucamanza birukanwe nyamara bakemererwa kurahira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, Me Bimenyimana Eric na Me Sebaziga Museruka Sophonie bavuga ko dosiye ya buri mukandida isuzumwa ukwayo, kandi ko kuba hari abandi birukaniwe amakosa nk’aye

Page 200

164 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

barahijwe, bitavuze ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rutegetswe kumurahiza nawe. Bavuga ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwatangiye inzira yo gukosora imikorere yarwo, ko gukumira irahira rya Rukundo Innocent bihura n’icyo cyerekezo cyo kutinjiza mu mwuga w’Abavoka abantu byagaragaye ko batawukwiriye kuko bafite imyitwarire idahwitse.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [41] Ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo iteganya ko ntawe ushobora gukora umwuga w’ubwavoka cyangwa gukora imirimo ijyana nawo atujuje ibyangombwa bikurikira: - kuba afite ubwenegihugu bw’ubunyarwanda; - kuba afite nibura impamyabumenyi y’icyiciro cya 2 cya Kaminuza mu by’amategeko cyangwa ihwanye nayo; - kuba afite impamyabushobozi y’Ikigo cyo Kwigisha no Guteza imbere Amategeko yemewe na Leta cyangwa irihwanye naryo; - kuba atarigeze ahanishwa ku buryo budasubirwaho igihano cy’igifungo kingana cyangwa kirenze amezi atandatu (6); - kuba yaratsinze ikizamini cyateguwe n’Urugaga; - kuba atarahamwe n’icyaha cya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi; - kuba atarahamwe n’icyaha cy’ingengabitekerezo ya jenoside n’ibindi byaha bifitanye isano na yo ...

Page 201

165 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

[42] Ingingo ya 79, agace ka 6, y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda iteganya ko inyandiko y’umukandida wifuza kwandikwa ku rutonde rw’Abavoka cyangwa urw’abimenyereza umwuga igomba kugaragaza ko: - ko nta wundi murimo akora itegeko riteganya ko utabangikanywa no kuba Umwavoka; ko mu mirimo ye nta kintu yigeze akora cyatuma atemererwa gushyirwa ku rutonde kiramutse kimenyekanye; - ko atigeze akatirwa, haba muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda cyangwa mu mahanga, igihano mu rwego mpanabyaha cyangwa kubera amakosa y’imyitwarire, cyangwa ko atigeze ahabwa imbabazi cyangwa ngo ahanagurweho ubusembwa biturutse kuri bene icyo gihano; […] [43] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo itangazo ryo ku wa 15/04/2021 rigaragaza ibisabwa umukandida kugira ngo yinjire mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. Agace ka munane k’iryo tangazo gasaba buri mu kandida gutanga “Inyandiko ihamya ko atigeze akatirwa, haba muri Repubulika y’u Rwanda cyangwa mu mahanga, igihano mu rwego rw’imyitwarire cyangwa rw’ubutegetsi kubera amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire cyangwa ku cyaha cyangwa ko atigeze ahabwa imbabazi cyangwa ngo ahanagurweho ubusembwa biturutse kuri bene icyo gihano (A written statement by which the person concerned certifies that he/she has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad, been convicted of any disciplinary or administrative sanction due to gross misconduct or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conviction). [44] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo na none ibyangombwa Rukundo Innocent yatanze mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka. Icyemezo cya munani

Page 202

166 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rukundo Innocent yatanze cyitwa “Clearance Certificate”. Icyo cyemezo kigira giti: “I, Innocent Rukundo, certify that I have never been definitely convicted of any offence in the Republic of Rwanda or abroad. I hereby declare that this statement contains nothing other than the truth.” [45] Ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa n’uru Rukiko ni icyo kumenya niba Rukundo Innocent yari yujuje ibisabwa kugira ngo yemererwe kurahizwa nka Avoka. Rukundo Innocent avuga ko icyamubereye inkomyi ari amakosa y’imyitwarire yahaniwe akiri Umushinjacyaha nyamara ibyo bikaba ntaho Itegeko rigenga Urugaga rw’Abavoka riteganya ko biri mu bizitira umukandida ushaka kuba Avoka. Avuga kandi ko iyo mpamvu itari ikwiye gukoreshwa kuri we gusa kuko mu mikorere y’Urugaga rw’Abavoka bigaragara ko hari abandi bari abakozi b’Ubushinjacyaha ndetse n’inkiko bahamwe n’amakosa y’imyitwarire ndetse barayahanirwa ariko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwemera kubakira. Urugaga rw’Abavoka ruvuga ko nubwo rwakiriye dosiye ya Rukundo Innocent, agakoreshwa ikizamini ndetse akagitsinda, mbere gato y’uko arahizwa, rwamenye ko atubahirije bimwe mu byo yasabwaga mu gace ka munani k’itangazo rimuhamagirira kuba umukandida aribyo kuba atarigeze akatirwa igihano mu rwego rw’imyitwarire cyangwa rw’ubutegetsi kubera amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire. [46] Urukiko rurasanga hejuru y’ibyangombwa birindwi bisabwa n’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n’imikorere byarwo kugira ngo umuntu yemererwe kuba Avoka, ku bakandida b’Abanyarwanda, inyandiko yitwa “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” yongeraho ibyangombwa bine bikurikira:

Page 203

167 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

- urwandiko rusaba (application letter addressed to the President of the Rwanda Bar Association (clearly indicating whether you are applying for the admission to the Roll of Advocates or to the list of intern advocates); - umwirondoro (curriculum vitae); - inyandiko yemeza ko usaba atigeze ahanirwa amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire cyangwa ibyaha kandi ko niba byarabaye yahawe imbabazi cyangwa ihanagurabusembwa (A written statement by which the person concerned certifies that he/she has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad been convicted of any disciplinary or administrative sanction due to gross misconduct or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conditions); - ifoto ngufi nshya kandi y’ibara ifotorewe ku gitambaro cy’umweru (one recent passport size photograph in colour on white background). [47] Urukiko rurasanga dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko ibyangombwa byose, byaba ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru cyangwa ibyongereweho n’inyandiko yitwa “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association”, Rukundo Innocent yabitanze uretse igihamya ko atigeze yirukanirwa amakosa y’imyitwarire akomeye. Bigaragarira Urukiko ko umwirondoro ugaragaza ko nta wundi murimo akora ubangikanye no kuba Avoka, inyandiko yemeza ko uregwa atigeze ahanirwa amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire cyangwa mpanabyaha mu Rwanda cyangwa mu mahanga cyangwa ko niba yarayahaniwe yahawe

Page 204

168 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imbabazi cyangwa ihanagurabusembwa biri mu byangombwa biteganywa n’ingingo ya 79, agace ka 6, y’Amategeko Ngengamikorere y’urugaga rw’abavoka yo ku wa 16/09/2014 yibukijwe haruguru. Urukiko rurasanga kandi ntacyabuzaga ko aya Mategeko Ngengamikorere ashingirwaho bitewe nuko atasohotse mu Igazeti ya Leta, kuko ingingo yayo ya 213 iteganya ko atangira gukurikizwa umunsi yemerejweho n’Inama y’Urugaga kandi azatangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Kuba ataratangazwa mu Igazeti ya Leta ntibyatuma atagira agaciro, mu gihe Inama y’Urugaga yemeje ko atangira gukurikizwa akimara kwemezwa. [48] Ku birebana n’ibyo Rukundo Innocent aburanisha by’uko Kamagaju Béatrice, Kagabo Théoneste ndetse na Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham30 birukanywe mu bakozi ba Leta hanyuma bemererwa kurahira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, ashaka kumvikanisha ko kutemererwa guhabwa ibyo yatakambiye byaba ari ukutamufata kimwe na bagenzi be, igitekerezo cye cyakwemerwa gusa mu gihe yaba agaragaza ko abo yigereranya nabo bari bafite uburenganzira bwo kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, hanyuma we akabwimwa, cyane cyane ko nawe ubwe yivugira ko birukaniwe amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire kandi ko ibyemezo bibirukana byari bigifite agaciro. Kuba baba baremerewe kurahira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka bitari bikwiye ntabwo aribyo byamuhesha uburenganzira bwo kurahira nka Avoka.

30 Kamagaju Béatrice na Kagabo Théoneste hatanzwe iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe ribirukana naho kuri Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham hatangwa urwandiko rwa Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba Urugaga rw’Abavoka gukurikiza amategeko.

Page 205

169 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

[49] Urukiko rurasanga na none inyandiko yitwa “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” yo ku wa 19/08/2022 yararebaga abakandida bose batangiye ibyangombwa rimwe na Rukundo Innocent. Muri icyo cyiciro, ntaho Rukundo Innocent agaragaza ko hari bagenzi be nabo birukaniwe amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire batahawe imbabazi cyangwa ihanagurabusembwa Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwarahije, bityo ibyo avuga ko uburenganzira bwe bwo kureshyeshywa n’abandi buteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04 Kamena 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015,31 butubahirijwe bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [50] Urukiko rurasanga ubwo Rukundo Innocent yasabaga kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, urwo Rugaga rwari rwarashyizeho umurongo w’uko rutazakira abakandida birukaniwe amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire bakiri mu gihano, ni ukuvaga abatarahabwa imbabazi cyangwa ihanagurabusembwa. Ibyo Rukundo Innocent avuga ko Urugaga rw’Abavoka rutagombaga gushingira ku birenze ibisabwa n’Itegeko nta shingiro bifite kuko ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru yatanze imirongo migari ku bijyanye n’ibyangombwa by’ibanze bitagomba kubura muri dosiye y’umukandida. Ntabwo itegeko ryatanze ibisobanuro birambuye ku miterere ya bimwe muri ibyo byagombwa. Urugero ni nko kuba ritavuga ubwoko bw’icyangombwa kigaragaza ko umukandida ari umunyarwanda cyangwa umunyamahanga kuko hashobora gukoreshwa icyemezo cy’amavuko, irangamuntu, pasiporo cyangwa ibindi. Nta n’icyo rivuga ku bakandida bafite impamyabumenyi z’amahanga.

31 Iyi ngingo ivuga ko abantu bose barareshya imbere y’amategeko. Itegeko ribarengera ku buryo bumwe.

Page 206

170 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[51] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo ku wa 11/09/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru ntaho iteganya ko umukandida agomba kugaragaza ko adakora undi murimo utabangikanywa (incompatibités/incompatibilities) cyangwa ngo igaragaze indangagaciro zisabwa ugiye kwinjira mu Rugaga. Nyamara ingingo ya 38 n’iya 51 z’iryo tegeko ziteganya ibitabangikanywa n’umwuga w’ubwavoka ndetse n’indangagaciro Avoka asabwa. Ntiwaba ukora umwuga utabangikanywa no kuba Avoka ngo ubanze urahizwe nka Avoka ubone kuwureka. Nta n’ubwo wasabwa kugira indangagaciro ziranga Avoka ari uko umaze kurahizwa nka Avoka. Izo ndangagaciro ugomba kuba uzifite mu gihe cyo kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka noneho nyuma yo kuba Avoka, Urugaga rw’Abavoka n’izindi nzego zigatangira gusuzuma niba za ndangagaciro wasabwaga utararahira zigaragaza muri buri gikorwa ukora nka Avoka. Ibi bivuze ko mu gushyira mu bikorwa ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 6, Urugaga rutagomba kuyisoma uko yanditse gusa (literal interpretation) cyangwa ngo ruyisome yonyinye, ahubwo rugomba kuyihuza n’ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iryo Tegeko ndetse n’iz’andi mategeko kugira ngo rubashe gusohora urutonde rwuzuye kandi rusobanura mu buryo bweruye ubwoko bw’ibyangombwa bisabwa umukandida kugira ngo yemererwe kuba Avoka kandi ku ruhande rw’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, ibyo ntibyafatwa nko kutubahiriza ibyo itegeko riteganya nk’uko Rukundo Innocent abiburanisha. [52] Urukiko rurasanga imyitwarire myiza ku muntu wese winjiye mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka atari we wenyine bifitiye akamaro. Avoka ufite imyitwarire mibi atakarizwa icyizere n’abakiliya, inkiko, bagenzi be ndetse bikaba byaba n’impamvu yo guhonyanga inyungu za rubanda aho kuzirengera. Bene iyo myitwarire mibi itesha agaciro Urugaga rw’Abavoka kandi

Page 207

171 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

igasiga icyasha n’abandi ba Avoka bubahiriza indangagaciro z’umwuga, rubanda igatekereza ko n’abandi ba Abova bameze nk’uwo wagaragaje imyitwarire mibi. Nubwo Itangazo ry’Inama Nkuru y’Ubushinjacyaha ryo ku wa 09/01/2021 ritavuga ubwoko bw’amakosa Rukundo Innocent yirukaniwe mu Bushinjacyaha, Iteka rya Minisitiri w’Intebe N° 011/03 ryo ku wa 07/06/2021 ryirukana ku kazi abashinjacyaha rikaba rivuga gusa ko rishingiye ku cyemezo cy’Inama y’Abaminisitiri yo ku itariki ya 05/05/2021 kandi ko Rukundo Innocent yirukaniwe amakosa akomeye, bigaragara ko ibyo byemezo byose byafashwe mbere yo ku wa 19/08/2022 ubwo Urugaga rw’Abavoka rwahamagariraga abantu kuba ba Avoka. [53] Urukiko rurasanga Rukundo Innocent yarandikiye Urugaga rw’Abavoka ku wa 21/04/2021 asaba kwemererwa kuba Avoka, haba muri urwo rwandiko cyangwa muri “Clearance Certification” yometseho ntaho ahingutsa iby’Ibyemezo by’Inama Nkuru y’Ubushinjacyaha bimwirukana burundu mu Bushinjacyaha kandi yari yarabimenyeshejwe mu Itangazo ryo ku wa 09/01/2021. Ibi bigaragaza ko Rukundo Innocent yabeshye nkana ko atirukaniwe amakosa akomeye y’imyitwarire ndetse ntiyatanga n’inyandiko ibivugaho mu byangombwa yatanze kandi yarabisabwaga n’agace ka 8 k’inyandiko yitwa “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” yo ku wa 19/08/2022. Byongeye kandi, ibivugwa na Rukundo Innocent ko kuba yaratanze icyemezo cy’uko atigeze afungwa ari byo bigaragaza ubunyangamugayo bwe ntibyahabwa ishingiro kuko ibijyanye n’ikurikiranacyaha bitandukanye n’iby’amakosa y’imyitwarire. Kuba ku rwego rw’Urugaga rw’Abavoka, dosiye ya Rukundo Innocent itarasuzumwe uko bikwiye ngo bitume itakirwa hakiri kare ntabwo bivanaho ko Rukundo Innocent

Page 208

172 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yatanze amakuru atari ukuri cyangwa ngo bivaneho ko iyo dosiye itari yuzuye. [54] Urukiko rurasanga hejuru yo kuba Rukundo Innocent atarujuje ibyo yasabwaga n’agace ka 8 k’inyandiko yitwa “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” yo ku wa 19/08/2022, yahishe ukuri yari asanzwe azi, abikora nkana kugira ngo bidahungabanya inyungu yari agambiriye zo kwinjira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka, iyo myitwarire ubwayo ihabanye n’inshingano yo kuba umunyakuri isabwa Avoka cyangwa ushaka kuba Avoka. Iyo nshingano niyo Avoka yubakiraho imikorere n’imikoranire ye n’abakiliya, izindi nzego ndetse n’Urugaga. Mu nyandiko yitwa “Le devoir de sincérité de l’avocat”, Roman Jordan yibutsa ko imikoranire ishingiye ku cyizere idashoboka iyo hari ugushidikanya ku bunyakuri, ubunyangamugayo no gukorera mu mucyo, ko izi ndangagaciro arizo umwuga w’Ubwavoka wubakiyeho kandi ko arizo zibutswa mu ndahiro ya buri Avoka mbere yo gutangira umwuga, akaba ari ingenzi mu gutuma inkiko zifata ibyemezo biciye mu mucyo.32 [55] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Rukundo Innocent atujuje ibyangombwa bisabwa n’amategeko byatuma arahira nka Avoka, bityo ikirego cye kikaba nta shingiro gifite.

32 “Les relations de confiance avec un avocat ne peuvent exister s’il y a doute sur l’honnêteté, la probité, la rectitude ou la sincérité de ce dernier: vir probus dicendi peritus. Ces vertus traditionnelles sont aussi des obligations professionnelles, ce que rappellent au demeurant la plupart des serments prononcés par l’avocat au début de sa carrière. Elles sont également les garants nécessaires de la sincérité judiciaire.” Reba Romain Jordan, Le devoir de sincérité de l’Avocat, Anwalts Revue De L’avocat, Avril 2018, p.175.

Page 209

173 RUKUNDO v URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [56] Rwemeje ko kuba Rukundo Innocent yaratakambiye icyemezo kimuvana ku rutonde rw’abarahira mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda ntasubizwe ubwabyo bitavuze ko yari yemerewe ibyo yatakambiraga. [57] Rwemeje ko Rukundo Innocent atagomba kurahizwa n’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda.

Page 211

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

Page 213

URUBANZA RW’UMURIMO

Page 215

179

TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RSOC 00003/2022/SC – (Nyirinkwaya, J. P., Hitiyaremye na Karimunda, J.) 14 Mata 2023] Amategeko agenga imanza z’umurimo – Amasezerano y’umurimo – Umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano y’umurimo – Afatwa nk’umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano ariko atanditse, umukozi umaze nibura igihe kigeze ku mezi atandatu yikurikiranye kandi mu buryo buhoraho akorera umukoresha umwe – Umukozi uvuga ko agomba gufatwa muri ubwo buryo, agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso byerekana ko yakoze koko icyo gihe mu buryo buhoraho. Amategeko agenga imanza z’umurimo – Amasezerano y’umurimo – Abakozi b’igihe gito – Ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi – Buri mukozi agomba gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize n’ubwo yaba akora mu buryo bw’imirimo idashingiye ku masezerano y’akazi yanditse (secteur informel) cyangwa mu gihe yaba akora imirimo igihe gito. Incamake y’ikibazo: Hayton Ltd yagiranye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi na Rwanda Biomedical Center maze ishaka abantu bo kuyifasha muri iki gikorwa barimo Tuyisenge wayikoreye nta masezerano y’akazi kuva mu mwaka wa 2014 kugera muri Kanama 2017, aho avuga ko kuri iyo tariki yageze aho asanzwe akorera iyo mirimo akabwirwa ko nta kazi gahari. Iki kibazo cye yakigejeje mu Bugenzuzi bw’umurimo mu Karere ka Gatsibo ariko ubwumvikane burananirana bituma yiyambaza inkiko.

Page 216

180 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Tuyisenge yareze mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare avuga ko Hayton Ltd yamwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, asaba indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, iz’integuza atahawe, izo kuba nta mperekeza yahawe, izijyanye n’icyemezo cy’umurimo nacyo atahawe, amafaranga ya konji atahembewe, imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’akabozi, igihembo cya Avoka, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’ingwate y’amagarama. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite kuko akazi yakoraga yagakoraga bubyizi bituma ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, maze narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse, rutegeka ko nta ndishyi zigomba gutangwa muri urwo rubanza kuko impande zombi hari ibyo zitubahirije. Urega yasabye ko urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane aho agaragaza ko gashingiye ku kuba yarakoreye Uregwa mu buryo buhoraho yarangiza ikamwirukana mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, Urukiko rukaba rutaramuhaye indishyi zinyuranye zigendanye n’uko kwirukanwa. Ikindi ni uko Uregwa atigeze amutangira imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi, agasaba Urukiko kumutegeka kubikora. Uregwa avuga ko Urega atigeze amukorera mu buryo buhoraho kuko yari nyakabyizi, bityo rero ko atigeze amwirukana mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ku buryo yabitangira indishyi, ko ndetse nta n’imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi yagombaga kumutangira. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Afatwa nk’umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano ariko atanditse, umukozi umaze nibura igihe kigeze ku mezi atandatu yikurikiranye kandi mu buryo buhoraho

Page 217

181 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

akorera umukoresha umwe. Umukozi uvuga ko agomba gufatwa muri ubwo buryo, agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso byerekana ko yakoze koko icyo gihe mu buryo buhoraho.

2. Buri mukozi agomba gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize, n’ubwo yaba akora mu buryo bw’imirimo idashingiye ku masezerano y’akazi yanditse (secteur informel) cyangwa mu gihe yaba akora imirimo igihe gito. Bityo, Tuyisenge agomba gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize n’umukoresha we HAYTON Ltd nubwo yayikoreraga nka nyakabyizi. Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amagarama aherera ku ruhande rw’Uregwa. Amategeko yashingiweho: 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 12. Itegeko Nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 1, 15, 33 n’iya 47. Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko N° 06/2003 ryo ku wa 22/03/2003 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko-Teka ryo ku wa 22/08/1974 rigena ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi, ingingo ya 2. Itegeko Nº 51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda, ingingo ya 17, 29 n’iya 33.

Page 218

182 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Imanza zifashishijwe: Phoenix Metal na Rwanteli Ntagara Innocent, RSOCAA 0023/09/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 18/06/2010. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku itariki ya 09/09/2014, Rwanda Biomedical Center, RBC muri uru rubanza, yagiranye amasezerano y’ubwikorezi na Hayton Ltd nimero 068/NCS/NCB/2013-2014/RBC. Ku bw’aya masezerano, Hayton Ltd ikaba yaragombaga gushaka abantu (manpower) bo gupakira no gupakurura amakarito y’imiti n’ibindi bikoresho byagendaga bishyirwa ahantu hatandukanye mu gihugu RBC yabaga yifuje kubigeza. Ni muri urwo rwego Hayton Ltd yashatse abantu bo kuyifasha muri iki gikorwa barimo Tuyisenge Pascal wakoreye Hayton Ltd nta masezerano y’akazi kuva mu mwaka wa 2014 kugera muri Kanama 2017, aho avuga ko kuri iyo tariki yageze aho asanzwe akorera iyo mirimo akabwirwa ko nta kazi gahari. [2] Tuyisenge Pascal yabanje kugeza ikibazo cye mu Bugenzuzi bw’umurimo mu Karere ka Gatsibo. Ku itariki ya 29/05/2020, mu nyandikomvugo y’igikorwa cyo guhuzwa hagati ye na Hayton Ltd, habayeho kutumvikana bituma hiyambazwa inkiko. [3] Mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare, Tuyisenge Pascal yareze avuga ko Hayton Ltd yamwirukanye mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, asaba indishyi zo kwirukanwa mu

Page 219

183 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, iz’integuza atahawe, izo kuba nta mperekeza yahawe, izijyanye n’icyemezo cy’umurimo nacyo atahawe, amafaranga ya konji atahembewe, imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’akabozi, igihembo cya Avoka, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’ingwate y’amagarama. [4] Ku itariki ya 29/10/2019, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare rwaciye urubanza RSOC 00008/2018/TGI/NYG, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Tuyisenge Pascal nta shingiro gifite kuko akazi yakoraga yagakoraga bubyizi, bityo akaba atarahagaritswe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, rutegeka ko nta ndishyi izo arizo zose zigomba gutangwa muri urwo rubanza, ko n’amagarama Tuyisenge Pascal yatanze arega ahwanye n’ibyarukozwemo, bityo akaba aherejwe ku Isanduku ya Leta. [5] Tuyisenge Pascal yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, avuga ko ubujurire bwe bushingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - kuba Urukiko rwa mbere rwarirengagije ko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kandi nta mpamvu; - kuba Urukiko rwaremeje ko yari umukozi wakurwaga ku muhanda mu gihe rwari rwamaze kubona ko yakoraga mu buryo buhoraho kuva mu mwaka wa 2014 kugeza mu wa 2017 ubwo yahagarikwaga, rwarangiza rukabyirengagiza rukavuga ko yari nyakabyizi; - kuba Urukiko rwa mbere rwaremeje ko yaba umukozi, yaba umukoresha, bose bafite amakosa yo kuba batarakurikije amategeko, aho rwavuze ko umukozi nta masezerano yanditse afitanye

Page 220

184 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’umukoresha, bityo ko yari nyakabyizi, mu gihe umukozi yagaragazaga ko yakoraga mu buryo buhoraho. [6] Ku itariki ya 31/08/2020, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza RSOCA 00015/2019/HC/RWG rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Tuyisenge Pascal nta shingiro bufite, ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe idahindutse, rutegeka ko nta ndishyi zigomba gutangwa muri urwo rubanza kuko impande zombi hari ibyo zitubahirije. [7] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwashingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira: - Kuba ingingo ya 33, agace ka 341, y’Itegeko N° 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umukozi wa nyakabyizi ari umukozi ukoreshwa umunsi ku munsi, bihura n’uburyo Hayton Ltd yakoranye na Tuyisenge Pascal, ko nabwo bwari ubwa nyakabyizi wakoraga umunsi ku munsi. Ariko kuba yararengeje amezi 6 akora ako kazi, akorera umukoresha umwe bikumvikanisha ko yari umukozi uhoraho. - Kuba ariko ingingo ya 11 y’iryo tegeko, iteganya ko amasezerano y’umurimo atanditse adashobora kurenza iminsi 90 ikurikiranye, bigaragara ko Hayton Ltd na Tuyisenge Pascal bakoze amakosa, aho uyu yemeye gukorera Hayton Ltd igihe kirengeje amezi 6 nta masezerano y’akazi yanditse bafitanye akabyihorera kandi adateganyirizwa n’umukoresha mu gihe hari itegeko rimurengera; na Hayton Ltd

1 Aha ariko urukiko rwaribeshye ni agace ka 34 k’ingingo ya mbere.

Page 221

185 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

yakoze ikosa ryo kumva ko abakozi bayifashaga gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano yagiranye na RBC ari ba nyakabyizi batagomba gukorerwa amasezerano y’akazi no guteganyirizwa mu isanduku y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi. - Kuba Tuyisenge Pascal yarirukanwe bitewe ni uko amasezerano Hayton Ltd yari ifitanye na RBC yarangiye, uwahawe isoko rishya ntiyamukoresha, byumvikana ko atirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko Hayton Ltd itari gukomeza kumukoresha kandi atariyo igifite akazi yakoraga muri RBC. - Kuba Tuyisenge Pascal yarabaye umukozi wa Hayton Ltd igihe cy’imyaka igera kuri 3, ariko akaba atarigeze aregera ko atishyurirwa amafaranga y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi igihe yari akiri mu kazi kandi hari itegeko ryamurengeraga yari gushingiraho asaba guteganyirizwa, ahubwo akabiregera akazi karangiye, bituma urukiko ntaho rwahera ruvuga ko ayishyurirwa kuko ariwe wabaye nyirabayazana w’ibyamubayeho. - Kuba Tuyisenge Pascal aregera integuza n’icyemezo kigaragaza imirimo yakoreye Hayton Ltd ariko akaba nta kimenyetso cy’uko yagisabye Umukoresha we ngo akimwime, ntaho Urukiko rwahera ruvuga ko akwiye kubigenerwa, kimwe n’izindi ndishyi zose zirebana no kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko kuko nta masezerano y’akazi yari afite kandi akaba atagaragaza inyandiko imwirukana.

Page 222

186 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[8] Ku itariki 28/09/2020, Tuyisenge Pascal yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire asaba ko urubanza RSOCA 00015/2019/HC/RWG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ku itariki ya 31/08/2020, rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Nyuma yo gusuzuma ubusabe bwe, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amusaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, amaze kubona raporo yarukozweho yemeza ko rwongera kuburanishwa ruhabwa RS/INJUST/RSOC 00008/2022/SC. [9] Mu myanzuro ye, Tuyisenge Pascal yavugaga ko akarengane kari mu rubanza yasabye ko rwasubirwamo gashingiye ku kuba yarakoreye Hayton Ltd mu buryo buhoraho yarangiza ikamwirukana mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, Urukiko rukaba rutaramuhaye indishyi zinyuranye zigendanye n’uko kwirukanwa. Yavugaga kandi ko Hayton Ltd itigeze imutangira imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi, agasaba Urukiko kuyitegeka kubikora. Hayton Ltd yashubije iyo myanzuro ivuga ko Tuyisenge Pascal atigeze ayikorera mu buryo buhoraho kuko yari nyakabyizi, bityo rero ko itigeze imwirukana mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amatereko ku buryo yabitangira indishyi, ko ndetse nta n’imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi yagombaga kumutangira. [10] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 20/03/2023, Tuyisenge Pascal yunganiwe na Me Uwiragiye Pierre Célestin afatanyije na Me Ndayambaje Gilbert, naho Hayton Ltd ihagarariwe n’Umuyobozi wayo Ruzibiza Rodrigue yunganiwe na Me Mugenzi Elie. [11] Mu rubanza, ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku bibazo bikurikira:

Page 223

187 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

- Kumenya niba Tuyisenge Pascal yarirukanywe ku kazi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, akaba agomba kubiherwa indishyi; - Kumenya niba Hayton Ltd yategekwa kumwishyurira imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi; - Ibijyanye n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza ku nzego zose baburaniyemo. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba Tuyisenge Pascal yarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko [12] Me Uwiragiye Pierre Célestin na Me Ndayambaje Gilbert bunganira Tuyisenge Pascal, bavuga ko yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko bitewe ni uko yakoreye Hayton Ltd guhera tariki ya 09/09/2014, byagera mu kwezi kwa 08/2017, nyuma y’imyaka itatu, umukoresha we akamubwira ko nta kazi bagifitanye kandi nta kosa yeretswe cyangwa indi mpamvu yatuma ahagarikwa igitaraganya nta nteguza, mu gihe nyamara bari bafitanye amasezerano y’igihe kitazwi. Bavuga ko muri icyo gihe cyose cy’imyaka itatu (3), Tuyisenge Pascal yakoraga mu buryo buhoraho imirimo yo gupakira no gupakurura amakarito y’imiti, kimwe no kuyapanga hakurukijwe ubwoko bwayo, iyo mirimo ikaba yari iteganyijwe mu masezerano ya RBC na Hayton Ltd muri termes de référence, ku rupapuro rwa 21 n’urwa 22, aho bavuga ibikorwa bizakorwa ku buryo buhoraho n’umushahara w’umukozi ku kwezi, bitandukanye n’ibyo Hayton Ltd iburanisha ko bari ba nyakabyizi.

Page 224

188 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[13] Bakomeza bavuga ko ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yari umukozi uhoraho ari inyandiko z’ubwitabire ku kazi (amarisiti) abakozi basinyagaho uko baje mu kazi, zigaragaza uko Tuyisenge Pascal yakoraga akazi ku buryo buhoraho n’imirimo yakorwaga. Bavuga ko amarisiti babashije kubona ari ayo muri 2016 na 2017, ay’indi myaka bakaba batarayabonye kuko bandikiye RBC iyabitse kugira ngo iyabahe ikanga kubasubiza. Bavuga kandi ko ikindi kimenyetso cyerekana ko bakoreraga Hayton Ltd mu buryo buhoraho ari ibaruwa yo ku itariki ya 27/09/2017 yanditswe na RBC, ivuga ko abakozi bayikoreye mu mushinga wa MPPD (Medical Procurement Product Division), bazanywe na Hayton Ltd yari yatsindiye isoko, ko hari ikibazo kuri abo bakozi ariyo cyashyikirizwa yo yabakoresheje. [14] Bavuga ko mu rwego rw’amategeko bashingira ku ngingo ya mbere, iya 15, igika cya mbere, iya 29 n’iya 33 z’Itegeko Nº 51/2001 ryo ku wa 30/12/2001 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ryakoreshwaga igihe bakoraga kugeza igihe amasezerano y’akazi yaseswaga, zigaragaza ko yari umukozi uhoraho ugengwa n’amasezerano atanditse, ku buryo atari kwirukanwa nta nteguza ahawe kimwe n’ibindi amategeko amuteganyiriza. Bavuga nanone ko bashingira ku murongo watanzwe mu rubanza RSOCAA 0023/09/CS rwaciwe ku itariki ya 18/06/2010 haburana PHOENIX METAL na Rwanteli Ntagara Innocent, aho Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwasobanuye ukwirukanwa k’umukozi mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko n’ibyo agomba guhabwa. [15] Tuyisenge Pascal asobanura ko Hayton Ltd itigeze imukura ku ndege2 nk’uko ibivuga, ko ahubwo yari asanzwe akorera CAMERWA kuva mu mwaka wa 2009 kugeza mu wa

2 Ijambo indege rikunze gukoreshwa ku hantu abakozi ba nyakabyizi bategerereza abashobora kuza kubaha akazi.

Page 225

189 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

2012, ari umukozi uhoraho, ko nyuma CAMERWA ihindutse RBC bakomeje gukorera muri icyo kigo ariko bakorera Solidarite yaje guhinduka Abakoranarukundo, nyuma mu mwaka wa 2014 bakorera Hayton Ltd. Arangiza avuga ko ayo ma sosiyete yagendaga amuhererekanya kimwe na bagenzi be, ko kandi hose bakoraga nta masezerano y’akazi yanditse bafite. [16] Me Mugenzi Elie wunganira Umuyobozi wa Hayton Ltd, avuga ko Tuyisenge Pascal atigeze aba umukozi wayo uhoraho, ko ahubwo yari nyakabyizi yakoreshaga amukuye ahitwa ku ndege, ko iyo aba yarakoreye Hayton Ltd kuva ku itariki ya 09/09/2014 kugeza mu kwezi kwa 08/2017 ari umukozi uhoraho nk’uko abiburanisha, yari kuba afite amasezerano yanditse hagendewe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 17 y’Itegeko rigenga umurimo ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umukozi ukoze igihe kirengeje amezi atandatu (6) agomba kuba afite amasezerano y’umurimo yanditse. [17] Ku birebana n’amarisiti basinyagaho yatanzwe nk’ikimenyo kigaragaza ko Tuyisenge Pascal yakoraga mu buryo buhoraho, Me Mugenzi Elie avuga ko nubwo ayo marisiti Hayton Ltd itayemera kuko ntaho Umuyobozi wayo yigeze ayasinyaho, ko ariko ubwayo ari ikimenyetso cyerekana ko bagiye basinya nka ba nyakabyizi na Tuyisenge Pascal arimo, kuko bigaragara ko batakoraga iminsi yose kuko amazina y’abakoze agenda ahinduka umunsi ku munsi, muri bose akaba ntawigeze ageza ku minsi itanu(5) y’akazi mu cyumweru. [18] Ruzibiza Rodrigue, Umuyobozi Mukuru wa Hayton Ltd, avuga ko nyuma yo kugirana amasezerano na RBC, buri munsi yajyaga ahitwa ku ndege ku masaha atandukanye agafata umubare w’abakozi bamutumye bitewe n’akazi gakenewe karebana no gupakira cyangwa gupakurura imodoka mu gihe hari

Page 226

190 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

iyabaga ije, na Tuyisenge Pascal nawe akaba yari muri abo. Asobanura ko iyo yabagezaga kuri RBC, abashinzwe umutekano babinjizaga mu kigo bagakora hari umukozi wa RBC ubagenzura, byagera nimugoroba bagashyirwa ku murongo buri wese akishyurwa amafaranga yakoreye bagataha, ariyo mpamvu ahamya ko nta marisiti bahemberwagaho kuko bari ba nyakabyizi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [19] Impande zombi ziri muri uru rubanza zemeranya ko Tuyisenge Pascal yakoreye Hayton Ltd, ko kandi nta masezerano y’akazi bagiranye mu buryo bwanditse. Icyo batemeranyaho ni uburyo bakoranye kuko Tuyisenge Pascal we avuga ko yakoraga mu buryo bw’amasezerano y’igihe kitazwi kuko yakoreye iyo sosiyete mu buryo buhoraho mu gihe kirenze amezi atandatu ateganywa n‘itegeko, ariko Hayton Ltd yo ikavuga ko yari nyakabyizi kuko yamukoreshaga rimwe na rimwe iyo habaga habonetse akazi. Iki kibazo ni cyo kigomba kubanza gusobanuka kugira ngo bimenyekane ko Tuyisenge Pascal yirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko bityo abe yagenerwa n’indishyi zigendanye n’iryo yirukunwa. [20] Ingingo ya mbere, agace ka 33, y’Itegeko Nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ryakurikizwaga ubwo Tuyisenge Pascal yakoreraga Hayton Ltd, iteganya ko umukozi uhoraho ari umukozi uhabwa akazi mu gihe kizwi cyangwa kitazwi ariko umaze nibura amezi atandatu akurikiranye akorera umukoresha umwe, naho mu gace ka 34 igateganya ko umukozi wa nyakabyizi ari umukozi ukoreshwa umunsi ku munsi.

Page 227

191 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

[21] Ingingo ya 15, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko amasezerano y’akazi ashobora kuba ayanditse cyangwa atanditse. Akorwa ku buryo bunogeye bene kuyagirana ku mpande zombi [...]. Gihamya y’amasezerano ishobora kuba uburyo bwose bubonetse. [22] Ingingo zimaze kuvugwa, zumvikanisha neza ko nubwo umukozi nta masezerano yanditse yaba afitanye n’umukoresha we, ariko amaze nibura igihe kigeze ku mezi atandatu yikurikiranye kandi mu buryo buhoraho amukorera, agomba gufatwa nk’umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano kuko bihita byumvikana ko bayafitanye ariko atanditse. Kugira ngo ari ibyo byemezwe ariko, umukozi uvuga ko agomba gufatwa muri ubwo buryo, agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso byerekana ko yakoze koko mu gihe cy’amezi atandatu mu buryo buhoraho. [23] 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. Ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo, binahura n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 3, igika cya mbere, 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. [24] Ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Tuyisenge Pascal avuga ko yari umukozi uhoraho, ibimenyetso atanga akaba ari inyandiko z’ubwitabire ku kazi abakozi basinyagaho uko baje mu kazi (listes de présence), fotokopi ya sheki babikurijeho amafaranga yo kubahemba n’ibaruwa RBC yanditse yemeza ko yari mu bakozi ba Hayton Ltd.

Page 228

192 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Ku bivugwa n’Umuyobozi wa Hayton Ltd ko ayo marisiti atayemera kubera ko atayashyizeho umukono, Urukiko rurasanga ibi nta shingiro bigomba guhabwa kubera ko n’ubundi, hashingiwe ku masezerano yo ku itariki ya 18/09/2015 yagiranye na RBC, ntaho yagombaga gusinya kuko mu nyandiko yiswe “General Conditions of Contract”nayo iri mu zigize ayo masezerano, impande zombi zemeranyije ko ibirebana n’igenzura ry’iyubahiriza ry’ayo masezerano rizakorwa n’umuyobozi w’umushinga, Bwana Muhoracyeye Plagène, kandi biragaragara ko ayo marisiti yayasinyagaho3. [26] Ibimenyetso bigizwe n’amarisiti (listes de présence) Tuyisenge Pascal yashyize muri dosiye ashaka kugaragariza urukiko ko yakoreye Hayton Ltd mu buryo buhoraho, byerekana ko yakoze mu buryo bukurikira: - Mu mwaka wa 2016: • Mu kwezi kwa munani yakozemo iminsi 15; • Mu kwezi kwa cyenda yakozemo iminsi 18; • Mu kwezi kwa cumi yakozemo iminsi 17; - Mu mwaka wa 2017: • Mu kwezi kwa kabiri yakozemo iminsi 19; • Mu kwezi kwa gatatu yakozemo iminsi 19; • Mu kwezi kwa kane yakozemo iminsi 19; • Mu kwezi kwa gatanu yakozemo iminsi 23;

3 CGG 25.2. For the Purpose of the contract management and inspection, the Project Manager shall be: RBC/MPPD/Muhoracyeye Plagene/warehouse operation manager.

Page 229

193 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

• Mu kwezi kwa gatandatu yakozemo iminsi 20; • Mu kwezi kwa karindwi yakozemo iminsi 11. [27] Hashingiwe ku bimenyetso bimaze kugaragazwa byatanzwe na Tuyisenge Pascal, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo avuga ko yakoreye Hayton Ltd mu gihe cy’amezi atandatu mu buryo buhoraho atari ukuri kubera ko nko mu mwaka wa 2016 yakozemo amezi atatu gusa, nabwo kandi bikaba bigaragara ko nta na rimwe yigeze yuzuza iminsi y’akazi igize ukwezi, naho mu mwaka wa 2017 akaba yarakozemo amezi atandatu, ariko naho muri icyo gihe cyose akaba nta na hamwe yigeze yuzuza iminsi y’akazi igize ukwezi. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rurasanga ahubwo yari umukozi wa nyakabyizi uhembwa 1363 Frw ku munsi nk’uko bigaragara mu ibaruwa yo ku itariki ya 30/05/2017 we na bagenzi be bandikiye RBC basaba ubuvugizi kugira ngo bongezwe umushahara. Urukiko rurasanga kuba Tuyisenge Pascal atemera ko aribo bayanditse nta shingiro byahabwa kubera ko nawe ubwe yayiburanishije mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare avuga ko nayo iri mu bimenyetso bigaragaza ko bari abakozi bahoraho4. [28] Ku birebana n’ibindi bimenyetso yatanze, Urukiko rurasanga ikigizwe na sheki atari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko yakoze mu buryo buhoraho muri icyo gihe, kuko nta kindi iyo sheki igaragaza uretse umubare w’amafaranga uyiriho yahawe uwitwa Tuyisenge Gashugi. Ku kimenyetso cy’ibaruwa yanditswe na RBC ku itariki ya 27/09/2017, Urukiko rurasanga nta na hamwe iyo baruwa igaragaza ko Tuyisenge Pascal yakoreraga Hayton Ltd mu buryo buhoraho, ahubwo nk’uko na

4 Reba §7 y’urwo rubanza.

Page 230

194 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

we ubwe abyivugira, nta kindi ivuga uretse kugaragaza ko yari umwe mu bakozi ba Hayton Ltd kandi ibyo nayo ntibihakana. [29] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya mbere, agace ka 33 n’iya 15, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru, ndetse no ku ngingo zirebana n’ibimenyetso zerekanywe haruguru hamwe no ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga nta kimenyetso na kimwe Tuyisenge Pascal yagaragarije Urukiko cyerekana ko yakoreye Hayton Ltd mu buryo buhoraho mu gihe cy’amezi nibura atandatu kugira ngo abe yafatwa nk’umukozi ugengwa n’amasezerano. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rukaba rusanga atarirukanywe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko atigeze aba umukozi uhoraho wa Hayton Ltd mu buryo bukurikije amategeko nk’uko bimaze kugaragazwa. [30] Nyuma yo gusanga Tuyisenge Pascal atarirukanywe na Hayton Ltd mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kubera ko atigeze aba umukozi wayo mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, Urukiko rurasanga bitakiri ngombwa gusuzuma ikibazo kirebana n’indishyi zigendanye n’uko kwirukanwa yari yarushyikirije.

2. Kumenya niba Hayton Ltd yaragombaga gutangira Tuyisenge Pascal imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi [31] Me Uwiragiye Pierre Célestin na Me Ndayambaje Gilbert bunganira Tuyisenge Pascal, bavuga ko Hayton Ltd yakagombye kuba yaramwandikishije mu Kigo cy’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi kuva ku itariki 09/09/2014, ikamutangira imisanzu y’igihembwe cya kane cy’umwaka wa 2014, iy’umwaka wa 2015, iy’uwa 2016 n’iy’uwa 2017 kugeza mu kwezi kwa 8. Bavuga ko iyo misanzu igomba kubarirwa ku mushahara fatizo (salaire de base) wa 95.000 Frw gukuba 15%, icyo gipimo kikaba

Page 231

195 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

aricyo kigaragara ku rubuga rw’Ikigo cy’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi mu Rwanda: www.imisanzu.rssb.rw, bihwanye na 14.250 Frw buri kwezi, bityo bagasaba Urukiko gutegeka Hayton Ltd kwandikisha Uwizeyimana Naphtal mu Kigo cy’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi (RSSB), ikanamwishyurira imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi itatanze. [32] Me Mugenzi Elie wunganira Umuyobozi wa Hayton Ltd avuga ko nta misanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi bagombaga gutangira Tuyisenge Pascal kubera ko atigeze aba umukozi wa Hayton Ltd.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Ingingo ya 2, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 06/2003 ryo ku wa 22/03/2003 rihindura kandi ryuzuza Itegeko-Teka ryo ku wa 22/08/1974 rigena ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi iteganya ko iri Tegeko rireba abakozi bagengwa n’amategeko agenga umurimo, abanyapolitiki bari mu nzego za Leta batarageza ku myaka y’izabukuru n’abakozi ba Leta bagengwa na Sitati. Naho igika cya kabiri cy’iyo ngingo kikagira giti: bafatwa nk’abakozi bavuzwe mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo, abakozi b’igihe gito... [34] Ingingo ya 47, agace ka 6, y’Itegeko Nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 rigenga umurimo mu Rwanda ryakurikizwaga ubwo Tuyisenge Pascal yakoreraga Hayton Ltd, iteganya ko imwe mu nshingano z’umukoresha ari ugushyira abakozi mu bwiteganyirize bw’abakozi. [35] Ingingo zimaze kuvugwa haruguru zumvikanisha ko uko byagenda kose, buri mukozi agomba gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize kabone n’ubwo yaba akora mu buryo

Page 232

196 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bw’imirimo idashingiye ku masezerano y’akazi yanditse (secteur informel) cyangwa mu gihe yaba akora imirimo igihe gito. [36] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Tuyisenge Pascal yari umukozi wa nyakabyizi wakoreye Hayton Ltd mu gihe cyagaragajwe mu gika 26 cy’uru rubanza, muri icyo gihe cyose akaba yaragombaga gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 47, agace ka 6 yavuzwe haruguru kuko ari inshingano y’umukoresha. [37] Ku bivugwa na Hayton Ltd ko itagombaga gutangira Tuyisenge Pascal imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi, ibyo ikabishingira ku kuba atarigeze ayikorera mu buryo bw’amasezerano, Urukiko rurasanga ibyo nta shingiro bifite kubera ko umukozi wese agomba gutangirwa imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize hatitawe ku buryo akoramo, ibi Urukiko rukaba rubishingira ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 13/2009 ryo ku wa 27/05/2009 ryavuzwe haruguru. [38] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byose bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rusanga Hayton Ltd igomba kwegera Ikigo cy’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi kugira ngo ibarishe imisanzu igomba gutangira Tuyisenge Pascal mu gihe cyose yayikoreye hashingiwe ku 1363 Frw ku munsi nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru.

3. Kumenya niba amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka agomba gutangwa [39] Me Uwiragiye Pierre Célestin na Me Ndayambaje Gilbert bunganira Tuyisenge Pascal, bavuga ko Hayton Ltd ikwiye kumuha 3.000.000 Frw y'igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza mu nkiko zose, yose hamwe akaba

Page 233

197 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

3.300.000 Frw, agasubizwa na 60.000 Frw y’amagarama yatanze mu nkiko zabanje. [40] Me Mugenzi Elie wunganira Umuyobozi wa Hayton Ltd avuga ko Tuyisenge Pascal nta ndishyi agomba guhabwa kuko ariwe wishoye mu manza zidafite ishingiro, ko ahubwo ariwe ugomba kuyiha indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw zo kuyishora mu manza na 1.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [41] Tuyisenge Pascal avuga ko nta ndishyi agomba guha Hayton Ltd kuko kuba yariyamabaje ubutabera yaharaniraga uburenganzira bwe kugira ngo arenganurwe.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [42] Urukiko rurasanga indishyi zirebana n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza Tuyisenge Pascal asaba agomba kuzihabwa kubera ko byagaragaye ko hari akarengane kari mu rubanza yasabye ko rwasubirwamo, kandi bikaba bigaragara ko yagombye gushaka Avoka umwunganira kuva mu nkiko zabanje kugeza kuri uru rwego. Urukiko rurasanga ariko 3.300.000 Frw asaba akabije kuba menshi kandi nta n’ibisobanuro ayatangira, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo rukaba rumugeneye indishyi zijyanye n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka kimwe n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza ziteye ku buryo bukurikira:  300.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare;  300.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana;  800.000 Frw mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga.

Page 234

198 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[43] Urukiko rurasanga kandi na 60.000 Frw y’igarama Tuyisenge Pascal yatanze mu nkiko zabanje nayo agomba kuyasubizwa na Hayton Ltd. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [44] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Tuyisenge Pascal gisubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza

RSOCA 00011/2019/HC/RWG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana, ku itariki ya 31/08/2022 gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [45] Rwemeje ko urwo rubanza ruhindutse ku birebana n’imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi Hayton Ltd igomba gutangira Tuyisenge Pascal. [46] Rutegetse Hayton Ltd kwishyurira Tuyisenge Pascal imisanzu y’ubwiteganyirize bw’abakozi ihwanye n’iminsi yakoze mu mwaka wa 2016 n’uwa 2017 nk’uko yagaragajwe haruguru; [47] Rutegetse Hayton Ltd kwishyura Tuyisenge Pascal amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza ahwanye na:  300.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyagatare  300.000 Frw mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Rwamagana  800.000 Frw mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga.

Page 235

199 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

[48] Rutegetse Hayton Ltd guha Tuyisenge Pascal 60.000 Frw y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanze mu nkiko zabanje.

Page 237

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

Page 239

203

NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v

HABIYAMBERE [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA - RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2021/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J., Hitiyaremye na Nyirinkwaya, J.) 16 Ukuboza 2022] Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Inshingano – Inshingano yo kwishyura umwenda ihuriweho – Iyo abantu benshi basangiye umwenda, uwo bawugomba ashobora kubishyuriza hamwe cyangwa se umwe ku wundi. Ariko ashobora gusaba kwishyurwa umwenda wose n’umwe mu basangiye uwo mwenda, uwishyuye agasigara akurikrana bagenzi be. Amategeko agenga imanza mbonezamubano – Imiburanishirize y’imanza – Kugaragaza ko uberewemo umwenda – Uvuga ko aberewemo umwenda agomba kubitangira ibimenyetso. Incamake y’ikibazo: Habiyambere yaguze inzu ya Mukandekezi mu cyamunara yabaye ku itariki ya 28/09/2011 harangizwa urubanza yatsinzwemo n’Umuhoza, ariko Mukandekezi yanga kuyirekura bituma amurega mu Rukiko rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge. Habiyambere ntiyaje gukomeza gukurikirana ikirego cye bituma ikirego cye gisibwa. Nyuma yaje kubyutsa urubanza muri urwo rukiko aho yasabaga ko yahabwa inzu ye, amafaranga y’ubukode yavagamo n’izindi ndishyi. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego gifite ishingiro rutegeka ko yahabwa inzu ye ndetse n’amafaranaga y’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka akabihabwa n’abazungura ba Mukandekezi aribo Mukandekezi, Mukandengo na Ndayisenga kuko we yari yaramaze gupfa.

Page 240

204 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Habiyambere ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urwo rubanza, ajurira mu Rukiko Rukuru aho yavugaga ko urukiko rutamuhaye indishyi yasabye zijyanye n’ubukode bw’inzu. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko abazungura ba Mukandekezi bafatanya guha Habiyambere indishyi zitandukanye harimo n’iz’ubukode bw’amazu yasabaga. Abazungura ba Mukandekezi bandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi basaba ko urubanza RCA 0358-410/15/HC/KIG rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo hanyuma Urukiko rw’Ikirenga aba arirwo ruruburanisha hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba hari ibimeneytso byashingiweho hagenwa indishyi mbonezamusaruro no kumenya ikinyuranyo gisabwa na Mukandengo ko cyatangwa. Abarega bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye Habiyambere indishyi mbonezamusaruro z’amafaranga avuga ko yavuye mu bukode bw’inzu zirenze izo yasabye kandi ruzitanga ntacyo rushingiyeho. Mukandengo we yanasabaga gusubizwa ikinyuranyo kiri hagati y’amafaranga yishyuye harangizwa urubanza n’ayo yumva yagombaga gutanga. Habiyambere we avuga ko nta kosa Urukiko rwakoze mu kumugenera indishyi mbonezamusaruro kuko yari yazisabye, ko kandi n’amafaranga yakiriye ku ruhande rwa Mukandengo yari ayakwiriye kubera ko harangizwaga urubanza yatsinze. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Uvuga ko aberewemo umwenda agomba kubitangira ibimenyetso. Bivuze ko Habiyambere ariwe wari ufite inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso by’uko amafaranga yasabaga yaturutse mu bukode bw’inzu ze yari 17.714.000 Frw. Bityo indishyi mbonezamusaruro zagombaga gutangwa zikaba zihwanye na 5.265.000 Frw kuko arizo zifitiwe ibimenyetso.

Page 241

205 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

2. Iyo abantu benshi basangiye umwenda, uwo bawugomba ashobora kubishyuriza hamwe cyangwa se umwe ku wundi. Ariko ashobora gusaba kwishyurwa umwenda wose n’umwe mu basangiye uwo mwenda, uwishyuye agasigara akurikrana bagenzi be bityo ibyo Mukandengo asaba byo gusubizwa ikinyuranyo cy’amafaranga yatanze nta shingiro bifite kuko yagomba kwishyura umwenda wose. Ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane urubanzaRCA 0358/15/HC/KIG-RCA 0410/15/HC/KIG gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Urubanza ruhindutse ku ndishyi mbonezamusaruro abazungura ba Mukandekezi, bagomba gufatanya guha Habiyambere. Amategeko yashingiweho: 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 12; Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3. Nta manza zifashishijwe Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Alain BENABENT, Droit des obligations, 19ème édition, LGDJ, § 128 et 680. Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU- TERNEYRE, mu gitabo cyabo “Droit civil, Les obligations”, 17ème édition, 2020-2021, SIREY, § 2547 et 2548.

Page 242

206 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Habiyambere Ignace avuga ko yaguze inzu ya Mukandekezi Euphrasie mu cyamunara yabaye ku itariki ya 28/09/2011 harangizwa urubanza yatsinzwemo n’umukazana we Umuhoza Anonciata, ko ariko kuva yagura iyo nzu atigeze ayigiraho uburenganzira kuko Mukandekezi Euphrasie yanze kuyirekura, bituma amurega mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba guhabwa inzu ye, amafaranga y’ubukode yavaga muri ayo mazu, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka. [2] Ku itariki ya 13/03/2013, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza No RC 0696/12/TGI/NGE, rwemeza ko ikirego cya Habiyambere Ignace gisibwa mu bitabo by’ibirego kubera ubusaze bwakomotse ku kutagikurikirana. [3] Habiyambere Ignace yaje gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba kubyutsa urubanza, ikirego gihabwa No RC 0119/15/TGI/NYGE, urwo rubanza ruburanishwa Mukandekezi Euphrasie yarapfuye, maze ruhamagazwamo abazungura be, aribo Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais. [4] Ku itariki ya 26/06/2015, urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Habiyambere Ignace abyutsa urubanza Nᵒ RC 0696/12/TGI/NYGE gifite ishingiro, runemeza ko ikirego yatanze asaba guhabwa inzu yaguze muri cyamunara gifite ishingiro, rutegeka abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie aribo Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na

Page 243

207 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

Ndayisenga Protais kumuha inzu yaguze nta yandi mananiza, runabategeka gufatanya kumuha 750.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’igihembo cya Avoka, ay’ikurikiranarubanza, n’ingwate y’igarama yatanze arega. [5] Habiyambere Ignace na Ndayisenga Protais bombi bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Habiyambere Ignace avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwanze guha agaciro indishyi mbonezamusaruro yasabye, Ndayisenga Protais atanga impamvu zikurikira:  Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge ntirwagombaga kwemera ko urubanza rubyutswa kuko iminsi cumi n’itanu yo kurubyutsa yari yararenze;  Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwanditse ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo kandi atari byo;  Urukiko ntirwahamagaje abazungura bose ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie kuko rwahamagaje batatu gusa kandi bari batanu. [6] Ku itariki ya 29/01/2016, Urukiko Rukuru rwaciye urubanza Nᵒ RCA 0358-410/15/HC/KIG, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Habiyambere Ignace bufite ishingiro, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Ndayisenga Protais nta shingiro bufite, rutegeka abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie gufatanya guha Habiyambere Ignace 17.714.000 Frw y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro zikomoka ku bukode bw’amazu, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 75.000 Frw y’ingwate y’igarama.

Page 244

208 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[7] Urukiko Rukuru rwashingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku mpamvu zikurikira: • Ku birebana no kubyutsa urubanza, rwavuze ko nta gihe ntarengwa itegeko ryateganyaga cyo kubyutsa urubanza rwasibwe kubera impamvu z’ubusaze; • Ku birebana no kuba umucamanza atarahamagaje abazungura bose, Urukiko rwavuze ko nta cyerekana ko Ndayisenga Protais yari yavuze ko hari abandi bazungura bahari ngo umucamanza yange kubahamagaza; • Ku birebana no kuba mu rubanza handitseho ko rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo aho kuba urwa Nyarugenge, Urukiko rwasanze ibyo bitaba impamvu y’ubujurire ahubwo ari ikosa ry’imyandikire rigomba gukosorwa; • Ku birebana n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro zasabwe na Habiyambere Ignace, Urukiko rwasanze abajuriye nta kimenyetso batanze ko inzu yaguze zitakodeshwaga, bityo rero ko nta mpamvu atari guhabwa amafaranga y’ubukode. [8] Ku itariki ya 31/05/2016, Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais, bandikiye Urwego rw’Umuvunyi basaba ko urubanza Nᵒ RCA 0358- 410/15/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku itariki ya 29/01/2016 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, maze ku itariki ya 24/09/2019, Urwego rw’Umuvunyi rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urwo rubanza rwasubirwamo. [9] Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga amaze kubona raporo yarukozweho n’Ubugenzuzi bw’Inkiko, ku itariki ya 04/10/2021,

Page 245

209 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

yafashe icyemezo ko urubanza rwavuzwe haruguru rwongera kuburanishwa ruhabwa no RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2021/SC. [10] Abarega batanze imyanzuro bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ikosa ryo guha Habiyambere Ignace indishyi mbonezamusaruro zihwanye na 17.714.000 Frw kandi atarizo yasabye. Mukandengo Aurélie ku giti cye we yanasabaga gusubizwa ikinyuranyo kiri hagati y’amafaranga yatanze harangizwa urubanza n’ayo yumva yagombaga gutanga. Habiyambere Ignace we avuga ko nta kosa Urukiko rwakoze mu kumugenera indishyi mbonezamusaruro kuko yari yazisabye, ko kandi n’amafaranga yakiriye ku ruhande rwa Mukandengo Aurélie yari ayakwiriye kubera ko harangizwaga urubanza yatsinze. [11] Mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 13/01/2022, Me Muhizi Alexis ahagarariye Mukandekezi Marie na Ndayisenga Protais, anunganiye Mukandengo Aurélie, Habiyambere Ignace ahagarariwe na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul, urubanza rwarasubitswe kubera ko Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul yavugaga ko hari inyandiko zari muri dosiye atemera yifuzaga kubanza kuregera nk’inyandiko mpimbano. [12] Ku itariki ya 01/03/2022, Habiyambere Ignace yandikiye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arugaragariza imbogamizi yahuye nazo mu gupimisha izo nyandiko, asaba ko iburanisha ryasubukurwa hagashingirwa ku bimenyetso bisanzwe muri dosiye. [13] Iburanisha ryongeye gusubukurwa ku itariki ya 12/09/2022, Mukandengo Aurélie yunganiwe na Me Muhizi Alexis afatanyije na Me Mutarindwa Félix, banahagarariye Ndayisenga Protais na Mukandekezi Marie, Habiyambere Ignace yunganiwe na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul. Mu iburanisha

Page 246

210 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

hagaragaye abandi bantu aribo Uwitonze Diane na Mugabe Gilbert bunganiwe na Me Butare Godfrey, basaba kugoboka mu rubanza ku bushake. [14] Nyuma yo kumva bavuga ko impamvu basaba kugoboka mu rubanza ku bushake ari uko ari abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie waburanye na Umuhoza Annonciata1, kandi aribo bakiriye amafaranga yavuye muri expropriation yakozwe ku mitungo baburanaga, Urukiko rwasanze inyungu z’abasabaga kugoboka mu rubanza zifitanye isano n’urubanza nyirakuru Mukandekezi Euphrasie yaburanyemo n’umubyeyi wabo, urwo rubanza rukaba rwarabaye itegeko rwaranarangijwe. Urukiko rwabibukije ko ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza ari ingano y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro abaje mu karengane bavuga ko urukiko rwahaye Habiyambere Ignace atari zo yagombaga guhabwa, aba bo bakaba nta kibazo gifitanye isano na cyamunara bafite, bityo rwemeza ko nta nyungu bafite rwanga kwakira ubusabe bwabo. [15] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryarakomeje, ariko Urukiko rusanga rigomba gusubikwa kugira ngo abasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu z’akarengane bazatange umwanzuro w’inyongera bagaragaza umubare w’indishyi babona Habiyambere Ignace yagombaga guhabwa, n’uburyo bazibara bakurikije izo Urukiko Rukuru rwamugeneye. Iburanisha ryimuriwe ku itariki ya 14/11/2022. [16] Kuri iyo tariki urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame, Ndayisenga Protais, Mukandekezi Marie bahagarariwe na Me Muhizi Alexis afatanyije na Me Mutarindwa Félix, banunganiye

1 Uyu ni umubyeyi wabo.

Page 247

211 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

Mukandengo Aurélie, Habiyambere Ignace ahagarariwe na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul. [17] Hakurikijwe imiterere y’uru rubanza, ibibazo byasuzumwe ni ukumenya ingano nyakuri y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro zagombaga guhabwa Habiyambere Ignace no kumenya niba hari amafaranga y’ikirenga yatanzwe na Mukandengo Aurélie harangizwa urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane bityo akaba agomba kuyasubizwa n’ingano yayo. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. Kumenya ingano nyakuri y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro zagombaga guhabwa Habiyambere Ignace. [18] Me Muhizi Alexis na Me Mutarindwa Félix baburanira Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais, bavuga ko akarengane kabo bagashingira ku kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarageneye Habiyambere Ignace indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 17.714.000 Frw kandi ntaho bigaragara ko yazisabye haba mu mwanzuro we, haba ndetse no mu iburanisha. [19] Basobanura ko mu mwanzuro w’inyongera wo ku itariki ya 24/07/2015 watanzwe na Me Mbera Martine waburaniraga Habiyambere Ignace, yasabaga indishyi zingana na 5.265.000 Frw, mu gihe cy’iburanisha akaba yarasabye 5.866.000 Frw nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko-mvugo yo ku itariki 19/01/2016.

Page 248

212 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[20] Bavuga ko Habiyambere Ignace yagombaga kugenerwa indishyi yasabye mu mwanzuro wa Avoka we zingana na 5.265.000 Frw ndetse zanagaragarijwe ibimenyetso kuko yakoze umwanzuro w’inyongera avuye ku kiburanwa aho, mu rwego rwo gushaka amakuru ajyanye n’indishyi mbonezamusaruro basabaga, yifashishije Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Kora, yagiye abaza buri mupangayi amafaranga y’ubukode yishyuraga bigakorerwa inyandiko. [21] Banzura basaba Urukiko ko 5.265.000 Frw yasabwe na Habiyambere Ignace ariyo yagenerwa kuko ari nayo bafitiye ibimenyetso, ko kuba yarahawe ayo atasabye binyuranyije n’ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko no 21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo, n’iz’ubutegetsi ryakurikizwaga igihe icyo cyemezo cyafatwaga, ndetse n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 8 y’iryo Tegeko ko umucamanza adashobora gushingira icyemezo cye ku bitaragaragajwe mu iburanisha, ko kandi adashobora guca urubanza ashingiye ku byo aruziho ku giti cye. [22] Habiyambere Ignace na Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul umwunganira, mu mwanzuro wabo bavuga ko Urukiko rutatanze indishyi zitasabwe, ko ahubwo indishyi rwatanze zabanje gusabwa mu rwego rwa mbere ntizatangwa, ibyo bikaba bigaragazwa n’umwanzuro wo ku itariki ya 26/01/2015 wakozwe na Me Mbera Martine mu izina rya Habiyambere Ignace atanga ikirego mu rubanza Nᵒ RC 0119/15/TGI/NYGE, izo ndishyi zikaba zaranganaga na 17.714.000 Frw. Bavuga ko nyuma yo kubona izo ndishyi batazihawe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, bazijuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru hafatwa icyemezo ko bazihabwa. [23] Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul avuga ko kuri uru rwego Urukiko rwari rwasabye abasubirishijemo urubanza ku mpamvu

Page 249

213 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

z’akarengane kurugaragariza ishingiro ry’indishyi bavuga zagombaga gutangwa, ko ariko batabigaragaje. Avuga ko Habiyambere Ignace we afite ibimenyetso by’indishyi yari yasabye, bikaba bigaragara mu rubanza yaburanye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye ku rupapuro rwa 2, igika cya 6. Avuga ko ikindi kimenyetso atanga cyerekana ko indishyi mbonezamusaruro yahawe arizo yari yasabye, ari uko aburana mu Rukiko Rukuru, Avoka yashatse kwanga kumuburanira, amusaba kuzamuha 1/3 cy’indishyi zose yari yasabye zingana na 17.714.000 Frw, hakaba hari n’inyandiko uwo mu Avoka yandikiye Urugaga rwabo asaba ko rwamwumvikanisha na Habiyambere Ignace, akamwishyura ayo mafaranga bumvikanye kuko yari mu mwanzuro yari yatanze. [24] Ku birebana n’indishyi abarega bavuga zasabwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko muri dosiye hagaragaramo imyanzuro ibiri, umwanzuro wiswe uw’inyongera ukubiyemo indishyi abarega bavuga ko arizo zasabwe, Habiyambere Ignace akaba atemera ko ariwe wawukoze, bityo rero ko indishyi yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru nta handi rwazivanye atari uko ari Habiyambere Ignace wari wazisabye. [25] Ku kibazo kijyanye n’uko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Habiyambere Ignace yimwe indishyi bari basabye kubera ko nta bimenyetso barugaragarije, Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul avuga ko inzu yakodeshwaga yari igizwe n’imiryango itanu (5) y’ubucuruzi, n’amazu abiri yo mu gikari, inzu z’ubucuruzi zakodeshwaga 60.000 Frw ku kwezi, izo mu gikari zikodeshwa 50.000 Frw ku kwezi, ko ayo mafaranga yose uyakubye n’amezi yari ashize bihwana na 17.714.000 Frw. [26] Ku birebana n’abantu bafatwa nk’abapangayi bavugwa n’abarega ko basinye ku mpapuro zigaragaza amafaranga

Page 250

214 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’ubukode bishyuraga ku kwezi, avuga ko mu iperereza ryakozwe na Habiyambere Ignace yasanze abo bantu batanabaho, ko ahubwo ababaga muri ayo mazu batigeze babazwa. Avuga ko hari n’ikirego cyatanzwe mu Bugenzacyaha haregerwa inyandiko z’abo bantu bavugwa ko bakodeshaga amazu ye. [27] Ku kibazo Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul yabajijwe n’Urukiko cyo kugaragaza ibimenyetso bifatika bashingiraho basaba indishyi mbonezamusaruro zingana na 17.714.000 Frw uretse kuvuga gusa ko bari bazisabye mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko ibyo bimenyetso we ntabyo yabonye kugeza ubu.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Urukiko rurasanga muri uru rubanza ababuranyi bemeranywa ko hari indishyi mbonezamusaruro Habiyambere Ignace agomba guhabwa, gusa ntibemeranya ku ngano yazo. Ku ruhande rw’abasabye ko urubanza rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, bo bavuga ko agomba guhabwa 5.265.000 Frw kuko ariyo yari yasabye mu Rukiko Rukuru, mu gihe Habiyambere Ignace we akomeza gushimangira ko 17.714.000 Frw yahawe n’Urukiko Rukuru zagumaho kubera ko arizo yasabye. [29] 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”. Ibiteganywa n’iyo ngingo, binahura n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 3, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko “buri

Page 251

215 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana “. Ibiteganywa muri izo ngingo kandi bihura n’ibivugwa n’umuhanga mu mategeko witwa Alain BENABENT, aho, yifashishije ingingo ya 1353 y’Igitabo cy’imbonezamubano cy’Abafaransa (code civil français), asobanura ko uvuga ko aberewemo umwenda agomba kubitangira ibimenyetso. (Charge de la preuve. L’article 1353 nouveau met très clairement à la charge de celui qui se prétend créancier l’obligation de prouver sa créance: celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver) […].2 [30] Hakurikijwe imiterere y’uru rubanza, n’ubwo ababuranyi bakomeza kujya impaka zishingiye ku kumenya niba indishyi mbonezamusaruro Habiyambere Ignace yagenewe n’Urukiko Rukuru yari yazisabye cyangwa atari yazisabye, Urukiko rurasanga ikibazo cy’ingenzi kiri mu rubanza gishingiye ku bimenyetso bigomba gushingirwaho mu kugena izo ndishyi. [31] Inyandiko ziri muri dosiye zigaragaza ko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye Habiyambere Ignace yasabaga indishyi mbonezamusaruro zikomoka ku bukode yavugaga ko bwavaga mu mazu ye zihwanye na 17.714.000 Frw, Urukiko rukazimwima ruvuga ko atazitangiye ibimenyetso. Izo nyandiko zigaragaza ko icyo cyemezo yakijuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru akomeza kuzisaba, urwo Rukiko rukaba rwarazimuhaye ruvuga ko abaregwa batashoboye kurugaragariza ko 17.714.000 Frw atariyo yavaga mu bukode bw’amazu ya Habiyambere Ignace. [32] Muri dosiye kandi hagaragaramo ibaruwa yo ku itariki ya 14/08/2015 yanditswe na Me Mbera Martine mu mwanya wa Habiyambere Ignace, ayandikira Umunyamabanga

2 Alain BENABENT, Droit des obligations, 19ème édition, LGDJ, § 128.

Page 252

216 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Kora gaherereyemo umutungo uvugwa mu rubanza. Muri iyo baruwa Me Mbera Martine yasabaga amakuru arebana n’amafaranga yavaga mu mazu ya Habiyambere Ignace, ko kutagira ayo makuru byatumye Urukiko rubura ibimenyetso rushingiraho kugira ngo rwemeze umubare w’amafaranga nyakuri yaturukaga muri ayo mazu. Bigaragara ko Umuyobozi wari wandikiwe yamushubije ku itariki ya 15/09/2015 amumenyesha abantu bari muri ayo mazu n’umubare w’amafaranga bishyuraga. Urukiko rukaba rusanga ari kuri ayo makuru Me Mbera Martine yahereyeho atanga umwanzuro w’inyongera noneho werekanaga ibimenyetso yashingiragaho indishyi mbonezamusaruro zihwanye na 5.265.000 Frw yasabaga. [33] Ku bivugwa na Habiyambere Ignace ko uwo mwanzuro wiswe uw ‘inyongera atawemera ngo kuko utanditswe n’umwunganizi we, Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko byibukijwe haruguru, mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 13/01/2022, Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul yasabye Urukiko ko yifuza kuregera inyandiko-mpimbano rurabimwemerera, muri izo nyandiko yifuzaga kuregera hakaba harimo n’uwo mwanzuro avuga ko atemera. Nyamara ku itariki ya 01/03/2022, Habiyambere Ignace yandikiye Urukiko rw’Ikirenga arugaragariza imbogamizi yahuye nazo mu gupimisha izo nyandiko, asaba ko iburanisha ryasubukurwa hagashingirwa ku bimenyetso bisanzwe muri dosiye, bityo rero Urukiko rugasanga ntaho yahera ahakana uwo mwanzuro. Urukiko rurasanga kandi ntaho Habiyambere Ignace yahera avuga ko Me Mbera Martine atawukoze mu izina rye, kuko inyandiko zashingiweho uwo mwanzuro nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, zakozwe mbere y’inama ntegurarubanza yabaye ku itariki ya 28/09/2015, kandi iyo nama yitabiriwe na Mbera Martine yunganiye Habiyambere Ignace.

Page 253

217 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

[34] Ku bivugwa na Habiyambere Ignace ko inzu yakodeshwaga yari igizwe n’imiryango itanu (5) y’ubucuruzi, n’amazu abiri yo mu gikari, inzu z’ubucuruzi zikodeshwa 60.000 Frw ku kwezi, izo mu gikari zikodeshwa 50.000 Frw ku kwezi, ko ayo mafaranga uyakubye n’amezi yari ashize bihwana na 17.714.000 Frw, uretse kubivuga gusa, Urukiko rurasanga nta bimenyetso abigaragariza byerekana ko ariya mazu yavagamo buriya bwishyu koko. Rurasanga ahubwo ibimenyetso bihari ari ibyatanzwe n’Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w’Akagari ka Kora gaherereyemo ayo mazu abiha Me Mbera Martine wari wabimusabye, ibyo akaba aribyo yashingiyeho akora umwanzuro w’inyongera ugaragaza ko amafaranga y’ubukode yaturutse kuri ayo mazu yari amaze kugera kuri 5.265.000 Frw. [35] Hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 12, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko nº 22/2018 no ku ngingo ya 3, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004, yombi yavuzwe haruguru, ndetse no ku bisobanuro byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga Habiyambere Ignace ariwe wari ufite inshingano yo gutanga ibimenyetso by’uko amafaranga yaturutse mu bukode bw ‘amazu ye yari 17.714.000 Frw yasabaga. Bityo indishyi mbonezamusaruro zagombaga gutangwa zikaba zihwanye na 5.265.000 Frw kuko arizo zifitiwe ibimenyetso nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rurasanga ikirego cyatanzwe na Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais basaba gusubirishamo urubanza n° RCA 0358/15/HC/KIG - RCA 0410/15/HC/KIG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru ku itariki ya 29/01/2016, gifite ishingiro kuri iyo ngingo.

Page 254

218 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kumenya niba hari amafaranga y’ikirenga yatanzwe na Mukandengo Aurélie harangizwa urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. [36] Mukandengo Aurélie na Me Muhizi Alexis umwunganira, bavuga ko ku itariki ya 15/01/2020, Umuhesha w’Inkiko w’Umwuga Me Mutaganda Louis yarangije urubanza Nᵒ RC 0119/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe ku itariki ya 26/06/2015 n’urubanza nᵒ RCA 0358- 410/15/HC/KIG rwaciwe ku itariki ya 29/01/2016, maze ategeka ko abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie aribo Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais bakwishyura Habiyambere Ignace 17.714.000 Frw + 500.000 Frw + 75.000 Frw + 750.000 Frw = 19.039.000 Frw agomba kwishyurwa mu buryo bungana kuri bose uko ari batatu, ni ukuvuga 6.346.000 Frw + 300.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’umuhesha w’inkiko w’umwuga kuri buri wese. [37] Bakomeza bavuga ko Mukandengo Aurélie yishyuye 6.663.000 Frw kuko umutungo we utimukanwa wari warafatiriwe nyamara atariyo yagombaga kwishyura. Avuga ko kuba indishyi zasabwaga zose hamwe zari 5.265.000 Frw, bivuze ko buri wese yagombaga kwishyura 1.755.000 Frw, akaba asaba gusubizwa amafaranga yatanze arenga ku yo yari gutanga, angana na 4.891.000 Frw, ko ibyo bigaragazwa n’inyandiko- mvugo y’irangizarubanza yo ku itariki ya 15/01/2020 na sheki yo ku itariki ya 19/03/2019. [38] Mukandengo Aurélie avuga kandi ko bagiye gusobanuza urubanza kugira ngo urukiko rwerekane uko indishyi baciwe zagombaga kwishyurwa, urukiko rugasobanura ko bose bagombaga kwishyura amafaranga angana ruranayagaragaza.

Page 255

219 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

[39] Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul uburanira Habiyambere Ignace avuga ko urubanza rurangizwa uko rwaciwe, ko mu rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nta na hamwe bigeze bategeka amafaranga buri wese yagombaga kwishyura. Avuga ko kubera ko n’urubanza rwari urw’abazungura, ufite ubushobozi muri abo bazungura ari we wagombaga kwishyura. Ku birebana n’urubanza rukosora urundi, avuga ko ntarwo babonye, ko ariko niba ruhari hakaba hari ibitaragenze neza, asaba Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuzabikosora.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [40] Urukiko rurasanga mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko rwaremeje ko abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie aribo Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais bafatanya guha Habiyambere Ignace 17.714.000 Frw y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro, 750.000 Frw y’indishyi zategetswe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 75.000 Frw y’igarama yatanzwe na Habiyambere Ignace. Mukandengo Aurélie yatanze ikirego asaba gusobanuza urwo rubanza kugira ngo Urukiko rugaragaze umubare w’amafaranga buri wese yagombaga gutanga, umucamanza yemeza ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite. [41] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Urukiko rwarategetse ko abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie aribo Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie na Ndayisenga Protais bagomba gufatanya kwishyura Habiyambere Ignace amafaranga amaze kuvugwa rutagaragaje ayo buri wese yagombaga gutanga, bivuze ko icyo umucamanza yategetse ari uko bagombaga kwishyura mu buryo buhuriweho (obligation in solidum), Habiyambere Ignace akaba yaragombaga kwishyuza amafaranga yose yategetswe

Page 256

220 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’Urukiko uwo abona ko afite ubushobozi, uyu nawe akazahindukira akajya kwishyuza bagenzi be. [42] Ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru ni byo abahanga mu mategeko Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE na Virginie LARRIBAU-TERNEYRE, mu gitabo cyabo « Droit civil, Les obligations » basobanura muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’igifaransa: Concernant l’obligation à la dette, s’il y a plusieurs coresponsables, chacun est tenu pour le tout à l’égard de la victime, en vertu de l’obligation in solidum. La victime peut donc réclamer l’intégralité de la réparation à n’importe lequel des coresponsables. […]. Concernant la contribution à la dette, c’est- à- dire la répartition de la charge définitive de la dette de responsabilité, les coresponsables disposent entre eux de recours récursoires. Celui ou ceux qui ont indemnisé la victime peuvent ainsi recourir contre les autres coauteurs à proportion de leur part de responsabilité si la victime ne l’avait pas fait, car ils sont subrogés dans ses droits. […]3 Undi muhanga witwa Alain BENABENT, mu gitabo yise « Droit des obligations », asobanura ko iyo abantu benshi basangiye umwenda, uwo bawugomba ashobora kubishyuriza hamwe cyangwa se umwe ku wundi. Ariko ashobora no kwemererwa gusaba kwishyurwa umwenda wose n’umwe mu basangiye uwo mwenda. Inyungu z’ubwo buryo ni uko uberewemo umwenda bimurinda umuzigo w’umwe muri bo udashobora kwishyura, ahubwo bagenzi be barishyura noneho bakazasigara bamwikurikiranira. Yabivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’igifaransa: Lorsque plusieurs personnes sont responsables du même dommage, la victime peut évidemment les poursuivre ensemble, ou même successivement.

3 Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU-TERNEYRE, mu gitabo cyabo “Droit civil, Les obligations”, 17ème édition, 2020-2021, SIREY, § 2547 et 2548.

Page 257

221 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

Mais on lui permet aussi de demander réparation intégrale à l’un quelconque des responsables: l’avantage de cette responsabilité dite « in solidum » est de ne pas faire supporter par la victime la charge de l’insolvabilité éventuelle de l’un d’eux, mais par les autres responsables qui, ayant payé, ne pourront exercer leur recours contributif contre l’insolvable […]4. [43] Urukiko rukaba rusanga, ubwo Urukiko Rukuru rwacaga urubanza rukavuga ko abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie bafatanya kwishyura Habiyambere Ignace amafaranga y’indishyi yavuzwe haruguru rutavuze ayo buri wese yagombaga gutanga, ari bwo buryo buhuriweho (obligation in solidum) rwifuje ko uberewemo umwenda yakwishyurwamo. Urukiko rusanga ahubwo, ubwo umuhesha w’inkiko yajyaga kurangiza urubanza, agafata amafaranga urukiko rwari rwategetse akayagabanyamo gatatu agategeka Mukandekezi Euphrasie kwishyura 1/3 cy’amafaranga yategetswe n’Urukiko, yararurangije uko rutaciwe, kuko Urukiko rutari rwigeze rugena uruhare rwa buri muntu. [44] Urukiko rurasanga kandi amafaranga abasabye ko urubanza rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane barimo na Mukandengo Aurélie, batemera ari ay’indishyi mbonezamusaruro gusa, bivuze ko ayandi ariyo 750.000 Frw y’indishyi zategetswe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 75.000 Frw y’igarama yatanzwe na Habiyambere Ignace nta kibazo bayafiteho. Ibi bikaba bisobanuye ko ikinyuranyo Mukandengo Aurélie asaba gusubizwa ari igikomoka ku ndishyi mbonezamusaruro gusa.

4 Alain BENABENT, Droit des obligations, 19ème édition, LGDJ, § 680.

Page 258

222 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[45] Ubwo harangizwaga urubanza, hashingiwe ku nyandiko- mvugo yakozwe uwo muhango ukorwa, Urukiko rurasanga Mukandengo Aurélie yarishyuye Habiyambere Ignace 6.346.000 Frw aho kuba 6.663.000 Frw kuko arengaho ari ay’umuhesha w’inkiko. Ayo yishyuye ahwanye na 750.000 Frw y’indishyi zategetswe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye, 17.714.000 Frw y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro yategetswe n’Urukiko Rukuru, 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 75.000 Frw y’igarama yatanzwe na Habiyambere Ignace, ayo yose ukagabanya gatatu. [46] Nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko rwasanze amafaranga y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro yagombaga gutangwa ari 5.265.000 Frw, bivuze ko indishyi zose hamwe Habiyambere Ignace yagombaga guhabwa ari 5.265.000 Frw + 750.000 Frw + 500.000 Frw + 75.000 Frw = 6.590.000 Frw. [47] Hakurikijwe uburyo bwo kwishyura buhuriweho (obligation in solidum) nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuba Mukandengo Aurélie yarishyuye Habiyambere Ignace 6.346.000 Frw, ayo akaba ari make ku yo yagombaga guhabwa, Urukiko rurasanga nta mafaranga yandi Mukandengo Aurélie agomba gusubizwa. Gusuzuma ibijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza. [48] Me Muhizi Alexis avuga ko abarega bakomeje gusiragizwa mu nkiko no mu zindi nzego kugira ngo bahabwe ubutabera, bityo bakaba babisabira indishyi zingana na 2.000.000 Frw, n’inyungu mbonezamusaruro zingana na 1.000.000 Frw kuri Mukandengo Aurélie wamaze kwishyura Habiyambere Ignace 6.663.000 Frw. Barasaba kandi gusubizwa 500.000 Frw batakaje mu gukurikirana urubanza na 1.500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka.

Page 259

223 NDAYISENGA N’UNDI v HABIYAMBERE

[49] Me Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul avuga ko abarega aribo bisiragiza mu nkiko ahubwo bakazisiragizamo Habiyambere Ignace, ko iyo baza kurekura inzu yari yaguze nta kibazo kiba cyarabayeho. Avuga ko aho kugira ngo bashimishwe n’ibyemezo by’Inkiko, bashimishijwe no gutanga ibirego by’urudaca, ko rero aribo bakwiye kwirengera ingaruka zabyo. [50] Avuga ko kuba abarega bakomeje gushingira ku kinyoma, bagasiragiza Habiyambere Ignace mu nkiko bigatuma atakaza igihe n’amafaranga, bikanamuhangayikisha, imirimo ye ikadindira, ingendo akora zitari ngombwa aza ku nkiko no kubonana na Avoka kuko atuye i Muhanga, hari amafunguro afata, ibyo byose akaba abisabira indishyi zingana na 5.000.000 Frw, akubiyemo igihembo cya Avoka cya 2.000.000 Frw, n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza akubiyemo ay’ingendo n’itumanaho n’ibindi angana na 3.000.000 Frw.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [51] Urukiko rurasanga amarafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ay’ikurikiranarubanza asabwa n’abarega aribo Mukandengo Aurélie, Mukandekezi Marie na Ndayisenga Protais bakwiye kuyahabwa kubera ko batsinze urubanza kandi bikaba bigaragara ko bashatse Abavoka bo kubaburanira. Rurasanga ariko 1.500.000 Frw yose hamwe basaba ari menshi, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo bose hamwe bakaba bagenewe 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 300.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [52] Ku birebana n’izindi ndishyi basaba, Urukiko rurasanga ntazo bagomba guhabwa kuko batazisobanuye, kimwe n’izisabwa na Mukandengo Aurélie ku giti cye na we akaba ntazo agomba guhabwa kuko ntacyo atsindiye cy’umwihariko.

Page 260

224 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[53] Ku birebana n’indishyi zisabwa na Habiyambere Ignace, Urukiko rurasanga ntazo agomba guhabwa kubera ko we ntacyo atsindiye muri uru rubanza. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [54] Rwemeje ko ikirego gisaba gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane urubanza RCA 0358/15/HC/KIG-RCA 0410/15/HC/KIG rwaciwe n'Urukiko Rukuru ku itariki ya 29/01/2016 gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [55] Rwemeje ko urwo rubanza ruhindutse ku ndishyi mbonezamusaruro abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie, aribo Mukandengo Aurélie, Mukandekezi Marie na Ndayisenga Protais bagombaga gufatanya guha Habiyambere Ignace; [56] Rwemeje ko amafaranga y’indishyi mbonezamusaruro Habiyambere Ignace yagombaga guhabwa ari 5.265.000 Frw; [57] Rutegetse Habiyambere Ignace guha abazungura ba Mukandekezi Euphrasie, aribo Mukandengo Aurélie, Mukandekezi Marie na Ndayisenga Protais bose hamwe 800.000 Frw akubiyemo ay’ikurikiranarubanza n’ay’igihembo cya Avoka.

Page 261

225

KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCAA 00039/2022/CA (Kamere, P.J.) 13 Ukwakira 2023] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Gusimbuza umucamanza – Urubanza rukiburanishwa – Iyo umucamanza asimbuye undi mu rubanza rukiburanishwa agafata icyemezo cyo gukomereza aho uwo yasimbuye yaragejeje iburanisha, ntiyatesha agaciro ibyemezo byafashwe nuwo yasimbuye. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiye Kabagwira na Uwamahoro barega Seneza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge basaba Urukiko gutegeka uregwa gusubiza umutungo w’umuryango wabo yigabije agatanga n’indishyi zitandukanye. Bavuga ko bari batuye mu mutungo uburanwa ugizwe n’igice cyubatse n’ikindi kitubatse, hanyuma baza kuhava se Kagyibwami amaze gupfa mu mwaka 1988, aho bagarukiye mu mwaka wa 2012, basanga Seneza yarawigabije. Seneza avuga ko uwo mutungo awutunze mu buryo bukurikije Amategeko kuko yawuguze kandi akaba afite amasezerano y’ubukode burambye. Urukiko mu rubanza RC00648/2018/TGI/NYGE rwemeje ko ikirego cya Uwamahoro na Kabagwira nta shingiro gifite, rutegeka ko umutungo uburanwa uguma mu maboko ya Seneza. Kabagwira na Uwamahoro ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru.

Page 262

226 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Seneza mu ngingo ze zo kwiregura atanga inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire ku mpamvu y’uko bwatanzwe igihe cyo kujurira giteganywa n’Amategeko cyararenze. Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi mu rubanza RCA00088/2020/HC/KIG, Urukiko rwemeje ko inzitizi yazamuwe na Seneza nta shingiro ifite. Mbere yuko urubanza ruburanishwa mu mizi umucamanza wari ugize inteko yari yaratangiye kuruburanisha yasimbuwe n’undi, waje gupfundura urubanza hanyuma afata icyemezo ko urubanza rwemeza ko Kabagwira na Uwamahoro bajuriye igihe cyo kujurira cyararenze, bityo rwemeza ko ikirego cyabo cy’ubujurire kitakiriwe. Kabagwira na Uwamahoro ntibishimiye icyo cyemezo bakijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire bavuga ko umucamanza waburanishije urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru atari we warusomye, Bavuga kandi ko umucamanza wafashe icyemezo ku nzitizi yo kutakira ikirego atari we wayiburanishijeho nyamara uwayiburanishijeho yari yararangije kuyifataho icyemezo. Seneza yiregura avuga ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru cyo kutakira ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro na Kabagwira gifite ishingiro kuko bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru igihe cyo kujurira cyarabarenganye. Incamake y’icyemezo: Iyo umucamanza asimbuye undi mu rubanza rukiburanishwa agafata icyemezo cyo gukomereza aho uwo yasimbuye yaragegejeje iburanisha, ntiyatesha agaciro ibyemezo byafashwe n’uwo yasimbuye. Bityo, iyo umucamanza wa mbere yemeje ko ikirego cyakirwa kikaburanishwa, uwamusimbuye akemeza ko akomereza aho uwa mbere yaragejeje ntiyahindukira ngo yemeze ko icyo kirego kitakiriwe.

Page 263

227 KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA

Ikirego kigombaga kwakirwa kikaburanishwa mu mizi mu Rukiko Rukuru, Nta yindi ngwate y’amagarama itanzwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Ingingo ya 74 n’iya158 Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Mu rubanza RC00648/2018/TGI/NYGE Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde bareze Seneza Abias basaba Urukiko gutegeka Seneza Abias kugarura ubutaka bw'umuryango n’ibiwugize yatwaye, basaba n’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avocat. [2] Bavuga ko mbere y’umwaka wa 1988 bari batuye mu mutungo uburanwa mu Mudugudu w’Ubumanzi, Akagari ka Rugenge, Umurenge wa Muhima, Akarere ka Nyarugenge, Umujyi wa Kigali bahafite ubutaka bufite ubutambike bwa 46m, ubuhagarike bwa 90m bwari bugizwe n’igice cyubatse n’ikindi kitubatse. Bavuga ko baje kuhava mu mwaka wa 1988 se Kagyibwami Gabriel amaze gupfa, maze bo bakajyana na nyina iwabo mu Ruhengeri, bakaza kuhagaruka mu mwaka wa 2012,

Page 264

228 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ari bwo bagiye gusaba umutungo wabo bari basanze warigabijwe na Seneza Abias. [3] Seneza Abias avuga ko uwo mutungo atunze bu urimo inzu n’ikinamba, ukaba uherereye mu Mudugudu w'Ubumanzi, Akagari ka Rugenge, Umurenge wa Muhima, Akarere ka Nyarugenge kandi ukagira amasezerano y’ubukode burambye UPI:1/01/06/05/13, kandi ko ubwo butaka yabuguze nk’uko ibimenyetso afite bigaragaza ko bwari ubutaka bw’abantu batandukanye bwagiye buhurizwa hamwe. Avuga ko ubwo butaka ntaho buhuriye n’ubwo abarega bavuga, akanasaba Urukiko gutegeka abamurega kumwishyura indishyi zinyuranye. [4] Ku wa 17/01/2020, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urwo rubanza rwemeza ko ikirego cya Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie nta shingiro gifite, rutegeka ko umutungo uburanwa uguma mu maboko ya Seneza Abias, kandi rutegeka abarega guha Seneza Abias amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 500.000Frw.

[5] Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, ariko mu ngingo ze zo kwiregura Seneza Abias atanga inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire ku mpamvu y’uko bwatanzwe igihe cyo kujurira giteganywa n’amategeko cyaramaze kurenga. [6] Ku wa 19/11/2021, mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi, Urukiko rwafashe icyemezo kuri iyo nzitizi, rwemeza ko nta shingiro ifite, ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde bwakiriwe, kandi ko iburanisha rizakomeza ku itariki ya 13/01/2022 guhera 11h30.

Page 265

229 KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA

[7] Iburanisha ry’urwo rubanza ryongeye gusubukurwa ku wa 12/07/2022, ariko umucamanza ugize inteko yari yaratangiye kuruburanisha yasimbuwe n’undi. Uwo munsi iburanisha ryarapfundikiwe, isomwa ry’urubanza rishyirwa ku wa 11/08/2022, maze kuri uwo munsi Urukiko Rukuru mu guca urubanza rwemeza ko Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde bajuriye igihe cyo kujurira cyararenze, ko ikirego cyabo cy’ubujurire kitakiriwe, kandi rubategeka gufatanya guha Seneza Abias 100.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 250.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [8] Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde ntibishimiye icyo cyemezo bakijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire bavuga ko impamvu bashingiraho ububasha bw’Urukiko bwo kuburanisha ubu bujurire bwa kabiri ari ukuba umucamanza waburanishije urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru atari we warusomye. Bavuga kandi ko umucamanza wafashe icyemezo ku nzitizi yo kutakira ikirego atari we wayiburanishijeho mu gihe uwamubanjirije wari warayiburanishijeho yari yaranarangije kuyifataho icyemezo, ko ibi bytumye hagafatwa ibyemezo bibiri bivuguruzanya mu bihe bitandukanye kandi mu rubanza rumwe. [9] Seneza Abias yiregura avuga ko icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru cyo kutakira ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie gifite ishingiro kuko bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bagaragaza ko batishimiye imikirize yarwo ariko babikora igihe cyarabarenganye kuko bajuriye ku ya 18/02/2020 kandi umunsi wa nyuma wari ku ya 16/02/2020. Avuga ko yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira ubwo bujurire, Urukiko Rukuru rukemeza ko ubujurire bwabo butakiriwe ku mpamvu y’uko bwatanzwe impitagihe.

Page 266

230 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[10] Mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie bwanditswe kuri RCAA00039/2022/CA. Mu iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 04/10/2023, Uwamahoro Berthilde yitabye yunganiwe na Me Ilimubuhanga Jean de Dieu akanahagararira Kabagwira Epiphanie, naho Seneza Abias yunganiwe na Me Mugemanyi Védaste. Kuri uwo munsi Urukiko rwumvise ababuranyi ku ngingo irebana gusa no kumenya niba umucamanza wo mu Rukiko Rukuru yarakoze amakosa yo gufata icyemezo cyo kutakira ikirego kandi atarigeze aburanisha ku nzitizi yarebanaga na byo no gusuzuma niba yari kuvuguruza icyemezo cyafashwe na mugenzi we kandi we ataraburanishije kuri iyo nzitizi, ndetse n’ingaruka ibyo byagira ku migendekere y’uru rubanza. [11] Ku mpaka z’ababuranyi kuri icyo kibazo, Urukiko rusanga icy’ibanze rugomba gusuzuma ari ukumenya niba inteko imaze guhinduka umucamanza yarakomereje urubanza ku byari byaramaze kuruburanishwaho n’undi mucamanza wari wararutangiye cyangwa se niba mu miburanishirize yarwo yarafashe umurongo wo kubanza kuvanaho ibyari byararukozweho n’umucamanza mugenzi we warutangiye ku buryo ari byo byaba byaramugejeje ku cyemezo yafashe cyo kutakira ubujurire kandi mugenzi we wamubanjirije yari yararufashemo ikindi cyemezo cyo kwakira ubwo bujurire. Ibi bikaba ari byo byatuma uru Rukiko rumenya niba ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie bwaragombaga kwakirwa (hubahirijwe icyemezo cyari cyarafashwe n’umucamanza wari ugize inteko yatangiye urubanza) cyangwa se niba butaragombaga kwakirwa (hubahirijwe icyemezo cyafashwe nyuma n’umucamanza wari ugize inteko yaje isimbura iyarutangiye).

Page 267

231 KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA

[12] Isomwa ry’icyemezo cy’Urukiko kuri icyo kibazo ryashyizwe ku wa 13/10/2023, ari nacyo gihe urubanza rusomeweho mu ruhame. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO

BIGIZE URUBANZA Gusuzuma niba ubujurire bwatanzwe na Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde mu Rukiko Rukuru bwaragombaga kwakirwa n’ingaruka byagira ku migendekere y’uru rubanza [13] Uwamahoro Berthilde n’umwunganizi we unahagarariye Kabagwira Epiphanie bavuga ko umucamanza watangiye urubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru yari yatesheje agaciro inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego yari yabyukijwe na Seneza Abias, ko uwo mucamanza amaze kuburanisha urubanza rwahawe itariki ruzasomerwaho, ikagenda yimurwa, ariko ko mu gihe rwari rutarasomwa uwo mucamanza yaje kuva mu rubanza akajyanwa mu yindi mirimo, urubanza rugahabwa undi mucamanza wa kabiri, mu kurusubukura we akavuga ko atazasubira ku byaburanweho mbere, ariko mu guca urubanza akarenga agafata icyemezo cyo guha ishingiro inzitizi. Basaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire kwemeza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ikosa ryo gufata icyemezo ku bintu rwari rwahaye agaciro, bikanatuma hafatwa ibyemezo bibiri bivuguruzanya mu rubanza rumwe. [14] Me Ilimubuhanga Jean de Dieu, wunganiye Uwamahoro Berthilde akanahagararira Kabagwira Epiphanie, asobanura ko inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ryo ku wa 12/07/2022 (PV) igaragaza ko umucamanza ugize inteko ya kabiri yemeje gukomereza ku byari byarakozwe mbere mu rubanza

Page 268

232 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’uwamubanjirije. Avuga ko Urukiko rusanze ibyakozwe n'umucamanza wa kabiri bitari bikwiye, urubanza rwasubira mu Rukiko Rukuru kugira ngo ruruburanishe kuko rwiyambuye mu buryo butari bwo ububasha bwo kuruburanisha mu mizi kuri urwo rwego. [15] Seneza Abias na Me Mugemanyi Vedaste umwunganira bavuga ko n’iyo byaba nk’uko mugenzi we wunganira abajuriye abivuze, umucamanza wa kabiri akaba yarakomereje ku byakozwe n’uwamubanjirije, ko umucamanza wa kabiri yari afite ibigize dosiye byose kandi icy'ingenzi kikaba ari uko ngo yafashe icyemezo ndemyagihugu (d'ordre public), ko ntacyabuza umucamanza gusuzuma ikiri mu mwanzuro, bityo ko ntawavuga ko umuburanyi atumviswe. Bavuga kandi ko Urukiko ruramutse rusanze ibyakozwe n'umucamanza wa kabiri bitari bikwiye, urubanza rwaburanishwa n'uru Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, rugazuzuma mu mizi ikibazo ababuranyi bari bafitanye cyo kumemya nyir’ahantu haburanwa kandi ko urubanza ruramutse ruburanishijwe gutyo nta tegeko ryaba ryishwe.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 74 y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibikurikira: “Iyo umucamanza cyangwa umwe mu bacamanza batangiye urubanza adashoboye kurukomeza kubera impamvu zinyuranye, asimburwa n’undi mucamanza byemejwe na Perezida w’Urukiko bireba. Icyo gihe, iburanisha rikomereza aho ryari rigeze, kandi ibyemezo byafashwe mu rubanza bikagumana agaciro kabyo. Icyakora iyo asanze hari ibyakozwe binyuranyije n'amategeko, hashobora gufatwa icyemezo cyo gutangira iburanisha bundi

Page 269

233 KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA

bushya cyangwa kugira ibihindurwa, hamaze kumvwa ababuranyi, hagasobanurwa impamvu. Umuburanyi utishimiye icyo cyemezo, ashobora kukijuririra hamwe n'urubanza mu mizi’’. [17] Ingingo ya 158, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa haruguru iteganya ibikurikira: “… iyo Urukiko rwajuririwe rusanze urubanza rwari rwaregewe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko urukiko rwaruciye ku rwego rubanza rukavuga ko rutakiriwe kandi rwaragombaga kwakirwa, Urukiko rwajuririwe rurarwakira, rukagaragaza ko rwagombaga kwakirwa ku rwego rwa mbere; rukarutesha agaciro maze rukarusubiza Urukiko rwari rwaruciye kugira ngo ruruburanishe mu mizi, nta yindi ngwate y’amagarama itanzwe”. [18] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ryo ku wa 12/07/2022, ko mu kwinjira bwa mbere mu iburanisha ry’urwo rubanza yari aje asimburamo mugenzi we, umucamanza yatangiye agira ati : Nk’uko mubibona uru rubanza rwari rwaburashijwe n’indi nteko rurapfundikirwa. Reka tubasomere iburanisha ryanyu uko ryagenze kugira ngo namwe mushobore kubyibuka. Niba hari icyo mwifuza kongeraho n’ibyo mwakongeraho kuko ibyo mwaburanye byose turabifite ni ibyo tubasomeye’’. [19] Hashingiwe kuri iyi mvugo umucamanza mushya yari yinjiranye bwa mbere mu iburanisha, uru Rukiko rurasanga nta gushidikanya gukwiye ku kuba icyo umucamanza yari ahisemo mu biteganywa n’ingingo y’itegeko yibukijwe haruguru ari ugukomereza urubanza aho umucamanza wa mbere yari arugereje, bityo ibyemezo byafashwe mu rubanza birimo n’ikirebana no kudaha ishingiro inzitizi yo kutakira ubujurire bikaba byaragombaga kugumana agaciro kabyo.

Page 270

234 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[20] Urukiko rw‘Ubujurire, rubona ku wa 19/11/2021, Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwafashe icyemezo ku nzitizi yari yatanzwe na Seneza Abias yo kutakira ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie ngo kuko bwatanzwe impitagihe, aho rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Kabagwira Epiphanie na Uwamahoro Berthilde bwakiriwe, ko inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kubera kurenza ibihe byo kurega nta shingiro ifite, rwemeza ko iburanisha rizakomeza ku itariki ya 13/01/2022 guhera 11h30. Kuba Umucamanza wa kabiri yarafashe icyemezo cyo kutakira ubujurire bwatanzwe kubera kurenza igihe cyo kujurira kikaza gikuraho icyari cyafashwe n’umucamanza wa mbere atarigeze abanza kugaragariza ababuranyi amakosa yakozwe n’uwamubanjirije ngo anabahe umwanya n’amahirwe byo kuyajyaho impaka, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ibyo binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 74 yibukijwe haruguru. Bityo mu gihe bigaragara ko umucamanza wa kabiri yafashe icyemezo cyo gukomereza urubanza ku byakozwe byose na mugenzi we warumubanjirijemo, uru Rukiko rukaba rusanga icyemezo cyo kwakira ubujurire cyafashwe ku wa 19/11/2021 ari icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kandi kigomba kugumaho, iburanisha rikazakomereza ku zindi ngingo z’ubujurire mu mizi bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie zari zisigaye gusuzumwa. [21] Ku birebana n’Urukiko rugomba kuburanisha mu mizi impaka zitaburanishijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kubera ko nk’uko bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru rwakoze ikosa ryo kutakira ubujurire kandi bwaragomba kwakirwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga hashingiwe ku biteganywa mu ngingo ya 158, igika cya 2 y’Itegeko Nº22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi,

Page 271

235 KABAGWIRA N’UNDI v SENEZA

iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi , uru rubanza rugomba gusubizwa mu Rukiko Rukuru kugira ngo ruburanishwe ku bujurire bwa mbere mu mizi y’ikibazo, abari bajuriye batongeye gutanga indi ngwate y’amagarama. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [22] Rwemeje ko icyemezo cyo kutakira ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie mu rubanza RCA00088/2020/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 11/08/2022 kivanweho; [23] Rwemeje ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamaze gufata icyemezo cyo kwemera kwakira ubujurire bwa Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie mu rubanza RCA00088/2020/HC/KIG, bukaba bugomba kuburanishwa mu mizi; [24] Rutegetse ko Ubwanditsi bw’uru Rukiko rw’Ubujurire busubiza urubanza RCA00088/2020/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 11/08/2022 muri urwo Rukiko kugira ngo ruburanishwe mu mizi kandi hatagize indi ngwate y’amagarama itangwa; [25] Ruvuze ko ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe n’abajuriye kuri uru rwego ihwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

Page 273

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

Page 275

239

ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00004/2022/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Karimunda na Hitiyaremye, J.) 10 Gshyantare 2023] Amategeko agenga ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa – Ingwate – Abatanze umutungo watanzweho ingwate nta burenganzira bafite bwo kwivanaho umutungo wari ubanditseho ubwo amasezerano y’ingwate yakorwaga batabiherewe uburenganzira mu nyandiko ndetse bakabyemererwa. Incamake y ikibazo: Sosiyete Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd hamwe na sosiyete Gisande Trading Ltd yari ihagarariwe n’umuyobozi wayo Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we akaba n’umwishingizi wayo Akingeneye Dally ivuga ko mu bihe bitandukanye bagiye bakorana ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi bw’amabuye y’agaciro, Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd ikajya iha Gisande Trading Ltd amafaranga ikagura ndetse ikanayoherereza amabuye y’agaciro mu gihugu cya Singapore, ariko nyuma biza kugaragara ko Gisande itagiye yubahiriza amasezerano, umuyobozi hamwe n’umwishingizi wayo batanga ingwate zigizwe n’imitungo itimukanwa zizavamo ubwishyu kuko bari bamaze kugeramo sosiyete Advance umwenda munini cyane. Mu gihe sosiyete Advance yari irimo gushaka uburyo yakwandikisha ingwate yahawe, yaje gutungurwa n’uko zimwe muri zo zatambamiwe na Rwanda Revenue Authority kubera

Page 276

240 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imisoro, bituma Advance irega Gisande n’umwishingizi wayo mu rukiko rw’ubucuruzi, isaba Urukiko gutegeka abaregwa kuyisubiza ingwate bari bayihaye kugira ngo zivanwemo ubwishyu, kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zigurishijwe ntihavemo ubwishyu bw’umwenda wose, no kuyiha indishyi zitandukanye. Gisande Trading Ltd hamwe n’umuyobozi wayo Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batanze inzitizi yo kutakira icyo kirego, bashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko mu masezerano impande zombi zagiranye zemeranyije ko nihavuka amakimbirane cyangwa imanza bizakemurwa n’ubukemurampaka bw’i London mu Bwongereza (arbitration clause), mu mizi y’urubanza biregura bavuga ko ikirego kidafite ishingiro, kubera ko Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd itagaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo iregera. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza, rusanga inzitizi yatanzwe na Gisande nta shingiro ifite, mu mizi y’urubanza rusanga ikirego cyatanzwe na Advance kidafite ishingiro. Advance yajuririye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, rwemeza ko ubujurire bufite ishingiro, ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse, rutegeka ko Gisande, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bagomba guhita bafatanya kwandikisha ingwate bahaye Advance mu masezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate bagiranye. Gisande, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibivugwa mu amasezerano y’ubugwate bakoranye kandi ko urwo Rukiko rwabaciye indishyi kandi nta masezerano bishe, uru Rukiko gukosora ayo makosa, bagahabwa indishyi zo gushorwa mu manza.

Page 277

241 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

Mu rubanza rubanziriza urundi, Urukiko rwasanze hari ibisobanuro ababuranyi bakwiye kuruha, bagasobanura icyakorwa kugira ngo izo ngwate zandikwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, no kurushyikiriza ibyangombwa by’imitungo batanzeho ingwate mu masezerano kandi ko Niyigaba Ignace agomba kurwitaba ubwe kugira ngo ibisobanuro rwifuza bibashe kumvikana kurushaho. Gisande yisobanuye ivuga ko imitungo Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batanzeho ingwate igaragara muri exhibit A igihari, iri mu maboko ya Advance kandi ko yabahaye uburenganzira busesuye bwo kuzandikisha (power of attorney) igihe abazitanze badashoboye kuboneka, ivuga kandi ko mu masezerano, Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd yemeye gukomeza kuyifasha iyiha amafaranga, we n’umugore we bemera gutanga ingwate ku mutungo wabo amaze guhabwa amafaranga bumvikanye, ariko ko iyo nguzanyo itatanzwe, bituma ingwate zitandikishwa, imikoranire irahagarara. Advance nayo yisobanura ivuga ko Akingeneye Dally na Niyigaba Ignace aribo batayubahirije, kuko bafashe umutungo batanzeho ingwate bawukura ku mazina yabo bawandika ku wundi muntu, bikaba bitari gushoboka kwandikisha ingwate itacyanditse ku bayitanze. Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo bavuga ko basabye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kudasuzuma ubujurire bwatanzwe na Advance bwerekeranye no kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zigurishijwe, kubera ko itari yaregeye kwishyurwa umwenda. Bavuga na none ko nta mwenda wemejwe mu cyemezo cy’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza rujuririrwa, ko

Page 278

242 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

icyo Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd yasabaga kwari uko ingwate zajya mu mazina y’abazitanze zikandikishwa kugira ngo zizavemo ubwishyu. AMT Ltd yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, isaba ko urubanza RCOMAA 00091/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane kuko rwirengagije ko kuva ku rwego rwa mbere Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo ntacyo bayinengaga ku bijyanye n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano y’inguzanyo bagiranye, isaba uru rukiko gutegeka ko ingwate zatanzwe ubwo amasezerano y’ inguzanyo yakorwaga zandukurwa zigasubizwa ku mazina yabazitanze. Incamake y’icyemezo: Abatanze umutungo watanzweho ingwate nta burenganzira bari bafite bwo kwivanaho umutungo wari ubanditseho ubwo amasezerano y’ingwate yakorwaga batabiherewe uburenganzira mu nyandiko ndetse bakabyemererwa. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuwareze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ingingo ya 4. Nta manza zifashishijwe.

Page 279

243 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

Urubanza I.IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kuri RCOM 01669/2019/TC, AMT Ltd irega Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we Akingeneye Dally, isobanura ko :  Mu bihe bitandukanye yagiye ikorana na Gisande Trading Ltd, ihagarariwe na Niyigaba Ignace ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi bw’amabuye y’agaciro yo mu bwoko bwa Tin and Tantalium nkuko bigaragazwa n’amasezerano yo ku wa 25/05/2018, AMT Ltd ikaba yarahaga amafaranga Gisande Trading Ltd hanyuma nayo ikagura ndetse ikanayoherereza amabuye y’agaciro muri Singapore;  Yageze aho isanga Gisande Trading Ltd iyigezemo umwenda munini, igira impungenge ku myishyurirwe yayo, nyuma yo kurebera hamwe uko ikibazo cyakemuka, yumvikana n’umuyobozi wayo Niyigaba Ignace ko bakorana andi masezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate, isaba amakuru ku mitungo yagombaga guhabwaho ingwate, mu ibaruwa yo ku wa 7/11/2018, Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda kiyigaragariza ko iyo mitungo yanditse ku mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we Akingeneye Dally. Ku wa 24/12/2018 basinye amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ ingwate, aho bemeranyije ko umwenda Gisande

Page 280

244 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Trading Ltd iyibereyemo ungana na 5,380,456 USD, akubiyemo 4,680,456 USD yari isanzwe iyibereyemo na 700,000 USD y’inguzanyo y’inyongera. Muri ayo masezerano Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally nabo biyemeje kwishingira umwenda Gisande Trading Ltd ibereyemo AMT Ltd batanga ingwate ku mitungo yabo bwite igizwe n’amazu atatu n’ikigo cy’ishuri biherereye mu Karere ka Kayonza;  Imikoranire hagati y’impande zombi yarakomeje ariko Gisande Trading Ltd ntiyuzuza inshingano zayo zo kohereza amabuye y’agaciro ahwanye n’amafaranga yumvikanyweho kuko yohereje amabuye afite agaciro ka 700,000 USD gusa nkuko bigaragazwa na Invoices (shipment remitences) zo ku wa 11/12/2018 no ku wa 20/12/2018, yishyura na 680,456 USD, hasigara umwenda ugera kuri miliyoni 4,7 z’amadolari y’Amerika (USD), kuva muri 2019 ikaba nta mabuye yongeye koherereza AMT Ltd;  Mu gihe AMT Ltd yari irimo gushaka uburyo yakwandikisha ingwate, yatunguwe no gusanga zimwe muri zo zitambamiwe n’Ikigo cy’imisoro n’Amahôro kubera imisoro, naho ikigo cy’ishuri cyari cyanditse kuri Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we Akingeneye Dally nk’umutungo wabo bwite ubwo basinyaga amasezerano, baracyandikishije ku mazina ya sosiyete yitwa International Technical School of Kigali Ltd (ITS of Kigali Ltd)babereye abanyamigabane 100%, ibyo byose rero bikaba byaratumye AMT Ltd ibura uko

Page 281

245 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

yandikisha ingwate zumvikanyweho mu masezerano;  Nyuma yo kubona ko Gisande Trading Ltd itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye yohereza amabuye y’agaciro ahwanye n’agaciro k’umwenda yahawe cyangwa iwishyura, n’ abishingizi bayo bakaba batarubahirije amasezerano y’ingwate, ku wa 15/05/2019 AMT Ltd yabandikiye ibaruwa y’integuza ibihanangiriza, ariko ntibagira icyo babikoraho, nibwo ku itariki ya 09/08/2019 yiyambaje Urukiko kugira ngo amasezerano yubahirizwe, isaba ko abaregwa bategekwa kugarura ku mazina yabo ishuri ribaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229, rikandikishwa muri RDB nk’ingwate yayo, kugira ngo uwo mutungo uzabashe kuvanwamo ubwishyu bw’umwenda Gisande Trading Ltd iyibereyemo, ndetse bakanategekwa kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zigurishijwe ntihavemo ubwishyu bw’umwenda wose. [2] Gisande Trading Ltd n’ abishingizi bayo batanze inzitizi yo kutakira icyo kirego bavuga ko mu masezerano yo ku wa 25/05/2018, impande zombi zemeranyije ko nihavuka amakimbirane cyangwa imanza bizakemurwa n’ubukemurampaka bw’i London mu Bwongereza. Ku bijyanye n’imizi y’urubanza bireguye bavuga ko ikirego kidafite ishingiro kubera ko AMT Ltd itagaragaza ikosa bakoze kuko yasinye amasezerano y’ingwate ku wa 24/12/2018 ifite amakuru ku mitungo yahaweho ingwate, bakaba ntacyo bahinduye kuri iyo mitungo.

Page 282

246 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[3] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza N° RCOM 01669/2019/TC ku wa 31/10/2019. Ku bijyanye n’inzitizi, rwemeje ko itakiriwe kuko amasezerano ababuranyi bagiranye ku wa 25/05/2018 atariyo aregerwa mu rubanza, ahubwo ari ayo bakoranye ku wa 24/12/2018 ateganya ko mu gihe havuka ibibazo bitashobora gukemurwa mu bwumvikane, byaregerwa inkiko zo mu Rwanda. Ku bijyanye n’imizi y’urubanza, rwemeje ko ikirego cya AMT Ltd nta shingiro gifite, ruyitegeka kwishyura Gisande Trading Ltd amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza ahwanye na 600,000 Frw. [4] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rwasobanuye ko rutategeka ko umutungo ugarurwa ku mazina y’abayihaye ingwate kuko AMT Ltd yagize uburangare bwo kudahita iyandikisha mu rwego rubishinzwe, ikaba itagaragaza ko nyuma yo guhabwa amakuru ku banditseho imitungo n’Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda mu kwezi kwa 11/2018 no kugirana amasezerano n’abaregwa mu kwezi kwa 12/2018 yatambamiye ihinduzamutungo ngo habe harabayeho amakosa yakozwe n’urwego rwakoze iryo hinduzamutungo kandi waratambamiwe. [5] AMT Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, ivuga ko kuba Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rutaremeje ko umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wandukuzwa kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd ukagarurwa mu mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we Akingeneye Dally kugira ngo uzandikishwe muri RDB nk’ingwate yahawe, binyuranyije n’amasezerano bagiranye ku wa 24/12/2018, inenga kandi urwo rukiko kuba ntacyo rwavuze ku byo rwasabwe gutegeka ko mu gihe ingwate zitakwishyura umwenda wose, abaregwa bategekwa kwishyura amafaranga azaba asigaye.

Page 283

247 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

[6] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaciye urubanza N° RCOMA 00946/2019/HCC ku wa 08/10/2020, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa AMT Ltd bufite ishingiro, ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse, rutegeka Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally gufatanya kwandikisha ingwate bahaye AMT Ltd mu masezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate bagiranye ku wa 24/12/2018, byaba ngombwa hagahinduzwa amazina ya ba nyir’imitungo kugira ngo ubwo bugwate bushobore kwandikwa, mu gihe izo ngwate zaba zitabashije kwishyura umwenda wose AMT Ltd iberewemo, umwenda usigaye ukishyurwa na Gisande Trading Ltd na Niyigaba Ignace. Rwategetse kandi Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally gufatanya guha AMT Ltd amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 3,500,000 Frw ku rwego rwa mbere, 1,500,000 Frw mu bujurire, yose hamwe akaba 5,000,000 Frw. [7] Urwo rukiko rwasobanuye ko ibimenyetso bigizwe n’amabaruwa Umubitsi Mukuru w’impapurompamo z’ubutaka yandikiye Me Rwigamba Molly ( Avoka wa AMT Ltd ) ku wa 07/11/2018 no ku wa 10/06/2019, agaragaza ko amakuru AMT Ltd yahawe ku mutungo ubaruwe kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 yahinduwe nyuma yo ku wa 24/12/2018, ubwo ababuranyi basinyaga amasezerano, kuko ibaruwa ya mbere yagaragazaga ko umutungo wanditse kuri Niyigaba Ignace, naho iya kabiri ikaba igaragaza ko wanditse kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, bikaba bigaragaza neza ko Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batubahirije amasezerano y’ingwate bagiranye na AMT Ltd. Rwanzuye ko hashingiwe ku byo ababuranyi bumvikanyeho mu masezerano no ku ngingo ya 64 n’iya 65 z’Itegeko Nº 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, abaregwa bategetswe kwandikisha ingwate basezeranye na AMT Ltd, na

Page 284

248 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cyane ko sosiyete ITS of Kigali Ltd umutungo UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wanditseho ari iya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally 100% nk’uko inyandiko yiswe Full Registration Information of Domestic company yatanzwe na RDB ku wa 09/10/2018 ibigaragaza. [8] Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bajuririye Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, bavuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibi bikurikira:  Kuba imitungo Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batanzeho ingwate igaragara muri Exhibit A y’amasezerano y’ingwate bakoranye igihari kandi iri mu maboko yabo, bakaba ntacyo bayikozeho gihuye n’ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 3, agace ka 31 n’aka 212 y’amasezerano y’ingwate yo ku wa 24/12/2018 bakoranye na AMT Ltd;  Kuba AMT Ltd itarigeze igaragaza ko habaye impinduka ku ngwate yahawe, niba yaragurishijwe cyangwa igatangwaho ingwate ku wundi muntu bikozwe na Niyigaba Ignace, cyangwa ko yashatse kwandikisha ingwate yahawe ntibiyishobokere, cyane ko bari barayihaye uburenganzira busesuye bwo kuzandikisha (Power of Attorney) igihe abazitanze badashoboye kuboneka;

1 The Debtor and the Guarantor agree not to mortage or sell property described in Exhibit A and any developments thereon, to any entity whatsoever without the knowledge and written consent from the Creditor. 2 The Collateral as described in Exhibit A and any future developments thereon shall remain the Creditor security up to the total reimbursement of the facility.

Page 285

249 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

 Kuba Ishuri ITS of Kigali Ltd ari iry’abatanze ingwate, bivuze ko uwo mutungo ukiri mu maboko yabo, hakaba rero ntacyabuza ko AMT Ltd yabegera ingwate ikandikishwa;  Kuba AMT Ltd itararegeye kwishyurwa umwenda ku buryo wari gufatwaho icyemezo, ndetse ikaba itavuga ko ingwate yahawe zitavamo ubwishyu mu gihe zitanditswe muri RDB, no mu gihe kandi zitaragurishwa ngo hagaragazwe umwenda usigaye ngo abe ariwo uregerwa nk’uko bikubiye mu gace ka 20 k’amasezerano y’ingwate yo ku wa 24/12/2018;  Kuba Gisande Trading Ltd yaragaragaje ko itahagaze kwishyura nk’uko bigaragazwa n’ibaruwa AMT Ltd yayandikiye ku wa 18/02/2020, aho yagaragazaga ko umwenda iberewemo kuri iyo tariki ungana na 3,772,064.15 USD, ibyo bikaba bivuguruza ibikubiye mu kirego cyatanzwe na AMT Ltd, aho ivuga ko Gisande Trading Ltd iyifitiye umwenda ungana na miliyoni 4,7 z’amadolari y’Amerika. [9] Izo ngingo z’ubujurire nizo zaburanyweho mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 28/06/2021, ariko ubwo urubanza rwapfundurwaga ku wa 11/10/2021, Niyigaba Ignace yitabye ubwe nk’uko byari byategetswe n’Urukiko, yavuze ko ingwate itandikishijwe kuko AMT Ltd itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye. Yasobanuye ko Gisande Trading Ltd yagize igihombo bitewe n’uko ibiciro by’amabuye y’agaciro byaguye n’ikibazo cy’amabuye yibwe, ko ku wa 24/12/2018 yagiranye na AMT Ltd andi masezerano, aho buri ruhande rwari rufite ibyo rwiyemeje. Ku ruhande rwa AMT

Page 286

250 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ltd yagombaga gukomeza gufasha Gisande Trading Ltd iyiha amafaranga, naho we n’umugore we bagatanga ingwate ku mutungo wabo Gisande Trading Ltd imaze guhabwa amafaranga bumvikanye, ariko ko iyo nguzanyo itatanzwe, bituma ingwate zitandikishwa imikoranire irahagarara. Yavuze kandi ko kugira ngo umutungo wandikweho ubugwate, babanza kumvikana na AMT Ltd, ikamuha amafaranga yemeye mu masezerano. [10] Mu rubanza N° RCOMA 00091/2020/CA rwaciwe ku wa 05/11/2021, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bufite ishingiro, rutegeka AMT Ltd guha abajuriye 1,500,000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka ku nzego zose baburanyeho na 50.000 Frw y’amagarama y’urubanza. [11] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwafashe icyemezo rushingiye ku mpamvu zikurikira:  Ntabwo Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bagombaga gutegekwa kwandikisha ingwate basezeranye na AMT Ltd mu gihe nayo itubahirije inshingano zayo ngo itange inguzanyo yemeye ihwanye na 700, 000 USD, yiyongera ku mwenda wari usanzwe uhari (4,680,456 USD), ikaba itanagaragaza icyakozwe kugira ngo imikoranire myiza ikomeze hashingiwe ku byo bumvikanye ko izakomeza gutera inkunga Gisande Trading Ltd nka mbere iyiha amafaranga hakurikijwe uko ibintu bizaba byifashe;  Umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wahoze wanditse kuri Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally ubwo amasezerano y’ingwate yakorwaga ubu wanditse kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd.

Page 287

251 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

Ntaho rwahera rutegeka ko wandukurwa kuri iryo shuri ngo wandikwe kubo wari wanditsweho mbere kandi iryo shuri ritararezwe mu rubanza;  Ku birebana n’umwenda, kugeza ubu AMT Ltd nta ngwate ifite kuko itazandikishije, bityo ikaba itanatekereza kugurisha ingwate idafite. Mu gihe kandi nta kirego kirebana n’ingano y’umwenda cyatanzwe, ndetse ngo ube warafashweho icyemezo, ntaho rwahera rutegeka Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally kwishyura umwenda utaramenyekana. [12] Ku wa 20/11/2021, AMT Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Rwigamba Molly, yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, isaba ko urubanza N° RCOMAA 00091/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 05/11/2021 rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane. Amaze gusuzuma ubwo busabe, mu cyemezo No 034/CJ/2022 cyo ku wa 25/02/2022, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yemeje ko urubanza rwoherezwa mu Bwanditsi bw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kugira ngo rwandikwe mu bitabo ruzaburanishwe, ruhabwa Nᵒ RS/INJUST/RCOM 00004/2022/SC. [13] Urubanza rwahamagawe bwa mbere ku wa 14/06/2022, Urukiko rusanga AMT Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Rwigamba Molly hamwe na Me Dushimimana Reuben, naho Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bahagarariwe na Me Hakizimana Francois Xavier. Abahagarariye AMT Ltd bamenyesheje Urukiko ko mu mitungo ivugwa mu masezerano AMT Ltd yagiranye n’abaregwa, umutungo ifiteho ikibazo isaba ko wafatwaho icyemezo ari ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 ubu wanditse kuri sosiyete ITS of Kigali Ltd. Uwo munsi

Page 288

252 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

iburanisha ntiryapfundikiwe kugira ngo iryo shuri rigobokeshwe mu rubanza. Urukiko rwategetse kandi ko nta hererekanya rigomba kongera gukorwa kuri uwo mutungo kugeza urubanza rurangiye. [14] Iburanisha ryasubukuwe ku wa 12/10/2022, AMT Ltd, Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bahagarariwe nka mbere, ITS of Kigali Ltd nayo yitabye, ihagarariwe na Me Karenzi Jean Paul. Uyu yamenyesheje Urukiko ko iyo sosiyete itacyanditse kuri Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we Akingeneye Dally, ahubwo ko yanditse k’uwitwa Ingabire Jeannine kuva tariki ya 11/02/2022 nk’uko bigaragazwa n’inyandiko ya RDB yiswe Full Registration Information of Domestic Company, ndetse ko umutungo uburanwa wahaweho ingwate KCB Bank Rwanda Plc ubu yahindutse BPR Bank Plc. Abahagarariye AMT Ltd, bashingiye kuri ayo makuru basabye ko BPR Bank Plc yagobokeshwa mu rubanza. Nyuma yo kumva abandi baburanyi icyo bavuga kuri ubwo busabe, Urukiko rwemeje ko iburanisha risubitswe kugira ngo BPR Bank Plc igobokeshwe mu rubanza. [15] Urubanza rwasubukuwe ku wa 13/12/2022, AMT Ltd, Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally, ITS of Kigali Ltd bahagarariwe nka mbere, BPR Bank Plc nayo yitabye, ihagarariwe na Me Buzayire Angèle. [16] Hakurikijwe imyanzuro ITS of Kigali Ltd na BPR Bank Plc bashyize muri system, basaba ku bw’ibanze kutaba ababuranyi mu rubanza kuko basanga kugobokeshwa bwa mbere mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga binyuranye n’ingingo ya 116 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, Urukiko rwibukije ko igobokeshwa ryabo

Page 289

253 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

ryamaze gufatwaho icyemezo kandi ko ibirebana no kugobokeshwa mu manza z’akarengane byamaze gufatwaho umurongo mu manza zinyuranye. [17] Iburanisha ryakomeje mu mizi, hasuzumwa ibibazo bikurikira:  Kumenya niba umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wakwandukurwa kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, ugasubizwa ku mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally, kugira ngo ushobore kwandikwa nk’ingwate ihawe AMT Ltd;  Kumenya niba abaregwa bagomba gutegekwa kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zigurishijwe ntihavemo ubwishyu bwose;  Indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza. II. IBIBAZO BISUZUMWA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO: A. Kumenya niba umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wakwandukurwa kuri its of kigali ltd, ugasubizwa ku mazina ya niyigaba ignace na akingeneye dally, kugira ngo ushobore kwandikwa nk’ingwate ya amt ltd [18] Me Rwigamba Molly hamwe na Me Dushimimana Reuben bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko AMT Ltd bahagarariye itubahirije amasezerano yagiranye na Gisande Trading Ltd ku wa 24/12/2018 yo kuyiha inguzanyo y’inyongera ya 700, 000 USD, rugendeye gusa ku mvugo idahuje n’ukuri Niyigaba Ignace yavugiye muri urwo rukiko ku wa 11/10/2021,

Page 290

254 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ubwo urubanza rwapfundurwaga agategekwa kwitaba ubwe, akumvikanisha ko bahungishije umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 nkana kuko AMT Ltd itubahirije amasezerano bagiranye ngo ibahe inguzanyo y’inyongera yari yarabemereye. [19] Bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwabyemeje rwirengagije ko kuva ku rwego rwa mbere Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo ntacyo banengaga AMT Ltd ku bijyanye n’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano y’inguzanyo bagiranye, bakaba ahubwo baraburanaga bavuga ko ikirego cyayo nta shingiro gifite kuko itagaragaza ko habaye impinduka ku mutungo bayihayeho ingwate nyuma y’amasezerano bakoranye, cyangwa ko yashatse kwandikisha ingwate yahawe ntibishoboke kuko yahawe uburenganzira busesuye bwo kwandikisha ingwate (Power of Attorney ) igihe abazitanze badashoboye kuboneka. [20] Bavuga kandi ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwirengagije ibimenyetso byari muri dosiye bigaragaza ko tariki ya 11/12/2018 AMT Ltd yishyuye 400,000 USD, ku itariki ya 20/12/2018 naho yishyura 300,000 USD, yose hamwe aba 700,000 USD. Basobanura ko kugira ngo amasezerano yo ku wa 24/12/2018 akorwe, AMT Ltd yari imaze igihe iha Gisande Trading Ltd amadolari kugira ngo iyigurire amabuye y’agaciro, ariko ntibyubahirize, bituma basubira mu mibare noneho bemeranya ko AMT Ltd igiye kuyongerera 700,000 USD, asanga umwenda isanzwe iyibereyemo ungana na 4,680,456 USD, amasezerano mashya AMT Ltd iyasinyira Singapore ku itariki ya 6/12/2018, Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo nabo bayasinya ku wa 24/12/2018 imbere ya Noteri wo mu Rwanda kuko bagombaga gusinya ari uko bamaze kubona iriya nguzanyo y’inyongera ya 700,000 USD.

Page 291

255 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

[21] Bavuga kandi ko amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate yo ku wa 24/12/2018 akwiye gusesengurwa hamwe n’amasezerano yayabanjirije yo ku itariki 25/05/2018 ajyanye n’ibikorwa by’ubucuruzi bw’amabuye y’agaciro bakoranaga, AMT Ltd ikaba yarahaga Gisande Trading Ltd amafaranga, nayo ikagura ndetse ikanayoherereza amabuye y’agaciro muri Singapore, ari nayo mpamvu mu iriburiro (préambule) ry’amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate bavuga ko Gisande Trading Ltd isanzwe ibereyemo AMT Ltd umwenda wa 4,680,000 USD, bikaba byumvikanisha ko ingwate zivugwa muri aya masezerano zishingiraga uwo mwenda wari usanzwe uhari, hiyongereyeho umwenda mushya wa 700.000 USD. [22] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo baburanishije kuva ku rwego rwa mbere ko AMT Ltd itagaragaza ikosa bakoze kuko yahawe uburenganzira bwo kwandikisha ingwate (Power of Attorney), bavuga ko nubwo yari yarahawe ubwo burenganzira, yazitiwe n’uko ibyangombwa by’ingwate yari yarahawe byari fotokopi kandi kwandikisha ingwate bikorwa hari iby’umwimerere (orginal). Bavuga kandi ko ibyo Niyigaba Ignace yiyemereye mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ko bahungishije ingwate ari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko kutandikisha ingwate bitabaturutseho, ahubwo ari we n’umugore we byaturutseho. [23] Bavuga kandi ko uhereye igihe amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate yasinyiwe ku wa 24/12/2018, n’igihe umutungo wandikiwe kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd ku wa 19/03/2019, harimo amezi atatu gusa, ko AMT Ltd itari gutekereza ko Niyigaba Ignace, nk’umuntu bakoranaga bafitanye icyizere, ari buhite yivanaho umutungo ku buryo yari gutambamira ihererekanya ryawo bakimara gusinya amasezerano, cyane cyane ko Niyigaba

Page 292

256 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Ignace yavugaga ko adahari yagiye mu rugendo. Bavuga kandi ko aho bigaragariye ko umutungo utacyanditse kuri Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally, AMT Ltd yahise itanga ikirego isaba ko ugarurwa ku mazina yabo kugira ngo ushobore kwandikwa muri RDB nk’ingwate ihawe. [24] Me Rwigamba Molly hamwe na Me Dushimimana Reuben bavuga ko akandi karengane kari mu rubanza N° RCOMAA 00091/2020/CA gashingiye ku kuba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwarasanze umutungo uburanwa wari wanditse koko kuri Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally ubwo amasezerano y’ingwate yakorwaga, ariko rukabirengaho rukemeza ko batategekwa kubahiriza amasezerano bagiranye basubiza umutungo ku mazina yabo kugira ngo wandikwe muri RDB nk’ingwate ya AMT Ltd, rwitwaje ko ishuri ITS of Kigali Ltd umutungo wanditseho ritarezwe muri uru rubanza. [25] Bavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwabyemeje rwirengagije ko ibyo Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bakoze binyuranyije n’amasezerano bakoranye, bikaba kandi bitubahirije ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko N°45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 14/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa, ndetse n’umurongo watanzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza N° RCOMAA 0008/14/CS rwaciwe ku wa 22/07/2016, haburana Mujawimana Rose n’abandi na Banki ya Kigali, aho rwasobanuye, mu gika cya 17, ko amasezerano y’ingwate iyo akozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko hagati y’abayagiranye kandi ko adashobora guteshwa agaciro kabone n’iyo ingwate yaba itarandikishijwe. [26] Bavuga ko Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bamaze gutsinda mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire,

Page 293

257 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

bakujeho itambama ryari ryarakozwe na AMT Ltd ku mutungo uburanwa, babonye ku itariki ya 03/03/2022 hatanzwe ikirego cy’akarengane, ku wa 14/03/2022 bihutira kujya muri KCB Bank Rwanda Plc yahindutse BPR Bank Plc kuwutangaho ingwate hasabwa inguzanyo y’ishuri ryabo ITS of Kigali Ltd, bashaka n’undi munyamigabane bamwandikaho ishuri ngo bigaragare ko ritakiri iryabo , ibyo byose bikaba bigaragaza uburiganya bwa Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally. [27] Bavuga ko kuba Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally uwo mutungo barawuhaye ITS of Kigali Ltd, byafatwa nko gutanga umutungo wibwe, ko basanga ihererekanya ryose ryabaye ku mutungo ufite UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 nyuma y’amasezerano yo ku wa 24/12/2018, ndetse n’igwatiriza rindi muri BPR Bank Plc, bikwiye guteshwa agaciro, maze umutungo ukagarurwa ku mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally kugira ngo wandikwe muri RDB nk’ingwate ya AMT Ltd. [28] Me Hakizimana Francois Xavier uhagarariye Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally avuga ko amadolari 700,000 avugwa n’ababuranira AMT Ltd yatanzwe hubahirizwa amasezerano yo ku wa 25/05/2018, aho bemeranyije ko Gisande Trading Ltd izajya ihabwa amadolari yo kugura amabuye y’agaciro, noneho uko iyagemuye bakagenda bakuramo amafaranga ahwanye n’agaciro kayo kugeza umwenda urangiye, ko atatanzwe hubahirizwa amasezerano yo ku itariki ya 24/12/2018 kuko yo yari atarakorwa, ariya madolari akaba atari gutangwa mbere y’uko amasezerano asinywa. [29] Yabajijwe uko ahuza ariya madolari yohererejwe Gisande Trading Ltd ku wa 11/12/2018 no ku wa 20/12/2018, n’ibikubiye mu masezerano yo ku wa 25/05/2018, avuga ko aya masezerano yaje avugurura

Page 294

258 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ayo ku itariki ya 08/01/2017, ari nayo yatangiweho 700.000 USD. [30] Avuga ko hari n’andi masezerano bongeye kugirana nyuma ku itariki ya 01/04/2019, bumvikana ubundi buryo bw’imikoranire n’uburyo pourcentage zizajya zigabanwa ku mabuye yagemuwe, ariko ko nayo atubahirijwe, ari nabyo byatumye Niyigaba Ignace, nyuma yo kubona ko Gisande Trading Ltd ibuze amafaranga, yagurishije ingwate abyumvikanyeho na AMT Ltd. [31] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo ababuranira AMT Ltd bavuga ko Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batubahirije amasezerano y’ingwate bagiranye, avuga ko mu ngingo ya 3, agace ka 19 y’ayo masezerano banditse ko impande zombi zizafatanya kwandikisha ingwate ariko ko mu gihe abatanze ingwate bataboneka, uwahawe ingwate yemerewe kubikora abahagarariye (Power of Atorney), ko rero AMT Ltd itavuga ko yabuze Niyigaba Ignace ngo bandikishe ingwate kandi yarahawe uburenganzira bwo kuzandikisha. [32] Naho kubyo abahagarariye AMT Ltd bavuga ko bagiye kwandikisha umutungo yahaweho ingwate bagasanga umutungo utakibaruye kuri Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally, ahubwo ubaruye kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, avuga ko ibyo byabaye inkiko zarabavanyeho inshingano yo kwandikisha ingwate. [33] Me Karenzi Jean Paul avuga ko ishuri ITS of Kigali Ltd ahagarariye ryaguzwe na Ingabire Jeannine ku itariki ya 11/02/2022 nkuko bigaragazwa n’icyangombwa cyatanzwe na RDB kiri muri dosiye, arigurana n’imitungo yayo yose, harimo umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229, ko awugura yasanze abamugurishije bari bawutunze mu buryo bukurikije

Page 295

259 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

amategeko kuko nta kindi kibazo wari ufite, ukaba utari utambamiwe cyangwa uriho ubugwate, bityo tariki ya 11/03/2022 ishuri riwutangaho ingwate kugira ngo rihabwe umwenda na KCB Bank Rwanda Plc yahindutse BPR Bank Plc, ubu ukaba warandikishijwe nk’ ingwate ya banki muri RDB. [34] Avuga ko uwo mutungo ITS of Kigali Ltd iwutunze ku bw’ineza (bonne foi), ko ayandi masezerano yaba yarabaye kuri uwo mutungo yabazwa impande zayagiranye, haba harimo ibitarubahirijwe bikabazwa Niyigaba Ignace, Akingeneye Dally, Gisande Trading Ltd ku bibareba na Advanced Material Trading Pte Ltd ku biyireba. [35] Me Buzayire Angèle, uhagarariye BPR Bank Plc , avuga ko kugeza ubu AMT Ltd nta ngwate ifite kuko itazandikishije, ko ingwate zivugwa mu masezerano AMT Ltd yagiranye na Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo zari kugira agaciro iyo zandikwa hubahirizwa ingingo ya 4 y’Itegeko N° 10/2009 ryo ku wa 04/05/2009 ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa igena ko ubugwate bugira agaciro iyo bwanditswe mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru. [36] Avuga ko ibyo AMT Ltd ivuga ko yabuze umwimerere w’icyangombwa cy’ubutaka kugira ngo ibashe kwandikisha ingwate bitahabwa agaciro kuko yashoboraga gushingira ku ngingo ya 213 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 uberewemo umwenda wese cyangwa umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu, ashobora gusaba Umubitsi w’inyandikompamo z’ubutaka, ushinzwe ubutaka ku Murenge cyangwa ku Karere w’aho ikitimukanwa kiri kubuza umubereyemo umwenda gukora

Page 296

260 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ihinduzamutungo ry’ibintu bye bitimukanwa, maze igatambamira ihererekanya ry’umutungo yahaweho ingwate, nyuma igatanga ikirego isaba iyubahirizwa ry’amasezerano y’ingwate nk’uko iyo ngingo ibiteganya, kuba itarabikoze bikaba byumvikanisha ko amasezerano y’ingwate atakiriho, hasigaye gusa ay’umwenda, bityo ko AMT Ltd yafatwa nk’uberewemo umwenda udafite ingwate (créancier chirographaire). [37] Avuga kandi ko nta kosa na rimwe cyangwa uburiganya ubwo aribwo bwose BPR Bank Plc yakoze mu gihe yandikishaga ingwate, kuba iyi banki yaritwararitse ku byo itegeko ryerekeye ubugwate ku mutungo utimukanwa risaba mbere yo guha umwenda ITS of Kigali Ltd, akaba atariyo yakwamburwa uburenganzira kandi ariyo yubahirije amategeko.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA i. Ku bijyanye n’ibyo AMT Ltd ivuga ko yubahirije amasezerano yagiranye na Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo. [38] Mbere yo gusuzuma niba umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI 1/02/11/02/229 wasubizwa ku mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally kugira ngo uzashobore kwandikishwa mu gitabo cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru muri RDB nk’ingwate ihawe AMT Ltd, harabanza hasuzumwe niba, nk’uko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwabyemeje, AMT Ltd itarubahirije inshingano zayo zijyanye no gutanga inguzanyo y’inyongera ivugwa mu masezerano yo ku wa 24/12/2018, bityo ikaba nayo itasaba ko Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo bategekwa kubahiriza inshingano zabo zirebana n’ingwate bemeye gutanga muri ayo masezerano.

Page 297

261 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

[39] Iki kibazo kirasuzumwa hakurikijwe ibiteganyijwe mu ngingo ya 9 y‘ Itegeko N° 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko ibimenyetso (…..) bishobora gutangwa hakoreshejwe inyandiko, ubuhamya, uburyo bwo gucukumbura, ukwiyemerera k’umuburanyi cyangwa herekanywe ibindi bintu bifatika, ndetse n’ingingo ya 12 y’Itegeko Nº 22/2018 ryo kuwa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, igena ko urega agomba kugaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo aregera. Iyo abibuze, uwarezwe aratsinda. Naho uvuga ko atagitegetswe gukora icyo yategekwaga gukora cyagaragajwe n’ibimenyetso agomba kugaragaza impamvu zakimukuyeho. Iyo abiburiye ibimenyetso, uwo baburana aramutsinda. [40] Urukiko rurasanga muri dosiye y’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, harimo inyandiko 2 ziswe Payment detail, zigaragaza ko tariki ya 11/12/2018 AMT Ltd yoherereje Gisande Trading Ltd 400,000 USD, nanone tariki ya 20/12/2018 yohereza 300,000 USD, yose hamwe aba 700,000 USD. Izo nyandiko nizo AMT Ltd ishingiraho ivuga ko yahaye Gisande Trading Ltd inguzanyo y’inyongera ivugwa mu masezerano bagiranye, ariko Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo bakavuga ko ayo madolari atishyuwe hubahirizwa amasezerano yo ku wa 24/12/2018, ko ahubwo yishyuwe hubahirizwa amasezerano yo ku wa 08/01/2017 yavuguruwe n’ayo ku itariki ya 25/05/2018, kandi ko inguzanyo y’inyongera ya 700.000 USD itari gutangwa mbere y’uko amasezerano yo ku wa 24/12/2018 asinywa. [41] Urukiko rurasanga mu masezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate ababuranyi bagiranye ku wa 24/12/2018, nta ngingo n’imwe igaragaza ko hari umwenda AMT Ltd igomba kwishyura

Page 298

262 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Gisande Trading Ltd, usibye ahavugwa gusa ko igomba gukora uko ishoboye kugira ngo imikoranire myiza hagati y’impande zombi ikomeze. Muri ayo masezerano abayashyizeho umukono bemeza ahubwo ko Gisande Trading Ltd ibereyemo AMT Ltd umwenda wa 5,380,456 USD, akubiyemo 4,680,456 USD y’umwenda yari isanzwe iyibereyemo na 700,000 USD y’inguzanyo y’inyongera. Ibi ubwabyo bigaragaza ko basinye amasezerano Gisande Trading yaramaze kubona inguzanyo y’inyongera, ibyo yo n’abishingizi bayo bavuga ko itari gutangwa mbere y’uko amasezerano asinywa bikaba nta gaciro byahabwa, kimwe n’ibyo bavuga ko amadolari 700,000 yoherejwe hubahirizwa amasezerano yo ku wa 8/1/2017 yavuguruwe n’ayo ku itariki ya 25/05/2018, kuko usibye kubivuga mu magambo, batagaragaza uko bahuza ayo masezerano n’amadolari yoherejwe ku wa 11/12/2018 no ku wa 20/12/2018. [42] Urukiko rurasanga kandi harebwe imiburanire n’imyanzuro ya Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo kuva ku rwego rwa mbere kugeza bajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ndetse baburana muri urwo rukiko ku wa 28/06/2021, bigaragara ko ntacyo banengaga AMT Ltd ku bijyanye n’iyubahirizwa ry’amasezerano bagiranye ku wa 24/12/2018 kuko baburanaga bavuga gusa ko AMT Ltd itagaragaza amakosa bakoze yatumye ingwate bayihaye itandikishwa muri RDB, ibi nabyo bikaba byumvikanisha ko ibyo bavugiye ubwa mbere mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 11/10/2021 mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubwo urubanza rwapfundurwaga, ko AMT Ltd itatanze inguzanyo y’inyongera bumvikanyeho mu masezerano, atari ukuri. [43] Hashingiwe ku bimenyetso byatanzwe, Urukiko rurasanga AMT Ltd yarubahirije amasezerano yagiranye na

Page 299

263 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo yo kuyiha inguzanyo y’inyongera ya 700.000 USD, bityo Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rwarashingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku mpamvu itariho, aho rwemeje ko Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batategekwa kwandikisha ingwate basezeranye na AMT Ltd mu gihe nayo itubahirije inshingano zayo ngo itange inguzanyo yemeye. ii. Ku bijyanye no kumenya niba umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI 1/02/11/02/229 wakwandukurwa kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, ugasubizwa ku mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally, kugira ngo ushobore kwandikwa nk’ingwate ya AMT Ltd [44] Ingingo ya 147 y’ Itegeko nº 45/2011 ryo ku wa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, mu nteruro yayo ya mbere, iteganya ko Urukiko rushobora gutegeka uruhande rutubahirije cyangwa rugiye kwica amasezerano gukora igisabwa mu masezerano. [45] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo bavuga ko AMT Ltd yahawe uburenganzira busesuye bwo kwandikisha ingwate ku buryo itavuga ko batubahirije inshingano zabo, Urukiko rurasanga ari ukwirengagiza amabaruwa y’Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutuka mu Rwanda yo ku wa 07/11/2018 no ku wa 10/06/2019 yavuzwe haruguru, agaragaza ko amakuru AMT Ltd yahawe ku mutungo ubaruwe kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 yahinduwe nyuma y’uko ababuranyi bashyize umukono ku masezerano ku wa 24/12/2018, kuko ibaruwa ya mbere yagaragazaga ko umutungo wanditse kuri Niyigaba Ignace, naho iya kabiri igaragaza ko wanditse kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, ndetse ni no kwirengagiza email icyo kigo cyanditse ku wa 22/08/2022, yashyizwe muri dosiye kuri uru rwego, igaragaza ko umutungo

Page 300

264 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ufite UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wanditswe kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd ku itariki ya 19/03/2019. Kuba Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bariyandukujeho umutungo hatarashira n’amezi atatu basinye amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate, bakawandikisha ku mazina ya ITS of Kigali Ltd, byumvikanisha ko kutandikisha ingwate byabaturutseho. [46] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo uhagarariye Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo avuga ko bagurishije ingwate babyumvikanyeho na AMT Ltd, Urukiko rurasanga bitafatwaho ukuri kuko nta bimenyetso abitangira, bikaba bivuguruzwa n’ibyo Niyigaba Ignace yivugiye ubwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ko banze gutanga ingwate kuko AMT Ltd yanze gutanga inguzanyo yemeye, nyamara ibi akaba ataribyo kuko, nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, amasezerano yasinywe Gisande Trading Ltd yaramaze kuyihabwa. [47] Ku bijyanye n’ibyo uhagarariye BPR Bank Plc avuga ko nta ngwate AMT Ltd ifite ku mutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 kuko itanditse mu gitabo cy’Umwanditsi Mukuru muri RDB, Urukiko rurasanga ikiburanwa muri uru rubanza atari ukumenya niba ingwate itandikishijwe ifite agaciro, ahubwo ari iyubahirizwa ry’amasezerano y’ingwate yagombaga gutangwa na Niyigaba Ignace n’umugore we Akingeneye Dally, bishingira umwenda Gisande Trading Ltd ibereyemo AMT Ltd. [48] Na none ku bijyanye n’ibyo avuga ko amasezerano y’ingwate atakiriho kuko AMT Ltd itatambamiye ihererekanya ry’umutungo yahaweho ingwate, ubu uwo mutungo ukaba utacyanditse kubo bakoranye amasezerano, Urukiko rurasanga nta shingiro bifite kuko, nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, kutandikisha ingwate byaturutse kuri Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally biyandukujeho umutungo wagombaga

Page 301

265 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

kwandikwa muri RDB nk’ingwate ya AMT Ltd, ikibazo ahubwo akaba ari icyo kumenya niba ihererekanya mutungo ryakozwe hagati ya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally n’ishuri ITS of Kigali Ltd ryahabwa agaciro harebwe ibikubiye mu masezerano bagiranye na AMT Ltd. [49] Mu masezerano yo ku wa 24/12/2018, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally biyemeje kwinshingira umwenda Gisande Trading ltd ibereyemo AMT Ltd, batanga ingwate ku mitungo yabo bwite irimo n’ikigo cy’ishuri giherereye mu Karere ka Kayonza. Bemeje kandi ko iyo imitungo izaguma ari ingwate ya AMT Ltd kugeza umwenda wose wishyuwe (ingingo ya 2, interuro ya nyuma), ko itazagurishwa cyangwa ngo itangweho ingwate k’ uwo ari we wese wundi AMT Ltd itabitangiye uburenganzira mu nyandiko ( ingingo ya 3.3), ndetse ko Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo bagomba kumenyesha AMT Ltd impinduka iyo ariyo yose yaba ku mitungo itanzweho ingwate ( ingingo ya 3.17), kandi ko bazakora ibikenewe byose kugira ngo iyo mitungo yandikishwe nk’ingwate ihawe AMT Ltd (ingingo ya 3.19). [50] Hashingiwe ku masezerano y’ingwate Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bakoranye na AMT Ltd, Urukiko rurasanga nta burenganzira Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bari bafite bwo kwivanaho umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wari ubanditseho ubwo amasezerano y’ingwate yakorwaga, batabiherewe uburenganzira mu nyandiko na AMT Ltd, ndetse itanamenyeshejwe. [51] Urukiko rurasanga kandi harebwe uburyo Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bihutiye kwivanaho uwo mutungo, bakawandika ku ishuri ryabo ITS of Kigali Ltd, bigaragaza ko bashakaga ko AMT Ltd idashobora kwifashisha uburenganzira

Page 302

266 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yahawe (Power of Attorney) ngo yandikishe uwo mutungo muri RDB nk’ingwate bayihaye, ari nabyo byumvikana no mu mvugo ya Niyigaba Ignace mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, aho yavuze ko yanze gutanga ingwate kubera ko AMT Ltd yanze kuyiha inguzanyo y’inyongera, ko nta cyabuza ko umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 wakwandukurwa kuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, ugasubizwa ku mazina ye na Akingeneye Dally, AMT Ltd iramutse yubahirije amasezerano bakoranye. [52] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally barasinye amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate na AMT Ltd, iyi ikubahiriza inshingano zayo ikomora kuri ayo masezerano ariko bo bagakora uko bashoboye ngo ntashyirwe mu bikorwa ku bireba inshingano zabo zijyanye n’ubwishingire, byerekana ko imyitwarire n’imigenzereze yabo mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano yaranzwe n’uburiganya (mauvaise foi), ibi akaba ari ukutubahiriza Itegeko rigenga amasezerano ryavuzwe iteganya ko amasezerano akozwe ku buryo bukurikije amategeko aba itegeko ku bayagiranye [....].Agomba kubahirizwa nta buriganya (ingingo ya 64), ko amasezerano adategeka gusa icyemejwe, ahubwo yongeraho n'ingaruka ugushyira mu kuri, imigenzereze cyangwa amategeko byageneye inshingano bikurikije kamere yayo ( ingingo ya 65), buri ruhande rufite inshingano yo kurangiza amasezerano nta buriganya kandi rukarangwa n’imikorere myiza yemerwa ku bagiranye amasezerano (ingingo ya 70). [53] Urukiko rurasanga kugira ngo abaregwa bubahirize amasezerano bagiranye na AMT Ltd, umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 ugomba kwandukurwa ku ishuri ITS of Kigali Ltd, ugasubizwa ku mazina ya Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally kugira ngo ushobore kwandikwa nk’ingwate

Page 303

267 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

ya AMT Ltd kuko bawivanyeho mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amasezerano bakoranye na AMT Ltd, ingingo ya 147 y’Itegeko rigenga amasezerano yavuzwe haruguru ikaba iha Urukiko ububasha bwo gutegeka uruhande rutubahirije cyangwa rugiye kwica amasezerano gukora igisabwa mu masezerano. [54] Ku birebana n’andi masezerano yabaye kuri uwo mutungo UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 nyuma y’icibwa ry’urubanza N° RCOMA 00091/2020/CA, Urukiko rurasanga, mu gihe ibyemejwe muri urwo rubanza bivanyweho, ibintu bikaba bisubiye uko byari bimeze urwo rubanza rutaracibwa, ayo masezerano nta gaciro afite mu bibangamiye ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano y’inguzanyo n’ingwate Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bakoranye na AMT Ltd. B. Kumenya niba abaregwa bagomba gutegekwa kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zigurishijwe ntihavemo ubwishyu bwose [55] Me Rwigamba Molly hamwe na Me Dushimimana Reuben bahagarariye AMT Ltd bavuga ko Gisande Trading Ltd ibereyemo umukiliya wabo amadolari menshi ugereranyije n’agaciro k’ingwate yatanze, ariyo mpamvu basaba ko mu gihe ingwate zanditswe hagakurikiraho kuzigurisha ntizivemo ubwishyu bw’umwenda wose, abaregwa bategekwa kwishyura AMT Ltd amadolari azaba asigaye mu yindi mitungo ya Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo, aho kugira ngo bagaruke mu rukiko kuregera umwenda wasigaye utishyuwe. [56] Ku birebana n’ibyavuzwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ko ntaho rwahera rutegeka Gisande Trading Ltd kwishyura umwenda utaramenyekana, Me Rwigamba Molly avuga ko

Page 304

268 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Urukiko rwashingira ku nyandiko z’igenzura (audit) ziri muri dosiye, impande zombi zashyizeho umukono, zigaragaza ko ku itariki ya 28/01/2019, Gisande Trading Ltd yari ibereyemo AMT Ltd umwenda ungana na 3,994,409.95 USD (3,772,064 USD + 222,345.95 USD ). [57] Me Hakizimana Francois Xavier uburanira Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally avuga ko muri uru rubanza AMT Ltd itigeze iregera umwenda, usibye gusaba Urukiko gutegeka ko yishyurwa amafaranga yasigara nyuma y’igurisha ry’ingwate, ibi bikaba bitashoboka kuko ingwate zitarandikishwa ngo zigurishwe, Urukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera rutegeka Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi kwishyura AMT Ltd amafaranga atazwi umubare. Avuga kandi ko ibyo ababuranira AMT Ltd bavuga ko impande zombi zemeranyije ku mwenda iberewemo ari ibinyoma kuko, ku itariki ya 18/02/2020, AMT Ltd yandikiye Gisande Trading Ltd iyimenyesha ko ibona umwenda ugera kuri 3,772,064 USD, ko niba nayo ariko ibibona yabyemeza, ibyo bikaba byumvikanisha ko ingano y’umwenda itigeze yumvikanwaho. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [58] Nk’uko bigaragara mu kirego cyatanzwe na AMT Ltd ku rwego rwa mbere no mu miburanire yayo kugeza kuri uru rwego, icyaregewe muri uru rubanza ntabwo ari ugutegeka Gisande Trading Ltd n’abishingizi bayo kwishyura umwenda babereyemo AMT Ltd, ahubwo ni ukubategeka kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zigurishijwe ntihavemo ubwishyu bwose.

Page 305

269 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

[59] Urukiko rurasanga kandi mu manza zose zabaye nta mpaka zabaye ku ngano nyakuri y’umwenda Gisande Trading Ltd isigaje kwishyura AMT Ltd ku buryo byafatirwaho icyemezo ubwa mbere kuri uru rwego. [60] Urukiko rurasanga rero, nk’uko byasobanuwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, abaregwa batategekwa kwishyura umwenda wasigara nyuma yo kugurisha ingwate kandi uwo mwenda uzasigara utaramenyekana, bityo, kuri iyi ngingo, ikirego cyatanzwe na AMT Ltd kikaba nta shingiro gifite. C. Indishyi zisabwa [61] Me Rwigamba Molly hamwe na Me Dushimimana Reuben, bahagarariye AMT Ltd, bavuga ko Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batubahirije amasezerano y’ingwate bagiranye na AMT Ltd kandi ko batishyuye umwenda bahawe, ahubwo ko bayishoye mu manza bitari bikwiye, ariyo mpamvu basaba ko bayishyura 3,300,000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza. [62] Me Hakizimana Francois Xavier, uhagarariye Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally, avuga ko indishyi urega asaba ntazo akwiye kuko ari we wijyanye mu nkiko, akaba agomba kubyirengera. Asaba ahubwo ko AMT Ltd ariyo yategekwa kubishyura 2,000,000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza kuri buri wese, yose hamwe akaba 6,000,000 Frw. [63] Abahagarariye AMT Ltd bavuga ko abaregwa aribo bateje impaka zayishoye mu manza, kandi ko yasubirishijemo urubanza kuko yari yarenganye, bityo ikaba atariyo yabiryorezwa indishyi.

Page 306

270 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[64] Me Buzayire Angèle, uhagarariye BPR Bank Plc, asaba ko AMT Ltd yayishoye mu manza nta mpamvu yacibwa 3,000,000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA: [65] 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 igira iti: 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 [....]. [66] Urukiko rurasanga Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bagomba guha AMT Ltd amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza kuko batubahirije amasezerano y’ingwate bagiranye, biba ngombwa ko irega isaba iyubahirizwa ryayo. Urukiko rurasanga 3,300,000 Frw AMT Ltd isaba ari mu rugero harebwe inkiko enye baburaniyemo kuva urubanza rutangira. [67] Urukiko rurasanga kandi Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally bagomba guha BPR Bank Plc amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka kuko, nubwo ataribo basabye ko igobokeshwa mu rubanza, nibo batumye biba ngombwa kuyihamagaza hirindwa ko ibyemezo byafatwa mu rubanza byayigiraho ingaruka itaraburanye, ikaba igenewe 800,000 Frw kuko ari mu rugero, ayo basaba bakaba batayatangira ibimenyetso.

Page 307

271 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING Ltd N’ ABANDI

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO: [68] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMAA 0091/2020/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 05/11/2021, gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [69] Rutegetse ko umutungo ubaruye kuri UPI: 1/02/11/02/229, uherereye mu Kagari ka Cyaruzinge, Umurenge wa Ndera, Akarere ka Gasabo, Umujyi wa Kigali, wandukurwa kuri International Technical School of Kigali Ltd, ukandikwa kuri Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally; [70] Rutegetse ko ubugwate ku mutungo UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 bwandukurwa kuri BPR Bank Plc mu gitabo cyandikwamo ingwate ku mutungo utimukanwa mu biro by’Umwanditsi Mukuru muri RDB, bukandikwa kuri Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd; [71] Rwemeje ko Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally batategekwa kwishyura umwenda wasigara mu gihe ingwate zaba zimaze kugurishwa ntihavemo ubwishyu bwose, ku mpamvu zasobanuwe haruguru; [72] Rutegetse Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally guha Advance [73] Material Trading Pte Ltd 3,300,000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza; [74] Rutegetse Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace na Akingeneye Dally guha BPR Bank Plc 800,000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka n’ikurikiranarubanza.

Page 309

273 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RCOMAA 00015/2022/CA (Munyangeli, P.J) 20 Mutarama 2023] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’ubucuruzi – Ububasha bwo kurega – Sosiyete zishyize hamwe – Ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego – Sosiyete iri mu zishyize hamwe igira ububasha bwo kuregera Urukiko mu izina ryayo gusa, ku ruhare rwayo rwonyine mu gihe ari rwo iregera, ariko nta bubasha iba ifite bwo kuregera umwenda wose wa Sosiyete zishyize hamwe, mu izina ryazo, mu gihe itareze mu nyungu zazo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) yagiranye amasezerano na Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering (JV), yo gukora inyigo ku buso bungana na hegitari 16.000, amasezerano yitwa feasibility study and detailed design of a proposed ha 16.000 gross area hillside and marshaland and irrigation (lots 2: gashora area. Izo hegitari zari zigabanyijemo ibice bine (4), Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering (JV) ihabwa gukora agace ka Rweru kangana na hegitari 4.797, igomba kwishyurwa 887.908.560 Frw, impande zombi zumvikana uburyo akazi kazakorwa n’uburyo ubwishyu buzatangwa mu byiciro. Benedetta Group Ltd yareze RAB mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko yishyuje icyiciro cya nyuma kingana na 40% by’isoko gihwanye na 335.163.425 Frw, Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) yanga kucyishyura, isaba gutegeka RAB kwishyura uwo mwenda ungana na 335.163.425 Frw ukomoka ku gusesa amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko no gutanga inyungu zibariwe kuri 8% zingana na 15.640.959 Frw.

Page 310

274 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Mu urwo rubanza Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) yavuze ko nta masezerano yigeze igirana na we, ko ahubwo yayagiranye na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering. Kuri iyo nzitizi Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze n’ubwo amasezerano yakozwe na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering, ububasha bwo gukurikirana ibijyanye n’ayo masezerano bwahawe Benedetta Group, rwemeza ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Rwanda Agriculture Board, nta shingiro ifite. Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwafashe icyemezo ku rubanza mu mizi, rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Rwanda Agriculture Board kuyishyura umwenda ungana na 335.163.425 Frw, inyungu z’ubukererwe zingana na 12.065.883 Frw, igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 500.000 Frw, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 40.000 Frw no gusubiza ingwate y’amagarama ingana na 20.000 Frw. RAB itishimiye icyo cyemezo yakijuririye mu Rukiko rukuru rw’ubucuruzi isaba gusuzuma niba ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd cyaragombaga kwakirwa, niba mu kuyitegeka kwishyura, Urukiko rwarakurikije amasezerano, niba umucamanza yari kuguma mu rubanza kandi hari icyemezo yarufashemo, no gusuzuma niba ikiguzi cya serivisi RAB yahawe gihwanye n'ubuso bwakoreweho inyigo irambuye, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwanda Agriculture Board bufite ishingiro, ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd kitagombaga kwakirwa, icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza RCOM 01604/2018/TC kivanwaho. Benedetta Group Ltd yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, inenga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaravuze ko ikirego cyayo kitagombaga kwakirwa, bigatuma

Page 311

275 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

rudaha agaciro umwenda iregera n’inyungu, ubujurire bwayo ikabushingira ku kuba mu masezerano yagiranye na RAB barumvikanye ko izajya inyuza ubwishyu kuri Konti ya Benedetta Group Ltd iri muri Access Bank Plc ndetse ikaba yaranishyuriyeho ibyiciro bibanza; ikavugako ibyo byakozwe hubahirizwa ibikubiye mu masezerano ndetse biyihesha ububasha bwo gukurikirana uburenganzira bwayo bushingiye ku masezerano cyane ko ari nayo yashyize umukono ku masezerano Benedetta Group Ltd na A.I Engeneering Ltd (JV) yagiranye na RAB. Ku rundi ruhande uregwa avuga ko yagiranye amasezerano na Joint Venture kandi ikaba idafite ubuzima gatozi, bityo ibyo bihesha Sosiyete muzishyize hamwe kurega ku giti cyayo akavuga kandi ko guhagararira sosiyete bitambura iyo sosiyete uburenganzira bwayo. Incamake y’icyemezo: Sosiyete iri mu zishyize hamwe igira ububasha bwo kuregera Urukiko mu izina ryayo gusa, ku ruhare rwayo rwonyine mu gihe ari rwo iregera, ariko nta bubasha iba ifite bwo kuregera umwenda wose wa Sosiyete zishyize hamwe, mu izina ryazo, mu gihe itareze mu nyungu zazo. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. Amategeko yifashishijwe: Itegeko 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 3 n’iya 33;

Page 312

276 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Itegeko n˚ 62/2018 ryo ku wa 25/08/2018 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ingingo ya 84. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Anthony BEM, “Le droit, l’intérêt et la qualité ā agir comme conditions de recevabilité des demandes en justice”, Article publié le 22/04/2015. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 08/08/2016, Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) yagiranye amasezerano (contract 1. 11/1242/016/BL/H. Q) na Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering (JV), yo gukora inyigo ku buso bungana na hegitari 16.000, ziherereye ku nkengero z’umusozi no mu gishanga mu gice cya Gashora, mu Karere ka Bugesera, amasezerano yiswe “FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN OF A PROPOSED HA 16.000 GROSS

AREA HILLSIDE AND MARSHALAND AND IRRIGATION (Lots 2 : GASHORA AREA)”. Izo hegitari zari zigabanyijemo ibice bine (4), Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering (JV) ihabwa gukora agace ka Rweru kangana na hegitari 4.797, igomba kwishyurwa 887.908.560 Frw, impande zombi zumvikana uburyo akazi kazakorwa n’uburyo ubwishyu buzatangwa mu byiciro. [2] Benedetta Group Ltd ivuga ko yishyuje icyiciro cya nyuma kingana na 40% by’isoko gihwanye na 335.163.425 Frw,

Page 313

277 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) yanga kucyishyura, bituma itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, irusaba gutegeka RAB kwishyura uwo mwenda ungana na 335.163.425 Frw ukomoka ku gusesa amasezerano mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko no gutanga inyungu zibariwe kuri 8% zingana na 15.640.959 Frw. [3] Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) ivuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd kitakwakirwa, kuko nta masezerano yigeze igirana na yo, ko ahubwo yayagiranye na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering. Isobanura ko igice cyagombaga gukorwa cyaje kugabanuka, kiva kuri 4.797 Ha, kigera kuri 3.525 Ha, ko yari yifuje ko impande zombi zakumvikana ku giciro cy’ahagomba gukorwa, ariko ko Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering zititabiriye imishyikirano, kandi ko kuvuga ko yakoze ku buso bwose atari byo, ndetse ko nta kigaragaza ko ibyo yagombaga gukora byakozwe ikabishima, akaba nta n’igitabo cya DAO Benedetta Group Ltd yatanze, bityo ko n’inyungu isaba itazihabwa, kuko Rwanda Agriculture Board atari ikigo cy’ubucuruzi kigamije inyungu. [4] Ku wa 24/12/2018, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwafashe icyemezo ku nzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kubera iburabubasha ry’urega mu rubanza RCOM 01604/2018/TC, aho Rwanda Agriculture Board yavugaga ko nta masezerano yagiranye na Benedetta Group Ltd, ahubwo yayagiranye na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering. Mu gusesengura ibimenyetso n’imvugo z’ababuranyi, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rusanga n’ubwo amasezerano yakozwe na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering, ububasha bwo gukurikirana ibijyanye n’ayo masezerano bwahawe Benedetta Group,

Page 314

278 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

rwemeza ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Rwanda Agriculture Board, nta shingiro ifite. [5] Ku wa 28/01/2019, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwafashe icyemezo ku rubanza mu mizi, rwemeza ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd gifite ishingiro, rutegeka Rwanda Agriculture Board kuyishyura umwenda ungana na 335.163.425Frw, inyungu z’ubukererwe zingana na 12.065.883 Frw, igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 500.000 Frw, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza angana na 40.000 Frw no gusubiza ingwate y’amagarama ingana na 20.000 Frw. [6] Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi, isaba gusuzuma niba ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd cyaragombaga kwakirwa, niba mu kuyitegeka kwishyura, Urukiko rwarakurikije amasezerano, niba umucamanza yari kuguma mu rubanza kandi hari icyemezo yarufashemo, no gusuzuma niba ikiguzi cya serivisi RAB yahawe gihwanye n'ubuso bwakoreweho inyigo irambuye. [7] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 12/11/2021, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Rwanda Agriculture Board bufite ishingiro, ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd kitagombaga kwakirwa, icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi mu rubanza RCOM 01604/2018/TC kivanwaho. [8] Ku wa 11/12/2021, Benedetta Group Ltd yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwandikwa kuri RCOMAA 00015/2022/CA, inenga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaravuze ko ikirego cyayo kitagombaga

Page 315

279 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

kwakirwa, bigatuma rudaha agaciro umwenda iregera n’inyungu ziwukomokaho. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 04/01/2023, Benedetta Group Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Uwizeyimana Jean Baptiste, Rwanda Agriculture Board ihagarariwe na Me Kabibi Spéciose afatanyije na Me Ntarugera Nicholas, isomwa ryarwo rishyirwa ku wa 13/01/2023, uwo munsi ntirwasomwa kubera ko iyandikwa ryarwo ryari ritararangira, ryimurirwa ku wa 20/01/2023. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba Benedetta Group Ltd yari ifite ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego [10] Me Mutabazi Célestin wari uhagarariye Benedetta Group Ltd mu nama ntegurarubanza yabaye ku wa 06/10/2022, avuga ko ku wa 06/09/2015, sosiyete A.I. Engineering Ltd yahaye Benedetta Group Ltd ububasha bwo gukurikirana ibikorwa byose bijyanye n’ipiganwa ry’isoko ku nyigo yagombaga gukorwa kuri 4.797 Ha, ko Benedetta Group Ltd yaje gutsindira iryo soko, ku wa 08/08/2016 igirana amasezerano na RAB, ndetse iyashyira mu bikorwa nk’uko impande zombi zari zarabyumvikanyeho. [11] Akomeza avuga ko kuba Rwanda Agriculture Board ivuga ko Benedetta Group Ltd itari ifite ububasha bwo kuregera amasezerano yabaye hagati yayo na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rukabyemeza atari byo, kubera ko ingingo ya 1.8 y’ayo masezerano, igaragaza neza ko Benedetta Group Ltd ifite TIN

Page 316

280 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

103336551, ari yo yagombaga kwishyurwa, ubwishyu bugashyirwa kuri konti yayo nº 1002100103539001 iri muri Access Bank Rwanda Plc, kandi ko iyi konti ari na yo Rwanda Agriculture Board yishyuriyeho mu byiciro byabanje, ko kuba rero ari Benedetta Group Ltd yagombaga kwishyurwa, ari uko hari ibyo yabaga yakoze kandi ikabikora nk’uko byari bikubiye mu masezerano, bikanayiha ububasha bwo gukurikirana uburenganzira bwayo bwose bushingiye ku masezerano yari hagati yayo na Rwanda Agriculture Board. [12] Avuga kandi ko ibaruwa yo ku wa 29/06/2018 yanditswe na Rwanda Agriculture Board isubiza umunyamategeko wa Benedetta Group Ltd, igaragaza ko yemera ko Benedetta Group Ltd yakoze “feasibility study”, ndetse ikanavuga ko yifuza ubwumvikane bitabaye ngombwa ko urubanza rukomeza mu Rukiko, kandi ko no mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 05/11/2018, Rwanda Agriculture Board yivugiye ko hari komite irimo gukurikirana icyo kibazo ngo gikemuke binyuze mu nzira y’ubwumvikane, ikaba itarigeze ivuga ko Benedetta Group Ltd idafite ububasha bwo kurega, bityo ko ibi byose bigaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ibimenyetso ndetse n’amasezerano yo ku wa 08/08/2016 Benedetta Group Ltd yagiranye na RAB, biyiha ububasha n’inyungu byo kuyirega. [13] Asoza ashimangira ko kuba Benedetta Group Ltd yari yarahawe ububasha na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering, kuba Benedetta Group Ltd ari yo yashyize umukono ku masezerano yo ku wa 08/08/2016, no kuba ari yo yishyurwaga, bihagije kugira ngo hemezwe ko yari ifite ububasha n’ubushobozi byo kurega no gukurikirana inyungu zose zishingiye kuri ayo masezerano.

Page 317

281 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

[14] Me Uwizeyimana Jean Baptiste wahagarariye Benedetta Group Ltd mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 04/01/2023, avuga ko atemera isesengura ryakozwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kuri iki kibazo, kubera ko kuba mu masezerano yabaye hagati ya Rwanda Agriculture Board na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering harimo konti ya Benedetta Group Ltd izajya inyuzwaho ubwishyu, itabura kuregera igice gisigaye mu gihe ubundi bwishyu bwatanzwe bwanyujijwe kuri konti yayo. [15] Akomeza avuga ko mu gihe Benedetta Group Ltd yasabaga ubwishyu Rwanda Agriculture Board na yo isaba ko ikibazo kirangizwa binyuze mu bwumvikane, Benedetta Group Ltd ari yo yahamagarwaga, hashingiwe ku kuba konti yayo ari yo yanyuzwagaho ubwishyu bwa Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering, akaba yibaza niba Benedetta Group Ltd yambuwe ububasha bwo guhagararira sosiyete zishyize hamwe kubera ko havutse urubanza kandi mbere hose yarazihagarariye. [16] Asoza avuga ko ku giti cye, asanga mu gutanga ikirego, Benedetta Group Ltd itarasimbuye Joint Venture Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd, ko ahubwo ihagarariye inyungu za Joint Venture Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd nk’uko yayihagarariye mu bindi byose byabanje. [17] Me Kabibi Spéciose asobanura ko Rwanda Agriculture Board yagiranye amasezerano na Joint Venture igizwe na Benedetta Group Ltd na A.I Engineering Ltd, ko kuba Joint Venture nta buzimagatozi ifite, byumvikanisha ko iyo bagiye kurega, buri sosiyete mu zishyize hamwe irega ku giti cyayo. Bityo ko Benedetta Group Ltd itaza kuregera umwenda wose wa Joint Venture, akaba asanga iyo Benedetta Group Ltd ibikora neza nk’uko amasezerano abiteganya, yari kuba yaratanze

Page 318

282 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ikirego mu izina rya Joint Venture ihagarariwe na Benedetta Group Ltd. [18] Akomeza avuga ko inyandiko yo ku wa 06/09/2015 Benedetta Group Ltd ivuga ko ari yo iyiha ububasha bwo guhagararira sosiyete zombi, iyo nyandiko ubwayo ivuga guhagararira (representation), guhagararira sosiyete bikaba bidasobanuye kuyisimbura mu nshingano zayo nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gika cya 20 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ahubwo ko yagombaga gukora mu mwanya wayo nk’uko no gushyira umukono ku masezerano yabikoze mu mwanya wayo. [19] Ku birebana n’aho uhagarariye Benedetta Group Ltd avuga ko sosiyete ahagarariye ifite ububasha bwo kuregera umwenda wasigaye, bushingiye ku kuba ubundi bwishyu bwatanzwe bwaranyuzwaga kuri konti yayo, Me Kabibi Spéciose avuga ko n’ubwo ubwishyu bwaba bunyuzwa kuri konti ya Benedetta Group Ltd, fagitire zitaba zatanzwe mu izina rya Benedetta Group Ltd, ko ahubwo zigomba kuba zasohowe mu izina rya Joint Venture Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engireering Ltd. [20] Kuri iyi ngingo, yanzura avuga ko Benedetta Group Ltd itari ifite ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego ishingiye ku masezerano yari hagati ya Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering, ko ahubwo byari gushoboka iyo iza kuba iregera inyungu zayo yonyine, ko mu bisobanuro itanga igenda yitiranya ububasha n’ubushobozi. [21] Me Ntarugera Nicholas avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze kuba Benedetta Group Ltd yari yarahawe ububasha bwo gukurikirana inyungu za Joint Venture Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd, kuba ari yo

Page 319

283 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

yashyize umukono ku masezerano, kuba ubwishyu bwaranyuzwaga kuri konti yayo, ibyo bitayiha ububasha bwo gitanga ikirego mu izina ryayo yonyine, kuko nk’uko bigaragara muri ayo masezerano, Benedetta Group Ltd yayashyizeho umukono mu izina rya sosiyete zombi, kandi ko kuba konti yayo ari yo yanyuzwagaho ubwishyu, byatewe n’uko ari yo abishyize hamwe bari batanze mu masezerano babyumvikanyeho, akaba atari uko ari Benedetta Group Ltd yagombaga kwishyurwa yonyine, bityo ko itari ifite n’ububasha bwo kurega ishingiye ku masezerano atari ayayo. [22] Kuri iyi ngingo, asoza avuga ko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, asanga Benedetta Group Ltd itari ifite ububasha bwo kurega.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [23] Ingingo ya 3 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 Ikirego cyakirwa mu Rukiko iyo urega afite ububasha, inyungu n’ubushobozi byo kurega, keretse igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi. Ku mashyirahamwe, imiryango n’ibigo bidafite ubuzimagatozi, harega kandi hakaregwa abayobozi babyo mu izina ry’ababigize. [24] Ingingo ya 33, igika cya mbere y’itegeko rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ko″ [...] Icyakora abasangiye inyungu mu rubanza batanga ibirego byabo mu mwanzuro umwe, bagatanga ingwate y’amagarama imwe“.

Page 320

284 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[25] Ingingo ya 84, 4˚ y’Itegeko N˚ 62/2018 ryo ku wa 25/08/2018 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, iteganya ko” Mu kwishyira hamwe, amasosiyete yishyize hamwe agomba kugirana amasezerano akorewe imbere ya Noteri, agaragaza sosiyete iyoboye abishyize hamwe ari na yo ibahagarariye mu bikorwa byose bijyanye n’isoko n’imbibi z’ububasha ihawe. Aya masezerano agomba kuba mu bigize inyandiko yatanzwe mu nyandiko y’ipiganwa y’abishyize hamwe”. [26] Mu gufata icyemezo cyo kwemeza ko Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rutagombaga kwakira ikirego cya Benedetta Group Ltd, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku kuba mu gihe cyo gutanga ikirego, Benedetta Group Ltd yaritwaye nk’aho umwenda iregera ari uwayo yonyine, cyangwa nk’aho ari yo yakoze amasezerano yonyine hari uwo ihagarariye, nyamara amasezerano iburanisha atari ayayo, ahubwo ari aya Joint Venture, ikaba itanasobanura niba iregera umugabane wayo gusa, kandi nta bubasha ifite (qualité) bwo kuregera ibya Joint Venture Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd, kuko itigeze yegurirwa ububasha bwose kuri iryo soko, ahubwo yaremerewe gusa guhagararira ayo masosiyete yishyize hamwe na yo irimo. [27] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza inyandiko yo ku wa 06/09/2015, aho sosiyete A.I engineering ihagarariwe na Paolo Sorba na Benedetta Group ihagarariwe na Dr Edward Kamugisha ziyemeje kwishyira hamwe by’igihe gito (Temporary Grouping- Joint Venture), Benedetta Group ihabwa uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ayo masezerano. [28] Hari amasezerano yo ku wa 08/08/2016 hagati ya Rwanda Agriculture Board na Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering (JV) , aho bigaragara ko mu gushyira umukono kuri ayo masezerano,

Page 321

285 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

uwitwa Dr Kamugisha Edward ari we washyizeho umukono ahagarariye sosiyete zishyize hamwe, hanatangwa konti ya Benedetta Group iri muri Access Bank kugira ngo abe ari yo izajya inyuzwaho ubwishyu bukomoka kuri ayo masezerano. [29] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Benedetta Group Ltd yarahawe ububasha bwo guhagararira JV Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering mu gukurikirana ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano izi sosiyete zombi zishyize hamwe zagiranye na Rwanda Agriculture Board. [30] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Benedetta Group yarahawe ubwo bubasha bwo guhagararira sosiyete zishyize hamwe (JV) mu masezerano kubera ko biteganywa n’itegeko, ndetse ububasha bwo gukurikirana ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano bukaba butandukanye n’ububasha bwo kuregera Inkiko kuko kuregera Inkiko biba mu gihe havutse impaka mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ayo masezerano, bikaba byumvikanisha ko kwiyambaza Inkiko bitandukanye no gushyira mu bikorwa amasezerano impande zombi zagiranye. [31] Urukiko rurasanga kandi nk’uko abahanga mu mategeko babisobanura, kugira ngo umuntu agire ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko, agomba kuba afite ikirego (La qualité pour agir nécessite de posséder un titre ou un droit particulier pour pouvoir intenter l’action)1 . [32] Mu kirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd, iyi sosiyete ifite igice cy’uburenganzira ku mwenda Rwanda Agriculture Board yaba ifitiye sosiyete zishyize hamwe (JV),

1 Anthony BEM, “Le droit, l’intérêt et la qualité ā agir comme conditions de recevabilité des demandes en justice”, Article publié le 22/04/2015.

Page 322

286 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ikindi gice cyabwo kikaba gifitwe na A.I Engineering Ltd, kuba rero sosiyete ya kabiri mu zigize JV nta ho igaragara mu barega kandi Benedetta Group Ltd ikaba ivuga ko iregera umwenda wose sosiyete zishyize hamwe ziberewemo, akaba nta bubasha yari ibifitiye nk’uko byasobanuwe, kandi ko n’iyo yabuhabwa itaza mu Rukiko yifashe nk’iyasimbuye uwayitumye, ahubwo igomba kugaragaza ko uwayihaye ububasha bwo kuyitangira ikirego ari we ugomba kugaragara nk’umuburanyi mu rubanza. [33] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, Benedetta Group Ltd yari ifite ububasha bwo kuregera Urukiko mu izina ryayo mu gihe yari kuba ikurikirana uruhare rwayo rwonyine ku mwenda uburanwa, ariko ikaba nta bubasha yari ifite bwo kuregera umwenda wose wa sosiyete zishyize hamwe mu izina ryayo, cyane ko mu gihe cy’ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’ibyemezo byafashwe n’Inkiko harebwa ababuranyi bagaragara muri kopi y‘urubanza, hatarebwa amasezerano sosiyete zishyize hamwe zagiranye kandi niba itanga ikirego mu izina ryayo iregera umwenda wa sosiyete zishyize hamwe, kuba yandikishije izina ryayo ryonyine, bikaba bitumvikanisha ko sosiyete isigaye na yo ari umuburanyi mu rubanza rwafunguwe na Benedetta Group Ltd. [34] Urukiko rurasanga rero guhabwa ububasha bwo gukurikirana ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry’amasezerano, guhagararira imwe muri sosiyete zishyize hamwe mu gihe cyo gushyira umukono ku masezerano hagati ya Rwanda Agriculture Board na Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd, kuba ubwishyu bugenewe sosiyete zishyize hamwe bwaranyujijwe kuri konti ya Benedetta Group, nta na kimwe muri ibi biyiha ububasha bwo gutanga ikirego mu izina ryayo yonyine, iregera umwenda wose sosiyete zishyize hamwe zifiteho uburenganzira. Bityo, iyi

Page 323

287 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

mpamvu y’ubujurire yatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd ikaba nta shingiro ifite.

2. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwaragombaga kugenera Rwanda Agiculture Board amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka yari yasabye (Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na RAB) [35] Me Kabibi Spéciose asaba Urukiko rw'Ubujurire kugenera RAB indishyi zingana na 5.000.000 Frw yari yasabye mu rubanza RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC ariko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ntiruziyigenere, rwirengagije ihame ry’ikiguzi cyo gukurikirana imanza (principle of costs follow by event). [36] Me Mutabazi Célestin wari uhagarariye Benedetta Group Ltd mu nama ntegurarubanza, avuga ko indishyi Rwanda Agriculture Board yasabye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi nta shingiro zikwiye guhabwa, kuko uwo ahagarariye nta makosa yakoze, ko ahubwo Rwanda Agriculture Board ari yo yakoze amakosa, yanga kwishyura ibyo isabwa, bigatuma havuka imanza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [37] 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 gishamikiye ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo.

Page 324

288 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe. [38] Ingingo ya 75, igika cya mbere y’itegeko rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ko“Muri rusange nta nyandiko, imyanzuro y’urubanza cyangwa inyandiko ikubiyemo ingingo ziburanishwa bishobora kohererezwa Urukiko nyuma y’inama ntegurarubanza“. [39] Bigaragara ko mu nama ntegurarubanza y’urubanza

RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC yabaye ku wa 29/04/2019, ababuranyi bagiye impaka ku bibazo bikurikira : -Kumenya niba Urukiko rwaragombaga kwakira ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd mu izina ryayo, rukanaburanishwa iburana mu izina ryayo ; -Kumenya niba Urukiko rwarakurikije amasezerano yabaye hagati ya RAB na Joint Venture Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering rufata icyemezo ku birebana no kwishyura ; -Kumenya niba umucamanza yaragombaga kuguma mu rubanza mu gihe ku ikubitiro yafashe ″position“ nyamara abona ko ari imiburanire ya RAB mu mizi y’urubanza ; -Kumenya niba ikiguzi cya serivisi yahawe RAB gihwanye n’ubuso bwakoreweho inyigo irambuye ; -Kumenya niba ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro. [40] Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rumaze gusuzuma ingingo ya mbere y’ubujurire ya RAB ivuga ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd kitagombaga kwakirwa, rugasanga koko kitaragombaga kwakirwa, rukavanaho urubanza

Page 325

289 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, rwasanze bitakiri ngombwa gusuzuma izindi ngingo z’ubujurire mu gihe hagaragajwe ko ikirego kitagombaga kwakirwa ku rwego rwa mbere. [41] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rutarageneye Rwanda Agriculture Board amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka nta kosa rwakoze, kubera ko ikibazo cy’amafaranga ahwanye n’ibyagiye ku rubanza, kitigeze kigibwaho impaka mu gihe cy’inama ntegurarubanza ndetse no mu gihe cy’iburanisha ry’urubanza ryo ku wa 14/10/2020 nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandikomvugo yaryo.

3. Kumenya ishingiro ry’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka asabwa na Benedetta Group Ltd [42] Me Mutabazi Célestin wari uhagarariye Benedetta Group Ltd mu nama ntegurarubanza, asaba Urukiko rw’Ubujurire gutegeka Rwanda Agriculture Board kwishyura uwo ahagarariye amafaranga y’ikurikirarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka angana na 2.000.000 Frw, kubera gusiragizwa mu manza nta mpamvu. [43] Me Ntarugera Nicholas avuga ko amafaranga asabwa na Benedetta Group Ltd nta shingiro Urukiko rukwiye kuyaha, kubera ko Rwanda Agriculture Board itigeze iyishora mu manza, na cyane ko ari na yo yatangije uru rubanza ubwo yangaga kwitabira imishyikirano yo gusuzuma imirimo yakozwe, ubuso yakoreweho, ndetse n'igihembo gikwiye.

Page 326

290 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [44] 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 gishamikiye ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. Ikirego cy’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza kiburanishwa rimwe n’ikirego cy’iremezo. Gishobora kandi kwakirwa kikaburanishwa n’iyo ikirego cy’iremezo cyaba kitakiriwe. [45] Urukiko rurasanga kuba ubujurire bwatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd nta shingiro buhawe, amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka isaba, itagomba kuyahabwa. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [46] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd, nta shingiro bufite. [47] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 12/11/2020, rudahindutse. [48] Rutegetse ko amafaranga y’ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe na Benedetta Group Ltd ijurira, ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

Page 327

291

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE

DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RCOM00017/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Cyanzayire na Hitiyaremye, J.) 22 Ukuboza 2023] Amategeko agenga umusoro – Umusoro ku Nyongeragaciro(TVA) – Gusonerwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro(TVA) – Ubwikorezi bukorwa mu rwego rwo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa nubwo bwaba bukorwa n’uwabiherewe uruhushya ariko atari wo murimo w’ibanze, bufatwa nka serivisi yunganira (accessoire) icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze cyo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa, iyo icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze kidasonewe TVA, n’ubwo bwikorezi ntibusonerwa – Ubwikorezi busonewe TVA ni ubukorwa n’abantu bakora umwuga w’ibanze wo gutwara ibintu (professionnels du transport) – Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 6 niya 9. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kutumvikana kwabaye hagati y’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (Rwanda Revenue Authority) na sosiyete SRDS Ltd ku bijyanye n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) yaciwe kubera ibikorwa by’ubwikorezi ikora ikwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA. SRDS Ltd ivuga ko itagombaga gucibwa uwo musoro kubera ko ujyanye na serivisi y’ubwikorezi yakoraga kuko ibifitiye ibyangombwa yahawe n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha (RURA),

Page 328

292 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bityo ko iyo serivisi isonewe uwo musoro. RRA yo ivuga ko SRDS Ltd yagabanyije igiciro yahawe na BRALIRWA, igice kimwe cyacyo icyita ubwikorezi igamije kunyereza umusoro, kandi mu by’ukuri nta bwikorezi busonewe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro yakoraga. SRDS Ltd na RRA baburanye kuva mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi kugeza mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, maze mu rubanza RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwaciwe ku wa 25/03/2022, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeza ko SRDS Ltd yaciwe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko ikora akazi k’ubwikorezi, ikaba ifite uruhushya rwo gutwarira abaguzi bayo ibinyobwa icuruza kandi ko iyo serivisi yo gutwara ibicuruzwa (transport) isonewe TVA ku bw’Itegeko. RRA yasabye ko urwo rubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko amafaranga yasoresheje SRDS Ltd yari asonewe TVA kuko yari ay’ubwikorezi kandi atari byo kuko nta bwikorezi yakoraga, ko amafaranga y’ubwikorezi agaragara ku nyemezabuguzi zayo atari ay’ubwikorezi, ko kandi ibiciro by’ibinyobwa yemeranyijweho na BRALIRWA nabyo bigaragaza ko nta serivisi y’ubwikorezi ikora. RRA yiregura ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwayirenganyije ruvuga ko itegeko rigenga ihiganwa mu bucuruzi no kurengera abaguzi ibuza amasezerano agamije gushyiraho ibiciro kuko abangamira ihiganwa, ivuga kandi ko ubucuruzi buri hagati y’izo sosiyete ari ubujyanye no gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa (distribution) hanyuma

BRALIRWA igaha

SRDS Ltd commission, bivuze ko ukwirakwiza adashobora na rimwe kujya munsi y’ibiciro aba yarahawe na nyiri ibicuruzwa bikwirakwizwa.

Page 329

293 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

RRA ikomeza ivuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasesenguye mu buryo butari bwo ibikubiye mu masezerano yabaye hagati y’impande zombi kuko rwavuze ko distributeur ashobora guhindura ibiciro yahawe kubera ko mu masezerano bagiranye yiswe recommended price, ariko ko iryo jambo ritavuga ko ibiciro biba bigomba guhinduka bikagabanywa, bityo ko isanga igiciro BRALIRWA yashyizeho ari icyo umuntu atajya munsi. SRDS Ltd nayo yiregura ivuga ko ikirego cya RRA nta shingiro gifite kubera ko isumbanya ikanavangura abasoreshwa, kandi ko ifata ba distributors nk’aho atari abacuruzi nk’abandi, kuko idasobanura neza ibyiciro by’abacuruzi kugira ngo habeho gusobanukirwa neza uburyo ba distributors atari abacuruzi nyamara bakora ubucuruzi bwo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA, inatwarira uyiguriye wese mu rwego rwo kumuha serivise nziza kandi ikaba ibifitiye ibyangombwa yahawe na RURA biyemerera gukora ubwikorezi (transport) ikishyurwa n’igiciro cyabwo. SRDS Ltd ikomeza ivuga ko recommended prices atari igiciro ntakuka, kuko ingingo ya 8 y’amasezerano yo ku wa 01/02/2015 yasinywe hagati ya SRDS Ltd na BRALIRWA ivuga ko The Distributor buys the products at the price determined by Bralirwa and resells the products at the recommended distribution price, bityo ko asaba Urukiko gusuzuma neza ijambo “recommend” rukemeza ko ridategeka ahubwo riganisha ku kugira inama. SRDS Ltd ivuga kandi ko icuruza igahita inatwaza umukiliya ariko ku giciro cya transport ariko ntimuce TVA bitewe n’uko transport isonewe, ikavuga ko ibyo nta gihombo na kimwe bitera RRA kuko ntacyo itakaza, ivuga kandi ko gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA atari ubucuruzi bushyirirwaho igiciro na Leta (regulated prices), ko ahubwo igiciro kigenwa ku

Page 330

294 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bwumvikane hagati y’umuguzi n’ugurisha (free market), bityo ko RRA itavuga ko igiciro cyagurishijweho kiri munsi y’igiciro. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ubwikorezi bukorwa mu rwego rwo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa nubwo bwaba bukorwa n’uwabiherewe uruhushya ariko atari wo murimo w’ibanze, bufatwa nka serivisi yunganira (accessoire) icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze cyo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa, iyo icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze kidasonewe TVA, n’ubwo bwikorezi ntibusonerwa.

2. Ubwikorezi busonewe TVA ni ubukorwa n’abantu bakora umwuga w’ibanze wo gutwara ibintu (professionnels du transport) Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 6, iya 9 niya 11. Nta manza zifashishijwe: Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi, Societé Rwandaise de Distribution et Services Ltd (yiswe SRDS Ltd muri uru rubanza) irega Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (cyiswe RRA muri uru rubanza), ivuga ko yaciwe 222.316.907 Frw

Page 331

295 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

y’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) hamwe n’ihazabu yawo ku myaka ya 2015, 2016, 2017 na 2018, ikajuririra kwa Komiseri Mukuru yerekana ko yaciwe umusoro ku mafaranga y’ubwikorezi bw’ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA kandi iyo serivisi (transport) isonewe, ayisubiza ko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite, bituma itanga ikirego isaba gukurirwaho uwo musoro yaciwe kuri serivisi y’ubwikorezi kandi isonewe. [2] RRA yireguye ivuga ko ikirego cya SRDS Ltd nta shingiro gifite kuko umusoro yaciwe ukomoka ku mafaranga yacuruje ikayamenyekanisha nyamara ntiyatangeho umusoro, kandi agaciro gasoreshwa gashingirwa ku kiguzi cyose kiba cyishyuwe n’umuguzi. [3] Mu rubanza RCOM 01210/2020/TC rwaciwe ku wa 17/11/2021, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ikirego cya SRDS Ltd gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko uwo musoro ungana na 222.316.907 Frw yaciwe ku myaka ya 2015, 2016, 2017 na 2018 hamwe n’ibihano ukurwaho, runategeka RRA kwishyura SRDS Ltd 700.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. [4] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye ku kuba Serivisi y’ubwikorezi SRDS Ltd itanga, yarayiherewe uruhushya n’Ikigo kibishinzwe (RURA), kandi ko iyo serivisi isonewe nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 6 y’Itegeko No 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/12/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu. Urwo Rukiko rwasanze kandi nta kimenyetso RRA yigeze itanga kigaragaza ko SRDS Ltd ishyira ikiguzi cya serivise y’ubwikorezi cyishyurwa n’umukiriya ku nyemezabwishyu zayo, kandi iyo serivise itarayitanze, runibutsa ko RRA ari yo ifite inshingano zo kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo ivuga nk’uko

Page 332

296 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

biteganywa n’ingingo ya 3 y’Itegeko No 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. [5] RRA yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi isaba ko rwasuzuma niba amafaranga SRDS Ltd igaragaza kuri fagitire zayo yita ay’ubwikorezi ari yo koko no gusuzuma niba ibiciro byo kugurishaho ibinyobwa SRDS Ltd yemeranyijweho na BRALIRWA bigaragaza ko nta serivisi y’ubwikorezi SRDS Ltd ikora. [6] Mu rubanza RCOMA 00869/2020/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 17/11/2021, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa RRA nta shingiro bufite, ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOM 01210/2020/TC rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi idahindutse. Rwategetse ko umusoro wose wa TVA hamwe n’ibihano SRDS Ltd yaciwe mu myaka ya 2015, 2016, 2017 na 2018, ungana na 222.316.907 Frw, bikuweho. Rwanategetse RRA guha SRDS Ltd 2.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza yo ku rwego rw’ubujurire yiyongera ku yatanzwe ku rwego rwa mbere, yose hamwe akaba 2.940.000 Frw. [7] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwasanze amasezerano BRALIRWA yagiranye na SRDS Ltd ntaho yabujije SRDS Ltd gushyiraho ibiciro by’ubwikorezi. Uru rukiko rwanasanze mu myiregurire y’ababuranyi, bigaragara ko SRDS Ltd ifite uruhushya rwo gutwarira abaguzi bayo ibinyobwa icuruza kandi ko iyo serivisi yo gutwara ibyo bicuruzwa isonewe ku bw’itegeko, ko rero RRA ari yo ifite inshingano zo kwerekana ibimenyetso by’uko inyemezabuguzi za SRDS Ltd zishyiraho serivise y’ubwikorezi zitari iz’ubwikorezi koko nk’uko ibivuga.

Page 333

297 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

[8] RRA yajuririye mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire, isaba gusuzuma niba amafaranga yasoreshejwe SRDS Ltd yaba asonewe koko umusoro wa TVA. Mu rubanza RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwaciwe ku wa 25/03/2022, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa RRA nta shingiro bufite, ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA 00869/2020/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi idahindutse. Rwategetse RRA kwishyura SRDS Ltd 500.000 Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 200.000 Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yiyongera ku yo yagenewe n’inkiko zabanje angana na 2.940.000 Frw, yose hamwe akaba 3.640.000 Frw. [9] Mu gufata icyo cyemezo, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasanze ibivugwa na RRA ko nta serivisi y’ubwikorezi SRDS Ltd yakoze nta shingiro bifite kubera ko usibye kubivuga gusa, nta bimenyetso yatanze bivuguruza ibimenyetso bya SRDS Ltd bigaragaza ko yakoraga serivisi z’ubwikorezi. Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasanze kandi nta gushidikanya ko SRDS Ltd nka sosiyete ishinzwe ikwirakwizwa ry’ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA ikora ubwikorezi, kuko nta kuntu byaba byumvikana uburyo umurimo w’ikwirakwizwa (distribution) wakorwa nta serivisi y’ubwikorezi ikozwe, ibi bikanagaragazwa n’amasezerano SRDS Ltd yagiranye na BRALIRWA, kuko yakozwe mu rwego rwo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa byayo. [10] Ku wa 23/04/2022, RRA yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga isaba ko urubanza RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/03/2022 rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane. Amaze gusuzuma raporo yakozwe kuri urwo rubanza, ku wa 17/11/2022, Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga yafashe icyemezo nº 272/CJ/2022 ko

Page 334

298 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

urubanza RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwongera kuburanishwa, ikirego gihabwa RS/INJUST/RCOM 00017/2022/SC. [11] Mu myanzuro yayo, RRA ivuga ko SRDS Ltd yagiye ikora za factures igakata amafaranga kuri buri kinyobwa igurishije, ntiyasorere TVA iyita ko asonewe kuko ari ay’ubwikorezi, nyamara atari byo ahubwo ari ukunyereza umusoro wa TVA, kuko serivisi yakoraga idasonewe uwo musoro. SRDS Ltd yo ivuga ko ibyo yakoze bikurikije amategeko igasaba Urukiko kwemeza ko yaciwe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi bisonewe. [12] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 18/07/2023, RRA ihagarariwe na Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste, naho SRDS ihagaraririwe na Me Irazirikana Israël hamwe na Me Habimana Pie, ababuranyi bajya impaka ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba SRDS Ltd yaraciwe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi bisonewe n’ikibazo kirebana n’indishyi zasabwe muri uru rubanza. Iburanisha rirangiye, ababuranyi bamenyeshejwe ko urubanza ruzasomwa ku itariki ya 22/09/2023, isomwa ryarwo rigenda ryimuka ku mpamvu zitandukanye, irya nyuma rikaba ryarashyizwe ku ya 22/12/2023. Mbere y’uko iyo tariki igera ariko, bamwe mu bacamanza bagize inteko byabaye ngombwa ko basimburwa, bituma iburanisha ry’urubanza ryongera gufungurwa rishyirwa ku itariki ya 21/11/2023 kugira ngo inteko ihinduke. Kuri uwo munsi RRA yari ihagarariwe na Me Gatera Clément, naho SRDS ihagarariwe nka mbere.

Page 335

299 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO 1. Kumenya niba SRDS Ltd yaraciwe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi bisonewe. [13] Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste, uhagarariye RRA, avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko amafaranga RRA yasoresheje SRDS Ltd yari asonewe TVA kuko yari ay’ubwikorezi kandi atari byo kuko SRDS Ltd nta bwikorezi yakoraga, ko amafaranga y’ubwikorezi agaragara ku nyemezabuguzi za SRDS Ltd atari ay’ubwikorezi, ko kandi ibiciro by’ibinyobwa SRDS Ltd yemeranyijweho na BRALIRWA nabyo bigaragaza ko nta serivisi y’ubwikorezi SRDS Ltd ikora. [14] Avuga ko ibyo SRDS Ltd ivuga ko amafaranga agaragara kuri buri nyemezabuguzi yakoreye abakiriya bayo yari ajyanye n’ubwikorezi, atari ukuri kuko buri nyemezabuguzi ya SRDS Ltd igaragaraho ko igaziye y’inzoga cyangwa iya Fanta itwarirwa 300Frw yiswe ubwikorezi, kandi ayo mafaranga akaba agaragara kuri buri nyemezabuguzi yayo mu myaka itandukanye, hatitawe ku mukiriya uwo ari we wese. Avuga ko ibyo bitera kwibaza niba SRDS Ltd yaratwariraga abakiriya bose inzoga cyangwa niba bo ubwabo batarazitwariraga. Atanga urugero rw’inyemezabuguzi nº 14256/14469NS yo ku wa 23/06/2015, SRDS Ltd yakoze igurisha ibinyobwa, igaragaza ko igurishije igaziye ya TURBO (50 cl) kuri 9.550 Frw, mu gihe amasezerano yagiranye na BRALIRWA ku wa 01/02/2015 yateganyaga ko igomba kuyigurisha ku giciro cya 10.000 Frw (distributor selling price VAT included (RWF/Crate), ariko yo ikagabanyaho 450 Frw iyita ay’ubwikorezi.

Page 336

300 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[15] Avuga kandi ko kuri iyo nyemezabuguzi, SRDS Ltd igaragaza ko yagurishije igaziye ya PRIMUS (50 cl) kuri 8.000 Frw mu gihe amasezerano yagiranye na BRALIRWA yo ayitegeka kuyigurisha kuri 8.450 Frw, bivuze ko yagabanyijeho 450 Frw. Anavuga ko kuri iyo nyemezabuguzi SRDS Ltd igaragaza ko yagurishije igaziye ya Petit TURBO (33 cl) kuri 7.550 Frw mu gihe amasezerano na BRALIRWA amutegeka kuyigurisha kuri 8.000 Frw, bivuze ko yagabanyijeho 450 Frw. Yongeraho ko iyo mikorere igaragara no ku nyemezabuguzi nº 14259/14472NS yo ku wa 23/06/2015 aho SRDS Ltd igaragaza ko iciye umukiliya amafaranga y’ubwikorezi angana na 350 Frw kandi atari ukuri, kuko ahubwo ari amafaranga SRDS Ltd yagabanyije ku giciro yemeranyijweho na BRALIRWA kiba gikubiyemo na TVA, bivuze ko nta gice na kimwe cy’icyo giciro gisonewe cyangwa kigenewe ubwikorezi nk’uko SRDS Ltd ishaka kubyumvikanisha. [16] Akomeza avuga ko hari n’abandi ba distributors ba BRALIRWA batandukanye bari barumvikanye kuri iyo mikorere bagamije kunyereza umusoro wa TVA, barimo uwitwa SOVEPROA Ltd n’abandi bakoraga inyemezabuguzi zigaragaza ko transport ari 300 Frw kuri buri gaziye, ariko ko nta kuntu izi sosiyete zombi zari guhurira ku giciro kimwe cya transport, ko kandi ibyo binyuranye n’ingingo ya 11, 1º y’Itegeko Nº 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/12/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro iteganya ko: “agaciro gasoreshwa kuri buri kintu cyangwa serivisi kagenwa ku buryo bukurikira: 1º uretse ibyo iri tegeko riteganya ukundi, agaciro gasoreshwa ku kintu cyangwa kuri serivisi ni ikiguzi cyabyo cyarishywe n’abaguzi mu mafaranga”. [17] Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste akomeza avuga ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwarenganyije RRA aho mu gika cya 21 rwavuze

Page 337

301 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

ko ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko Nº 36/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rigenga ihiganwa mu bucuruzi no kurengera abaguzi ibuza amasezerano agamije gushyiraho ibiciro kuko abangamira ihiganwa, agasanga rutarasobanukiwe n’ubucuruzi buri hagati ya SRDS Ltd na BRALIRWA kuko rwagize ngo ni ubucuruzi busanzwe aho umuntu agura hanyuma akagurisha akurikije uko isoko rihagaze, nyamara ubucuruzi buri hagati y’izo sosiyete ari ubujyanye no gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa (distribution) hanyuma BRALIRWA igaha SRDS Ltd commission, bivuze ko ukwirakwiza adashobora na rimwe kujya munsi y’ibiciro aba yarahawe na nyiri ibicuruzwa bikwirakwizwa. [18] Anavuga ko mu gika cya 27 cy’urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasesenguye mu buryo butari bwo ibikubiye mu masezerano yabaye hagati ya BRALIRWA na SRDS Ltd kuko rwavuze ko distributeur ashobora guhindura ibiciro yahawe na BRALIRWA kubera ko mu masezerano bagiranye byiswe recommended price ariko ko iryo jambo ritavuga ko ibiciro biba bigomba guhinduka bikagabanywa, ahubwo ko bishobora kwiyongera bitewe n’aho ibicuruzwa byafatiwe (muri hoteli cyangwa muri butike) kandi nabyo bigakorwa n’abadandaza. Asanga igiciro BRALIRWA yashyizeho ari icyo umuntu atajya munsi. [19] Asoza avuga ko mu gika cya 29 cy’urubanza rwamaze kuvugwa, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwavuze ko RRA itatanze ibimenyetso byerekana ko SRDS Ltd yagabanyije ibiciro, ariko ko ibyo atari ukuri kuko RRA yatanze amasezerano BRALIRWA yahaye abakwirakwiza ibicuruzwa byayo agaragaramo ibiciro batagomba kujya munsi, inatanga za fagitire zigaragaza uko SRDS Ltd yagiye igabanya ibiciro. Asaba Urukiko kuzemeza ko

Page 338

302 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umusoro RRA yaciye SRDS Ltd ungana na 222.316.907 Frw ugumyeho. [20] Me Irazirikana Israël na Me Habimana Pie baburanira SRDS Ltd bavuga ko ikirego cya RRA nta shingiro gifite kubera ko isumbanya ikanavangura abasoreshwa, aho bamwe nka Ets FURAHA ibakuriraho umusoro1, abandi nka SRDS Ltd ikawubaca nyamara bose bakwiye kuba bareshya imbere

1 SRDS Ltd yashyize muri dosiye ibaruwa yo ku wa 15/07/2022 Komiseri Mukuru wa RRA yandikiye Ets FURAHA asubiza ubujurire bwayo ku cyemezo cyayicaga umusoro, aho yayimenyesheje ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 6(5o) y’itegeko no 37/2012 rya kuba 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro iteganya ko serivisi z’ubwikorezi zikozwe n’ababiherewe uruhushya isonewe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro aho kuri (d) bavuga ko gutwara ibintu ku nzira y’ubutaka muri serivisi z’ubwikorezi zisonewe TVA, no kuba Ets Furaha Ltd yaragaragaje ko mu mafaranga yaciwemo umusoro yari ifite uruhushya rutangwa na RURA rwo gutwara ibintu, anashingiye ku manza zaciwe (urubanza

RCOMA 00190/2021/HCC na RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA (uru ni urubanza rwabaye hagati ya SRDS na RRA ) aho RRA yaburanaga n’abandi bakora bimwe nk’ibyo Ets FURAHA ikora, aribyo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA, muri izo manza RRA ikaba yaratsinzwe, asanga ubujurire bwa Ets FURAHA bufite ishingiro, bityo ikaba ihanaguweho umusoro wose yaciwe kuri serivisi ya transport ungana na 77.781.312 Frw.

Page 339

303 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

y’amategeko nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 15 y’Itegeko nshinga rya Republika y’u Rwanda . [21] Bavuga kandi ko RRA yongeye gukorera igenzura SRDS Ltd ku myaka ya 2019, 2020, 2021 na 2022 yongera gusanga yaragiye ikora za factures igakata amafaranga kuri buri kinyobwa igurishije, ikayita ko asonewe kuko yari ay’ubwikorezi, nyamara muri iri genzura rya nyuma RRA ikaba itarigeze ivuga ko ibyo SRDS Ltd yakoze binyuranyije n’amategeko, ko iyo myitwarire ya RRA igaragaza ko ubu nayo yemera ko SRDS Ltd yaciwe TVA ku bikorwa bya serivisi ya transport kandi isonewe. [22] Bakomeza bavuga ko RRA isobanura nabi ibijyanye n’ibiciro bitangazwa na BRALIRWA kubera ko (a) RRA ifata ba distributors nk’aho atari abacuruzi nk’abandi; (b) recommended price atari igiciro ntakuka; (c) ibiciro hagati ya BRALIRWA na Distributors bidakwiye kuba ikibazo cya RRA ndetse ko idakwiye kwifashisha amasezerano yo ku wa 01/02/2015 hagati ya BRALIRWA na SRDS Ltd kuko itari mu bayagize hashingiwe ku ihame rivuga ko amasezerano agira inkurikizi ku bayagiranye gusa. [23] Me Irazirikana Israël na Me Habimana Pie bavuga kandi ko RRA ifata ba distributors nk’aho atari abacuruzi nk’abandi, kuko idasobanura neza ibyiciro by’abacuruzi kugira ngo habeho gusobanukirwa neza uburyo ba distributors atari abacuruzi nyamara bakora ubucuruzi bwo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA, ko ndetse buri distributor akora ibishoboka byose kugira ngo akore distributions nyinshi kugira ngo amafaranga yinjiza abe menshi ari nayo mpamvu SRDS Ltd inatwarira uyiguriye wese mu rwego rwo kumuha serivise nziza kandi ikaba ibifitiye ibyangombwa yahawe na RURA biyemerera gukora ubwikorezi (transport) ikishyurwa n’igiciro cyabwo.

Page 340

304 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[24] Banavuga ko recommended prices atari igiciro ntakuka, kuko ingingo ya 8 y’amasezerano yo ku wa 01/02/2015 yasinywe hagati ya SRDS Ltd na BRALIRWA mu rurimi rw’icyongereza ivuga ko The Distributor buys the products at the price determined by Bralirwa and resells the products at the recommended distribution price, ko ijambo “recommend” Urukiko rukwiye kuzarisuzuma rukemeza ko ridategeka ahubwo riganisha ku kugira inama, kandi ugiriwe inama ashobora kuyikurikiza cyangwa se ntayikurikize, bityo kudakurikiza igiciro cyatanzweho inama na BRALIRWA bikaba bitagize ikosa. [25] Bakomeza bavuga ko kuba SRDS Ltd icuruza igahita inatwaza umukiliya ariko ku giciro cya transport ntimuce TVA bitewe n’uko transport isonewe, nta gihombo na kimwe bitera RRA kuko ntacyo itakaza kubera ko n’iyo SRDS Ltd itamutwaza, ibicuruzwa byari gutwarwa n’undi kandi nawe ntamuce TVA bitewe n’uko transport isonewe TVA. [26] Bavuga kandi ko amategeko y’imisoro atabangamira cyangwa ngo akureho andi mategeko cyane cyane agenga ihiganwa mu bucuruzi; kuko kuba SRDS Ltd ari distributor wa BRALIRWA bidakuraho iyubahirizwa ry’Itegeko Nº36/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rigenga ihiganwa mu bucuruzi no kurengera abaguzi. Basobanura ko iyubahirizwa ry’ingingo ya 7 y’iryo tegeko ridashingira ku isano y’abacuruzi nko kuba hari commission itangwa kuri umwe muri bo, ko ndetse BRALIRWA na SRDS Ltd bemeranyijwe mu masezerano bagiranye ko amabwiriza agenga ipiganwa agomba kubahirizwa, bikaba bigaragara mu ngingo ya 1 (2), aho ivuga ko umuranguzi azakwirakwiza ibinyobwa yubahiriza amategeko y’u Rwanda,

Page 341

305 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

akubahiriza kandi amategeko n’amabwiriza yose y’u Rwanda harimo n’itegeko rigenga ihigana mu bucuruzi. [27] Me Irazirikana Israël na Me Habimana Pie bavuga ko gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA atari ubucuruzi bushyirirwaho igiciro na Leta (regulated prices), ko ahubwo igiciro kigenwa ku bwumvikane hagati y’umuguzi n’ugurisha (free market), ko rero nta hantu RRA ikwiye guhera ivuga ko igiciro cyagurishijweho kiri munsi y’igiciro. Banavuga ko amasezerano BRALIRWA Ltd yagiranye na SRDS Ltd muri 2015 ubwayo adategeka SRDS Ltd gukurikiza ibiciro biyarimo, RRA ikaba idakwiye kwitwaza ayo masezerano kandi ibiyakubiyemo byerekeranye n’ibiciro ari ibintu bibujiwe n’itegeko. [28] Bongeraho ko ibimenyetso bijyanye na fagitire zitandukanye RRA yatanze nta shingiro gikwiye guhabwa kuko nka fagitire no 14256-14469 NS igaragaza ko SRDS Ltd yagurishaga ibinyobwa ku giciro kinyuranye n’amasezerano yagiranye na BRALIRWA, ubwabyo nta tegeko byishe kuko SRDS Ltd itari itegetswe gukurikiza ibiciro bya BRALIRWA, naho fagitire no 14259-14472 NS igaragaza ko SRDS Ltd iciye umukiriya amafaranga ya transport angana na 350 Frw kimwe n’izindi nyemezabuguzi SRDS Ltd yakoreraga abakiriya bayo igaragaraho 300 Frw ajyanye na transport, nabyo bikurikije amategeko kubera ko SRDS Ltd ifite uruhushya n’uburenganzira bwo gukora ubwikorezi nk’uko byemezwa n’ibyangombwa binyuranye byatanzwe na RURA. [29] Bavuga kandi ko ikimenyetso kijyanye na raporo y’inama yo ku wa 16/01/2018 yahuje ubuyobozi bwa RRA n’aba distributeurs ba BRALIRWA Ltd idakwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko RRA yategekaga abacuruzi gucuruza bakurikije ibiciro

Page 342

306 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byashyizweho na BRALIRWA kandi binyuranye n'ingingo ya 7 y’Itegeko No 36/2012 ryo ku wa 21/09/2012 ryasobanuwe haruguru kandi iryo tegeko akaba ari ndemyagihugu. [30] Me Irazirikana Israël na Me Habimana Pie banavuga ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruramutse ruhinduye urubanza rusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane byatanga isura y’uko ubutabera butangirwa mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga gusa. Ibyo babishingira ku ihame ry’uko “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen as to be done” kubera ko urubanza rusubirishwamo rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwatangajwe mu mirongo yafashwe n’urwo Rukiko, kuruhindura bikaba byagira ingaruka mbi kuri system y’ubutabera ishishikariza ababuranyi n’abacamanza kugendera mu murongo wafashwe n’inkiko. [31] Basoza bavuga ko imanza zisa n’uru rubanza, RRA isaba ko zashingirwaho zirimo urubanza rwa Ntawangwanabose aburana na RRA, n’urwa SOVEPROA Ltd na RRA, zitashingirwaho kubera ko atari imanza zitanga umurongo, zikaba zadahura n’ikiburanwa, ndetse zikaba zaraciwe n’inkiko ziri munsi y’Urukiko rw'Ikirenga.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Ingingo ya 11, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ryakurikizwaga igihe SRDS Ltd yacibwaga umusoro, ivuga ko Uretse ibyo iri tegeko riteganya ukundi, agaciro gasoreshwa ku kintu cyangwa kuri serivisi ari ikiguzi cyabyo cyarishywe n’abaguzi mu mafaranga.

Page 343

307 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

[33] Ingingo ya 6, agace ka 5° y’Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rimaze kuvugwa, ivuga ko serivisi z’ubwikorezi zikozwe n’ababiherewe uruhushya zisonewe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. [34] Ingingo ya 9 y’iryo Tegeko ivuga ko “Haseguriwe ibivugwa muri iri tegeko, gutanga ibintu cyangwa serivisi zihariye nk’igikorwa cyunganira ikindi cy’ubundi bwoko cy’ibanze bifatwa nk’aho ari igice cy’igikorwa cy’ibanze.....”. [35] Ababuranyi bemeranya ko SRDS Ltd ari imwe muri za sosiyete zikwirakwiza ibicuruzwa bya BRALIRWA kandi ko ifite uruhushya ruyemerera kwikorera ibintu ku butaka n’Ikigo gishinzwe kugenzura imikorere y’inzego zimwe z’imirimo ifitiye Igihugu akamaro (RURA), icyo batemeranyaho ari nacyo kigize impaka muri uru rubanza, ni ukumenya niba ubwikorezi SRDS Ltd ikora mu gihe cyo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA bukwiye gufatwa nk’ubwikorezi busonewe umusoro wa TVA. [36] Urukiko rurasanga Itegeko N°37/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru ridasobanura neza abafatwa nk’abakora ubwikorezi busonewe TVA abo aribo, akaba ari yo mpamvu mu rwego rwo gukemura impaka ziri hagati y’ababuranyi, rwifashishije ibisobanuro bitangwa n’abahanga mu mategeko. [37] Delebecque Philippe, Isabelle Bon-Garcin na Maurice Bernadet bavuga ko hari itandukaniro hagati y’ubwikorezi bukorwa n’umuntu ku giti cye n’ubwikorezi rusange. Babisobanura berekana ko ubwikorezi rusange bukorwa n’ababigize umwuga bakabihemberwa, naho ubwikorezi bukorwa n’abantu ku giti cyabo bukaba budakorwa n’ababigize umwuga kuko akenshi bukorwa hagamijwe kurangiza igikorwa

Page 344

308 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

cy'ibanze nk’ubucuruzi n’ibindi. (Il y a une distinction entre transport pour compte propre (transports privés) et les transports pour compte d’autrui (transports publics). Les transporteurs publics sont des professionnels dont le métier consiste à exécuter des transports contre rémunération pour des clients qui sont des entreprises industrielles ou commerciales, des entreprises de services, des administrations ou encore des particuliers. Par opposition, le transport pour le compte propre n’est pas assuré par des professionnels du transport, mais par des entreprises industrielles ou commerciales qui disposent de leurs propres parcs de véhicules et de leurs conducteurs pour réaliser des transports liés à leur activité principale. Pour être qualifié de compte propre, un transport ne constitue qu’une activité accessoire de l’entreprise)2. [38] Uwitwa Jean Pierre Kesteloot mu gitabo cye Droit des Transports, nawe avuga ko kuva kera amasezerano y’ubwikorezi yakunze gufatwa nk’amasezerano agamije inyungu kuko yinjira mu mirimo y’ubucuruzi, ariko ko icy’ingenzi atari igihembo umwikorezi ahabwa kuko ashobora no gukorwa habayeho cyangwa hatabayeho ibyo kwishyurana, ko ikirebwa cyane ari uko bwakozwe n’umwikorezi wabigize umwuga (le contrat de transport a longtemps été considéré comme étant un contrat à titre onéreux puisqu’il s’agit d’une variété de contrat d’entreprise… l’élément constitutif à retenir n’est donc plus la rémunération en tant que telle puisqu’un contrat de transport peut être conclu à titre onéreux ou à titre gratuit, mais bien le caractère professionnel du transporteur).3

2 Delebecque Philippe, Isabelle Bon-Garcin et Maurice Bernadet, Droit des transports, 2018, Dalloz, p. 2932. 3 Kesteloot, Jean Pierre et HOC, Arnaud, Droit des transports, 2020, Larcier, p.29-30.

Page 345

309 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

[39] Ku bijyanye n’ibikorwa byunganira ibindi bivugwa mu ngingo ya 9 y’Itegeko N° 37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga Umushingamategeko atarabisobanuye; akaba ariyo mpamvu rwifashishije ibisobanuro bitangwa n’abahanga mu mategeko kugira ngo ibivugwa muri iyo ngingo byumvikane. Uwitwa Anon avuga ko serivisi y’inyunganizi ishobora gusobanura serivisi igendana n’igicuruzwa ihabwa umuguzi mu rwego rwo kumufasha kugikoresha (A Complementary Service may be defined as a service that comes with a product for support. They are the services that are offered in addition to any business's core service and assist the customer in using that service […]). [40] Ku birebana by’umwihariko n’ubwikorezi nka serivisi yunganira ikindi gikorwa cy’ibanze nk’ubucuruzi, umuhanga mu mategeko Jean Pierre Kesteloot avuga ko amasezerano y’ubugure ashobora guteganya ko ugurishije ikintu nk’imashini imesa cyangwa televiziyo azakigeza ku wakiguze kandi ntibyitwe ko ari amasezerano y’ubwikorezi kubera ko ubwikorezi bukozwe muri ubwo buryo ari igikorwa gishingiye ku masezerano y’ibanze y’ubugure, ndetse n’amategeko arebana n’ubwikorezi akaba adakoreshwa muri icyo gihe (Il y a d’autres contrats que le contrat de transport qui contiennent ou peuvent contenir un élément de déplacement. Un contrat de vente peut prévoir que le vendeur déplace la marchandise pour la livrer à l’acheteur. Comme par exemple lors de la vente d’une machine à laver ou d’une télévision... Le transport par le vendeur n’est qu’un accessoire du contrat de vente. Les règles propres au contrat de transport ne s’appliquent donc pas dans les relations entre le vendeur et l’acheteur)4.

4 Idem, p.31.

Page 346

310 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[41] Ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa bigaragaza ibintu by’ingenzi bikurikira: -Ubwikorezi busonewe TVA ni ubukorwa n’abantu bakora umwuga w’ibanze wo gutwara ibintu (professionnels du transport); -Ubwikorezi bukorwa mu rwego rwo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa n’iyo bwaba bukorwa n’uwabiherewe uruhushya ariko atari wo murimo w’ibanze, bufatwa nka serivisi yunganira (accessoire) icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze cyo gukwirakwiza ibicuruzwa. Iyo icyo gikorwa cy’ibanze kidasonewe TVA, n’ubwo bwikorezi ntibusonerwa ; [42] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, n’ubwo SRDS Ltd ifite ibyangombwa biyemerera gukora serivisi y’ubwikorezi, amasezerano y’imikoranire hagati yayo na BRALIRWA agaragaza ko ikigamijwe ari ugukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA (distribution); ubwikorezi ikora muri urwo rwego akaba ari serivisi yunganira igikorwa cy’ibanze cyo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa kidasonewe TVA. Kubera iyo mpamvu, Urukiko rurasanga ubwikorezi bukorwa na SRDS Ltd mu gihe cyo gukwirakwiza ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA, budasonewe TVA. [43] Ku bijyanye n’ibivugwa na SRDS Ltd ko RRA isumbanya abasoreshwa barimo Ets FURAHA no kuba yarakoreye igenzura SRDS Ltd ku myaka ya 2019 na 2020 ikongera gusanga itarahinduye imikorere nyamara ntivuge ko igomba kwishyura amafaranga yakase kuri buri kinyobwa igurishije ajyanye n’ubwikorezi, ko rero RRA nayo yemera ko SRDS Ltd ikora ubwikorezi busonewe TVA, Urukiko rurasanga

Page 347

311 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

koko muri dosiye hari ibaruwa ya RRA yo ku wa 15/07/2022 isonera Ets FURAHA TVA ku bikorwa by’ubwikorezi bw’ibinyobwa bya BRALIRWA ikwirakwiza, ariko iryo sonera rikaba ntaho ryari rishingiye mu rwego rw’amategeko kubera ko nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, ubwikorezi ikora ari bumwe n’ubukorwa na SRDS Ltd, akaba atari ubwikorezi busonewe TVA. Ibi bisobanuro biranareba igenzura RRA yakoreye SRDS Ltd ku myaka ya 2019 na 2020. Umwanzuro rusange ku kibazo cyagombaga gusubizwa [44] Hashingiwe ku bimaze kuvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga SRDS Ltd itaraciwe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi bisonewe; bityo ikirego cya RRA cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z'akarengane urubanza RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/03/2022, kikaba gifite ishingiro. 2.Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza [45] Me Twahirwa Jean Baptiste uhagarariye RRA avuga ko ashingiye ku ngingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N° 22/2018 ryo ku wa 29/04/2018 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, asaba ko SRDS Ltd itegekwa guha RRA 3.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka n’ibyatanzwe kuri uru rubanza kuva rwatangira kugeza ubu. [46] Me Irazirikana Israël na Me Habimana Pie baburanira SRDS Ltd bavuga ko indishyi RRA isaba nta shingiro zikwiye guhabwa kuko ari yo yakomeje gukurura izi manza, ko rero itakwitwaza amakosa yayo ngo iyasabire indishyi.

Page 348

312 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[47] Bakomeza bavuga ko ahubwo SRDS Ltd ari yo ikwiye guhabwa indishyi. Bashingiye ku ngingo ya 34 y’Amabwiriza agena ibihembo mbonera by’Abavoka, basaba ko kuri uru rwego, SRDS Ltd yagenerwa 3.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 2.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza yatakaje kuri uru rubanza, yose hamwe akaba 5.000.000Frw. Basaba kandi ko ayo mafaranga yakwiyongera kuri 3.640.000Frw yategetswe n’inkiko zabanje.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [48] Ingingo ya 111 y’Itegeko N⁰ 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 ari ikirego gishamikira ku kirego cy’iremezo kigamije kwishyuza ibyakoreshejwe mu rubanza. [49] Ku bijyanye n’indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga ibivuzwe mu gika kibanziriza iki, byumvikanisha ko umuburanyi watsinzwe urubanza agomba kwishyura uruhande rwatsinze indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza kuko hari ibyo ruba rwaratakaje rukurikirana urubanza birimo igihembo cy’Avoka, n’andi mafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. [50] Urukiko rurasanga kuba SRDS Ltd itsindwa uru rubanza nta n’indishyi ikwiye guhabwa, ahubwo zikaba zikwiye kugenerwa RRA kubera ko itsinze kandi ikaba hari ibyo yatakaje mu rwego rwo kuburana no gukurikirana uru rubanza kuva rutangiye kugeza kuri uru rwego.

Page 349

313 IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) v. SOCIETÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS Ltd)

[51] Urukiko rurasanga RRA ikwiye kugenerwa indishyi z’ibyagiye kuri uru rubanza, ariko kubera ko 3.000.000Frw asabwa ari menshi, kandi ikaba itayatangira ibimenyetso, igomba guhabwa 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko.

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [52] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro (RRA) cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/03/2022, gifite ishingiro; [53] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza

RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 25/03/2022, ihindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose; [54] Rutegetse

SRDS Ltd kwishyura Umusoro ku Nyongeragaciro (TVA) ungana na 222.316.907 Frw yaciwe na RRA ku myaka ya 2015, 2016, 2017 na 2018. [55] Rutegetse SRDS Ltd guha RRA 500.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka na 300.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba angana na 800.000Frw.

Page 351

IMANZA INSHINJABYAHA

Page 353

317

UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA – (Rugabirwa, J. P., Tugireyezu na Kaliwabo, J.) 28 Gashyantare 2020] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ifungwa n’ifungurwa – Ifungurwa ry’agateganyo – Umuntu ufunzwe mu rwego rw’urubanza yaciriwe mu mizi, ntashobora kujurira anenga icyemezo yafungiweho by’agateganyo ashingiye ku kuba inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha zitarubahirije amategeko arebana n’ifatwa n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Uburyozwa cyaha –Kugirwa umwere – Nta muburanyi ushobora kwitwaza ko urubanza rwaciwe n'urundi rukiko rwamugize umwere mu gihe atarubayemo umuburanyi. Amategeko agenga ibimenyetso n’itangwa ryabyo – Ibimenyetso mu manza nshinjabyaha –Ibimenyetso bishingiye ku buhamya – Agaciro k’ibimenyetso bishingiye ku buhamya – Urukiko nirwo rufite inshingano zo kwemeza ibimenyetso bigomba guhabwa agaciro rumaze kumva abatangabuhamya – Umucamanza ashobora guha agaciro igice kimwe cy'ubuhamya, ikindi ntigihabwe agaciro – Mu gihe ubuhamya bubiri buvuguruzanya, nyuma yo kumva abatangabuhamya, urukiko ni rwo rwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka aribwo bufite ishingiro. Amategeko agenga imanza nshinjabyaha – Icyaha cya jenoside n’ibyaha byibasiye inyoko muntu – Icyaha cy'ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside – Nubwo kidateganyijwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ni icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside.

Page 354

318 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Habyarimana aregwa ko ubwo yari mu nzego z’ubuyobozi bw’ishyaka rya MRND ku rwego rwa Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali yakoze ibyaha bigamije gucura umugambi, gutegura, gushishikariza abandi, kugenzura no kuyobora jenoside cyangwa ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu. Uru rukiko rwemeje ko ahamwa n’ibikorwa byo gushishikariza, kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi hagamijwe gukora icyaha cya jenoside n’ibyaha byibasiye inyoko muntu. Ku kijyanye n’inzitizi yari yatanze yo kuba yarafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, Urukiko rwemeje ko itahabwa agaciro kuko yayitanze mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko. Uregwa yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibe avuga ko Urukiko rwabanje rwirengagije ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, rumuburanisha atunganiwe, kandi ko rwaburanishije urubanza mu mizi rutabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yatanze. Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko iyo nzitizi yagombaga kubanza gusuzumwa ariko ko kuri uru rwego rw’ubujurire rutayisuzuma kuko urubanza mu mizi rwamaze gucibwa. Ku bijyanye n’ibirego bishya Uregwa yasabaga ko bitasuzumwa kuko byazanywe mu bujurire n’Ubushinjacyaha kandi bitari mu mbibi z’ibyajuririwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze ibikubiye mu bimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha biri mu mbibi z’ubujurire bwe kuko birebana n’uruhare rwe nk’umwe mu bayobozi b’ishyaka rya MRND mu kwitabira inama zitegura jenoside, gutoranya urubyiruko, kuruha imyitozo n’ibikoresho, bikaba atari ibirego bishya uretse uruhare rwe mu ishingwa rya radiyo RTLM rutagomba gusuzumwa kuko atarurezwe ku rwego

Page 355

319 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

rwa mbere. Bityo, rwemeza ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside, ariko ko adahamwa no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye, ruhamishaho igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yahanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere. Ibi byatumye ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ariko urubanza rwe rwoherezwa mu Rukiko rw’ubujurire kubera impinduka zakozwe mu rwego rw’ubucamanza, hagashyirwaho uru Rukiko. Mu bujurire bwe yakomeje agaragaza ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko ariko Ubushinjacyaha bugasobanura ko adafunzwe muri ubwo buryo kuko yahanishijwe igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, kuba icyo cyemezo cyarafashwe hatagaragajwe itegeko ryashingiweho ntacyo bihindura dore ko ari ikibazo cy’imyandikire y’urubanza atari ibigize inenge yarwo. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Umuntu ufunzwe mu rwego rw’urubanza yaciriwe mu mizi, ntashobora kujurira anenga icyemezo yafungiweho by’agateganyo ashingiye ku kuba inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha zitarubahirije amategeko arebana n’ifatwa n’ifungwa ry’agateganyo.

2. Nta muburanyi ushobora kwitwaza ko urubanza rwaciwe n'urundi rukiko rwamugize umwere mu gihe atarubayemo umuburanyi.

3. Urukiko nirwo rufite inshingano zo kwemeza ibimenyetso bigomba guhabwa agaciro rumaze kumva abatangabuhamya. Umucamanza ashobora guha agaciro igice kimwe cy'ubuhamya, ikindi ntigihabwe agaciro. Mu gihe ubuhamya bubiri buvuguruzanya, nyuma yo kumva abatangabuhamya, urukiko ni rwo rwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka aribwo bufite ishingiro.

Page 356

320 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

4. Nubwo kidateganyijwe mu mategeko y’u Rwanda, icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ni icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Imikirize y’urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi ihindutse kuri bimwe. Amagarama aherera ku isanduku ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 132. Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 16 Ukuboza 1966 yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki, ingingo ya 14. Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside, ingingo ya 3. Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo kuwa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 155. Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko, ingingo ya 105. Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 184. Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65 n’iya 119.

Page 357

321 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 22/03/2019. Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, ICTR-98-44-T. Ubushinjacyaha na Simon Bikindi, ICTR –2001 -72 –T. Ubushinjacyaha na Yussuf Munyakazi, ICTR-97-36A-A. Ubushinjacyaha na Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A. Ubushinjacyaha na Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T. Ubushinjacyaha na Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A. Ubushinjacyaha na Ntagerura André na bagenzi be, ICTR-99- 46-A. Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-T. Ubushinjacyaha na Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, ICTR- 99-52-A. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Habyarimana Jean yari Perezida w’ishyaka rya MRND (Mouvement Révolutionaire National pour le Développement) muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, akaba n’umwe mu bari bagize Biro Politiki (Bureau Politique) y’iryo shyaka ku rwego rw’igihugu. Aregwa ko ubwo yari mu nzego z’ubuyobozi bw’ishyaka rya MRND ku rwego rwa Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali yakoze ibyaha bigamije gucura umugambi, gutegura, gushishikariza abandi, kugenzura no kuyobora jenoside cyangwa ibindi byaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, by’umwihariko kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi atoranya urubyiruko rwo guha

Page 358

322 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imyitozo ya gisirikare, akanaruha ibikoresho byicishijwe abatutsi, kujya mu nama zitegura jenoside, kugenzura za bariyeri ziva Nyabugogo ku isoko kugeza ku Muhima ku ishuli rya APACOPE, ari naho hiciwe abantu benshi barimo uwitwa Rutayisire alias Tigana. [2] Urubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ku itariki ya 01/03/2016, uru Rukiko ruca urubanza RP GEN 0002/15/TGI/NYGE rwemeza ko Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’ibikorwa byo gushishikariza, kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi hagamijwe gukora icyaha cya jenoside n’ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu, ruvuga ko inzitizi irebana no gufungwa mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko yari yatanzwe na Habyarimana Jean itahabwa agaciro kuko yayitanze mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko. [3] Habyarimana Jean ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, ajuririra Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi1, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ko rwamuburanishije atunganiwe, kandi ko rwaburanishije urubanza mu mizi rutabanje gusuzuma inzitizi yatanze. [4] Mu bujurire bwe kandi, Habyarimana Jean yavugaga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwirengagije ko atari gukurikiranwaho icyaha cyo kurema umutwe w’abagizi ba nabi kubera ko cyashaje, ko yahamijwe ibyaha hashingiwe ku buhamya

1 Muri uru rubanza, mu rwego rwo guhina amagambo harakoreshwa Urukiko Rukuru mu kuvuga Urukiko Rukuru Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibe.

Page 359

323 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

budafatika, bwashatswe hagamijwe kumuhamya ibyaha ndetse ko ababutanze batahamagawe mu Rukiko, kandi ko Urukiko rwanze ko Ubushinjacyaha buzana zimwe mu nyandiko zimurenganura zirimo inyandikomvugo y’iburanisha ku ifunga n’ifungurwa ry’agateganyo n’iperereza ryakozwe n’Ubushinjacyaha mu murenge wa Muhima. [5] Mu rubanza RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI rwaciwe ku wa 28/04/2017, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze koko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwaragombaga kubanza gusuzuma inzitizi yatanzwe na Habyarimana Jean y’uko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ariko ko ku rwego rw’ubujurire rutayisuzuma kuko urubanza mu mizi rwamaze gucibwa, ndetse Habyarimana Jean agahanishwa igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, ko rero gusuzuma iyo nzitizi ntacyo byahindura. [6] Ku birebana n’ibirego bishya Habyarimana Jean yavugaga ko Ubushinjacyaha bwazanye mu bujurire, avuga ko bitari mu mbibi z’ibyajuririwe, agasaba ko bitasuzumwa, muri byo akavuga inama aregwa ko yakoranye na Renzaho Tharcisse mu rwego rwo gutegura jenoside, uruhare rw’ishyaka rya MRND mu gutegura jenoside, kuba mu bashinze radiyo RTLM (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) no kuyobora ibitero hirya no hino mu gihugu uretse ku Muhima, Urukiko rwasanze ibikubiye mu bimenyetso byatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha biri mu mbibi z’ubujurire bwe kuko birebana n’uruhare rwe nk’umwe mu bayobozi b’ishyaka rya MRND mu kwitabira inama zitegura jenoside, gutoranya urubyiruko, kuruha imyitozo n’ibikoresho, bikaba atari ibirego bishya uretse uruhare rwe mu ishingwa rya radiyo RTLM rutagomba gusuzumwa kuko atarurezwe ku rwego rwa mbere.

Page 360

324 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[7] Urukiko rwanzuye ko ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, ruvuga ko ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside, ariko ko adahamwa no kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ruhamishaho igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yahanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [8] Habyarimana Jean ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza, ajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba ko rwasuzuma ibirebana n’uko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwafashe icyemezo rudashingiye ku manza zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR)2, ko atahawe umwanya wo kuvuguruzanya n’abatangabuhamya bamushinja, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bamushinjura no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarakoze ikosa mu kumuhamya icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside. [9] Nyuma y’ishyirwaho ry’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire, ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean bwoherejwe mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 105 y’Itegeko N° 30/2018 ryo ku wa 02/06/2018 rigena ububasha bw’inkiko3, buhabwa RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA.

2 Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda. 3 Ingingo ya 105, igika cya mbere: 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.

Page 361

325 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[10] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe ku wa 13/11/2019 ariko uwo munsi rirasubikwa kubera ko abacamanza bari bari mu mahugurwa, ryimurirwa ku wa 18/11/2019; kuva uwo munsi urubanza rugenda rusubikwa ku mpamvu zitandukanye. Urubanza rwongeye kuburanishwa mu ruhame ku itariki ya 09/01/2020 n’iya 13/01/2020, Habyarimana Jean yunganiwe na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Rudatinya Nyangezi Gaspard, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza akaba ari: - Kumenya niba Habyarimana Jean afunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko; - Kumenya niba urubanza rwa Matayo Ngirumpatse na Edouard Karemera rwaciwe na TPIR rwakuraho Habyarimana Jean uburyozwacyaha ku bwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside; - Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga byanze bikunze gutumiza Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent kugira ngo bavuguruzanye na Habyarimana Jean no kumenya niba bagomba gutumizwa n’uru Rukiko kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya; - Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bashinjura Habyarimana Jean;

Page 362

326 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

- Kumenya niba hari ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside.

1. Kumenya niba Habyarimana Jean afunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko [11] Habyarimana Jean na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire, umwunganira, bavuga ko mu gika cya 12 cy’urubanza rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaragombaga kubanza gukemura inzitizi Habyarimana Jean yari yaratanze ku rwego rwa mbere irebana n’uko yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi nk’uko byateganywaga n’ingingo ya 105, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe urubanza rwaburanishwaga, ariko ko urwo Rukiko Rukuru rutakosoye iyo nenge, ko ahubwo rwasobanuye ko ntacyo rwabikoraho kuko afunzwe hashingiwe ku rubanza rwamukatiye igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, maze ruhita ruburanisha urubanza mu mizi rutabanje gufata icyemezo kuri iyo nzitizi, kandi ko rutagaragaje amategeko rwashingiyeho rufata icyo cyemezo. Basaba uru Rukiko ko rwafata icyemezo kuri iyo nzitizi kugira ngo Habyarimana Jean afungurwe by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’urubanza mu mizi. [12] Habyarimana Jean asobanura ko yafashwe ku wa 20/12/1996, hashingiwe ku rutonde rw’abakoze icyaha cya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi mu mwaka wa 1994, afungirwa muri Gereza ku wa 12/03/1997, ko ku wa 02/04/1997 yakorewe

Page 363

327 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

inyandiko imufunga by’agateganyo (MAP)4, ariko ko atigeze ashyikirizwa umucamanza kugira ngo amufatire icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo, ko ahubwo mu mwaka wa 2009, aribwo yamenye ko atagira dosiye, nyamara uwari Umuyobozi wa Gereza witwa Gahima Rusa n’uwari Porokireri ku Rwego Rwisumbuye witwa Ndibwami Rugambwa bakomeje kumufunga mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko bashingiye ku nyandiko zimufunga by’agateganyo zataye agaciro bituma agira igihombo gikomeye n’iyicarubozo ryo mu bwonko (Torture psychologique) kuko yahatiwe kwemera ibyaha atakoze no kubishinja bagenzi be, kuvutswa uburenganzira n’amahirwe yo kuburana adafunzwe no kubona umwunganizi, ariko ko azabitangira ikirego cyihariye mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha kugira ngo abo bayobozi bamufunze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko mu gihe cy’imyaka 20 yose bazabihanirwe n’amategeko banabimuhere indishyi kabone n’ubwo zaba ari symbolique. [13] Habyarimana Jean n’umwunganira bavuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 78, 8º na 96, igika cya 3, z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, akwiye gufungurwa by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’uru rubanza kuko nta cyemezo cy’umucamanza kimufunga by’agateganyo cyigeze gikorwa, kandi ko agifatwa nk’umwere nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 19 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda. Basaba uru Rukiko ko rwazashingira ku rubanza RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, ku wa 06/12/2018, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Nshimiyimana Diane Rwigara na Mukangemanyi Adeline

4 Mandat d’arrêt provisoire.

Page 364

328 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Rwigara, kuko urwo Rukiko rwarekuye abaregwa kandi bari bafunzwe by’agateganyo. [14] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacya avuga ko Habyarimana Jean adafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko yahanishijwe igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye mu gika cya 12 cy’urubanza rujuririrwa, ko kuba umucamanza w’urwo Rukiko ataragaragaje ingingo z’Itegeko yashingiyeho afata icyo cyemezo kijyanye n’uko adafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, ari uburyo bw’imyandikire y’urubanza ariko bitagize inenge yarwo. [15] Avuga kandi ko hatashingirwa ku ngingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, kuko Habyarimana Jean atajuririye icyemezo kimufunga by’agateganyo, kandi ko no mu Rukiko Rukuru, Habyarimana Jean atari agifunze by’agateganyo, ko ahubwo yajuririye urubanza rwaciwe ku rwego rwa kabiri rwamuhanishije igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko, bivuze rero ko agomba kuguma muri “situation” yo gufungwa yashyizwemo n’inkiko zabanje, maze akaburana ubujurire bwe bwa kabiri afunze nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 184, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe Habyarimana Jean yaburanaga, ariko niba yifuza kurega abamufunze mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko, yazabitangira ikirego cyihariye mu Rukiko rubifitiye ububasha nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 144 na 145 z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, kubera ko Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rudafite ububasha bwo kuburanisha ku rwego rwa mbere ikirego cyerekeranye n’ifungwa rinyuranyije n’amategeko.

Page 365

329 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[16] Avuga na none ko hatashingirwa ku rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Rwigara Diane kuko yafunguwe kubera ko yagizwe umwere, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean afunze mu rwego rwo kurangiza urubanza rwamukatiye igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ingingo ya 184, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryakurikizwaga igihe Habyarimana Jean yaburanaga, iteganya ko ushinjwa wari ufunze mbere yo gucirwa urubanza rwategetse ko afungwa, akomeza gufungwa n’ubwo yaba yarajuriye5. [18] Imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, igaragaza, mu gika cyarwo cya 12, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko n’ubwo Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rutabanje gukemura inzitizi yari yatanzwe na Habyarimana Jean irebana n’uko yafunzwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko mbere yo kuburanisha urubanza mu mizi nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko, ariko ko rutasuzuma iyo nzitizi ku rwego Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwamuhanishije igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko kubera ibyaha yakoze, ko ahubwo rugomba gusuzuma impamvu ze z’ubujurire kugira ngo hamenyekane niba zifite ishingiro cyangwa zitarifite. Nyuma yo

5 Iyo ngingo ninayo yahindutse ingingo ya 187, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko “Uregwa wari ufunze mbere yo gucirwa urubanza rwategetse ko afungwa, akomeza gufungwa n’ubwo yaba yarajuriye.

Page 366

330 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kuburanisha urwo rubanza mu mizi, Urukiko Rukuru rwemeje ko Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside, n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside, maze rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko nk’uko bigaragarira mu gika cya 145 na 147 by’urubanza rwajuririwe. [19] Urukiko rurasanga n’ubwo Habyarimana Jean yafunzwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko nk’uko byemejwe n’Inkiko zabanje, ariko ko rutasuzuma iki kibazo hagamijwe kumenya niba ashobora gufungurwa by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’uru rubanza kuko ntacyo byamumarira kubera ko afunzwe mu rwego rwo kurangiza igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yahawe kubera icyaha cya jenoside akurikiranyweho, bigaragara ko nta kosa urwo Rukiko rwakoze ubwo rwemezaga ko Habyarimana Jean aburana ubujurire bwe afunze, bivuze rero ko atafungurwa by’agateganyo mbere y’icibwa ry’uru rubanza nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 187, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru. [20] Urukiko rurasanga rutashingira ku rubanza RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 06/12/2018, Ubushinjacyaha buburana na Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara na bagenzi be rushingirwaho na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire wunganira Habyarimana Jean kuko muri urwo rubanza abaregwa barekuwe kubera ko bagizwe abere ku cyaha cyo guteza imvururu cyangwa imidugararo muri rubanda bari bakurikiranyweho n’Ubushinjacyaha, nyamara muri uru rubanza, Habyarimana Jean yafunzwe kubera ko yahanishijwe igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko ku rwego rwa mbere n’urwa kabiri nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru.

Page 367

331 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

2. Kumenya niba urubanza rwa Matayo Ngirumpatse na Edouard Karemera rwaciwe na

TPIR rwakuraho Habyarimana Jean uburyozwacyaha ku bwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside6 [21] Habyarimana Jean yunganiwe na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire yajuriye avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije icyaha cy’ubwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside, rwirengagije urubanza ICTR-98-44-T rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyireho u Rwanda (TPIR) rwemeje ko mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 nta bwumvikane bwo gukora jenoside bwigeze buba ku birebana na Matayo Ngirumpatse na Edouard Karemera kimwe n’abandi bayobozi bakuru b’ishyaka MRND. [22] Habyarimana Jean yisobanuye avuga ko mu gihe byagaragaye ko abayobozi bakuru b’ishyaka MRND nta bwumvikane bagize bwo gukora jenoside, ko we nk’umuyobozi wa MRND ku rwego rw’Umujyi wa Kigali ataryozwa gushyiraho umutwe w’interahamwa no kuwuha imyitozo ya gisirikare hagamijwe gukora jenoside, kandi ko Ubushinjacyaha buterekana inama n’ubwumvikane yaba yarakoranye n’abayobozi bari bamwungirije cyangwa undi uwo ari we wese hagamijwe gukora jenoside. [23] Habyarimana Jean yasabye ko ku bw’iyo mpamvu, hakurikizwa igika cya mbere cy’ingingo ya 9 y’amategeko agenga Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ivuga ko nta muntu ushobora kuburanishwa n’Urukiko rw’Igihugu ku bikorwa binyuranyije ku buryo bukomeye

6 Ibirebana n’inyito y’iki cyaha, biragarukwaho muri uru rubanza mu gice cya II.5.

Page 368

332 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’amategeko mpuzamahanga areba inyokomuntu niba yaraburanishijwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda, ku bikorwa bimwe. [24] Ubushinjacyaha bwasubije ko urubanza rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard ntacyo rurengeraho Habyarimana Jean, ko ahubwo uyu afata igice cy’urubanza abona kimufitiye inyungu yirengagije ko uru rubanza mu gika cyarwo cya [201] rwemeje ko Ngirumpatse nk’umuyobozi wa MRND yari afite ububasha bugenzura ibikorwa by’interahamwe, ko kandi n’umutangabuhamya HJB yemeje ko Habyarimana ubwe yagize uruhare mu gutoranya abasore bajya mu mutwe w’interahamwe. [25] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko Urukiko mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwemeje ko komite yayoboraga MRND ku rwego rw’Igihugu itashoboraga kugeza ubutumwa ku barwanashyaka bitanyuze kuri perezida w’ishyaka ku rwego rwa perefegitura7, kandi ko Habyarimana Jean adakurikiranyweho kuba umuyobozi w’interahamwe, ko ahubwo aryozwa uruhare yagize mu ishyirwaho ry’uyu mutwe no kuwutoza ibya gisirikare hagamijwe kurimbura abatutsi, ibi bikaba byaragaragajwe mu nama zitandukanye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya ngingo ya 155 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo kuwa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, mu gika cyayo cya 2, iteganya ko nta

7 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, igika cya 201: “De plus, la Chambre juge peu probable que le Comité National Provisoire ait pu, sans l’implication du président préfectoral s’adresser aux militants du MRND”.

Page 369

333 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

gukurikirana kundi kubaho iyo ushinjwa agaragaje ko mu mahanga yaciriwe urubanza rudasubirwaho (ku cyaha akurikiranyweho). [27] Ingingo ya 14 mu gace kayo ka 7 y’Amasezerano mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 16 Ukuboza 1966 yerekeye uburenganzira mu by’imbonezamubano no mu bya politiki ivuga ko nta muntu ushobora gukurikiranwaho icyaha yahanaguweho cyangwa ku cyaha yakatiweho burundu mu rubanza rudasubirwamo hakurikijwe amategeko n’imiburanishirize y’imanza zishinja ibyaha bya buri gihugu.8 [28] Urukiko rurasanga urubanza ICTR-98-44-T rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR), nyuma yo gusesengura ibimenyetso rwashyikirijwe ku bireba uruhare rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard mu ishyirwaho ry’umutwe w’interahamwe no kuwutoza ibya gisirikare, n’uburyo bagiye umugambi wo kurimbura abatutsi, na nyuma yo gusobanura inama zitandukanye ubuyobozi n’abayoboke ba MRND bitabiriye n’uburyo muri izo nama abatutsi bafashwe nk’abanzi, rwarasanze bahamwa n’ibyaha bya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi mu gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) kabone n’ubwo nta buryozwacyaha bushobora kwemezwa harebwe ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki 08/04/19949, ariko

8 Art. 14 point 7 du Pacte International du 16 Décembre 1966 relatif aux droits civils et politiques ratifié par le Rwanda par le Décret-loi Nº 8/7bya5 du 12 Février 1975. 9 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, igika cya 1573: Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994.

Page 370

334 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mu bujurire urwo Rukiko rukaba rwaremeje ko Karemera Edouard na Ngirumpatse Matayo bahamwa n’icyaha cya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi bakoze nyuma y’itariki 18/04/1994 mu rwego rwo gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise)10, Karemera Edouard na Ngirumpatse Matayo bakaba rero bataragizwe abere kuri ibyo bikorwa nk’uko Habyarimana abiburanisha. [29] Ikindi kandi Urukiko rw’ubujurire rurasanga Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda ku rwego rwa mbere rwari rwasanze Ngirumpatse na Karemera badahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside hashingiwe ku bikorwa byabaye mbere ya 08/04/1994 maze ku rwego rw’ubujurire (ICTR-98-44-A) urwo Rukiko ruhindura icyemezo cy’Urugereko rw’Urukiko Rwisumbuye cyavugaga ko Ngirumpatse Matayo ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ariko rugumishaho umwanzuro uhamya Karemera Edouard icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside byibura ku itariki ya 25/05/199411; bivuze ko urwo Rukiko rwasuzumye ibimenyetso kuri buri wese ku giti cye, ari nacyo Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze ku bireba Habyarimana Jean, mbere yo kumuhamya ibyaha akurikiranyweho12.

10 ICTR-98-44-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera et Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Ibika bya 146-156. 11 ICTR-98-44-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera et Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Igika cya 745: “The Appeals Chamber has reversed the Trial Chamber's finding that Ngirumpatse was responsible for conspiracy to commit genocide, but has upheld the Trial Chamber's finding that Karemera was responsible for conspiracyt o commit genocide by at least 25 May 1994.” 12 Reba urubanza RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI.

Page 371

335 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[30] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rero rurasanga haba ku cyaha cya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu byakozwe mu gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint criminal entreprise) haba no ku cyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jeoside (entente en vue de commettre le génocide), Ngirumpatse na Karemera batarabigizweho abere nk’uko Habyarimana Jean abiburanisha, keretse gusa ku bikorwa byabyaye mbere y’itariki 08/04/199413, bityo ingingo y’ubujurire ya Habyarimana Jean y’uko we nk’uwari umuyobozi wa MRND ku rwego rw’Umujyi wa Kigali adashobora guhamwa n’ubwumvikane mu mugambi wo gukora jenoside mu gihe Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard nk’abayobozi bakuru ba MRND batahamwe n’iki cyaha ikaba nta shingiro ifite. [31] Urukiko rurasanga na none ingingo y’ubujurire ya Habyarimana Jean isaba ko hubahirizwa ingingo ya 9 ya Sitati zigenga Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda14 nta shingiro bufite kuko urubanza ICTR- 98- 44-T avuga ko rwamuvanyeho ku buryo budasubirwaho (force de chose jugée) ubwumvikane ku mugambi wo gukora jenoside, uyu atigeze arubamo umuburanyi, ibiruvugwamo bikaba bireba Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard bonyine kuko aribo baruvugwamo, ari nabo barengerwa n’ingingo ya 9 ivuzwe muri iki gika mu gihe baba baregewe inkiko ku byaha bamaze gucirwaho urubanza. Ibi ni nako ingingo ya 155 y’Itegeko Nº

13 Ibirebana n’uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 birasuzumwa mu gice cya II.5 cy’uru rubanza. 14 “No person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations of international humanitarian law under the present Statute, for which he or she has already been tried by the International Tribunal for Rwanda.”

Page 372

336 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ibivuga, aho mu gika cyayo cya kabiri, iteganya ko nta gukurikirana kundi kubaho iyo ushinjwa agaragaje ko mu mahanga yaciriwe urubanza rudasubirwaho (ku cyaha akurikiranyweho); Habyarimana Jean we rero akaba atagaragaza ko yigeze acibwa urubanza mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda. [32] Rushingiye ku ngingo z’amategeko n’ibisobanuro bivuzwe haruguru no ku nyandiko z’abahanga mu mategeko bemeza ko ababuranyi ku giti cyabo kandi ku kiburanwa cyaciriweho urubanza, ari bo bonyine barengerwa n’ihame rya “autorité de la chose jugée”15, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ingingo y’ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean y’uko Urukiko Rukuru rwirengagije gushingira ku rubanza rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera Edouard kandi rwaramuhanaguyeho uburyozwacyaha ku bwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside nta shingiro ifite.

15 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procedure pénale, 2eme éd., Larcier, 2006, pp.978- 981: “Pour qu’il y ait “autorité de la chose jugée” du pénal sur le pénal, il faut que la demande soit formée contre les mêmes parties en la même qualité et que les prévenus soient poursuivis pour les mêmes faits que ceux qui ont déjà fait l’objet d’un jugement. Il n’y a pas d’autorité de la chose jugée entre co-autreurs et complices s’ils sont poursuivis séparément. La décision rendue précédemment ne peut ni leur nuire ni leur profiter, même si cela débouche sur des décisions contradictoires”.

Page 373

337 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

3. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga byanze bikunze gutumiza Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent kugira ngo bavuguruzanye na Habyarimana Jean, no kumenya niba bagomba gutumizwa n’uru Rukiko kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya [33] Habyarimana Jean avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije ibyaha rushingiye ku buhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite n’ubwa Mbarushimana Vincent, kandi rutarabahamagaje kugira ngo bavuguruzanye kuko ubuhamya bwabo bushidikanywaho. Asobanura ko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite bukwiye guteshwa agaciro kubera ko burimo ivuguruzanya kuko mu Bushinjacyaha atigeze avuga ibyerekeranye na “Comité de Crise”, ko ahubwo yayivuze mu buhamya yahaye urwo Rukiko igihe rwakoraga iperereza mu bitaro by’i Kanombe yari arwariyemo, kandi ko yanongeyemo amazina y’abandi batangabuhamya atavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha. [34] Avuga nanone ko ubuhamya Mbarushimana Vincent yatangiye mu nzego z’iperereza bukwiye guteshwa agaciro kuko atabutangiye mu Rukiko Rukuru kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya, ko ahubwo urwo Rukiko rwamushakishije rukamubura bitewe n’uko yavuze ko atatanga ubuhamya atabanje kubonana na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite wamukoreshaga muri Coopérative y’Abapineri. Asaba uru Rukiko ko rwabahamagaza kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya. [35] Habyarimana Jean asobanura ko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite butahabwa agaciro kuko yavuze ko yagiye kwiyandikisha kwa Konseye wa Segiteri ya Muhima igihe bashakaga abasore bo kujya mu Nterahamwe, maze abona icyiciro cya mbere kijemo “Comité National Provisoire”y’Interahamwe, Habyarimana Jean, Ngirumpatse na

Page 374

338 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Kabuga, kandi ko yabonye icyiciro cya kabiri kizamo Munyakazi wategekaga Jandarumeri na Renzaho Tharcisse wari Perefe w’Umujyi wa Kigali, ariko ko uretse ko izo nama zitabayeho, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite atashoboraga kuzizamo kuko ari umututsi wabaga muri Parti Libéral (PL). [36] Avuga kandi ko Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yavuze ko muri izo nama, Habyarimana Jean yahaye Konseye wa Segiteri ya Muhima amabwiriza yo kwandika abasore bifuzaga kujya mu Nterahamwe, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean atashoboraga kwivanga mu bikorwa by’Interahamwe kuko zari zifite Perezida, Visi - Perezida na Secrétaire wazo. Ikindi avuga, ni uko Konseye wa Segiteri ya Muhima, wari umukozi wa Leta, cyangwa Renzaho Tharcisse na Munyakazi, bari abasirikare, batashoboraga kujya mu Mashyaka ya Politiki, ko ahubwo byigeze gukorwa gusa igihe MRND yari Parti - Etat. [37] Asobanura ko mu buhamya bwe, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yavuze ko yari yiteguye kujya gushinja Habyarimana Jean muri Gacaca, ariko ko atabikoze kubera ko yasanze Habyarimana Jean yarashyizwe mu cyiciro cya mbere cy’abakoze jenoside bagombaga kuburanira mu Nkiko, akaba yibaza impamvu atatanze ubwo buhamya mu nyandiko icyo gihe. [38] Akomeza asobanura ko Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yavuze ko Kamatamu yatumiraga abasore kwitoza ubuterahamwe, ariko ko nyuma y’aho yavuze ko yabatumiraga kugira ngo bajye gucunga umutekano, ndetse ko n’Ubushinjacyaha bwavuze ko Habyarimana Jean yabaga muri “Comité de Crise”, nyamara umutangabuhamya witwa Mukagatare akaba yaravuze ko iyo “Comité de Crise” itigeze ibaho.

Page 375

339 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[39] Yongeraho ko Mbarushimana Vincent yavuze ko habaye inama yari irimo Habyarimana Jean na Ngirumpatse yahamagariraga urubyiruko kujya kwitoza imyitozo ya gisirikare, kandi ko Habyarimana Jean yajyanye abo basore muri Camp Kigali akoresheje imodoka ye ya Land Rover, ndetse yabanje no kwirukana Abatutsi nk’uko byanashimangiwe na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, ariko ko we (Habyarimana Jean) atashoboraga kujyana abo basore muri Camp Kigali akoresheje iyo modoka ye kuko bari benshi cyane. [40] Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire umwunganira, avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 111 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko gushidikanya birengera ushinjwa, ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent butahabwa agaciro kuko babogamiye ku ruhande rw’Ubushinjacyaha, kandi ko batabutangiye mu Rukiko kugira ngo Habyarimana Jean agire icyo abibariza imbonankubone. [41] Avuga kandi ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 62 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko ubuhamya ari ubutangiwe mu Rukiko, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent bakwiye gutumizwa muri uru Rukiko kugira ngo bahatangire ubuhamya bwabo, no kugira ngo Habyarimana Jean n’umwunganira bagire ibyo bababaza, kuko Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yabutangiye mu bitaro by’i Kanombe, aho yari arwariye, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean atahawe amahirwe yo kumuvuguruza kuko atari ahari, ko n’ubwo Mbarushimana Vincent yari yarabuze, akwiye kongera guhamagazwa muri uru Rukiko kugira ngo atange ubuhamya bwe no kugira ngo habe

Page 376

340 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ivuguruzanya, yakongera kubura akaba aribwo hafatwa icyemezo cy’uko yabuze burundu. [42] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 86 y’Itegeko Nº 30/2013 ryo ku wa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko ibimenyetso mu manza z’inshinjabyaha bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye, no ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko ari Urukiko rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, asanga Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent batakongera guhamagazwa nk’abatangabuhamya muri uru Rukiko, kuko ubuhamya batangiye mu nzego z’iperereza bufite agaciro kuko bwunganiwe n’ubwatangiwe mu Rukiko Rukuru na Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJD na HJE nk’uko bigaragarira mu gika cya 35 kugeza ku cya 39 na 47 by’urubanza rujuririrwa, kandi ko Habyarimana Jean yahawe umwanya uhagije wo kubabaza ibibazo byose yifuzaga, barabimusubiza. [43] Asobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasanze Nyiringondo Epaphrodite aho yari arwariye mu bitaro by’i Kanombe, rumubaza ibibazo byose Habyarimana Jean yifuzaga kumubaza, arabisubiza, ko nyuma y’aho, rwasomeye Habyarimana Jean n’Ubushinjacyaha izo mvugo ze nabo bagira icyo bazivugaho. [44] Akomeza asobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahamagaje Mbarushimana Vincent kugira ngo habe ivuguruzanya, ariko ko ritabaye kubera ko yabuze kuko inyandiko z’ihamagara ziri muri dosiye zivuga ko atakibarizwa aho yari atuye, ariko ko ubuhamya bwe bufite agaciro kuko bwatanzwe mu nzego z’iperereza mu buryo bukurikije amategeko.

Page 377

341 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[45] Yongeraho ko n’ubwo Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent bahamagazwa muri uru Rukiko, ntacyo barumarira kuko barangije gutanga ubuhamya bwabo mu nzego z’iperereza, no mu Rukiko Rukuru, kandi ko ubuhamya bwabo bufite agaciro kuko bwunganiwe n’ubw’abandi batangabuhamya buri muri dosiye.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [46] Ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, iteganya ko mu manza nshinjabyaha ibimenyetso mu manza bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe uburyo bwo kuhaba ngo banyomozanye. Naho ingingo ya 62 y’iryo Tegeko, igateganya ko ubuhamya ni ibivugwa mu rukiko bivuzwe n’umuntu wabibonye cyangwa wabyumvise ubwe ku byerekeye ikiburanwa. [47] Na none ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko Urukiko ari rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ko ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ko ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa, ko rutitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya, ko ahubwo rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze nta cyo bihimbira. [48] Abahanga mu mategeko basobanura ko n’ubwo ihame ry’ivuguruzanya ryemerera ababuranyi b’impande zombi kuvuguruza no kujya impaka ku bimenyetso byabonetse igihe cy’iperereza mu rubanza rw’inshinjabyaha, ariko ko umucamanza uburanisha urubanza mu mizi ashobora guca

Page 378

342 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

urubanza ashingiye kuri ibyo bimenyetso bitabaye ngombwa ko abatangabuhamya babajijwe igihe cy’iperereza bongera gusubira mu mvugo zabo igihe cy’iburanisha.16 [49] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014, n’imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, ku wa 23/11/2016, igihe rwakoraga iperereza mu bitaro bya Kanombe, aho Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yari arwariye, uyu yarusobanuriye ko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwigishijwe ibya gisirikare, kandi ko nyuma y’aho, urwo rubyiruko rwishe abatutsi benshi barimo Rutayisire Deo alias Tigana, Gasongo, Munyankindi na Vénantie. [50] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko nyuma y’iryo perereza, urwo Rukiko rwasubukuye iburanisha ku wa 08/12/2016, maze Habyarimana Jean n’Ubushinjacyaha bahabwa umwanya uhagije wo kugira icyo bavuga kuri ubwo buhamya, aho muri rusange, Habyarimana Jean yavuze ko ubuhamya Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yatanze igihe cy’iperereza, butahabwa agaciro kuko budahuye n’ubwo yatanze mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014. [51] Muri dosiye hari kandi ubuhamya Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo yatangiye mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014, aho yashinje Habyarimana Jean kuba yarateranyirije hamwe urubyiruko rwo ku Muhima na Kimisagara muri Camp Kigali, aho rwatorejwe imbunda, kandi ko hagati yo ku wa 10 no ku wa

16 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacob et Adrien Masset, Manuel de Procédure Pénale, Liège, Belgique, 2012, p.758: “Le caractère contradictoire de la procédure permet, certes, aux parties de contredire et discuter les éléments recueillis au cours de la phase préliminaire du procès pénal, mais (…) le juge du fond peut fonder sa conviction sur des éléments de l’information et de l’instruction qui ont été recueillis non contradictoirement et qui ne doivent pas nécessairement être repris oralement et contradictoirement à l’audience”.

Page 379

343 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

13/04/1994, urwo rubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwishe ibyitso bikomeye by’Inkotanyi. [52] Dosiye igaragaza na none ko iburanisha ry’urubanza rujuririrwa ryagiye ryimurirwa ku matariki atandukanye yo ku wa 20/10/2016, ku wa 24/10/2016, ku wa 01/11/2016, no ku wa 11/11/2016, kugira ngo Urukiko Rukuru rwumve Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo nk’umutangabuhamya nk’uko na Habyarimana Jean yabyifuzaga, ariko ko uwo mutangabuhamya atabonetse bitewe n’uko batamenye aho abarizwa, ariko ko Habyarimana Jean yahawe umwanya uhagije wo kugira icyo avuga ku buhamya yatangiye mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014 bwavuzwe haruguru, no ku bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite bwavuzwe haruguru nk’uko bigaragarira mu bika bya [20], [52], [53], [98], [99] na [108] by’urwo rubanza. [53] Na none imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe muri uru Rukiko, igaragaza mu gika cyarwo cya 36, ko Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo bwavuzwe haruguru, bukwiye gufatwa nk’ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko Habyarimana Jean yabaye mu batoranyije urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwigishijwe ibya gisirikare kuko bavuze ibyo bazi, banahagazeho, kubera ko bari bari mu rubyiruko rwatoranywaga, uretse ko babavanyemo kubera ko bari abatutsi. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje kandi ko ubwo buhamya bukwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko bushimangirwa n’ubwatanzwe n’abandi batangabuhamya barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC na HJE, bemeje ko Habyarimana Jean ari mu batoranyije urubyiruko rwo kwigisha ibya gisirikare abifashijwemo n’abayobozi b’ama Komini n’ama Segiteri yabishishikarije, kandi ko yanarukoresheje inama ku cyicaro cy’ishyaka rya MRND kiri ku Muhima ku nzu ya Kabuga

Page 380

344 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mbere y’uko rwoherezwa mu myitozo ya gisirikare nk’uko abo batangabuhamya babisobanuye mu bika bya [37], [38], [39], [40] na [41] by’urubanza rwajuririwe. [54] Hashingiwe ku ngingo z’Itegeko no ku bisobanuro by’abahanga byavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga, kuba mu iburanisha ry’urubanza, Habyarimana Jean yarahawe umwanya uhagije wo kuvuguruza ubuhamya bwatanzwe na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo nk’uko bigaragarira mu bika bya [20], [52], [53], [98], [99] na [108] by’urubanza rwajuririwe, kandi mu bushishozi bwarwo nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko Nº 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, urwo Rukiko rukaba rwarasanze ubwo buhamya bufite agaciro kuko bwunganiwe n’ubuhamya bwatanzwe n’abandi batangabuhamya barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC na HJE nk’uko rwabisobanuye mu gika cya 41 cy’urwo rubanza, bigaragara ko nta kosa urwo Rukiko rwakoze ubwo rwashingiraga ku buhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo bukubiye mu nyandikomvugo bakorewe mu Bushinjacyaha n’imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, igihe cy’iperereza, kubera ko mu manza z’inshinjabyaha ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe umwanya wo kuhaba no kunyomozanya nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, bivuze rero ko atari ngombwa ko uru Rukiko rwongera guhamagaza byanze bikunze Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo muri uru rubanza kugira ngo bavuguruzanye na Habyarimana Jean, cyane cyane ko Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo ataboneka kubera ko ntawe uzi aho aherereye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru.

Page 381

345 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[55] Urukiko rurasanga, kuba ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite n’ubwa Mbarushimana Vincent alias Gasongo bufite agaciro kubera ko bwunganiwe n’ibindi bimenyetso bigizwe n’imvugo z’abatangabuhamya batandukanye nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, bukwiye gusuzumirwa hamwe n’ibindi bimenyetso biri muri dosiye kugira ngo hamenyekane niba koko Habyarimana Jean yarakoze ibyaha yahamijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru nk’uko biza gusobanurwa mu bindi bika by’uru rubanza. [56] Urukiko rurasanga imvugo ya Habyarimana Jean y’uko ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite butahabwa agaciro kubera ko burimo ivuguruzanya nta shingiro ifite, kuko kuba, imbere y’Urukiko Rukuru, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite yaba yarongeyemo amagambo arebana na “Comité de crise” n’amazina y’abatangabuhamya atavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha, atari ikimenyetso kigaragaza ko yivuguruje, ahubwo bigaragara ko impamvu yatumye yongeramo ayo magambo, ari uko hari hashize igihe kirekire kirenga imyaka makumyabiri (20) yose kuva jenoside yakorewe abatutsi ibaye mu mwaka wa 1994 n’igihe yatangiye ubwo buhamya mu Bushinjacyaha ku wa 24/10/2014, n’imbere y’urwo Rukiko ku wa 23/12/2016. Ibyo bihuje kandi n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza ICT–2001-72–T, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) ku wa 02/12/2008, aho rwasobanuye ko kuba hari ibyo abatangabuhamya batavuga kimwe cyangwa bashobora kwibeshya ho mu buryo budakabije, cyangwa iyo ubuhamya bw’umutangabuhamya yatangiye mu Rukiko budahuje n’ibyo yavuze mbere, bitagira ingaruka ku kwizerwa k’ubuhamya bwabo kuko bishobora kuba byaratewe n’igihe kirekire gishize cyo kuva ku itariki icyaha cyakoreweho

Page 382

346 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

nk’uko bigaragarira mu nyandiko itanga ikirego kugeza ku itariki ubwo buhamya bwatangiwe ho mu Rukiko17. [57] Urukiko rurasanga, na none nta kosa urwo Rukiko rwakoze ubwo rwahaga agaciro igice kimwe cy’ubuhamya bwa Nyiringondo Epaphrodite kijyanye n’uko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwahawe imyitozo ya gisirikare, ikindi ntigihabwe agaciro, kuko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko ryavuzwe haruguru, ari Urukiko rwonyine rufite ububasha bwo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya no kwemeza ko zihuje cyangwa zidahuje n’ikiburanwa, hashingiwe ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze nta cyo bihimbira. Ibyo bihuje kandi n’ibyemejwe mu rubanza ICT –2001-72 –T, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon rwavuzwe haruguru, aho Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR) rwasobanuye ko igice kimwe cy’ubuhamya gishobora guhabwa agaciro mu gihe aricyo cyizewe18.

17 ICTR –2001 -72 –T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Simon Bikindi, igika cya 32: “La Chambre reconnaît qu'il s'est écoulé une longue période entre la date des faits allégués dans l'acte d'accusation et celle des dépositions à I'audience. Ainsi, Ie manque de précision ou I'existence de contradictions mineures entre les dépositions de différents témoins ou entre la déposition d'un témoin et ses déclarations antérieures, n'ont généralement pas été considérés comme jetant nécessairement Ie discrédit sur ces dépositions”. 18 ICTR –2001 -72 –T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, igika cya 32: “Même si elle a parfois décidé de ne pas se fonder sur certains aspects de la déposition d’un témoin, la Chambre a néamoins retenu d’autres parties de celle- ci jugées fiables et crédibles”.

Page 383

347 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

4. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bashinjura Habyarimana Jean [58] Habyarimana Jean yunganiwe na Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire avuga ko hari ubuhamya bumushinjura Urukiko Rukuru rutahaye agaciro, muri bwo hakaba harimo ubuhamya bwa Setiba Joseph wari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Segiteri ya Kigali wavuze ko uwitwa Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wayoboraga interahamwe muri Kigali Ngali, kandi ko ari we wakumiriye interahamwe ubwo zari zigiye gutera iwe zishaka abatutsi yari yarahishe, akanasobanura ko intwaro zahabwaga izo nterahamwe zatangirwaga ku Kigo cya gisirikare ahakorerwaga imyitozo; bivuze ko rero atari we wazitangaga nk’uko yabirezwe. [59] Akomeza avuga ko undi mutangabuhamya wiswe HJD wari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Segiteri ya Nyakabanda yatumijwe kugira ngo aze amushinjure ku birebana n’ubuhamya bwari bwatanzwe n’umutangabuhamya HJC, uyu akaba yari interahamwe yamamaye nk’uko byemejwe n’umutangabuhamya wiswe ALJ mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda na HJE mu Rukiko Rukuru, mu buhamya bwa HJC akaba yari yemeje ko ku wa 15/05/1994 habaye inama yo guhiga abatutsi bari basigaye muri za Segiteri na za Nyumbakumi yari iyobowe na Renzaho Tharcisse; nyamara Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rutarahaye agaciro ubuhamya bw’uyu HJD wavuze ko iyo nama yo ku wa 15/05/1994 ntayabaye, ko ahubwo ku wa 20/05/1994 ari bwo habaye inama ku ishuri rya Nyakabanda igamije gushaka interahamwe zijya gufasha abasirikare kubohoza Mburabuturo yari yafashwe n’inkotanyi. [60] Habyarimana Jean avuga ko ubundi buhamya butitaweho n’Urukiko Rukuru ari ubw’uwitwa Mucanda Vital wavuze ko ari we (Habyarimana Jean) wakiraga inama na za mitingi (meetings)

Page 384

348 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kandi ko zabaga zirimo abahutu, abatutsi n’abatwa, nyamara ibyo yavuze urwo Rukiko rukaba rwarabyirengagije mu gufata icyemezo. [61] Ku byerekeye inama yo ku wa 16/01/1994; Habyarimana Jean asobanura ko nyuma y’uko FPR iteye habayeho urwicyekwe hagati y’abahutu n’abatutsi, hakaba hari n’ikindi kibazo gikomeye cy’abakiga n’abanyenduga, ndetse no guhangana gushingiye ku Turere hagati y’ishyaka rya MDR rya Kayibanda na MRND ya Habyarimana, iyi nama rero ikaba yari igamije kubwira interahamwe ko zigomba kwitonda. Habyarimana Jean avuga ko ingengabitekerezo ya “Hutu Power” ikomoka ku magambo yavuzwe na Karamira muri meeting yo ku wa 23/10/1993 aho abaturage bose (abahutu, abatwa, abatutsi) bari bahamagariwe kwamagana iyicwa rya Perezida Ndadaye, maze nawe (Habyarimana Jean) akaba yarafashemo ijambo. [62] Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire wunganira Habyarimana Jean avuga ko muri ubwo buhamya bushinjura Habayarimana Jean, abatangabuhamya bagaragaje ko atari we wagize uruhare muri za mitingi zo gukangurira abahutu kwica abatutsi no mu itegurwa rya jenoside, ko Ubushinjacyaha butabasha gutanga ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu gushishikariza abahutu n’interahamwe gukora jenoside yakorewe abatutsi, maze asaba ko bugaragaza cassette, extrait cyangwa ubuhamya bwanditse byerekana uruhare rwe ku buryo bufatika. Avuga na none ko uwo yunganira yahamijwe ko yari mu nama yabereye kuri stade ya Nyamirambo ishishikariza abahutu kwica abatutsi, nyamara icyo yari igamije ari ukwamagana urupfu rwa Ndadaye wari Perezida w’u Burundi ndetse ko Habyarimana adahakana ko yari ayirimo kandi ko yafashemo ijambo, ko ariko

Page 385

349 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

yari agamije guhumuriza abantu muri rusange no guhosha insoresore zari zitangiye gukora ibikorwa bibi. [63] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko imvugo za Setiba Joseph zivuguruzanya n’iz’abandi batangabuhamya, harimo HJE, HJA ndetse n’iza Habyarimana Jean ubwe nk’uko bigaragara mu bika bya [69] kugeza kuri [77] by’urubanza rwajuririwe, aho Urukiko Rukuru rwagiye rugaragaza impamvu rutahaye agaciro imvugo z’abatangabuhamya, kandi ko bitumvikana ukuntu Setiba Joseph wari watangarije Ubushinjacyaha ko atazi Habyarimana Jean, ubwo bwamubazaga bumusanze muri Gereza yageze mu Rukiko akavuga ko amuzi kandi ko nta kibi yakoze muri jenoside yakorewe abatutsi, ko rero uku kwivuguruza ari ko kwatumye Urukiko Rukuru rudashingira ku buhamya bwe. [64] Akomeza avuga ko imvugo z’umutangabuhamya witwa HJD zidakwiye gushingirwaho, kuko Habyarimana Jean atigeze agaragaza ikimenyetso cy’uko koko yari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Nyakabanda, naho imvugo z’umutangabuhamya HJC Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarazishingiyeho kuko yari ari mu nama yashishikarije abahutu kwica abatutsi, kandi ko nawe ari Habyarimana Jean wari wamwitangiye ubwe kugira ngo amushinjure, ndetse ko hari n’undi yari yashatse wavuze ko atigeze ashishikariza abahutu kwica abatutsi, ko ahubwo yabashishikarizaga kumvikana, nyamara ko ibi atari ukuri kuko mu nama zitandukanye zashishikarizaga abahutu kwica abatutsi, Habyarimana Jean yavugaga ko umwanzi w’u Burundi ari nawe mwanzi w’u Rwanda, asaba abahutu kwishyira hamwe kugira ngo barwanye umwanzi ari we mututsi, ibi akaba yarabigarutseho mu nama

Page 386

350 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

yabaye ku wa 16/01/1994 nk’uko bigaragara mu gika cya [569] cy’urubanza rwa Karemera Edouard na Matayo Ngirumpatse. [65] Ku bijyanye n’itangwa ry’intwaro, uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko n’ubwo Habyarimana Jean avuga ko hari abatangabuhamya bamushinjura, Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye uruhare rwe nk’uko bigaragara mu bika bya [69] kugeza kuri [77] by’urubanza rwajuririwe ko kandi kuba Habyarimana Jean yari umuyobozi wa MRND ku rwego rw’Umujyi wa Kigali ndetse iri shyaka akaba ari naryo ryabagamo interahamwe, kwemeza ko atagize uruhare mu itangwa ry’intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside byaba ari ukubeshya kuko yahuraga kenshi n’abandi bayobozi muri gahunda zose, harimo n’aba gisirikare. [66] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko amagambo Habyarimana Jean yavugiye muri “meeting” yo ku wa 23/10/1993 n’iyo ku wa 16/01/1994 akangurira abahutu kwishyira hamwe ngo barwanye umwanzi agaragara mu bika bya [521], [522], [514], [517], [518] na [519] by’urubanza rwa Karemera Edouard na Matayo Ngirumpatse naho mu gika cya [524] cy’urwo rubanza ho hakaba hagaragara aho yavugiye ibyerekeye idéologie hutu power. Avuga ko muri meeting yo ku wa 16/01/1994 nk’uko bigaragara by’umwihariko mu bika bya [573] na [574], Habyarimana Jean yavuze ko agiye gutanga inyandiko igaragaza ikibazo kiri hagati y’abahutu n’abatutsi n’uburyo bwo gukosora umwanzi ari we mututsi. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga kandi ko umutangabuhamya HJC ari we wasobanuye ko Conseiller Karushara Rose yasabye imbunda mu nama bari barimo, nyamara Habyarimana Jean akaba ataramuvuguruje, bivuze ko yari ashyigikiye ibyo yavuze; ibi

Page 387

351 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

bikaba bigaragaza uruhare rwe mu bikorwa byo gushishikariza abantu gukora jenoside no kubashyigikira.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [67] Ingingo ya 65 y’Itegeko N⁰ 15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko urukiko ari rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y’abatangabuhamya ihuye n’ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa. Ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w’abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw’ibyabaye, no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze, ntacyo bihimbira. [68] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu rubanza rwajuririwe, Setiba Joseph, HJD na Mucanda Vital bemeje ko nta mikoranire yari hagati y’interahamwe n’ubuyobozi bw’ishyaka rya MRND, ko nta n’umuyobozi w’ishyaka rya MRND wagize uruhare mu gikorwa cyo gutoranya urubyiruko rwatojwe ibya gisirikare, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwaremeje ko izo mvugo nta shingiro zifite, kuko nabo ubwabo bemeza ko hari ibikorwa interahamwe zahuriragamo n’abayobozi ba MRND birimo za meeting, kurindira umutekano abarwanashyaka bazirimo, imyigaragambyo no gushishikariza urubyiruko kujya mu ishyaka rya MRND19. [69] Mu bujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwamuhamije uruhare muri jenoside yakorewe abatutsi mu Rwanda mu mwaka w’1994 rwirengagije imvugo z’abatangabuhamya bamushinjuye ari bo Setiba Joseph, HJD

19 Urubanza RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI, igika cya [42].

Page 388

352 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

wahawe iryo zina ku bw’umutekano we na Mucanda Vital, uru Rukiko rukaba rugiye gusesengura niba Urukiko Rukuru rwarirengagije izo mvugo. Ku bireba umutangabuhamya Setiba Joseph [70] Dosiye igaragaza ko mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 28/02/2017, mu Rukiko Rukuru, Setiba Joseph yasobanuye ko we na bagenzi be b’interahamwe batari bafite imikoranire ya buri gihe n’ishyaka rya MRND, uretse nk’igihe habaga habaye mitingi (meeting) mu Mujyi wa Kigali cyangwa mu myigaragambyo, muri icyo gihe bakaba baroherezwaga n’ubuyobozi bw’interahamwe k’ukuriye iryo shyaka ku rwego rw’Umujyi akabereka icyo bagomba gukora muri mitingi cyangwa mu myigaragambyo. Yasobanuye ko uwitwa Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wakoranaga bya hafi n’ishyaka rya MRND akabahuza n’ubuyobozi bukuru bwaryo ku rwego rw’Igihugu, kandi ko atigeze abona Habyarimana Jean muri gahunda z’interahamwe, ko ahubwo yamubonaga muri mitingi zaberaga kuri Stade Régional i Nyamirambo muri 1993 kuko ari we wakiraga abashyitsi. Ku birebana n’imyitozo n’imbunda byahabwaga interahamwe, Setiba Joseph yavuze ko byari bishinzwe abasirikare ari nabo babajyanaga i Gabiro, kandi ko nta muyobozi n’umwe w’ishyaka wabaga ahari. [71] Nk’uko byagaragajwe haruguru, mu bujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean avuga ko Setiba Joseph wari Perezida w’Interahamwe muri Segiteri ya Kigali yamushinjuye ubwo yasobanuraga ko Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wayoboraga interahamwe muri Kigali Ngali ndetse ko ari we wakumiriye interahamwe zashakaga gutera iwe zishaka abatutsi yari ahishe, anasobanura ko intwaro zatangirwaga mu Kigo cya gisirikare, bityo ko nta ruhare yagize mu itangwa ryazo.

Page 389

353 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[72] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kuba Setiba Joseph yaravuze ko Turatsinze Jean Pierre ari we wayoboraga interahamwe muri Kigali Ngali bitagaragaza ko yashinjuye Habyarimana Jean kuko atarezwe kuyobora interahamwe ngo Setiba Joseph abe yarabivuguruje; ahubwo yahamijwe ibyaha bitandukanye yakoze nk’uwari Perezida w’ishyaka rya MRND muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, aribyo icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside hashingiwe ku buhamya bwa Nkubito, HJE, HJC, HJB, HJA, Mbarushimana na Nyiringongo babajijwe mu iperereza n’imbere y’Urukiko. [73] Ku birebana no kuba Setiba Joseph yaba yarakumiriye interahamwe zashakaga gutera kwa Habyarimana Jean zishakayo abatutsi yari ahishe, Urukiko rurasanga iki kibazo Setiba Joseph yarakibajijwe ku birebana n’uruhare rw’ubuyobozi bwa MRND kuri za bariyeri, ariko iki cyaha cyo kuyobora za bariyeri ziciweho abatutsi Habyarimana Jean akaba ataragihamijwe, naho ibyo kuba haba hari abatutsi yari ahishe bikaba atari ikimenyetso kimushinjura kuko bidakuraho ibindi bikorwa bigize icyaha cya jenoside yakoze nk’uko yabihamijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru. [74] Ku birebana n’ibikorwa byo gutanga imbunda n’imyitozo ku nterahamwe, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, imvugo ya Setiba Joseh ivuguruzwa n’iya Nkubito Isaac wari Perezida w’ishyaka rya MRND mu cyahoze ari Komini Kacyiru wabarijwe mu iburanisha ryo ku itariki ya 28/02/2017 mu Rukiko Rukuru asobanura ko nyuma y’inama yabereye kuri stade i Nyamirambo, mu mwaka wa 1993 hakurikiyeho gutoza urubyiruko rwa MRND n’urwa PSD (Parti Social Democrate) rwitwaga abakombozi,

Page 390

354 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

bakajya ku biro bya MRND (Permanence) bagakora inama, bakabwirwa ko umwanzi ari umututsi, ndetse ko nyuma boherejwe mu mahugurwa i Gabiro bamaze guhabwa amabwiriza n’abayobozi barimo na Habyarimana Jean, akaba yaravuze ko ibyo avuga bimwe yabyiboneye, ibindi yabibwiwe. [75] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, imvugo ya Nkubito Isaac ikwiye guhabwa agaciro kubera ko ishyigikirwa n’iya HJA babarijwe umunsi umwe, uyu akaba yaravuze ko urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwatoranywaga n’abahagarariye MRND mu rwego rwa Segiteri na Serire, barimo Kaboyi Jérémie wari Konseye wa Segiteri Nyamirambo na Karushara Rose wari Konseye wa Segiteri Kimisagara, amabwiriza yo kubatoza akaba yarayavanaga mu buyobozi bukuru bwa MRND harimo na Habyarimana Jean. Rurasanga ibi byaranagarutsweho na HJB wavuze ko yabanaga na Habyarimana Jean mu ishyaka rya MRND, asobanura ko nk’umuyobozi w’iryo shyaka, Habyarimana Jean atari kuyoberwa iby’ishyirwaho ry’urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwabanje gushyirwa mu Mujyi wa Kigali, rugahabwa imyitozo ya gisirikare n’intwaro rwifashishaga mu bitero rwagabaga, iyo myitozo ikaba yarakorerwaga kwa Kabuga ku Muhima, mu Mutara, mu Bigogwe n’ahandi, kandi ko izi nterahamwe zabaga zavuye i Kigali ari zo zishe abatutsi mu Bugesera, mu Bigogwe, i Butare n’ahandi hantu hatandukanye, ko ibirebana n’imyitozo yabibonaga cyane cyane mu maraporo yabaga ariho umukono wa Habyarimana Jean. [76] Urukiko rurasanga kandi n’abandi babajijwe barimo HJC, HJE, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent mu Rukiko Rukuru baremeje ko Habyarimana Jean yagize uruhare mu itangwa ry’imbunda ku nterahamwe kuko HJC uri mu

Page 391

355 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

bazihawe yavuze ko mbere y’itangwa ry’imbunda habanje kuba inama ku wa 15/5/1994 na Habyarimana Jean yarimo ashyigikira icyo gitekerezo cyari gitanzwe na Karushara Rose20, ndetse ko na HJE yavuze ko Habyarimana Jean nk’umuyobozi wa MRND yagize uruhare mu ishyirwaho ry’umutwe w’interahamwe no mu kuziha imyitozo ya gisirikare. Urukiko rurasanga nanone abatangabuhamya babajijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha mu iperereza ari bo Nyiringondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent nabo baragaragaje uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe, kubaha imyitozo no kubaha imbunda bagombaga gukoresha mu kwica abatutsi ndetse ibyerekeranye no guha imbunda Interahamwe bikaba byaranagarutsweho kandi bikanemezwa mu rubanza ICTR-98- 44-T Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanye na Edouard Karemera na Ngirumpatse Matayo21. [77] Urukikiko rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, ubuhamya bwa Nkubito Isaac, HJC na HJE aribwo bukwiye guhabwa agaciro kuko bafite ubumenyi buhagije ku byabaye kuko bamwe muri bo bari interahamwe zakoranye bya hafi na Habyarimana Jean mu ishyaka rya MRND, mu gihe Setiba Joseph atakoranaga buri gihe naryo ku buryo byatuma amenya gahunda za Habyarimana Jean nk’uko yabyiyemereye mu buhamya bwe bwavuzwe haruguru.

20 Yari Konseye wa Segiteri Kimisagara 21 ICTR-98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse, igika cya 444: “La chambre conclut que le Procureur a établi au délà de tout doute raisonnable qu’à compter de 1993, des armes ont été fournies aux Interahamwe pendant que d’autres étaient stockées pour leur ệtre distribuées à une date ultérieure”.

Page 392

356 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[78] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga rero Urukiko Rukuru rutarirengagije ubuhamya bwatanzwe na SETIBA Joseph nk’uko Habyarimana Jean abivuga, ahubwo rwarabusesenguye maze rugasanga butahabwa agaciro kubera ko buvuguruzwa n’ubwa Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJE, Nyirangondo Epaphrodite na Mbarushimana Vincent, Urukiko rukaba rusanga ari bo bafite ubumenyi buhagije ku byabaye, kuko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y’Itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo yibukijwe haruguru, ari Urukiko rwonyine rufite ububasha bwo gusesengura imvugo z’abatangabuhamya no kwemeza ko zihuje cyangwa zidahuje n’ikiburanwa, hashingiwe ku bumenyi bwabo by’ibyabaye no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze. Uko guhitamo ubuhamya hashingiwe ku byabaye, bikaba bihuje n’ibyemejwse n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza rwa Yussuf Munyakazi aho Urukiko rwashingiye ku bimenyetso by’Ubushinjacyaha aho gushingira ku by’urega kuko rusanga mu gihe hagaragara ikinyuranyo mu bintu byabaye, Urukiko rubanza arirwo ruba rufite inshingano zo kwemeza ibimenyetso bigomba guhabwa agaciro rumaze kumva abatangabuhamya22. Ku bireba umutangabuhamya HJD [79] Dosiye igaragaza ko HJD wahawe iri zina kubw’umutekano we, akaba yari Perezida wa MRND muri Segiteri Nyakabanda, nawe yabarijwe mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 28/02/2017 mu Rukiko Rukuru, avuga ko ubuyobozi

22 ICTR-97-36A-A, rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Yussuf Munyakazi, igika cya 118: “The Appeals Chamber recalls that, when faced with competing versions of events, it is the duty of the Trial Chamber that heard the witnesses to determine which evidence it considers more probative. Based on the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to accept the Prosecution evidence over Witness Nahimana’s account.”

Page 393

357 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

bw’interahamwe ntaho bwahuriraga n’ubwi’ishyaka rya MRND, cyakora ko ubuyobozi bwa MRND bwashoboraga gusaba ubw’interahamwe kubaha abasore ngo bakorane mitingi (meeting), akaba ari uwitwa Turatsinze wari ushinzwe coordination yazo. Yavuze ko nta nama azi yabaye ku wa 15/05/1994 igamije guhiga abatutsi, ko iyo azi ari iyabaye mu mpera z’uko kwezi igamije gushaka abasore bo kubohoza umusozi wa Mburabuturo yakoreshejwe n’abasirikare kandi ko nta na rimwe yigeze abona Habyarimana Jean aza mu Nyakabanda gusaba abasore b’interahamwe, ndetse ko nta ruhare MRND n’abayobozi bayo ku rwego rw’Umujyi bagize mu gutegura no gukora jenoside yakorewe abatutsi. [80] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Habyarimana Jean avuga ko yasabye ko HJD abazwa kugira ngo abeshyuze amakuru yari yatanzwe na HJC wemeje ko ku wa 15/05/1994 habaye inama yo guhiga abatutsi bari basigaye muri za Segiteri na za Nyumbakumi, ko ahubwo habaye iyari igamije gushaka abasore bo kubohoza Mburabututo yari yafashwe n’inkotanyi, ariko ko ibyo yavuze Urukiko Rukuru rutabihaye agaciro. [81] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga HJD yaravuze ko atazi inama yo kuwa 15/05/1994 yari igamije guhiga abatutsi, ahubwo ko iyo azi ari iyabaye mu mpera z’ukwezi kwa gatanu 1994 yari igamije kubohoza Mburabuturo, nyamara HJC akaba yarasobannuye ko iyo nama yo ku wa 15/05/1994 yabayeho, ko kandi yari iyobowe na Colonel Renzaho Tharcisse, Colonel Ndahimana wari ukuriye ingabo mu Mujyi wa Kigali n’Uburasirazuba, Colonel Edouard Hakizimana ndetse ko na Habyarimana ubwe yari ayirimo, ko yari igamije guhiga abatutsi mu ngo zabo kandi ko we ubwe yahawe imbunda eshanu kuko hari hakenewe intwaro zo kwifashisha muri ibyo bikorwa nk’uko

Page 394

358 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

byari byagaragajwe na Karushara Rose, Habyarimana Jean agashyigikira iki gitekerezo; uburyo HJC abivuga bikaba bigaragaza ko avuga koko ibyo yahagazeho, Urukiko rukaba rubona nta nyungu yaba afite yo kubeshyera Habyarimana Jean cyane ko yari mu Nterahamwe kandi bizwi ko zikomoka muri MRND. Urukiko rurasanga rero ibyo Habyarimana Jean avuga ko uyu mutangabuhamya HJD amushinjura atari byo kuko inama avuga yamushinjuyeho atayizi, kandi akaba atavuguruza amakuru yatanzwe na HJC wayimushinje; bityo icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru cyo kudaha agaciro ubuhamya bwa HJD kuri iyi ngingo kikaba nta nenge gifite. [82] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye ubuhamya bwatanzwe na HJC aribwo bufite ishingiro ugereranije n’ubwatanzwe na HJD, ibyo bikaba bihuje n’ibyemejwe mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda aho rwemeje mu rubanza rwa Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda ko mu gihe ubuhamya bubiri buvuguruzanya, Urukiko rubanza nyuma yo kumva abatangabuhamya arirwo rwemeza ko ubuhamya runaka aribwo bufite ishingiro23. Ku birebana n’umutangabuhamya Mucanda Vital [83] Mucanda Vital nawe yabarijwe mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 28/02/2017 avuga ko yari interahamwe ku rwego rwa Segiteri, ari n’umukuru wabo ushinzwe animation muri Segiteri Gitega ku Karambo, asobanura ko bagendanaga n’abarwanashyaka babo bakabarindira umutekano, ko uwitwa Twahirwa Séraphin ari we

23 ICTR-96-3-A rwa Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, igika cya 501: Appeals Chamber recalled that “where there are two conflicting testimonies, it falls to the Trial Chamber before which the witness testified to decide which of the testimonies has more weight […].”

Page 395

359 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

wababwiraga ibyo bagombaga gukora, haba kujya mu myigaragambyo cyangwa muri za mitingi. Yavuze ko ntaho bahuriraga na Habyarimana Jean, uretse mu myigaragambyo no muri za mitingi, ko atageraga mu nama zabo, aho yibuka bahuriye akaba ari muri mitingi yabereye i Nyamirambo mu mwaka wa 1993, akaba yaranayifashemo ijambo avuga ko ari abatwa, abatutsi, n’abahutu bagomba kumenya ko umwanzi w’u Rwanda ari nawe mwanzi w’u Burundi, ko bose bamaganye iyicwa rya Perezida Ndadaye. [84] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga mu miburanire ye, Habyarimana Jean yari yasabye ko Mucanda Vital abazwa kugira ngo asobanure ko ari we wakiraga za mitingi zabaga zirimo abaturage bose, abahutu, abatutsi n’abatwa, ibi Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwarabyirengagije. [85] Ku birebana n’ibyavuzwe na Mucanda Vital, Urukiko rurasanga mu bisobanuro yahaye Urukiko yaravuze ko ubuyobozi bwa MRND ntaho bwahuriraga n’ubw’interahamwe, uretse kujyana mu myigaragambyo no muri za mitingi, nyamara nk’uko byavuzwe na Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, Mbarushimana Vincent, HJA, HJB, HJE na Nkubito Isaac, Habyarimana Jean nk’umuyobozi w’ishyaka rya MRND mu Mujyi wa Kigali yaragize uruhare rukomeye mu gushyiraho urubyiruko rw’interahamwe ndetse no kuziha imyitozo n’imbunda zakoreshejwe mu guhiga no kwica abatutsi. [86] Urukiko rurasanga ku birebana na meeting yo ku wa 23/10/1993, Mucanda Vital yaravuze ko icyo Habyarimana Jean yavuze ari uko bamaganye iyicwa rya Perezida Ndadaye24, ndetse

24Uyu yari Perezida w’u Burundi kuva 10/07/1993 kugeza ku wa 21/10/1993; Region week.com, consulté le 17/02/2010.

Page 396

360 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ko umwanzi w’u Burundi ari nawe mwanzi w’u Rwanda kandi ko icyo gihe hari abatwa, abahutu n’abatutsi, na Habyarimana ubwe akaba adahakana ko yafashe ijambo muri iyo mitingi, nyamara Nkubito Isaac, HJA na HJE bakaba barasobanuriye Urukiko Rukuru ko iyo bavugaga umwanzi byabaga bishatse kuvuga umututsi, ibyo ndetse bikaba byaranasobanuwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza ICTR-98-44- T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse25, bityo rero kuba muri iyi nama Habyarimana Jean yarafashe ijambo akamagana umwanzi w’u Rwanda bikaba bigaragaza ko yashishikarije ku buryo bukomeye abari bayirimo kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya abatutsi aho bari hose. [87] Urukiko rurasanga imvugo ya Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire wunganira Habyarimana Jean y’uko icyari kigamijwe mu nama yo ku wa 23/10/1993 ari ukwamagana urupfu rwa Ndadaye wari Perezida w’u Burundi nta shingiro bifite kuko n’ubwo byaba byaravuzweho, abafashe amagambo muri iyo mitingi barimo na Habayarimana Jean bagarutse cyane ku gushishikariza abari bayirimo kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya umwanzi ari we mututsi nk’uko abatangabuhamya babajijwe mu iperereza no mu Rukiko Rukuru bavuzwe haruguru babisobanuye, ndetse ibi bikaba byaranasobanuwe n’abatangabuhamya ALC, UB na AWD bari muri iyo mitingi nk’uko byasobanuwe mu rubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Karemera Edouard hamwe na Ngirumpatse Mathieu rwabereye mu Rukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda (TPIR)26 ; igisobanuro

25 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard Igika cya [537]. 26 ICTR 98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse, igika cya [520], [521], [522] na [524].

Page 397

361 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

cy’ijambo umwanzi byavugaga umututsi kikaba kandi cyaratanzwe mu rubanza ICTR -96-4-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Jean Paul Akayesu.27 [88] Rurasanga kandi Habyarimana Jean yari no mu nama yo ku wa 16/01/1994 nk’uko nawe yabyemereye uru Rukiko mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 13/01/2020 ndetse bikaba binagaragara mu gika cya [573] cy’urubanza ICTR-98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera hamwe na Mathieu Ngirumpatse rwibukijwe haruguru, Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rukaba rwaremeje mu gika cyarwo cya [598], ko Ubushinjacyaha bwagaragaje nta gushidikanya ko kuwa 16/01/1994, kuri Stade Nyamirambo habereye “meeting” yari irimo Karemera Edouard, Ngirumpatse Mathieu n’abandi bayobozi bakuru b’ishyaka rya MRND kandi banafashemo ijambo, ko n’abagize umutwe w’interahamwe bari bayirimo, abari bayirimo bose bakaba barashyigikiye igitekerezo cya Hutu Power28, ibi bikaba bishimangira uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean mu nama zitandukanye zacuriwemo umugambi wo kumvisha abahutu ko bagomba kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya abatutsi, iyi nama ikaba itari igamije kubwira interahamwe ko zigomba kwitonda gusa nk’uko Habyarimana Jean abiburanisha. [89] Rusanga na none ibyo Me Nyirihirwe Hilaire avuga ko mu kugaragaza uruhare rwa Habyarimana Jean hagomba

27 ICTR -96-4-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Jean Paul Akayesu igika cya 123. 28 ICTR 98-44-T: [….], De l’avis de la Chambre, “Le Procureur a établi au – delà de tout doute raisonnable qu’un meeting s’était tenu au stade de Nyamirambo le 16 janvier 1994, que Karemera, Ngirumpatse et d’autres hauts responsables du MRND avaient assisté à ce meeting et s’étaient adressés à l’assistance, que des membres de la milice Interahamwe y avaient également pris part, et qu’on y avait épousé la cause de l’idéologie Hutu Power”.

Page 398

362 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

kwifashishwa cassette, extrait cyangwa ubuhamya bwanditse nta shingiro bifite kuko ibimenyetso by’abatangabuhamya bitabujijwe muri bene izi manza, ndetse itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo rikaba riteganya ko mu manza nshinjabyaha, ibimenyetso bishingira ku mpamvu zose z’ibyabaye n’ibyemejwe n’amategeko, ababuranyi bapfa kuba barahawe umwanya kugira ngo banyomozanye, ibi bikaba bigaragaza ihame ry’ubwigenge mu gutanga ibimenyetso uretse ibibujijwe n’amategeko (liberté de la preuve) mu manza nshinjabyaha29, bityo rero hakaba nta mpamvu yatuma ibimenyetso by’abatangabuhamya bitahabwa agaciro kandi nabyo byemewe, ahubwo Habyarimana Jean n’umwunganizi we bakaba bafite inshingano yo kuvuguruza ubuhamya bw’abatangabuhamya bamushinja, ariko nyamara bakaba batarabashije kuvuguruza ubwo buhamya bumushinja ibyaha akurikiranyweho. [90] Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru rutarirengagije imvugo za HJD, Setiba Joseph na Mucanda Vital, ahubwo rwarazisesenguriye hamwe n’ibindi bimenyetso biri muri dosiye, rugasanga nta shingiro zifite, uru Rukiko rukaba rwemeranywa n’umwanzuro wafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuko nk’uko byagaragajwe hari ubundi buhamya buvuguruza ubwatanzwe na HJD, Mucanda Vital na Setiba Joseph, akaba ari bwo bukwiye guhabwa agaciro kubera impamvu zasobanuwe haruguru.

29 Ingingo ya 119 y’Itegeko N⁰15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo.

Page 399

363 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

5. Kumenya niba hari ikosa Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside [91] Habyarimana Jean avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwakoze amakosa mu kumuhamya icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside hashingiye ku mvugo z’abatagabuhamya bamushinja, mu gihe Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwemeje ko Ngirumpatse Matayo, Karemera Edouard kimwe n’abandi bayobozi bakuru ba MRND badahamwa n’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994. [92] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko uru rubanza rwa Ngirumpatse Matayo na Karemera rutarengera Habyarimana Jean kuko adakurikiranyweho kuba yari umuyobozi w’Interahamwe, ko ahubwo aryozwa uruhare yagize mu ishyirwaho ry’uwo mutwe no kuwutoza ibya gisirikare hagamijwe kurimbura abatutsi nk’uko byemejwe n’abatangabuhamya.

Page 400

364 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA Ku birebana no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarahamije Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside [93] Ingingo ya 132, 4º y’Itegeko-Ngenga Nº 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana30 ndetse n’ingingo ya 3, b y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira ry’icyaha cya jenoside31 biteganya icyaha cyo kujya no gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Icyo cyaha kikaba cyaranasobanuwe kandi mu manza zitandukanye zaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda harimo urwa Alfred Musema rwaciwe ku wa 27/01/2000 aho rwavuze ko gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ari ukumvikana cyangwa guhuza igitekerezo hagati y’abantu babiri cyangwa barenze, icyumvikanyweho kikaba ari ugukora jenoside32.

30 Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri Tegeko–Ngenga ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe ibyaha bivugwa muri uyu Mutwe […] kujya umugambi wo gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo bitashyirwa mu bikorwa [..]. Ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo ni nabyo dusanga mu ngingo ya 93, 1º y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 31 [….] The following acts shall be punishable […] Conspiracy to commit genocide (Art. 3, e of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 32 ICTR-96-13-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Musema Alfred, igika 191 “… La Chambre définit l’entente en vue de commettre le genocide comme une résolution d’agir sur laquelle au moins deux personnes se sont accordées en vue de commettre un jenocide”, ICTR-99-52-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nahimana Ferdinand na bagenzi be, igika cya 344; ICTR-99-46-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ntagerura André na bagenzi be, igika cya 92; ICTR- 01-66-A rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Seromba Athanase, igika cya 218.

Page 401

365 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[94] Urukiko Rukuru rwahamije Habyarimana Jean icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside rushingiye ku ngingo ya 132, 4⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana no ku mvugo z’abatagabuhamya bamushinja barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJE bemeje ko yagize uruhare mu gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe rwahawe imyitozo ya gisirikare n’ibikoresho byakoreshejwe mu kwica abatutsi ari ku Muhima ku nzu ya Kabuga afatanyije na Ngirumpatse Mathieu, Nzirorera Joseph, renzaho Tharcisse, Munyakazi Laurent, Kajuga Robert, Rutaganda Georges, Kamatamu Euphrasie n’abandi, kandi n’ahandi muri Perefegitura y’Umujyi wa Kigali, urwo rubyiruko rukaba rwaratoranywaga rugahabwa imyitozo n’ibikoresho byakoreshejwe jenoside. [95] Ikindi cyashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu guhamya Habyarimana Jean ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside ni uko yakoreshaga inama abayobozi b’ishyaka rya MRND ku rwego rwa Komini yari akuriye akabagezaho imyanzuro y’inama zo mu buyobozi bukuru bw’iryo shyaka yo kumenya umwanzi uwo ari we n’uko bagomba kumurwanya nabo bakajya kubigeza kubo bari bakuriye ku rwego rwa Segiteri, Urukiko Rukuru rukaba rwaravuze ko kuba yarakoraga inama n’abayobozi, ibyo ababwiye bakemera kubigeza ku bandi bigaragaza ko babaga babyumvikanyeho muri iyo nama. Rwasanze na none kuba Habyarimana Jean yari mu nama yo ku wa 15/05/1994 yari yatumijwe na Perefe Renzaho Tharcisse irimo abantu batandukanye barimo Colonel Ndahimana, Colonel Edouard Hakizimana na Konseye Karushara Rose ikavugirwamo ibyo guhiga abatutsi n’ibyitso byari bisigaye, ndetse n’ibyo gutanga imbunda kugira ngo icyo gikorwa gishoboke, nyuma y’aho izo mbunda zigatangwa, nabyo byerekana ko muri iyo nama

Page 402

366 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

habereyemo ubwumvikane bwo guhiga abatutsi n’abo bitaga ibyitso33. [96] Rushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 132, 4⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana hamwe n’ingingo ya 3, b y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira ry’icyaha cya jenoside ndetse no ku byabaye, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga inyito y’icyaha cyahamijwe Habyarimana Jean n’Urukiko Rukuru yaragombaga kuba gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, aho kuba ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside, kubera ko ubwumvikane atariyo nyito iteganywa n’Itegeko, ahubwo ari igisobanuro kigaragaza uko icyaha kigerwaho. Ibi akaba ari nabyo byemejwe mu rubanza RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, aho uyu yari yahamijwe icyaha cy’ubwumvikane bugamije gukora jenoside mu Rukiko Rukuru ariko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rugahindura inyito, rukemeza ko ari ugucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside.34 Aha Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rusanga n’ubwo bitandukaniye ku ijambo kujya umugambi no gucura umugambi, ariko muri rusange inyito yo kujya umugambi wo gukora jenoside ikoreshwa mu ngingo ya 132, 4⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryavuzwe haruguru, ihura n’iyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ikoreshwa mu ngingo ya 3, b y’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga yo ku wa 09/12/1948 ku ikumira ry’icyaha cya jenoside ndetse n’inyito yo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside yakoreshejwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga muri urwo rubanza rwa Bandora Charles.

33 Urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, Igika cya 131-133. 34 RPA 0001/12/CS rwaciwe ku wa 22/03/2019 haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Bandora Charles, igika cya 53.

Page 403

367 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[97] Ku birebana n’uko Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza ICTR-98-44-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera na Ngirumpatse Matayo rwemeje ko Edouard Karemera, Ngirumpatse Matayo ndetse n’abandi bayobozi ba MRND batahamywa ibyaha bya jenosode, gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi bakoze mu rwego rwo gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) hamwe n’icyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside rushingiye ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 8/04/1994, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga koko Urugereko rw’Ubujurire rw’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwaremeje nta buryozwacyaha bushingiye ku gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) bushobora kwemeza harebwe ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki 08/04/199435 ko kandi biri mu gaciro kwemeza ko uruhare rwa Karemera na Ngirumpatse mu byabaye mbere y'itariki ya 8/04/1994 rutari mu rwego rwo gukora ibyaha bikubiye muri Sitati36; ko rero, Urugereko rwa Mbere rw'Iremezo rutibeshye mu kuvuga ko atari wo mwanzuro wonyine washoboraga gukurwa mu bimenyetso bifatika byatuma Karemera na Ngirumpatse bahamywa icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside hashingiwe ku byabaye mbere y’itariki 8/04/99437.

35 ICTR-98-44-T urubanza rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Ngirumpatse Mathieu na Karemera Edouard, igika cya 1573: “Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994.” 36 Statut du Tribunal Pénal International pour Le Rwanda. 37 ICTR-98-44-A rwaciwe ku wa 29/09/2014 rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Edouard Karemera et Mathieu Ngirumpatse, igika cya 741: “The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the considerations identified by the Trial Chamber reasonably support its finding on the reasonable possibility that Karemera's and

Page 404

368 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[98] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ariko n’ubwo byemejwe gutyo, urwo rubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rutareba Habyarimana Jean nk’uko aruburanisha, ko ahubwo rureba Karemera Edouard na Ngirumpatse Matayo barubayemo ababuranyi, bityo Habyarimana Jean akaba adashobora kurwitwaza avuga ko rwamugize umwere ku byaha byo gushishikariza gukora jenoside, ibyaha byibasiye inyokomuntu n’ubwicanyi bakoze mu rwego rwo gusohoza umugambi umwe wumvikanyweho (Joint Criminal Entreprise) no ku cyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside ku bikorwa byabaye mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 nk’uko byasobanuwe mu gice cya II muri uru rubanza (II.2). [99] Ku birebana n’icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wa jenoside, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga Habyarimana Jean we yarahamijwe icyo cyaha n’Urukiko Rukuru hashingiwe ku bimenyetso by’inama n’ibikorwa byabaye muri 1993, ni ukuvuga mbere y’itariki ya 08/04/1994 hamwe n’ibya nyuma y’iyo tariki. [100] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba hanashingirwa no ku bimenyetso bya mbere ya 08/04/1994 mu kumuhamya icyaha , Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga uretse n’uko hari izindi nyandiko z’abahanga bemeje ko n’ubwo bwose jenoside nyirizina yakozwe ahanini kuva ku itariki 7/04/1994 kugeza mu mpera za Nyakanga 1994, ko ariko yari yarateguwe mbere yaho

Ngirumpatse's involvement in the pre-8 April 1994 events had not been conducted with the intent that crimes covered by the Statute be committed. Consequently, the Trial Chamber did not err in concluding that it was not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence that Karemera and Ngirumpatse possessed the requisite mens rea for a conviction for conspiracy to commit genocide in relation to the pre-8 April 1994 events.”

Page 405

369 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

cyane, ko kandi yakomeje gukorwa n’abari barayiteguye, abayishyize mu bikorwa n’ibyitso byabo ndetse bakanayikomeza mu mpeshyi na nyuma yo kwambuka umupaka wa Zaïre n’u Rwanda38, muri uru rubanza rwa Habyarimana Jean by’umwihariko, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rusanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye hari abatangabuhamya barimo Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC na HJE, bemeje ko Habyarimana Jean yari mu nama zabaye muri 1993 no ku wa 15/05/1994 zari zigamije gutoranya urubyiruko rw’interahamwe, ruhabwa imyitozo ya gisirikare n’ibikoresho birimo n’imbunda, uru rubyiruko rukaba rwaragize uruhare rukomeye mu gukora jenoside mu Mujyi wa Kigali no mu bice bitandukanye by’igihugu. [101] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye, uretse gusa ku birebana n’inyito yahinduwe, iki cyaha kigaragazwa n’uko Habyarimana Jean nk’umuyobozi wa MRND mu Mujyi wa Kigali yagize uruhare mu nama zitandukanye yayoboye asobanurira abo yari akuriye ko umwanzi ari umututsi nk’uko abatangabuhamya barimo Nkubito na HJB bagaragajwe haruguru babisobanuye, nabo bakabigeza ku bo bayoboye, ndetse no kuba yari mu nama yo wa 15/5/1994 yari igamije gukangurira abaturage guhiga abatutsi n’ibyitso byari bisigaye ndetse hagatangwa intwaro zo kwifashishwa muri ibyo bikorwa, kubw’ibyo Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rukaba rwemeranywa n’Urukiko Rukuru, uretse gusa ku birebana n’inyito y’icyaha, mu

38 Géraud de La Pradelle, Imprescriptible: L’implication française dans le génocide tutsi portée devant les tribunaux, France, 2005, p. 109: “ Bien sur, le génocide proprement dit a été commis pour l’essentiel, sur le territoire national du Rwanda entre le 7 avril et la fin juillet 1994 ; mais Il a été préparé de longue date et l’activité criminelle de ses concepteurs, comme de ses agents et complices, ne s’est pas arrêtée à la fin de l’été, une fois passée la frontière qui sépare le Rwanda du Zaïre.”

Page 406

370 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

guhamya Habyarimana Jean icyaha cyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside. Ku birebana no kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwarahamije Habyarimana Jean icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside [102] Ingingo ya 132, 3⁰ y’Itegeko-Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana39 n’ingingo ya 3 y‘Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga arebana no gukumira no guhana icyaha cya jenoside40 biteganya kandi bigahana icyaha cyo gushishikariza gukora genoside. Ibikorwa byo gushishikariza gukora jenoside byanasobanuwe mu rubanza ICTR-2001-72-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, aho rwasobanuye ko gushishikariza gukora jenoside bisaba ko ubikora aba afite umugambi wo gukora jenoside kandi ko atari ngombwa ko hagira igikorwa kigamije gukora jenoside kibikurikira41.

39 Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri Tegeko -Ngenga ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe ibyaha bivugwa muri uyu mutwe […] gushishikariza abantu gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo bitashyirwa mu bikorwa [..]. Ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo ni nabyo dusanga mu ngingo ya 93, 3º y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange. 40 The following acts shall be punishable […] “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” (Art.3, c of The Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the crime of Genocide. 41 ICTR -2001-72-T rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Bikindi Simon, igika cya 419: “Commet le crime d’incitation directe et publique à commettre le genocide la personne qui agit avec l’intention d’inciter directement et publiquement autrui à commettre le génocide, ce qui suppose l’existence d’une intention génocide. Infraction formelle, l’incitation directe et publique à commettre le génocide est punissable mệme si aucun acte de génocide n’en a résulté”.

Page 407

371 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

[103] Naho ingingo ya 132, 5⁰ y’Itegeko Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko42 igateganya kandi igahana icyaha cyo gushyigikira umuntu ushaka gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo atagishyira mu bikorwa. [104] Urukiko Rukuru rumaze kubona ko Habyarimana Jean yabaye icyitso mu gukora jenoside (complicité de génocide) ndetse akanashishikariza gukora jenoside (incitation à commettre le génocide) kubera ibikorwa bitandukanye yakoze byavuzwe haruguru, rwashingiye ku ngingo ya 98 y’Itegeko-Ngenga No 01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana maze rubihuriza hamwe rumuhamya icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside no gutanga intwaro zakoreshejwe jenoside. [105] Ku ruhande rumwe, Urukiko Rukuru rwabonye ko Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’icyaha cyo gushishikariza gukora jenoside hashingiwe ku kuba yari mu nama yo ku wa 23/10/1993 yavugiyemo amagambo atandukanye yo gushishikariza abahutu kwishyira hamwe bakarwanya umwanzi ari we mututsi nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru ku rundi ruhande rubona ko yabaye icyitso mu cyaha cya jenoside rushingiye ku kuba yaragize uruhare mu guha urubyiruko rw’interahamwe imyitozo ya gisirikare n’intwaro, no kuba mu kwezi kwa 5/1994 yaragiye mu nama agashyigikira ko hatangwa imbunda zo guhiga abatutsi bari

42 Bitabangamiye ibiteganywa n’izindi ngingo z’iri Tegeko–Ngenga ku byerekeye ubwinjiracyaha n’ubufatanyacyaha, ibikorwa bikurikira bihanishwa ibihano biteganyirijwe ibyaha bivugwa muri uyu Mutwe […] gushyigikira umuntu ushaka gukora icyo cyaha n’ubwo atagishyira mu bikorwa. Ibikubiye muri iyi ngingo ni nabyo dusanga mu ngingo ya 93, 5º y’Itegeko Nº68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/08/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange.

Page 408

372 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

basigaye mu maserire ari nabyo bigaragaza ko yatanze inkunga ya ngombwa ku bantu bishe abatutsi kuri za bariyeri, mu ngo ndetse n’ahandi babaga bihishe hirya no hino muri Perefegiture y’Umujyi wa Kigali no hirya no hino mu gihugu43. [106] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rusanga nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabonye Habyarimana Jean ahamwe n’ibyaha akurikiranyweho, ariko ku birebana n’inyito y’ibyaha yahamijwe, rukaba rusanga rugomba gukosora iyo nyito ihuriza hamwe icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cya jenoside kubera gushishikariza gukora jenoside (complicité de genocide pour avoir inciter à commettre le génocide) rukemeza ko kuri iyi ngingo hashingiwe ku bimenyetso byagaragajwe haruguru Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’icyaha cyo kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside (complicité de génocide) hamwe n’icyaha cyo gushishikariza gukora jenoside (incitation à commettre le génocide), buri cyose nk’icyaha cyihagije, kubera ko buri cyaha cyose gifite ibikigize bitandukanye n’iby’ikindi ndetse ibikorwa byashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kwemeza ibyo byaha byombi bikaba bitandukanye. [107] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga rero Habyarimana Jean ahamwa n’ibyaha byose uko ari bitatu, aribyo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, kuba icyitso mu gukora jenoside no gushishikariza gukora jenoside, bikaba bigize impurirane mbonezamugambi nk’uko isobanurwa mu ngingo ya 84 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N⁰ 01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryibukijwe haruguru44 kubera ko byose byakozwe mu mugambi

43 Igika cya 139 cy’urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI. 44 Iyo ku gikorwa kimwe gusa cyangwa byinshi, uwakoze icyaha yari guhanishwa ibihano byinshi byo gufungwa cyangwa by’ihazabu, umucamanza amuhanisha igihano kiruta ibindi yongera igihe cyangwa

Page 409

373 UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABYARIMANA

umwe wo gukora jenoside, bityo Habyarimana Jean akaba agomba guhanishwa igihano cy’igifungo cya burundu giteganyirijwe ibyo byaha, aho kuba igifungo cya burundu y’umwihariko yari yahanishijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru kuko icyo gihano kitagiteganyijwe ma mategeko y’u Rwanda hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 26 y’Itegeko N° 68/2018 ryo ku wa 30/8/2018 riteganya ibyaha n’ibihano muri rusange.45 [108] Hakurikijwe ibisobanuro bitanzwe haruguru, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean nta shingiro bufite kuko nk’uko n’Urukiko Rukuru rwabibonye nta bimenyetso yatanze bivuguruza ibyashingiweho n’Urukiko Rukuru mu kumuhamya ibyo byaha, bityo urubanza RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru ku wa 28/04/2017 rukaba rutagomba guhinduka, uretse gusa ku birebana n’inyito zari zahawe ibyaha Habyarimana Jean yahamijwe no ku birebana n’igihano. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [109] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Habyarimana Jean nta shingiro bufite. [110] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza

RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI rwaciwe ku wa 28/04/2017 n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko Rwihariye ruburanisha ibyaha byo ku rwego

umubare bitewe n’uburyo ibyaha byakozwe ariko ntarenze urugero ntarengwa wongeyeho icya kabiri cy’icyo gihano kirushije ibindi gukomera. 45 Iyo ngingo ya 26 ivuga ko igihano cy’igifungo gishobora kumara igihe kizwi cyangwa kikaba icya burundu.

Page 410

374 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi ihindutse gusa ku birebana n’inyito y’ibyaha no ku gihano yahanishijwe. [111] Rwemeje ko Habayarimana ahamwa n’ibyaha byo gucura umugambi wo gukora jenoside, kuba icyitso cy’abakoze jenoside no gushishikariza abandi gukora jenoside. [112] Ruhanishije Habyarimana Jean igifungo cya burundu. [113] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku isanduka ya Leta.

Page 411

375

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’UBUJURIRE – RPAA 00504/2021/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J., Kaliwabo na Umugwaneza, J.) 24 Nzeri 2021] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Iburanisha ry’uwihishe cyangwa uwatorotse ubutabera – Iyo uwaciriwe urubanza nk’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera aramutse abonetse (yishyikirije inzego zibishinzwe cyangwa afashwe), ibyakozwe mbere byose bigomba guta agaciro, akabazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha akongera kuregerwa urukiko bundi bushya (mu gihe izo nzego zisanze ari ngombwa). Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Ubujurire – Ubujurire ku rubanza rwaciwe nk’urubanza rw’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera, buburanishwa mu buryo bumwe(kamere) n’urubanza rwajuririwe. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rukomoka ku kirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha nyuma y’uko bureze Zomahoun, Kibuye Mukwende na Umulinga mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, bubakurikiranyeho ibyaha binyuranye, abaregwa bose baburanishwa bunganiwe, uretse Zomahoun waburanishwijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza, rwemeza ko abaregwa bose ari abere, kuko rwasanze hari ugushidikanya ku byaha bakurikiranyweho. Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, ku munsi w’iburanisha, ababuranyi baritabye, Zomahoun

Page 412

376 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

ntiyitaba, ariko hitaba abagombaga kumwunganira, bibutsa Urukiko ko yanditse atanga umurongo w’ikoranabuhanga azaburaniraho, Urukiko rwemeza ko yitabira iburanisha akoresheje Skype. Ubushinjacyaha bwazamuye inzitizi busaba Urukiko ko ibanza gufatwaho icyemezo mbere y’uko iburanisha rikomeza buvuga ko kuba Zomahoun yaraburanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere nk’uwihishe ubutabera, atakagombye kugaragara mu iburanisha mu bujurire kandi atarigeze abazwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ku byaha akurikiranyweho, busaba ko iburanisha ryahagarikwa Zomahoun agategekwa kwitaba Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha, akabazwa mu buryo bw’ivuguruzanya, agakorerwa dosiye, nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 168 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. Nyuma yo gusuzuma iyo nzitizi, Urukiko Rukuru, rwemeje ko Zomahoun agomba kubanza kubazwa, agakorerwa dosiye, ariko akabazwa hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga (online). Ubushinjacyaha ntibwishimiye icyo cyemezo, bukijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire buvuga ko ubujurire bwatanze bushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 72 n’iya 168 z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ku bijyanye n’uburyo inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa ikorwa, ndetse n’ibikurikizwa iyo ushinjwa yaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera, ko kuba Zomahoun atarigeze yishyikiriza ubutabera, atakagombye kugaragara no mu iburanisha ku rwego rw’ubujurire. Mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire iburanisha ryakomeje hasuzumwa niba Zomahoun waburanishijwe mu rwego rwa mbere mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa

GASABO nk’uwihishe ubutabera, yarashoboraga kuba umuburanyi mu bujurire bw’urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, runasuzuma niba Urukiko Rukuru

Page 413

377 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

rutaragombaga gutegeka ko abazwa hifashishijwe ikoranabuhanga, maze Ubushinjacyaha buburana buvuga ko kuba Zomahoun atarigeze abazwa kandi akaba ataburanishwa atarigeze abazwa, ko busanga imihango y’ikurikiranacyaha igomba kubahirizwa no mu gihe urubanza rwajuririwe uwihishe ubutabera akaboneka, ko agomba kwishyikiriza Ubugenzacyaha bugakora iperereza ry’ibanze, nyuma dosiye igashyikirizwa Ubushinjacyaha, kandi ko nta cyemeza ko kuba yaragizwe umwere ku rwego rwa mbere, ari nako bizagenda ku rwego rw’ubujurire. Ku ruhande rwa Zamouhan bavuga ko uwaciriwe urubanza yarihishe cyangwa yaratorotse ubutabera, usabwa kwishyikiriza inzego zibishinzwe ari uwahamwe n’icyaha, ko ntacyo itegeko rivuga ku muntu waburanishijwe atyo utarahamwe n’icyaha, kandi ko Zomahoun yagizwe umwere ku rwego rwa mbere, akaba nta mpamvu n’imwe yari gutuma yishyira mu maboko y’ubutabera kuko yabaye umwere ku rwego rwa mbere, ko rero mu Rukiko Rukuru imiburanishirize y’uwihishe ubutabera (procédure de contumace) itari gukurikizwa, ko muri urwo Rukiko yafashwe nk’uwitabye kuri Skype kandi ko yahamagajwe. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo uwaciriwe urubanza nk’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera aramutse abonetse (yishyikirije inzego zibishinzwe cyangwa afashwe), ibyakozwe mbere byose bigomba guta agaciro, akabazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha akongera kuregerwa urukiko bundi bushya (mu gihe izo nzego zisanze ari ngombwa), bityo Kuba Zomahoun yaragaragaye ku buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, ntibyagombye kwitwa ko abonetse ku buryo busobanurwa n’ingingo ya 168

Page 414

378 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha.

2. Ubujurire ku rubanza rwaciwe nk’urubanza rw’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera, buburanishwa mu buryo bumwe(kamere) n’urubanza rwajuririwe. Bityo urubanza rukaba rugomba gukomeza kuburanishwa n’Urukiko Rukuru mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo rwaburanishijwemo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, agakomeza gufatwa nk’uwihishe ubutabera. Ikirego cy’Ubushinjacyaha gifite ishingiro; Iburanisha rigomba gukomeza mu Rukiko Rukuru, Zomahoun aburanishwa nk’uwihishe ubutabera. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe 2015, Ingingo ya 29. Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Ingingo ya 160, 162 n’iya 168. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga: Stephani Gaston, Levasseur Georges et Bouloc Bernard, Procedure pénale, 16éd, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, pp.770-771.

Page 415

379 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ubushinjacyaha bwareze Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry, Kibuye Mukwende Jean Pierre na Umulinga Alice mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, bubakurikiranyeho ibyaha byagaragajwe haruguru, abaregwa bose baburanishwa bunganiwe, uretse Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry waburanishwijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera. Urwo Rukiko rwaciye urubanza no RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO ku wa 07/01/2021, rwemeza ko abaregwa bose ari abere, kuko rwasanze hari ugushidikanya ku byaha bakurikiranyweho. [2] Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru, ikirego gihabwa N° RPA/ECON 00020/2021/HC/KIG, ku munsi w’iburanisha, KIBUYE MUKWENDE Jean Pierre na UMULINGA Alice bitaba Urukiko bunganiwe n’aba Avoka babo, ZOMAHOUN SOsthène Thierry ntiyitaba, ariko hitaba Me MUTABINGWA Aloys na Me KIMANUKA bagombaga kumwunganira, bibutsa Urukiko ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yanditse atanga umurongo w’ikoranabuhanga azaburaniraho, Urukiko rwemeza ko yitabira iburanisha akoresheje Skype. [3] Ubushinjacyaha bwazamuye inzitizi busaba Urukiko ko ibanza gufatwaho icyemezo mbere y’uko iburanisha rikomeza. Buvuga ko kuba

ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaraburanishijwe ku rwego rwa mbere nk’uwihishe ubutabera, atakagombye kugaragara mu iburanisha mu bujurire kandi atarigeze abazwa n’Ubushinjacyaha ku byaha akurikiranyweho, busaba ko iburanisha ryahagarikwa ZOMAHOUN Sosthène

Page 416

380 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Thierry agategekwa kwitaba Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha, akabazwa mu buryo bw’ivuguruzanya, agakorerwa dosiye, nk’uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 168 y’Itegeko n° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. [4] ZOMAHOUN Sositene Thierry na Me MUTABINGWA Aloys na Me KIMANUKA babunganira ndetse n’abo baregwa hamwe mu rubanza babwiye Urukiko ko nta cyatuma ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry ataburanishwa hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga, kuko yagaragaje imbogamizi zituma adashobora kuboneka mu iburanisha zirimo iz’uburwayi bwe, iz’umugore we urwaye ndetse n’icyorezo cya COVID 19, kandi ko yakoze umwanzuro mu Kinyarwanda, ku buryo nta mpamvu bumva imuzitira kuburana mu bujurire. [5] Nyuma yo gusuzuma iyo nzitizi, Urukiko Rukuru, rwemeje ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry agomba kubanza kubazwa, agakorerwa dosiye, ariko akabazwa hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga (online), rutegeka ko iburanisha mu mizi y’urubanza rizakomeza ku wa 07/05/2021. [6] Ubushinjacyaha ntibwishimiye icyo cyemezo, bukijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 13/04/2021, ikirego cyabwo gihabwa N° RPAA 00504/2021/CA. Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ubujurire bwatanze bushingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 72 n’iya 168 z’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, ku bijyanye n’uburyo inyandikomvugo y’ibazwa ikorwa, ndetse n’ibikurikizwa iyo ushinjwa yaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera, ko kuba ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry atarigeze yishyikiriza ubutabera, atakagombye kugaragara no mu iburanisha.

Page 417

381 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

[7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku wa 03/09/2021,

ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry, yitabiriye iburanisha mu buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga kuri skype, hari na Me SADI Jashi na Me MUTABINGWA Aloys baje kumwunganira, hari n’umusemuzi yashatse witwa KALINDA Steven, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na

BUNYOYE Grace, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu. [8] Kuri uwo munsi kandi hitabye KIBUYE Mukwende Jean Pierre na UMULINGA Alice bunganiwe na Me SHEMA Gakuba Charles, Me SEBUKONOKE Innocent na Me MUTABINGWA Aloys, naho AIMS-NEI (African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Next Einstein Initiative) ihagarariwe na Me NGABONZIZA Joseph, Urukiko rushingiye ku miterere y’ikibazo rwashyikirijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha rwemeza ko KIBUYE Mukwende Jean Pierre na UMULINGA Alice na AIMS-NEI (African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Next Einstein Initiative) badakenewe muri uru rubanza kuko rutabareba. [9] Iburanisha ryakomeje hasuzumwa niba ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry waburanishijwe mu rwego rwa mbere mu rubanza no RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO (mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa GASABO) nk’uwihishe ubutabera, yarashoboraga kuba umuburanyi mu bujurire bw’urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, runasuzuma niba Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga gutegeka ko abazwa hifashishijwe ikoranabuhanga.

Page 418

382 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry waburanishijwe mu rwego rwa mbere mu rubanza No RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO nk’uwihishe ubutabera, yarashoboraga kwitabira iburanisha mu bujurire bw’urwo rubanza. [10] ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry avuga ko ibisobanuro kuri iyi ngingo byatangwa n’abamwunganiye kuko ari ikibazo cy’amategeko. [11] Me SADI Jashi, avuga ko ingingo ya 168 y’itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ivuga ko uwaciriwe urubanza yarihishe cyangwa yaratorotse ubutabera, usabwa kwishyikiriza Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha cyangwa Ubuyobozi bwa gereza ari uwahamwe n’icyaha, ko iyo ngingo ntacyo ivuga ku muntu waburanishijwe atyo utarahamwe n’icyaha, kandi ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yagizwe umwere ku rwego rwa mbere, akaba nta mpamvu n’imwe yari gutuma yishyira mu maboko y’ubutabera kuko yabaye umwere ku rwego rwa mbere, ko rero mu Rukiko Rukuru imiburanishirize y’uwihishe ubutabera (procédure de contumace) itari gukurikizwa, ko muri urwo Rukiko yafashwe nk’uwitabye kuri Skype kandi ko yahamagajwe. [12] Me MUTABINGWA Aloys avuga ko ingingo ya 168 yavuzwe haruguru, irebana no kongera gukurikirana uwatorotse cyangwa uwihishe ubutabera, akishyikiriza Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha cyangwa Ubuyobozi bwa gereza, ko mu Rukiko

Page 419

383 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera, akagirwa umwere, ibyo bikaba bigaragaza ko nta mpamvu yari igihari ituma yishyikiriza izo nzego kuko icyari gutuma yitaba cyavanyweho n’uko yagizwe umwere. [13] Me

MUTABINGWA Aloys avuga kandi ko Ubushinjacyaha bwajuririye icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, kuba muri urwo Rukiko ZOMAHOUM Sosthène Thierry yaragizwe umwere, asanga mu Rukiko Rukuru yari yemerewe kwitaba, kugira ngo adakomeza kuburanishwa nk’uwatorotse ubutabera kandi uburenganzira bwe bwubahirizwe nk’uko abyemererwa n’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda, n’andi mahame asanzwe, agamije gutanga ubutabera buboneye. Avuga ko kuba ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye yaraburanye nk’uwihishe ubutabera, mu Rukiko Rukuru akaburana habaye kuvuguruzanya, ibyo amategeko atabibuza, ko itegeko ritagombaga kuvuga uko bigenda mu gihe uwaciriwe urubanza mu rwego rwa mbere nk’uwihishe ubutabera yitabye mu bujurire, kuko ritabibonagamo ikibazo. [14] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko butemeranya n’abunganira ZOMAHOUN SOSTHÈNE Thierry ku bisobanuro baha ingingo ya 168 (yavuzwe haruguru), kuko atigeze abazwa kandi akaba ataburanishwa atarigeze abazwa, ko busanga imihango y’ikurikiranacyaha igomba kubahirizwa no mu gihe urubanza rwajuririwe uwihishe ubutabera akaboneka, ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry agomba kwishyikiriza Ubugenzacyaha bugakora iperereza ry’ibanze, nyuma dosiye igashyikirizwa Ubushinjacyaha, kandi ko nta cyemeza ko kuba yaragizwe

Page 420

384 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

umwere ku rwego rwa mbere, ari nako bizagenda ku rwego rw’ubujurire.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Ingingo ya 160 y’ itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha igira iti: "Iyo ukurikiranyweho icyaha atashoboye gufatwa kuko yihishe cyangwa yatorotse ubutabera, yaba ari mu Rwanda cyangwa se mu mahanga, Ubushinjacyaha bumukorera dosiye bukayishyikiriza urukiko rubifitiye ububasha n’ubwo yaba atarabajijwe. Nyuma yo gushyikirizwa dosiye, urukiko rufata icyemezo kimutegeka kwitaba mu gihe cy’ukwezi kumwe (1), atakwitaba, hakemezwa ko yasuzuguye amategeko". [16] Ingingo ya 162 y’iryo Tegeko rivuzwe haruguru igira iti: "Iyo igihe kivugwa mu ngingo ya 160 y’iri tegeko kitubahirijwe n’uwihishe cyangwa uwatorotse ubutabera, acirwa urubanza adahari. Urukiko ruca urubanza rushingiye ku myanzuro y’Ubushinjacyaha yonyine", naho ingingo yaryo ya 168, igika cya 1, ikagira iti: “Iyo uwaciriwe urubanza yaratorotse cyangwa yarihishe ubutabera yishyikirije Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha cyangwa Ubuyobozi bwa Gereza cyangwa afashwe igihano kitarasaza, urubanza n’imihango yakozwe guhera ku cyemezo cyamutegekaga kwitaba kugeza urubanza ruciwe bita agaciro agakurikiranwa mu buryo busanzwe”. [17] Ku bijyanye no kwihisha ubutabera cyangwa gutoroka ubutabera, abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko iyo ukurikiranyweho icyaha atabonetse, kubera ko yihishe ubutabera agitangira gukurikiranwa, aburanishwa nk’uwatorotse cyangwa uwihishe ubutabera. Mu gihe yishyikirije gereza cyangwa

Page 421

385 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

agafatwa mbere y’uko haba ubusaze bw’igihano ibyakozwe byose bita agaciro agakurikiranwa bundi bushya1. [18] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo mu rubanza No RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO rwaciwe ku wa 07/01/2021 (igika cya 6 n’icya 12), ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry, yaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera, abandi bareganwa nawe bitabye kandi bunganiwe, Urukiko rwemeza ko ZOMAHOUN SOSTHÈNE Thierry n’abo baregwa hamwe bagizwe abere (ibika bya 80-84). [19] Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko mu Rukiko Rukuru, ku bujurire bwatanzwe n’Ubushinjacyaha bwahawe No RPA/ECON/00020/2021/HC/KIG bukaburanishwa ku wa 09/04/2021, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko nta mpamvu rwabuza

ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry kuburana hifashishijwe ikoranabuhanga (online) kuko ababuranyi bose babona ko ahari, kandi ko icyifuzo cy’Ubushinjacyaha cy’uko yabanza kubazwa ahibereye (physiquement) imbere y’Ubugenzacyaha n’imbere y’Ubushinjacyaha, rurebye impungenge zagaragajwe na ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry zo kuba ataza mu Rwanda, Ubushinjacyaha bwamubaza hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga. [20] Isesengura ry’ingingo ya 168 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, ryumvikanisha ko uwaciriwe urubanza nk’uwatorotse cyangwa uwihishe ubutabera, hari uburenganzira aba atabonye (uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye buteganywa

1 Stephani Gaston, Levasseur Georges et Bouloc Bernard, Procedure pénale, 16éd, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, pp.770-771. (Lorsque l’accusé n’est pas présent, soit qu’il se soit dérobé à la justice dès le début des poursuites, soit qu’il se soit évadé au cours de celles -ci , il est jugé par contumace…Si l’accusé se constitue prisonier ou s’il vient à ėtre arrêté avant la prescription de la peine , la décision se trouve automatiquement anéantie.

Page 422

386 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

n’ingingo ya 292 y’Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu mwaka wa 2015) ari yo mpamvu mu gihe abonetse yishyikirije Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha, Gereza, cyangwa se atawe muri yombi, igihano yakatiwe kitarasaza, urubanza rwamuhamije icyaha ruta agaciro, akongera gukurikiranwa bundi bushya, uburenganzira bwe ku butabera buboneye bwubahirijwe (akamenyeshwa ibyaha aregwa, akabyisobanuraho, akunganirwa,…), kuko mu rubanza yaciriwe adahari kubera ko yihishe cyangwa yatorotse ubutabera, ibyo byose nta byabayeho. Ibi bivuze ko n’igihe cyose urubanza rugikomeza rutaracibwa burundu ngo uwakurikiranwaga abe umwere ku buryo budasubirwaho, uwaciriwe urubanza nk’uwihishe ubutabera cyangwa watorotse ubutabera aramutse abonetse (yishyikirije inzego zavuzwe haruguru cyangwa

2 Ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe 2015 iteganya ko: Buri muntu wese afite uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, burimo uburenganzira bwo: 1° kumenyeshwa imiterere n'impamvu z'icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa; 2° gufatwa nk‟umwere kugeza igihe urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rumuhamije icyaha; 3° kuburanira imbere y‟urukiko rubifitiye ububasha; 4° kudakurikiranwa, kudafatwa, kudafungwa cyangwa kudahanirwa ibyo yakoze cyangwa atakoze, iyo amategeko y‟Igihugu cyangwa amategeko mpuzamahanga atabifataga nk‟icyaha igihe byakorwaga. Ibyaha n‟ibihano bijyanye na byo biteganywa n‟amategeko; 5° kutaryozwa icyaha atakoze; uburyozwacyaha ni gatozi ku wakoze icyaha; 6° kudahanishwa igihano kiruta icyari giteganyijwe n'amategeko mu gihe yakoraga icyaha; 7° kudafungwa bitewe gusa no kutagira ubushobozi bwo kubahiriza inshingano ituruka ku masezerano; 8° kudakurikiranwa cyangwa kudahanirwa icyaha cyashaje. Icyakora, icyaha cya jenoside, ibyaha byibasira inyokomuntu n'ibyaha by'intambara ntibisaza. Itegeko rishobora kugena ibindi byaha bidasaza

Page 423

387 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

afashwe), ibyakozwe mbere byose bigomba guta agaciro, akabazwa n’Ubugenzacyaha n’Ubushinjacyaha akongera kuregerwa urukiko bundi bushya (mu gihe izo nzego zisanze ari ngombwa) kugira ngo uburenganzira bwe ku butabera buboneye bwubahirizwe. [21] Isesengura ry’iyi ngingo ryumvikanisha kandi ko kuboneka k’uwari wihishe cyangwa uwari watorotse ubutabera, ari ukuba yishyikirije Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha cyangwa Ubuyobozi bwa gereza, cyangwa igihe yafashwe. [22] Ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza, Urukiko rusanga gihe urubanza no RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaciriwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ku wa 07/01/2021, rwajurirwaga mu Rukiko Rukuru, ababuranyi bose bari bakiri kandi bafashwe mu buryo bashyizwemo n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, aho ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera, naho KIBUYE Mukwende Jean Pierre na UMULINGA Alice bakaburana bitabye kandi bunganiwe, kuko icyemezo cy’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ku bijyanye n’imigendekere y’iburanisha n’iyitaba ry’ababuranyi kitigeze kijuririrwa. Kuba ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaragaragaye ku buryo bw’ikoranabuhanga, ntibyagombye kwitwa ko abonetse ku buryo busobanurwa n’ingingo ya 168 y’Itegeko N° 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru, kuko inzego zishinzwe iperereza zivuvwa muri iyo ngingo zitamufiteho “accès”, mu rwego rw’amategeko akaba agifatwa nk’uwihishe ubutabera. [23] Urukiko rurasanga ibyo abunganira ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry bavuga ko ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 168 y’Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye

Page 424

388 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha bitamureba kuko yagizwe umwere mu rwego rwa mbere, kandi iyo ngingo itamureba kuko ireba gusa uwahamwe n’icyaha wahawe igihano kitarasaza, nta shingiro bifite, kuko urubanza rwagize ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry umwere rutaraba ntakuka kuko rwajuririwe, bityo nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, akaba nta mpamvu yatuma adakurikiza ibikubiye muri iyo ngingo yishyikiriza inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha kugira ngo abazwe ku byaha akurikiranyweho bityo urubanza rwe rubone kongera kuburanishwa nk’uko ingingo ya 168 yavuzwe haruguru ibiteganya. [24] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga kandi abunganira ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry mu mategeko, batarashoboye kwerekana uburenganzira afite bushingiye ku itegeko bumwemerera kuza mu rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru mu iburanisha rivuguruzanya yifashishije ikoranabuhanga, kandi uburyo yaburanishijwemo mu rwego rwa mbere butarigeze buhinduka, kuko budahindurwa n’uburyo ababuranyi babibona cyangwa babivuga nk’uko byavuzwe mu cyemezo cyajuririwe, ahubwo bigomba gukurikiza uko amategeko abiteganya. [25] Urukiko rusanga mu gihe ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yifuza kugaragara mu rubanza kugira ngo yisobanure ku byaha akurikiranyweho n’Ubushinjacyaha, ari ngombwa kubahiriza ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 168 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha yasobanuwe haruguru, akishyikiriza inzego ziteganywa n’Itegeko (Ubugenzacyaha cyangwa Ubushinjacyaha), ibyo yakoze yitabira iburanisha mu Rukiko Rukuru mu rubanza ku bujurire rw’urubanza yaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera agahabwa ijambo nk’umuburanyi

Page 425

389 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

akoresheje ikoranabuhanga (Skype), bikaba binyuranyije n’ibyo itegeko riteganya, kuko utaburana kandi ukuboneka kwe kuvanaho icyemezo yafatiwe ku rwego rwa mbere akabazwa bundi bushya, nyamara Urukiko Rukuru rwo rukaba rwaremeje ko nta mpamvu yatuma atemererwa kuburana hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga, n’ubwo rwanategetse ko azabazwa n’Ubushinjacyaha. [26] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rushingiye ku mategeko rwagaragaje haruguru no ku bisobanuro byose byatanzwe, rurasanga Urukiko Rukuru rutaragombaga kwemeza ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yabonetse rushingiye ku mpamvu y’uko yarwiyeretse kuri Skype mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 26/04/2021 ry’urubanza No RPA/ECON/00020/2021/HC/KIG, kuko ubwo buryo bunyuranyije n’uburyo uwaburanishijwe nk’uwihishe cyangwa watorotse ubutabera yigaragazamo buteganywa mu ngingo ya 168 y’Itegeko nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha. Rurasanga kandi, hashingiwe kuri iyo ngingo y’Itegeko, urwo Rukiko rutaragombaga kumwemerera kwitabira iburanisha ngo rufate icyemezo gishingiye ku miburanire ye, kuba rwarabyemeye bikaba binyuranyije n’amategeko, bityo urubanza No RPA/ECON/00020/HC/KIG, rukaba rugomba gukomeza kuburanishwa n’Urukiko Rukuru mu buryo bumwe n’ubwo rwaburanishijwemo mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry agakomeza gufatwa nk’uwihishe ubutabera, cyangwa akishyikiriza inzego z’ikurikiranacyaha ziteganywa n’Itegeko.

Page 426

390 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

b. Kumenya niba Urukiko Rukuru rwaragombaga gutegeka ko Ubushinjacyaha bubaza ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry hifashishijwe ikoranabuhanga. [27] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaburanye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo nk’uwatorotse ubutabera, bujuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru, ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yigaragaza kuri Skype, bubwira Urukiko ko adakwiye kugaragara mu Rukiko ku rwego rw’Ubujurire kuko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 72 y’Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha bitubahirijwe, nyuma yo kwiherera Urukiko rukabyemera, ariko rukemeza ko imihango yose yakozwe mbere iteshwa agaciro ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry akabazwa, ariko ko agomba kubazwa hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga. Buvuga ko ubazwa aba agomba gushyira umukono ku nyandikomvugo yakorewe, kandi rimwe na rimwe hakaba kuvuguruzanya, ko ibyo kubazwa hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga biramutse byemewe, haba hatanzwe umurongo wagira ingaruka itari nziza, kuko benshi mu bakurikiranwa bajya bawitwaza, kandi unyuranyije n’ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 72 yavuzwe haruguru. [28] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibyo abunganira ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry bavuga ko ibiteganywa mu ngingo ya 168 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha ryavuzwe haruguru bimutareba kuko yagizwe umwere atari byo, kuko urubanza rukiburanishwa rutaraba ndakuka, ko kandi kuba Ubushinjacyaha bwarajuriye nta cyemeza ko urubanza rwajuririwe rudashobora guhinduka. [29] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko niba ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry ashaka kwiyereka ubutabera,

Page 427

391 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

akwiriye kwishyikiriza Ubugenzacyaha akabazwa imbonankubone nk’uko biteganywa n’amategeko, ko ibyo avuga ko atihishe ubutabera atari byo, kuko kuba muri CANADA hari icyorezo cya COVID 19 atari impamvu yatuma atitaba, ko icyo cyorezo kiri kw’isi yose kandi muri CANADA indege zikaba zigenda. Ku kibazo cy’umuryango we (umugore we urwaye) na gahunda (rendez-vous) afite kwa muganga, Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko ibyo bitaba impamvu zo kutitaba inzego z’iperereza kuko aramutse agaragaje ko zihuye n’itariki y’ibazwa, yahabwa indi tariki. [30] ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry avuga ko yatangiye gukurikiranwa ari mu rugendo rw’akazi muri CANADA, atari yo mu rwego rwo kwihisha cyangwa gutoroka ubutabera, ariko ko nta mpamvu agifite yo kuza mu Rwanda kuko nta kazi akihafite, hakaba hari n’izindi mpamvu zituma atagaragara imbere y’Urukiko, zikubiye mu ibaruwa yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru ndetse no mu yo yandikiye Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire ku wa 23/06/2021, zirimo icyorezo cya COVID-19 gikomeje gukaza umurego muri CANADA kuko muri icyo gihugu ubu hari inkubiri yacyo ku nshuro ya kanne (4th wave of Covid-19), ibyo bikaba bituma nta hantu na hamwe ashobora kujya, akaba afite n’ikibazo cy’umuryango kuko umugore we afite uburwayi bwa Cancer bugeze ku rwego rwo hejuru, ku buryo bimusaba kumwitaho no kumuba hafi by’umwihariko, ikindi nawe nyuma yo gukorera African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Next Einstein Initiative mu gihe kingana n’imyaka 10, icyo kigo cyamwirukanye bikamugiraho ingaruka z’uburwayi ku buryo ahorana rendez-vous kwa muganga, izo zose akaba ari impamvu zikomeye zituma ataza mu Rwanda.

Page 428

392 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[31] Me SADI Jashi avuga hakurikijwe ibiteganywa mu ingingo ya 92 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha, Ubushinjacyaha bwari bufite uburyo bwinshi bwo kubaza ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry, harimo no kuba bwamubaza hakozwe “commission rogatoire”, kandi ko muri iki gihe n’inyandikomvugo z’iburanisha zidashyirwaho imikono kubera ko hakoreshwa Skype, ko n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga mu rubanza RS/PSV/SPEC 00001/2021/CS rwaciwe ku wa 04/02/2021, rwemeje ko COVID 19 ari impamvu itigobotorwa (force majeure), ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry ashobora no kubazwa hakoreshejwe zoom, kuko hajya hasuzumwa buri kibazo mu buryo bwihariye (cas par cas). [32] Me MUTABINGWA Aloys avuga ko ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko Nshinga ry’u Rwanda, iha buri muntu uburenganzira ku butabera buboneye, kandi ko ubwo burenganzira ari indemyagihugu, Ubushinjacyaha bukaba butabasha gusobanura icyahungabana mu gihe ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yaba abajijwe hifashishijwe ikoranabunga. Avuga ko ibijyanye no gushyira umukono ku nyandikomvugo atari ikibazo, kuko muri iki gihe no gushyira umukono ku nyandikomvugo y’iburanisha bitagikorwa, ko uwo yunganira afite uburenganzira bukubiyemo no kumenyeshwa imiterere n’impamvu z’icyaha akurikiranyweho, kwiregura no kunganirwa, ndetse n’ubwo kwisobanura buteganywa n’ingingo ya 68 y’ itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryo ku wa 19/09/2019 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [33] Ingingo yaryo ya 168, igika cya 1, y’ Itegeko Nº 027/2019 ryavuzwe haruguru ikagira iti: “Iyo uwaciriwe urubanza

Page 429

393 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. ZOMAHOUN N’ABANDI

yaratorotse cyangwa yarihishe ubutabera yishyikirije Ubugenzacyaha, Ubushinjacyaha cyangwa Ubuyobozi bwa Gereza cyangwa afashwe igihano kitarasaza, urubanza n’imihango yakozwe guhera ku cyemezo cyamutegekaga kwitaba kugeza urubanza ruciwe bita agaciro agakurikiranwa mu buryo busanzwe”. [34] Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rurasanga nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, Urukiko Rukuru rwaremeje ko ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yabonetse rushingiye ku buryo ababuranyi babibona, aho gushingira ku byo itegeko riteganya, rumuha ijambo mu rubanza kandi yaragombaga kuburanishwa nk’uwihishe ubutabera, bituma rusuzuma imbogamizi yarugejejeho avuga ko zituma adashobora kuza mu Rwanda, nyamara Urukiko atari rwo rwagombaga kubwirwa no gusuzuma izo mbogamizi kuko inzego z’iperereza zavuzwe haruguru ari zo ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry yagombaga kumenyesha imbogamizi afite, aho kuba Urukiko ruburanisha ubujurire bw’urubanza yaciriwe nk’uwihishe ubutabera. [35] Urukiko rurasanga rero kuba Urukiko Rukuru atari rwo rwagombaga gusuzuma imbogamizi ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry avuga ko zituma adashobora kugera mu Rwanda, kubera ko ibijyanye n’uburyo abakurikiranweho ibyaha babazwa bitari mu bubasha bwarwo, uru Rukiko narwo rutagomba kuzisuzuma kuko atari rwo rubishinzwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [36] Rwemeje ko ikirego rwashyikirijwe n’Ubushinjacyaha gifite ishingiro ;

Page 430

394 ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

[37] Rwemeje ko icyemezo cyafashwe n’Urukiko Rukuru mu rubanza RPA/ECON/00020/2021/HC/KIG mu iburanisha ryo ku wa 09/04/2021 cy’uko Ubushinjacyaha bugomba kubaza ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry hakoreshejwe ikoranabuhanga (online) kivanweho ; [38] Rutegetse ko iburanisha ry’urubanza no RPA/ECON/00020/2021/HC/KIG ruri mu Rukiko Rukuru, rikomeza, ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry akaburanishwa nk’uwihishe ubutabera nk’uko byemejwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ; [39] Rwemeje ko amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe.

Page 432

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 434

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 .......................................... xvii SUBJECT INDEX ................................................................. xxiii Re MURANGWA (ADD) .......................................................... 1 Re MURANGWA (Fond) ........................................................ 19

KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as

SANLAM

ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al. ........................................................... 99 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION ................. 127 TUYISENGE v. HAYTON Ltd ............................................. 171 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE ....................... 193 KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA ....................................... 217 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING LTD ET AL. ..................................... 229 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD V. RAB ................................... 263

Page 435

vi

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) V. SOCIÉTÉ

RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD) ........................................................................... 281 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA ................................. 305 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al. ....................... 363

Page 436

vii

TEAM OF EDITORS

I. LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

NZAYISENGA Daniel

UWINKINDI Angelique

UWIMANA Jean Marie Vianney

Page 438

ix

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

BWIZA N. Blanche : Secretary of the Committee, Inspector of Courts

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : President of Court of Appeal

Dr. KARIMUNDA M. Aimé : Rector of ILPD

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre :

KALIHANGABO Isabelle : President of High Court

Judge of Supreme Court

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

NKURUNZIZA Valens :

BURAYOBERA UMUZAYIRE : Bibiane

Inspector General of Courts Vice-Chairman of Rwanda Law Reform Commission

NSENGIYUMVA Jean Claude : Inspector of Courts

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

Page 439

x

NINAHAZWA Roselyne :

Dr. BIDERI Diogène :

Prosecutor at National Level Prosecutor at National Level KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Lt Col CYUBAHIRO NSENGIYUMVA Narcisse :

Judge at Military Court

Dr. NSHIMIYIMANA Didace : Judge of the High Court

GIRANEZA Clémentine :

Dr MBONIGABA Callixte :

Judge of the Intermediate Court

Lecturer at INES- Ruhengeri

Page 440

xi

BAGABO Faustin :

Dr ZIKAMWABAHARI Jean de Dieu :

KARAKE Canisius :

Dr.HABIMANA Pie :

UMUTESI Vestine : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

Lecturer at the University of Kigali Lecturer at UNILAK

Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association Judge of Commercial Court

Page 441

xiii

PREFACE Dear Readers, We are pleased to present to you the Law Reports Volume 3 [2024]. 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 nine (10) cases, which includes; one (1) case relating to the petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional, one (1) civil case, one (1) labour case, three (3) commercial cases two (2) penal cases and two (2) procedural cases. Dr NTEZILYAYO Faustin President of the Supreme Court and President of the High Council of Judiciary

Page 443

xv

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: [2024] 3 RLR

Page 445

xvii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

CONSIDERED

a. Current laws The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 was revised in 2015, articles 3, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43, and 61……………….3 articles 3, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43, 61 and 142………..24 article 29…………………………………………………366 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 09 December 1948, article 3………………………308 International covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966, article 14………………………………………..308 European Convention on Human Rights, article 8………………25 Organic-Law of 08/07/1976 on public centers for social action (CPAS), article 110………………………………………………..132 Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 70………………………3 articles 17, 38, 45, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 70, 73, 76 and 107…………………………………………………..25 article 155………………………………………………….308 articles 160 and 162 ……………………………………..366 Law n0 62/2018 of 25/08/2018 governing Public Procurement, article 84……………………………………………………………265 Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 72……………………………………………………...3 articles 65 and 73…………………………………………..25

Page 446

xviii

article 63…………………………………………………...103 articles 31 and 49…………………………………………131 article 105………………………………………………….308 Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 178………………………………………………….132 article 12…………………………………………………...173 article 12…………………………………………………...195 article 74 and 158…………………………………………219 article 3 and 33……………………………………………265 Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, article 10…………………………………………………….3 articles 3, 9 and 10…………………………………………25 Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning, article 6 and 20……………………………………………………131 Law n0 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113……………………………………………………………..103 Law n° 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages, article 4……….232 Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3…………………………………………………….173 article 3…………………………………………………….195 article 65 and 119…………………………………………308 The Presidential Order n0 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic, article 66………………104

Page 447

xix

Decree-Law n° 35/2005 determining explicitly decisions where silence means acceptance, and where the principle remains that silence means refusal, article 3…………………………………..132

b. Repealed laws Organic-Law Nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 132…………………………………………………...308 Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 184…………………………………………………………..308 Law N0 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing Value Added Tax (VAT), articles 6, 9 and 11………………………………………..284 Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 1, 15, 33 and 47…………………………………………..173 Law n° 06/2003 of 22/03/2003 modifying and completing the decree-law of August 22, 1974 concerning organisation of Social Security, article 2………………………………………………….173 Law nº 51/2001 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour code in Rwanda, articles 17, 29 and 33…………………………………..173 The Decree-law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 regulating insurance, article 11…………………………………………………………..104

Page 449

xxi

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Hon Justice Ovie Whiskey (1981) All N.L.R 1………………………………………………………………………...4 A.G. of Dendel State v A.G. of Nigeria (1983) ANLR 208………..4 (Application no 37971/97), Société Colas Est and others v. France, judgment Strasbourg 16 April 2002, paragraph 46……………………………………………………………………...26 Case RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC with AYALA CO Ltd v. APROETEC ASBL and EPTC Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/10/2020……………………………………………………...104 Case RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2020/SC with Whitefield Investment Company Ltd v. Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/09/2021……………….104 Case RCAA 00045/2016 with Mukaruhanga Alexia v. Nyirahabimana Emertha and Kold Hansen Jesper rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/05/2019……………………………...104 Case RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC with Twagirayezu Alice and others v. Twagirayezu Albert and other rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021…………………………………..104 Case with City of Johnstown v. Bankers Standards Insurance Co, 8777F 2d at 1150 (2ns Cir. 1989)……………………………….104 Conseil d’État (Belgique), décision n° 58.810 du 26 mars 1996, Christiaens Auto-Industries et crts; Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 63.963 du 10 janvier 1997, Commune de Momignies…………………………………………………………132

Page 450

xxii

Conseil d'État (France), 6ème - 5ème chambres réunies, Lecture du jeudi 23 septembre 2021………………………………………132 Cour de Cassation (France), Chambre commerciale financière et économique, 3 mai 2018, Pourvoi n° 16-15.114………………132 Cour de Cassation (France), Civ 1er, 11 Mai 2017, n° 16-15.549 et 16-60115…………………………………………………………132 Ferreira Clive v Levin Allan and Others, CCT 5/95 of 06/12/1995…………………………………………………………….4 Gaertner and Others v. Minister of Finance and Others (CCT 56/13) [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) (14 November 2013) Klass and Others v Germany, Judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A, n° 28…………………………………………………….…..4 Minister of Police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] ZACC 21; 2016 (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016)……………………………………………………….26 Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others (CCT13/97) [1998] ZACC 10; 1998 (4) SA 1127; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (29 May 1998)………………………………………26 National Westminster Bank Plc V Spectrum Plus Ltd & Others [2005] UKHL 41, igika cya 31, 36 n’icya 41…………………...132 Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and security and Others ([2014] ZACC 14)…………………………………………………………….26 Phoenix Metal v. Rwanteli Ntagara Innocent, RSOCAA 0023/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/06/2010…..173

Page 451

xxiii

Prosecution v Nsengumuremyi Richard et al., RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/11/2018…………………………………………………………132 Prosecution v. Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019……………………………….308 Prosecution v. Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, ICTR-98-44-T……………………………………………………...308 Prosecution v. Simon Bikindi, ICTR –2001 -72 –T…………… 308 Prosecution v. Yussuf Munyakazi, ICTR-97-36A-A…………..308 Prosecution v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A……………………………………………………....308 Prosecution v. Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T…………….308 Prosecution v. Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A……………308 Prosecution v. Ntagerura André and co-accused, ICTR-99-46- A…………………………………………………………………….308 Prosecution v. Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-T………………. 308 Prosecution v. Nahimana Ferdinand and co-accused, ICTR-99- 52-A………………………………………………………………...308 R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617……………………………………4 Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12….............................................................................................4 Re Counsel Kabuye Ngendahayo, RS/ICONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/02/2022……………………………………………………….......4 Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 24/12/2021……………………4

Page 452

xxiv

Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021……………………4 Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019……………………4 Re Bisengimana Jerome, RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/11/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 30/11/2012, paragraph 7……………..4 Re Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire, RS/CONST/0002/12/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/10/2012……………………………..4 Re Ntawuburintimba Alivéra, RS/INCONST/002/10/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012, paragraph 5…………….4. Re Uwimana Jeannette, RS/INCONST/CIV 0002/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/06/2010, paragraph 5……………..4 Re Mutebwa Alfred, RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 11/01/2008…………………………………4 Rutagarama Eliseus, RS/RECT/RC00001/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/05/2019………………………………132 RS/INCONST/RCOM00001/2022/SC, Re Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd, rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/05/2023……………………………………………………..……26 RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, Re Kabasinga Florida, rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019…………………26 RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/ 2019/SC, Re Murangwa Edward, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019…………………26 RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/ 2018/SC, Re Mugisha Richard, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/04/2019…………………26 RS/INCONST/PÉN0001/08/CS, Re Murorunkwere Spéciose, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/09/2008………………….26

Page 453

xxv

The interim court decision for case RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC with Kamugwiza Phoebe v. Sakina Hashim and others…………………………………………………………………26 Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada [1975] 1 SCR 138……..4 Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] ZAECELLC 8; 2014 (1) SACR 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013)…………………………………………………………………27 UK Law Commission Report No 396, search warrant, 7 October 2020, p.129, para 5.70……………………………………………28 (CCT253/15) [2016] (9) BCLR 1237(CC); 2016(2) SACR 473(CC) (27 July 2016), Minister of police and Others v Kunjana………………………………………………………………26 11S v Coetzee and Others (CCT50/95) [1997] ZACC 2; 1997 (4) BCLR 437; 1997 (3) SA 527 (6 March 1997)…………………….26 389U.S.347(1967), Katz v. United States, rendered by the Supreme Court on of the United States of America on 26/09/2008…………………………………………………………26 367U.S.643 (1971) Mapp v. Ohio No.236 Argued March 29,1961 rendered by the Supreme Court on of the United States of America on 19/06/1961…………………………………………….26

Page 455

xxvii

SUBJECT INDEX 1. Administrative procedure – Informal appeal – An informal appeal that does not get a response by an Authority within the set time limit – Even though article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure did not provide for an exception on the principle of “silence means acceptance” (silence vaut acceptation), this does not mean that failure to respond on that appeal should be construed as approving what the claimant was requesting for, whether they are entitled to it it or not, and regardless of whether it is impossible to obtain it. RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…...127 Informal appeal – Informal informal appeal – The principle of silence means acceptance (silence vaut acceptation) – Exception on the principle of silence means acceptance – There is a need for an exeption on this principle in order to determine the type of decisions where silence means acceptance, and on the others were silence means refusal, or to determine on the other type of decisions where silence means refusal, and then for the remaining other types of decisions, silence be construed as acceptance for what was appealed for. RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…...127 Informal appeal – The principle of silence means acceptance (silence vaut acceptation) – Exception – Decisions where the principle of silence means acceptance is not applicable are those related to 1o national security, safety or public order, freedom of the public, the rights provided by the Constitution and other laws establishing

Page 456

xxviii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

basic rights; 2o State obligations on regional or international matters; 3o to make or ask payment to the Government organ; 4o matters not related to the personal rights of the appelant; 5o existing legal provisions or regulations on where silence means acceptance for such an issue; 6o informal appeals against administrative decisions rejecting the request; 7o collaboration between an administrave organ and its employees; 8o documents or certificates issued by administrative organs RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…...127 2. Civil law – Obligations – An obligation for the payment of a joint debt – For a joint debt, the creditor may seek a collective payment from the debtors, but he/she can also collect payment portions from each separate debtor – Still, the creditor can claim payment from one of the debtors, and the clearing debtor shall have a right to claim refund from the co-debtors. NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE……….193 Procedure – Proving the creditorship – Anyone who alleges a state of creditorship must prove it. NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE……….193 3. Civil procedure – Forced intervention into a case at the appeal level– A party whose first forced intervention into the case occurs at the appeal level, has a right to at least one appeal remedy – While examining the second appeal, the appellate court cannot claim its lack of jurisdiction on the matter yet the case involves a party whose first intervention into the case occurred at the appeal level.

KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al……………...99

Page 457

xxix

SUBJECT INDEX

Replacement of a judge – Pending case – When a judge replaces another in an on going case decides to resume the case from where the haring with the previous judge had reached, he/she cannot invalidate the decisions made by the previous judge KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA………………….217 4. Commercial Procedure – Standing to sue – Joint venture – Standing (locus standi) – A company under a joint venture scheme has the right to sue in its own name when it is only claiming for its share – No company has standing to sue for the full due on the behalf of a joint venture, especially when the claiming company is not suing for the interests of the joint venture. BENEDETTA GROUP LTD V. RAB……………….263 5. Constitution – Constitution – A petition seeking to confirm that various provisions of the law are contrary to the Constitution – The interests of the petitioner – In assessing the interests of the petitioner, the following elements must be considered; the presence of any one of them is sufficient for the Court to affirm that the petitioner has an interest. – If there is a law claimed to be contrary to the Constitution that pertains specifically to the petitioner or their category, thereby giving them personal interest in filing the petition – If the law claimed to be contrary to the Constitution pertains to citizens in general in a way that could affect their rights, this grants anyone who might be affected an interest in petitioning that it is contrary to the Constitution – If the petitioner is a lawyer acting in the interest of justice, they are allowed to file a petition to promote the law or the rights of those affected by that law even if they have no personal interest in the petition

Page 458

xxx

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Re MURANGWA (ADD)……………………………….1 The principle of inviolability of human rights – Searching – The fact that a search warrant is issued by a particular authority is not considered a constitutional right of the person subject to the search. However, it does place a responsibility on the authority conducting the search to act professionally and in accordance with the law. Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………..19 Right to due process of law – The Principle of presumption of innocence – While investigative agencies may collaborate with the media to inform the public about ongoing investigations, they must take every precaution to uphold the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………..19 Petition to declare provisions of the law unconstitutional – Petition to the Constitutional Court– A litigant cannot petition the Constitutional Court to change, delete, or add words to the provisions of the law simply because they find the wording uncomfortable or because the legislator did not use their preferred wording. Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………..19 6. Contract law – Insurance contracts – Liability – Insured person who does not knowingly and deliberately fulfill his/her obligations provided under the insurance contract is not protected by such contract.

KIREHE

DISTRICT v

SAHAM

ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et al………………99

Page 459

xxxi

SUBJECT INDEX

7. Criminal law – Genocide and crimes against humanity – Crime of Conspiracy to commit genocide – Although it is not provided under Rwandan law, the connivance to commit genocide amounts to the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA……………..305 8.Criminal procedure – Investigation – Search – A search is an investigative activity carried out by an investigator or prosecutor based on a search warrant issued by the public prosecution – It is conducted in order to find or supplement evidence in a criminal case Re MURANGWA (Fond)……………………………..19 Detention and release – Provisional release – A person detained in the context of enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment he/she has been sentenced to cannot be provisionally released on grounds of unlawful detention by investigation organs PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA……………..305 Criminal liability – Acquittal – No accused can claim that a judgment from another court acquitted him/her as long as they have not been involved as a party PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA……………..305 Trial of a fugitive suspect – As long as a criminal case is still pending and the suspect has not yet been decisively acquitted over the charged offences, when a fugitive suspect later appears before the competent organs ( either by surrendering or subsequent arrest) all the previous proceedings are thereby nullified and the suspect is interrogated by the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution, (if deemed necessary by those organs) the

Page 460

xxxii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

reappeared fugitive suspect must be re-indicted for the sake of preserving all his/her rights to due process of law PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al……………..363 9. Evidence law – Evidence in criminal cases – Testimony – Probative value of testimony – The determination of the probative value of testimonial evidence following the hearing of witness declarations – A judge may consider certain parts of testimony and reject other parts – In the event witness declarations from two witnesses contradict each other after the hearing of witnesses, it is the court that determines which witness declarations are valid. PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA……………..305 10. Labor law – Employment contract – An employee governed by employment contract – An employee is considered to be governed by unwritten employment contract, when that employee has been employed for at least six consecutive months continuously with the same employer – An employee who claims to be treated in such a manner must provide evidence to prove that they indeed worked during that period continously TUYISENGE v. HAYTON Ltd……………………...171 Employment contract – Casual workers – Social security – Social security contributions must be paid for every employee, regardless of whether they work in the informal sector or engage in casual work. TUYISENGE v. HAYTON Ltd……………………...171 11. Law governing the judgment review on grounds of injustice –A party who files an incidental appeal in the judgment under review on grounds of injustice – A party who did not apply for the judgment review on grounds of

Page 461

xxxiii

SUBJECT INDEX

injustice cannot make a claim in the course of the hearing of the judgment under review on grounds of injustice.

KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et al………………99 12. Laws governing Rwanda Bar Association – Advocate – Conditions of access to the profession of Advocates – Among the conditions required for the access to the Bar Association include having not been dismissed from duties due to misconduct, and if it the case, the applicant has to present a proof for rehabilitation. RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION…...127 13. Law on mortgages – Mortgage – The mortgagor cannot dispose off the mortgaged property which was registered in his/her names without written approval. ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING LTD ET AL………...229 14. Taxation law – Value Added Tax (VAT) – VAT exemption – Transportation carried out for the purpose of distributing goods, even if done by someone who has been granted permission but is not the main activity, is considered an accessory service to that main activity of distributing goods, when that main activity is not exempt from VAT, even if the transportation itself is not exempt – The transport activity which is exempt from VAT is that carried out as a principal activity of transporting people and goods – Law No. 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value- added tax, articles 6 and 9 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) V. SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)………………………281

Page 463

SPECIAL CLAIMS

Page 465

PETITION SEEKING TO DECLARE

A LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Page 467

1

Re MURANGWA (ADD) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC – (Mukamulisa, P.J., Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye, Muhumuza na Karimunda J.) December 16, 2022] Constitution – Constitution – A petition seeking to confirm that various provisions of the law are contrary to the Constitution – The interests of the petitioner – In assessing the interests of the petitioner, the following elements must be considered; the presence of any one of them is sufficient for the Court to affirm that the petitioner has an interest. – If there is a law claimed to be contrary to the Constitution that pertains specifically to the petitioner or their category, thereby giving them personal interest in filing the petition – If the law claimed to be contrary to the Constitution pertains to citizens in general in a way that could affect their rights, this grants anyone who might be affected an interest in petitioning that it is contrary to the Constitution – If the petitioner is a lawyer acting in the interest of justice, they are allowed to file a petition to promote the law or the rights of those affected by that law even if they have no personal interest in the petition.. Facts: Murangwa filed a claim in the Supreme Court requesting that article 10, paragraph 3, a, b, and c and paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of the Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization and functioning and articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 70 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure are inconsistent with articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43 and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of

Page 468

2

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

2003 revised in 2015. He also requests that in case those articles are not repealed, the Court, in its discretion, would set a position that would not harm someone and in a way that does not interfere with the responsibilities of the security organs. He also requested the Court to order the Government and the investigation organs to stop presenting to the media organs the suspects and forcing them to talk to them and to order the managers of the media organs, social media including YouTube and any person, to completely delete from their archives the photos and pictures of the suspects they took. Before analyzing Murangwa's request, the issue of whether he has an interest, in this case, is first examined because he claims that he has the right to request that the articles inconsistent with the Constitution be repealed before being affected by them. He avers that petitioning against an unconstitutional article before it affects you is like getting vaccinated before you get sick, in case he notes that the impugned articles are detrimental to his fundamental rights provided by the Constitution, nothing can prevent him from petitioning against them and that it is not appropriate for the Court to consider the issue as non-existent, while the law was published in the Official Gazette and he is required to abide by it or not to do what it prohibits. The State Attorneys submit that the

interest of petitioning is an important reason for the petition admissibility, it is not appropriate that anyone should be allowed to file a claim even if he/she has no interest because it can cause chaos and would interfere with the claims of those who have an interest. They further aver that Murangwa is only proving public interest instead of personal interest, in case his claim is admitted it would be confused with the one lodged in the public interest. Although

Page 469

3 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

it is appropriate for the Court to extend the power of those who file such petitions to protect the public interest, the set position bars those who file claims for unknown or impressive reasons and this allows to prevent the effects of unnecessary claims on the administration of fair justice. Held: The applicant has interest in the claims filed for repealing unconstitutional law, when, in particular, he/she or the category to which he/she belongs is concerned by that law, it concerns the people in general in a way that may affect their rights and the claimant is authorized lawyer for the sake of promoting the law or the rights of those who are concerned by the law. Petitioner has an interest in this case. The hearing of the case shall continue. Statutory and statutes referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 was revised in 2015, with articles 3, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43, and 61. Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 70. Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 72. Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, article 10.

Page 470

4

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Cases referred to: Re Counsel Kabuye Ngendahayo, RS/ICONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/02/2022. Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 24/12/2021. Re Byansi Samuel Baker, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021. Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019. Re Bisengimana Jerome, RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/11/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 30/11/2012, paragraph 7. Re Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire, RS/CONST/0002/12/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/10/2012. Re Ntawuburintimba Alivéra, RS/INCONST/002/10/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012, paragraph 5. Re Uwimana Jeannette, RS/INCONST/CIV 0002/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/06/2010, paragraph 5. Re Mutebwa Alfred, RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 11/01/2008. Ferreira Clive v Levin Allan and Others, CCT 5/95 of 06/12/1995. Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12. A.G. of Dendel State v A.G. of Nigeria (1983) ANLR 208. R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617. Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Hon Justice Ovie Whiskey (1981) All N.L.R 1.

Page 471

5 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

Klass and Others v Germany, Judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A, n° 28. Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada [1975] 1 SCR 138. Authors referred to: Blandine Rolland, “Procédure Civile,” in Panorama du Droit de Guillaume Bernard, Studyrama, 2005, p.5. Cédric Tahri, Procédure civile, Lexifac-Droit, Bréal, 2007, p.84. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 15/01/2022, Murangwa Edward filed a claim in the Supreme Court requesting that article 10, paragraph 3, a, b, and c and paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of the Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization and functioning and articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 70 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure are inconsistent with articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43 and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. He also requests that in case those articles are not repealed, the Court, in its discretion, would set a position that would not harm someone and in a way that does not interfere with the responsibilities of the security organs.

Murangwa Edward also requested the Court to order the Government and the investigation organs to stop presenting to the media organs the suspects and forcing them to talk to them and to order the managers of the media organs, social media including

Page 472

6

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

YouTube, and any person, to completely delete from their archives the photos and pictures of the suspects they took.

In particular, Murangwa Edward advances that: -The fact that article 10 paragraphs 3, a, b, and c as well as paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of the Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, provides for the reasons and circumstances in which the Rwanda Investigation Bureau can search a person or thing, enter a building or place without search warrant, or conduct search without search warrant, violates the constitutional rights. -The fact that articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure are related to article 10, paragraph 3, a, b and c as well as paragraph 5, 7 and 8 of the Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 mentioned above, because all are related to the search of a person, place, house, office or any other place where it is suspected that there has been or is related to the commission of an offense and they also provide that search warrant is issued by the organ of the executive branch. However, article 43 of the Constitution provides that the Judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms, which should issue search warrant. -The fact that articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 70 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure provide for the interception of communication in investigations and prosecution, search, conducting body search or a body cavity search, seizure and caveat of objects, authorization to search and visit any place where

Page 473

7 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

evidence may be found, the persons who have the power to issue search warrant and monitoring a suspect through technology, violates the human rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution. He provides the following explanations: •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 as provided by article 41 of the Constitution, the reason why the protection of these rights must be performed by the Judiciary because it is the branch so entitled by the Constitution; •Human rights are inviolable, and the Constitution determines how they are protected, respected and the Government branch that has the responsibility to protect them, which means that, based on the provisions of its article 3 which provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country, any law, decision or act contrary to this Constitution is without effect; •In the event that the search warrant is issued or in the event of the search without warrant, conducting body search or a body cavity search, search of building, home and workplace, the principle of presumption of innocence of the suspect must be respected until the suspect is proven guilty by the final court decision as provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda and various international treaties that Rwanda ratified;

Page 474

8

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

•In the event that the search warrant, intercepting, monitoring, conducting body search or a body cavity search or other activities referred to in the articles of the law for which the repealing is sought, is issued by an organ not determined by the Constitution, it would mean that the activity and the underlying law are contrary to the article 23, paragraphs 2 and 3, the articles 43 and 61 of the Constitution, and therefore they are null and void. -The fact that the provisions of the article 10, paragraph 8 of the Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 mentioned above provide that any person can be ordered to provide information that can be helpful in the investigation and the suspect can be presented to the media organs for making statements that violate the provisions of the following articles: •Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda provides for the right to fair trial, especially the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty by competent court decision; •Articles 73 and 107 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure provide for confidentiality during criminal investigation and who is responsible for the burden of proof in those cases. -Basing on the right to fair trial, the right to the privacy of the suspect, his/her family and his/her place of work and the responsibility of the organs responsible for preventing and fighting against offences, this instant Court should set a position that explains how words, reasonable grounds,

Page 475

9 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

tangible elements of evidence and serious elements of evidence, used in the article 10, paragraph 3, a, b and c as well as paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 mentioned above should be understood with their limits, this is done in the interest of the law.

The hearing was held in public on 18/10/2022, Murangwa Edward assisted by Counsel Rugemintwaza Jean Marie Vianney and Counsel Bahati Védaste, while the Government of Rwanda was represented by State Attorney Kabibi Spéciose and State Attorney Kayitesi Pétronille, and they first examined the issue raised by the Court of whether Murangwa Edward has interest in this case. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE 1. Determine whether Murangwa Edward has interest in this case

Murangwa Edward and his lawyers submit that, as a person who is concerned by any law published in the Official Gazette, and is required to do what it orders or not to do what it prohibits, the impugned articles are detrimental to his interests because they provide for the procedures that apply during the search and for the organ that has the power to issue search warrant. They explain that those articles related to criminal prosecution concern everyone who is in Rwanda, including himself and his family, and they find that the provisions of those articles are contrary to the Constitution, especially in its article 43, the reason why he has the right to request for repealing unconstitutional articles before being affected by them.

Page 476

10

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They aver that petitioning against unconstitutional article before it affects you is like getting vaccinated before you get sick, in case he notes that the impugned articles are detrimental to his fundamental rights provided by the Constitution, nothing can prevent him from petitioning against them and it is not appropriate for the Court to consider the issue as non-existent, while the law was published in the Official Gazette. He submits that the rationale of his interest in this case is based on the article 72, paragraph one of the Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts1. He states that in analyzing the article, this instant Court set a position in the case of Counsel Mugisha Richard2 , where it upheld that as regards the unconstitutionality cases, the party may request that the law be repealed in order to protect the public interest without proving the personal interest in it.

They submit that the fact that a person can request for repealing a law without having to prove that it has been applied to him/her, has been upheld by other courts including the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Klass and others against Germany3, and Constitutional Courts as evidenced by the case of Ferreira v. Allan Levin et al. rendered by the South African Constitutional Court 4, the case Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. The Attorney General decided by the High Court of Tanzania5,

1 It provides that the Supreme Court is petitioned by any person or company and associations with legal personality over petitions seeking declare unconstitutional a law if they have any interest 2 See Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC decided by Supreme Court on 18/01/2019. 3 See Judgment Klass and Others v Germany, Judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A, n° 28. 4 Ferreira Clive v Levin Allan and Others, CCT 5/95 of 06/12/1995. 5 Rev. Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General [1994] TZHC 12.

Page 477

11 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

the case IRC v. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd of England6, the case Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada7, the case Adesanya v. President of Nigeria & Another8 and the case A.G. of Dendel State v. A.G. of Nigeria9.

Counsel Kabibi Spéciose and Counsel Kayitesi Pétronille, State Attorneys, submit that the interest of petitioning is an important reason for the petition admissibility. They explain that it is not appropriate that anyone should be allowed to file a claim even if he/she has no interest because it can cause chaos and it would interfere with the claims of those who have interest. They state that the legal scholar Blandine Rolland in her book entitled Procédure civile, asserts that the plaintiff must have a personal and strict interest at the time of filing a claim10, and Cédric Tahri, also in the book entitled Procédure civile, adds that if there is no interest, there should be no claim, and the interest must be reasonable instead of basing on the claimant’s wish11.

6 R (NFSE) v IRC [1982] AC 617. 7 Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada [1975] 1 SCR 138. 8 Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Hon Justice Ovie Whiskey (1981) All N.L.R 1. 9 A.G. of Dendel State v A.G. of Nigeria (1983) ANLR 208. 10 L’intérêt pour agir correspond à l’avantage que l’action est susceptible de procurer au plaideur. …. Cette condition est essentielle et traditionnelle, comme en témoigne la maxime: Pas d’intérêt, pas d’action. L’intérêt peut être pécuniaire (évaluable en argent), ou bien seulement moral. Il est donc patrimonial ou extrapatrimonial. Mais il doit en plus revêtir certaines caractéristiques. Il doit exister au jour de l’action (être né et actuel) et être légitime, personnel et direct. See Blandine Rolland, Procédure Civile, in Panorama du Droit de Guillaume Bernard, Studyrama, 2005, p.5. 11 “Le titulaire d’une action doit justifier d’une intention à agir, défini comme l’avantage moral ou matériel que l’action est susceptible de procurer au plaideur. La maxime: pas d’intérêt, pas d’action” reflète ce principe. .......

Page 478

12

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They sustain that the issue related to the personal interests have been clearly explained by this instant Court in the case of Byansi Samuel Baker12, this instant Court set a position about the claimant's interests referred to in the article 72 of Law n°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, is important reason for admissibility of unconstitutionality case, and these interests must be understood as personal and direct to prove that the articles for which the repealing is sought are detrimental to him. Regarding Murangwa Edward, they state that he is only proving public interest instead of indicating personal interest, if his claim is admitted it would be confused with the one filed in public interest litigation. They aver that although it is appropriate for the Court to extend the powers of those who file these claims in order to protect the public interest, the set position bars those who make them for unknown or impressing reasons and this allows to prevent the effects of unnecessary claims on the administration of fair justice

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 72, paragraph one of Law n°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”.

En outre, il doit être né et actuel et pas seulement éventuel ou hypothétique”. See Cédric Tahri, Procédure civile, Lexifac-Droit, Bréal, 2007, p.84. 12 See Judgment RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 11/01/2008. See also Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021

Page 479

13 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

The issue of the interests of the petitioner in the case seeking for repealing the unconstitutional articles has been examined by this instant Court in various cases. In the cases Mutebwa Alfred13, Uwimana Jeannette14, Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire15, Bisengimana Jérôme16, and Ntawuburintimba Alivera17, this instant Court found that each of them had an interest in filing a petition seeking to declare the law unconstitutional because they had claims pending in ordinary courts. The interests of the claimant in these cases were based on the fact that there was the claimant’s case and requests such Court to stay the judgment pronouncement for allowing him to justify that the article on which the Court will rely is unconstitutional.

The issue of the interest of the party who does not have another case in the ordinary court or has not yet affected by the article for which he claims to be declared unconstitutional, was

13 See Judgment RS/INCONST/Pén.0001/07/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 11/01/2008 14 Regarding to the claim filed by Uwimana Jeannette, … has interest to file that claim because she has a case in the High Court therefore finds that the alleged article should threat her in her appeal. See Judgment RS/INCONST/CIV 0002/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/06/2010, paragraph 5 15 Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire has the interest to file a claim intending to remove of the alleged provisions of laws because she has a criminal case in the High Court, she is accused of the crime of minimazation of genocide and geneocide ideology. See Judgment RS/CONST/0002/12/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/10/2012 16 Bisengimana wishes that the section of the alleged article be repealed so that Intermediate Court of Rusizi will render his appeal, and hears his case on merit so that he will find justice. See Judgment RS/INCONST/CIV 0001/11/CS decided by Supreme Court on 30/11/2012, paragraph 7. 17 See Judgment RS/INCONST/002/10/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 27/04/2012, paragraph 5.

Page 480

14

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

deeply examined in the case of Counsel Mugisha Richard18. From the paragraph 20 to 32 of that judgment, this instant Court explained that the appeal against the unconstitutionality of the law should be considered as a serious issue and resolved instead of being treated as a non-existent issue, the interests of the petitioner are based on the fact that he/she is requesting the Court to declare that there are articles that interfere with the constitutional rights or that make the purpose of the Constitution unachievable while it must be protected. The fact that the articles of the impugned law are into force entitles to the petitioner the interest of filing a claim requesting for repealing them without waiting their effects on him/her. In other words, in such claims, the interests can be real or potential.

This instant Court also found that the interest must be understood in a broad sense due to the fact that the importance of the judgment on those issues exceeds the personal interests of the claimant as upheld in ordinary cases and reaches the public, and no one else can file a claim against those provisions challenged to be unconstitutional. This is why the Legislator provides that the judgments on the unconstitutionality are published in the Official Gazette to inform all citizens.

The Court finds that the issue of interest claimed for petitions seeking to declare a law unconstitutional should be viewed broadly was also reiterated in the case of Counsel Kabuye Ngendahayo19. In that case, this instant Court found that the provisions of the Law on the matrimonial regimes, donations and

18 See Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/01/2019. 19 See Interlocutory Judgment RS/ICONST/SPEC 00004/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 18/02/2022.

Page 481

15 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

successions impugned to be unconstitutional concern everyone in Rwandan society because marriage, succession and property rights do not exclude anyone, which means that every Rwandan, including Kabuye Ngendahayo, can apply it or it can affect him. Therefore, the fact that he is among those who are concerned by the relevant law and he can rely on it even if he has not been negatively affected will affect him, entitles to him the interests of lodging the claim against the articles that infringe upon his constitutional rights.

In the interlocutory judgment of Byansi Samuel Baker decided on 10/12/202120 and the one which was decided on 24/12/202121, this instant Court after recalling the position set in the case of Counsel Mugisha Richard, explained that as part of avoiding unnecessary claims that may hinder the functioning of the courts, the claimant has the obligation to prove the particularity of his personal interest that he/she is claiming for in the case. It found that Byansi Samuel Baker had the particularity of being a journalist who claimed for repealing the articles of the law that prejudiced the freedom of the press, the freedom of expression and access to information. In the judgment decided on 24/12/2021, the Court found that the Law determining offences and penalties in general applies to everyone on the territory of Rwanda, including journalists, so its provisions should be repealed because they are contrary to the Constitution and they may be detrimental to him currently or in the future.

20 See Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021. 21 See Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2021/SC decided by the Supreme Court on 24/12/2021.

Page 482

16

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court also found that Byansi Samuel Baker, as a professional journalist, combined the public interest and the personal interest to file the claim as above described. Regarding the public interest, it was considered that the provisions of the Law determining offences and penalties in general, which concern the general public including him, may interfere with his rights. The personal interest is based on the fact that he is a professional journalist who promotes the development of freedom of the press and laws thereof instead of considering the effects of the impugned articles on him. The fact that he was a journalist entitled to him the particularity for which the Court decided that the articles impugned for being unconstitutional are among the laws that govern him in his profession, so it was not necessary to wait for their effect on him before being allowed to prove that they are inconsistent with the Constitution.

Basing on the aforementioned elucidations, the Court finds that in determining the interests of the claimant, the following factors should be considered, the existence of one of them is sufficient for the Court to declare that the claimant has interest: -If there is a law impugned to be unconstitutional which concerns the claimant or the category to which he/she belongs in particular so that he/she has a personal interest to file a claim. An example is the Law governing journalists, medical doctors, teachers, and others; -If the law challenged to be unconstitutional concerns the population in general so that it may affect their rights, such fact entitles to any person who may be affected the interests of challenging it for being unconstitutional;

Page 483

17 Re MURANGWA (ADD)

-If the claimant is a lawyer, the latter is allowed in the interest of justice, to file a claim in order to promote the law or the rights of those who are concerned by that law even if he/she has no personal interest in the claim.

Regarding this instant case, the Court finds that Murangwa Edward states that the legal provisions that he challenges are related to certain activities of investigation, search, interception of objects or control of communication, the procedure in which they are conducted is detrimental to the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution including the respect of the human dignity and value and not interfering with his personal life, family, home privacy or messages shared with others. He also adds that these articles confer the excessive powers to the Investigation and the Prosecution because it is provided that a search can be conducted without the issuance of search warrant, but due to the fact that it can be issued by the Prosecution, he finds that such fact interferes with the Judiciary's duty to protect the human rights and freedoms provided by article 43 of the Constitution.

Basing on the aforementioned elucidations and the provisions of the paragraph 17 (2), the Court finds that the impugned articles concern everyone as it is the case for the article 10, paragraph 3, a, b and c as well as paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of Law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning and articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 and 70 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, at that time such fact entitles to the claimant as one of the concerned persons the interest to file a claim before being personally affected.

Page 484

18

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court therefore finds that Murangwa Edward, as one of the persons concerned by the articles of the Law establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning as well as those of the Law relating to the criminal procedure, he has the interest to request to the Court to declare unconstitutional some of articles of those laws. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that Murangwa Edward has the interest to file a claim seeking to declare the law unconstitutional in this case;

Holds that the hearing of this case will continue on the date which will be notified to the parties by the Registry of the Court.

Page 485

19

Re MURANGWA (Fond) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC – (Ntezilyayo, J. P., Cyanzayire, Mukamulisa, Hitiyaremye and Kazungu, J.) 22 December 2023] Criminal procedure – Investigation – Search – A search is an investigative activity carried out by an investigator or prosecutor based on a search warrant issued by the public prosecution – It is conducted in order to find or supplement evidence in a criminal case. Constitution – The principle of inviolability of human rights – Searching – The fact that a search warrant is issued by a particular authority is not considered a constitutional right of the person subject to the search. However, it does place a responsibility on the authority conducting the search to act professionally and in accordance with the law. Constitution – Right to due process of law – The Principle of presumption of innocence – While investigative agencies may collaborate with the media to inform the public about ongoing investigations, they must take every precaution to uphold the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Constitution – Petition to declare provisions of the law unconstitutional – Petition to the Constitutional Court – A litigant cannot petition the Constitutional Court to change, delete, or add words to the provisions of the law simply because they find the wording uncomfortable or because the legislator did not use their preferred wording.

Page 486

20

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Facts: Murangwa petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to have the provisions of the law related to searches conducted with or without a warrant declared unconstitutional. He also requested an order directing the government and investigative institutions to stop parading suspects before the press and compelling them to speak. Additionally, he sought an order requiring media outlets, social networks—including YouTube—and any other parties to completely delete from their archives all photos and videos of arrested suspects. The articles he claims are unconstitutional include Article 10, Paragraph 3 (a, b, and c), paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning; and articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating criminal procedure. He argues that these provisions are inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. The petitioner argues that Article 10 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 violates constitutional rights, as it regulates the grounds and circumstances under which the Rwanda Investigation Bureau can search a person or property, enter a building, or conduct a search without a warrant. He contends that this provision is relevant to Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of

Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, as these articles pertain to searches of places suspected of being involved in the commission of an offence. The petitioner also points out that these articles allow search warrants to be issued by an executive administrative body, while Article 43 of the Constitution states that the judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms, and therefore should be responsible for issuing such warrants.

Page 487

21 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

He further argues that the responsibility for issuing a search warrant should rest with the court, upon request by the public prosecutor, investigator, or police, and that the warrant should only be issued after the judge has been presented with valid reasons. This ensures accountability for those who fail to comply with the court’s limits. Under the current practice, if the issuer of the search warrant violates the suspect's rights, there is no supervisory body to reprimand or hold them accountable, as they cannot punish themselves—this, he contends, is inconsistent with Article 61 of the Constitution. He adds that allowing the investigator or public prosecutor to conduct searches poses the risk that they may conceal exculpatory evidence. Therefore, search warrants should be issued by the court, specifying what is to be searched, to prevent errors or misconduct by the public prosecutor or the Investigation Department. It is further argued that during any search, whether with or without a warrant, the principle of the presumption of innocence must be upheld until the competent court convicts the suspect, as provided by the Constitution and various international conventions signed by Rwanda. Forcing a suspect to speak to the press violates the principle of non-self-incrimination, as the Investigation Bureau and the Prosecution are responsible for conducting investigations,

gathering evidence, and prosecuting crimes. This practice allows the media to act as a surrogate court, potentially influencing public opinion and, in turn, affecting the impartiality of the court during the trial. The petitioner concludes by requesting that the Court clarify how the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "reasonable evidence," as used in Article 10, Paragraphs 3(a), (b), (c), Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7, and Paragraph 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, should be interpreted in accordance with

Page 488

22

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

their legal scope. This clarification, he argues, is necessary in the interests of justice and the proper application of the law. The representatives of the Rwandan government in this case argue that the petitioner has failed to prove that the alleged provisions are unconstitutional. They assert that these provisions primarily address the structure of the Prosecution Authority, positioning it as part of the executive administrative organ, while neglecting to recognize that it is a part of the Judiciary. They further state that the difference between criminal prosecution procedures in Rwanda and other countries lies in the fact that, in Rwanda, the verification of search warrants is conducted by the courts after the investigation, whereas in other countries, such verification or interception of communications is typically authorized by a judge beforehand. They contend that the method used in other countries should not take precedence over Rwanda's approach, which facilitates operations and collaboration among institutions. They further argue that search warrants issued in Rwanda should not be compared to those from other countries, as Rwandan search warrants are provisional, requiring that the accused be promptly presented to the court for a decision. This underscores that the structure and powers of the judicial system do not permit judges to leave the court to conduct

investigations; these responsibilities are designated to the Investigation Bureau and the Prosecution. Therefore, even though Rwanda's procedures may not be widely adopted elsewhere, they are efficient and promote complementarity among institutions, and do not contain any inconsistencies with the Constitution. The Government of Rwanda also argues that granting courts the responsibility of issuing search warrants would involve them in investigations before any claims are filed, which could

Page 489

23 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

compromise their independence and impartiality. This, they contend, would contradict Article 61 of the Constitution, which ensures collaboration, complementarity, and independence among branches of government. Therefore, the government sees no reason to transfer investigative duties to the judiciary. Instead, the courts should retain the authority to review whether investigations are conducted in compliance with the law, ensuring that even suspects who claim injustice have the opportunity to present evidence of such claims. Regarding searches conducted without a warrant, the representatives of the Government of Rwanda argue that such actions do not violate the Constitution, whether in Article 61 or in the submissions made by the petitioner. They maintain that it would be inappropriate to remove the contested articles because the Constitution itself allows for these laws in Articles 23 and 43, and these laws provide the necessary details that the Constitution, given the hierarchy of norms, could not explicitly outline. Regarding the presumption of innocence, the representatives of the Government of Rwanda clarify that the law specifies how information related to the commission of a crime is conveyed. Before a suspect defends themselves, they must first be informed of the charges against them, be notified that they are under questioning, and be made aware of their rights,

including the right to remain silent, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to legal representation. This reflects the protection of due process rights as provided in Article 29 of the Constitution. They further explain that providing information does not imply that it must be made public through the press, nor that the person giving it should be held in detention; rather, it is important that the person provides the required information when requested to assist the investigation. They conclude that the contested article does not,

Page 490

24

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

in any way, mandate that a suspect must provide their defense in the presence of the press, and the petitioner has not cited any legal provision that requires such. Therefore, they urge the Supreme Court to reject the petitioner’s request to instruct government agencies not to parade suspects before the press, arguing that this issue is unrelated to the subject matter of the petition. Held: 1. A search is an investigative activity carried out by an investigator or prosecutor based on a search warrant issued by the public prosecution. It is conducted in order to find or supplement evidence in a criminal case.

2. The fact that a search warrant is issued by a particular authority is not considered a constitutional right of the person subject to the search. However, it does place a responsibility on the authority conducting the search to act professionally and in accordance with the law.

3. While investigative agencies may collaborate with the media to inform the public about ongoing investigations, they must take every precaution to uphold the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

4. A litigant cannot petition the Constitutional Court to change, delete, or add words to the provisions of the law simply because they find the wording uncomfortable or because the legislator did not use their preferred wording. Petition to declare provisions of the law unconstitutional lacks merit. A petition seeking a direction purely in the interest of the law should not be considered.

Page 491

25 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, articles 3, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 41, 43, 61 and 142; European Convention on Human Rights, article 8; Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to the criminal procedure, articles 17, 38, 45, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 70, 73, 76 and 107; Law N°30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 65 and 73; Law nº12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda investigation bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning, articles 3, 9 and 10. Other statutes referred to: Article 32, 87 et 88 du Code d’Instruction Criminelle mise à jour au 07/08/2018; Article. 10, al.4 du Code de Procédure Pénale (Loi No 1/09 du 11/05/2018); Article 81, al.1, du Code de procédure pénale, édition 2016; Article 12, 16 et 177 du Code de Procédure Pénale du 27 Juillet 2005; Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Rules & article 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 2023 version; Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, article 21. Cases referred to: Re Fast Truck Interior and Hardware Ltd RS/INCONST/RCOM00001/2022/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/05/2023 Re Kabasinga Florida, RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019.

Page 492

26

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Re Murangwa Edward, RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/ 2019/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019. Re Mugisha Richard, RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/ 2018/SC, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/04/2019. Re Murorunkwere Spéciose, RS/INCONST/PÉN0001/08/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/09/2008. (CCT253/15) [2016] (9) BCLR 1237(CC); 2016(2) SACR 473(CC) (27 July 2016), Minister of police and Others v Kunjana. Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and security and Others ([2014] ZACC 14). (Application no 37971/97), Société Colas Est and others v. France, judgment Strasbourg 16 April 2002, paragraph 46. 11S v Coetzee and Others (CCT50/95) [1997] ZACC 2; 1997 (4) BCLR 437; 1997 (3) SA 527 (6 March 1997). 389U.S.347(1967), Katz v. United States, rendered by the Supreme Court on of the United States of America on 26/09/2008; 367U.S.643 (1971) Mapp v. Ohio No.236 Argued March 29,1961 rendered by the Supreme Court on of the United States of America on 19/06/1961; UK Law Commission Report No 396, search warrant, 7 October 2020, p.129, para 5.70; Gaertner and Others v. Minister of Finance and Others (CCT 56/13) [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) (14 November 2013); Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others (CCT13/97) [1998] ZACC 10; 1998 (4) SA 1127; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (29 May 1998);

Page 493

27 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] ZAECELLC 8; 2014 (1) SACR 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013); Minister of Police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] ZACC 21; 2016 (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016). Authors quoted: Michel Franchimont et les Autres, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier,2012, p. 515; John M. Scheb and John M. Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure, Toronto, Thomson and Wadsorth, 2005, p.380; Etienne du Toit and Others, Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act, Juta, Cape Town, 1996, p. 2-3. Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 15/01/2022, Murangwa Edward petitioned the Supreme Court for a declaration that Article 10, Paragraphs 3(a), (b), and (c), Paragraph 5, Paragraph 7, and Paragraph 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017, which establishes the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determines its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, as well as Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on criminal procedure, are inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution). He also requested that, if these provisions are not struck down, the Court, at its discretion, interpret them in a way that does not inconvenience anyone and

Page 494

28

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

ensures they do not interfere with the duties of the security agencies. [2] Murangwa Edward is also asking the Court to order the government and agencies involved in investigations to stop parading suspects before the press and forcing them to speak. Additionally, he requests that media managers, social media platforms—including YouTube—and any other parties be ordered to completely delete photos and videos of arrested suspects from their databases. [3] Particularly, Murangwa Edward claims that: a. The fact that Article 10, Section 3 (a, b, and c), and Sections 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017, establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determines its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, outlines the reasons and circumstances under which the Authority may search a person or property, enter a building or place without a search warrant, or conduct a search without a warrant, constitutes a violation of the rights set out in the Constitution. b.The fact that Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on Criminal Procedure are somehow related to Article 10, Paragraph 3 (a, b, and c), and Paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of the aforementioned Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, is significant because they all pertain to searches of persons, places, residences, offices, or any other locations where an offence is suspected to have been or is being committed. They

Page 495

29 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

also provide that search warrants are issued by an executive administrative body, whereas Article 43 of the Constitution states that the judiciary, as the guardian of human rights and freedoms, should be responsible for issuing such warrants. c. The fact that Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on Criminal Procedure provide for the interception of communications in criminal investigations and prosecutions, physical or internal body searches, seizure and placing a caveat on objects, search warrants, and permission to access places where evidence may be found, as well as the authority to issue a search warrant and monitor suspects with the use of technology, infringes on the human rights and freedoms provided by the Constitution. The petitioner explains this as follows: i. In the exercise of rights and freedoms, individuals are limited only by laws that aim to recognize and respect the rights and freedoms of others, as well as ensure good conduct, public order, and the general welfare characteristic of a democratic society, as stipulated in Article 41 of the Constitution. For this reason, the protection of these rights must be entrusted to the judiciary, as it is the body empowered by the Constitution to uphold them; ii. Human rights are inalienable, and the Constitution defines how they are to be

Page 496

30

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

protected and respected, with the Government responsible for safeguarding them. This means that, based on the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country and any law, decision, or act contrary to it is without effect, the provisions of any law that are inconsistent with the Constitution are null and void; iii. In the event that a search warrant is issued, or in the case of a search conducted without a warrant—whether it involves a physical or internal body search, or the search of a person, building, home, or workplace—the principle of the presumption of innocence must be upheld until the competent court convicts the suspect, as stipulated by the Constitution and various international covenants that Rwanda has signed; iv. If a warrant for search, communication interception, surveillance, physical or internal body search, or other activities referred to in the contested legal provisions is issued by a body not authorized by the Constitution, it would mean that both the activity and the laws supporting it are inconsistent with Articles 23 (Paragraphs 2 and 3), 43, and 61 of the Constitution, rendering them without effect.

Page 497

31 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

d.The provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, which state that any person can be ordered to provide information that would assist in an investigation and that the suspect may be paraded before the media and compelled to speak, violate the provisions of the following articles : i. Article 29 of the Constitution provides for the right to due process of law, particularly the principle that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent Court ; ii. Articles 73 and 107 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on Criminal Procedure provide for confidentiality during investigations in criminal cases and outline who is responsible for providing evidence in those cases. e. Based on the right to due process, the right to privacy for the suspect, their family, and their place of work, as well as the responsibilities of institutions tasked with preventing and combating crime, this Court should provide an interpretation explaining how the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "strong reasons" used in Article 10, Paragraph 3 (a, b, and c), and Paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 should align with their limitations, and this must be done in the interests of the law.

Page 498

32

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[4] The hearing was held in public on 18/10/2022, with Murangwa Edward represented by Counsel Rugemintwaza Jean Marie Vianney and Counsel Bahati Védaste, while the Government of Rwanda was represented by Counsel Kabibi Spéciose and Counsel Kayitesi Pétronille. The Court first analysed the issue of whether Murangwa Edward has a legitimate interest in this case. [5] During the pre-trial conference on 16/12/2022, the Court determined that in assessing whether the petitioner has a legitimate interest in the case, the following factors should be considered : a. Whether the law alleged to be unconstitutional affects the petitioner or a particular category to which he or she belongs, which justifies the petitioner's individual interest in filing the petition. An example would be laws that apply to journalists, doctors, teachers, and others ; b. Whether the law challenged as unconstitutional affects the general public in a way that may infringe upon their rights, and it grants every individual who may be impacted the right to challenge it as unconstitutional ; c. Whether the petitioner is a lawyer/advocate, and he or she is permitted, in the interests of justice, to file a petition to promote the law or protect the rights of those affected by the law, even if the lawyer has no personal interest in the petition. [6] The Court held that any one of the above grounds was sufficient to confirm that the petitioner had an interest. Therefore, although the provisions of the law alleged to be unconstitutional

Page 499

33 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

fell within the scope of provisions affecting everyone, the petitioner, as one of those affected, had the interest to file a petition without waiting to be personally impacted. The Court ruled that Murangwa Edward, as a party affected by the provisions of the Law establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, as well as the Law relating to Criminal Procedure, has an interest in seeking a declaration that some of the provisions of those laws are unconstitutional. A hearing on the merits of the case was scheduled for 24/05/2023. [7] On that day, the hearing was held in public, with Murangwa Edward and the Government of Rwanda represented as before. The following issues were analysed: a. Whether Article 10, paragraph 3, a, b, and c, and paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, as well as Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, are inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution ; b. Whether the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds," as used in Article 10 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, particularly in paragraphs 3, a, b, and c, should be interpreted in the interests of the law.

Page 500

34

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[8] The court announced that the judgment would be pronounced on 21/07/2023; however, on that date, the pronouncement was not made and was instead postponed to 15/09/2023. It was then further postponed to 06/10/2023, due to reasons provided by the Court. [9] On this date, the Court informed the parties that the judgment was not pronounced as initially planned because, while the Court was in deliberation, the Constitution (of 04/08/2023), amending the Constitution of 2003 revised in 2015, was published. The petitioner had claimed that the provisions of the law were inconsistent with the previous Constitution, and it became necessary for the Court to reopen the hearing in order for Murangwa Edward to reconcile his petition with the provisions of the amended Constitution. Additionally, one of the judges in the case was assigned new duties, resulting in a change to the hearing jury. [10] The case was reopened on 28/11/2023, with the petitioner represented as before and the Government of Rwanda also represented as previously. Murangwa Edward asked the Court, in the interest of justice, to halt and temporarily suspend the proceedings until the laws he was petitioning against, which were in the process of being revised, were published in the Official Gazette. He requested this to determine whether his claims had been addressed, in which case continuing the petition would be unnecessary. If his claims were not resolved, he sought to reconcile the petition with the revised Constitution as required by the Court. He explained that this request was based on a procedure not provided for in Rwandan law but used in the United States of America, called a motion in arrest of judgment.

Page 501

35 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[11] The Court found that the petitioner did not provide any concrete explanations to support his request to suspend the trial, and he was unable to connect the practice from other jurisdictions with what he was requesting. Regarding the reconciliation between the petition and the revised Constitution, Murangwa Edward stated that the provisions of the 2003 Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, revised in 2015, on which he based his petition, had not been changed in the new Constitution. He requested that wherever he had used the phrase "the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015," it be replaced by "the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda." The Court decided that the judgment would be pronounced on 22/12/2023. II.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES IN

THIS CASE II.1. Whether Article 10, paragraph 3, a, b, and c, and paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, as well as Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, are inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution [12] Murangwa Edward and his counsels argue that the Judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms. However, they contend that Article 10, Paragraph 3, a, b, and c, along with Paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017, and Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, allow

Page 502

36

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

searches of a person, place, residence, office, or any other location suspected of being involved in a crime or where a crime is being committed, to be conducted by justice institutions that fall under the executive administrative body. [13] They claim that the aforementioned provisions of the law violate Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution. They argue that these provisions infringe upon human rights, as search warrants are not approved by the Judiciary prior to being issued, despite the Judiciary being empowered by Article 431 of the Constitution to protect and respect the inalienable rights of individuals. They further assert that Article 3 of the Constitution establishes the hierarchy of norms, making the Constitution the supreme law of the country. Consequently, the contested provisions of the law should be rendered without effect due to their inconsistency with the Constitution. [14] They state that when issuing a search warrant, when a search is conducted without a warrant, or in the case of a physical and internal body search of a person, residence, or place of work, the rights of the suspect— including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court—must be protected, respected, and upheld, as stipulated by the Constitution and various international covenants that Rwanda has signed2.

1 This article provides that the Judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms. 2 Those covenants are the following: “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Rwanda acceded to the Convention on 1 March 1975 with neither reservations nor derogations; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Rwanda acceded to the Convention on 1 March 1975. It initially had a reservation, which read, The Rwandese Republic [is] bound, however, in respect of education, only by the provisions of its Constitution, but this was withdrawn in October 2008; The African

Page 503

37 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[15] They contend that the Prosecutor leads the Investigator, who, in turn, leads the Police, all of whom are overseen by the Minister of Justice or another minister. They argue that the decision to conduct a search—whether with or without a search warrant, especially in emergencies—is made by the Prosecutor, who also interrogates the suspect, makes the final decision regarding the case, and prosecutes the individual before the court. They claim that these actions violate the principle of equality of arms between parties, as provided in Article 126 of the Criminal Procedure Law, along with the following principles outlined in the Constitution: a. The principle of three co-equal arms of government, principal of checks and balance between the three co- equal branches of government ; b. The principle of due process of law; c. The principle of respect for the privacy of a person, his or her family, workplace or correspondence as well as the right to freedom. [16] They argue that in Rwanda, the justice system is structured so that each level of prosecution is accompanied by a corresponding court, which means that the duty to issue search warrants should fall to the court upon the request of the prosecutor, investigator, or police. This should occur after the judge has been presented with valid reasons, ensuring that those who fail to comply with the limits set by the court can be held accountable. According to them, under the current practice, if the

Charter on Human and Peoples’Rights. Rwanda signed the Charter on 11 November 1981 and ratified it on 1 July 1983.

Page 504

38

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

issuer of the search warrant violates the suspect's rights, there is no supervisory body to reprimand or hold them accountable, as they cannot punish themselves. They contend that this situation is inconsistent with Article 61 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the three branches of government are separate and independent from each other, while still being complementary. [17] They cite an example from the past, where the district mayor combined the responsibilities of heading the district with those of chairing the district council. This led to a lack of checks and balances when this leader made mistakes. They explain that even in the private sector, the chairman of the board of directors is not the same person as the CEO of the business. [18] They state that although the duties of protecting security, national sovereignty, and preventing and prosecuting crime are important, the relevant institutions must implement these duties in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. They explain that in relation to this case, reading Articles 24, 41, and 43 of the Constitution together indicates that the Judiciary has the responsibility and authority to examine and confirm that there are strong and relevant reasons for compelling crime prevention and combating agents to violate human rights in the interest of public order and the common good.

Page 505

39 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[19] They further assert that the rights outlined in Articles 413 and 434 of the Constitution can only be suspended in special circumstances, which must be authorized in accordance with the principles of a democratic country; hence, such actions should be executed by the Judiciary. In their view, activities such as searches, interception of telecommunications, surveillance, physical and internal body searches, and examinations of residences, workplaces, businesses, and other actions referenced in the contested laws, particularly when conducted by bodies not specified in the Constitution, temporarily suspend the rights of the individuals being prosecuted under Article 235 of the Constitution. This, they argue, jeopardizes their personal and family privacy; therefore, the provisions deemed unconstitutional must be repealed. [20] They cite Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga of the Constitutional Court in South Africa, in the case of "Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and Security and Others ([2014] ZACC 14)," who explained that although measures to protect security and

3 This 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”. 4 The article stipulates that “The Judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms. This duty is exercised in accordance with this Constitution and other laws”. 5 This article provides for the following: “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 honor 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”.

Page 506

40

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

combat crime are necessary, they do not permit interference with an individual's right to privacy or that of their family. [21] They reference several cases—Johnson v. United States6, Katz v. United States7, Mapp v. Ohio State8, Minister of Police and Others v. Kunjana9, and Société Colas Est and Others v. France10—where courts, after emphasizing the significance of constitutional protections and international covenants, affirmed

6 In the case of Johnson v. United States (N° 329), 333U.S.10 (1948), the Judge explained the authority that should issue a search warrant. 7 In the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the United States Supreme Court identified an instance where illegal telecommunications interception had occurred. 8 In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), argued on March 29, 1961, and decided on June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States (opinion delivered by Justice Thomas Campbell Clark) emphasized the importance of the right to privacy for individuals and their families. The Court also underscored the crucial role of a search warrant issued by a competent authority in ensuring fair justice. 9 In the case of Minister of Police and Others v. Kunjana (CCT 253/15) [2016] (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016), the Constitutional Court of South Africa identified the appropriate constitutional authority responsible for issuing search warrants. The Court affirmed that the right to privacy, as well as the sanctity of a person's home and family, including all correspondence, is fundamental and stems from the inherent value accorded to human beings. In this case, it was explained what discretion is necessary when issuing a search warrant and what considerations the issuing court should take into account, based on the importance of protecting

an individual's and their family's right to privacy. 10 In the case of Société Colas Est and Others v. France (Application No. 37971/97), judgment of Strasbourg, 16 April 2002, the European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, in paragraph 46, identified the appropriate authority responsible for issuing search warrants. The Court stated that failure to comply with this requirement would be considered a violation of the provisions of the European Union Treaty protecting the privacy of the individual and their family.

Page 507

41 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

that the examination, approval, and issuance of search warrants must be conducted by the judiciary. They argue that, based on Article 43 of the Rwandan Constitution, Rwandan courts, being impartial, are the appropriate authorities to issue search warrants. [22] They explain that if search activities are carried out without safeguarding a person’s rights as sacred and inviolable, it can cause significant harm to the individual and their family. In Rwanda, for example, it is common for people to assume guilt when a search occurs, leading to the individual being ostracized by relatives, neighbors, and the community, resulting in social isolation and emotional distress for both the individual and their family. They argue that the issuance of a search warrant should not be treated as a mere formality, but rather as a crucial element of justice. If the process is reduced to a mere formality—where judges simply sign the warrant and prosecutors later fill it with their own content, as happens in some countries, including Rwanda—it undermines the essence of justice. True justice, they argue, must be viewed from the perspectives of both the plaintiff and the defendant. [23] They argue that when the search is conducted by the investigator or prosecutor, there is a risk that evidence favorable to the suspect could be destroyed, which limits the fairness of the process. Therefore, they

contend that the search warrant must be issued by a court, after the specific items or locations to be searched have been clearly identified. This direction is grounded in the principle that the role of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Criminal Investigation Department is to conduct investigations, not to make decisions regarding searches. Such decisions, they assert, should fall under the exclusive jurisdiction

Page 508

42

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of the judiciary, as it is their responsibility to ensure impartiality and protect the rights of all parties involved. [24] They clarify that their request is not aimed at abolishing the practice of conducting searches or stripping the Public Prosecution of its responsibilities as provided for in Article 142 of the Constitution. Rather, they seek to establish clear boundaries for search warrants, ensuring both a starting point and an end point. They argue that the current method of conducting searches violates the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, they urge the Court to safeguard against potential errors by the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution, and to mandate that the law governing searches aligns with constitutional principles. Furthermore, they request that courts, as neutral bodies, either conduct searches or issue search warrants. [25] Murangwa Edward and his counsel assert that Article 10, paragraph one, subparagraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 is the basis on which the Investigation Bureau parades suspects before the media and requests that they speak to the press. They contend that this practice contradicts Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, which stipulates that a person prosecuted for a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. That article 10, paragraph one, subparagraph 8, reads: In accordance with

relevant laws, RIB has the following powers: [...] 8° to order for information and take statements from any person suspected of having information that can help an investigation...]. [26] They argue that, to implement Article 29 of the Constitution, Article 73 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, relating to criminal procedure, stipulates that investigations must be conducted in a confidential manner. Additionally, Article 107,

Page 509

43 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

paragraph 2, of that law states that an accused person is always presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final court decision and is not obligated to prove their innocence. They further assert that forcing a criminal suspect to speak to the media violates the principle of non-self-incrimination, as the Investigation Bureau and the Prosecution are the bodies responsible for investigating crimes, collecting evidence, and prosecuting offenders. [27] They explain that the right to due process does not begin only before the Court, but rather starts when a person is being investigated by judicial authorities or is arrested. This ensures that a person can be considered innocent until proven guilty, and it is improper to force them to provide information about the alleged crime to the media. They state that the Investigation Bureau often invokes Article 10, paragraph one, section 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, allowing them to parade suspects in front of the media, including on reality television platforms like YouTube, while questioning them about the crimes they are suspected of, often while wearing handcuffs or being restrained. They argue that this trend enables the media to act like a court, which can shape public perception and potentially influence the Court's judgment. [28] They further state that Article 10, paragraph one, subparagraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of

07/04/2017 contains provisions that exceed what is necessary. They argue that the phrase "to order for information and take statements from any person suspected of having information that can help an investigation" violates the principle of the right to due process. Moreover, the inclusion of the words "any person, including the suspect and the Court," implies that individuals may be compelled to incriminate themselves or that the Court could be

Page 510

44

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

required to provide information about a person whose case file is under review. [29] They argue that in the case of Coetzee and Others v. The State of South Africa, the Constitutional Court of South Africa emphasized that the right to be presumed innocent and the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself or provide information are inalienable11. They request this Court to recognize that Article 10, paragraph one, subparagraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning is inconsistent with Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph 2° of the Constitution. They ask the Court to declare it repealed and to order all government agencies involved in investigations to refrain from parading suspects before the media to ensure that the right to due process is respected. [30] They further state that, if the Court finds that Article 10, Paragraph One, Subparagraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning should not be repealed because it is not inconsistent with the principle of due process of law enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution, the Court should ensure that the word "order" is removed. They also request that the words "any person except those charged with a crime" be added to protect the right to due process of law. [31] They conclude by asking the Court to rely on the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution, which states that any

11 S v Coetzee and Others (CCT50/95) [1997] ZACC 2; 1997 (4) BCLR 437; 1997 (3) SA 527 (6 March 1997).

Page 511

45 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

law, decision, or act contrary to this Constitution is without effect. They request the Court to declare that Article 10, Paragraphs 3(a), (b), and (c), and Paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, along with Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, are inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution. They ask that these provisions be declared null and void and repealed, either in whole or in part. [32] Counsel Kabibi Spéçiose and Counsel Kayitesi Petronille, representing the Government of Rwanda, submit that Murangwa Edward and his counsels have failed to prove that the provisions they are challenging are inconsistent with the Constitution. They argue that Murangwa and his team focus mainly on the organization of the Prosecutor's Office by placing it within the executive administration but overlook the fact that it is also considered part of the judiciary. They assert that the Rwandan law granting the Prosecutor's Office the exclusive right to make interlocutory decisions fosters trust and harmony between the Prosecutor's Office and the judiciary in matters of criminal prosecution. [33] They claim that the difference between prosecutions in Rwanda and other countries is that in Rwanda, the courts review search documents after the search has been carried out (a posteriori review), whereas in countries such as the United States, England, France, Belgium, and Cameroon12, the search warrant or telecommunications interception authorization is signed by a

12 www. lawreview-5693-miller (2).pdf (Prosecution dominance of the warrant decision: A study of the current practice), visited on 7/7/2022.

Page 512

46

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

judge before it is used (a priori review). However, they argue that in these countries, the court cannot prevent the prosecution from using these documents, and there are instances where the judge signs the document, after which the prosecution fills in other information as they wish, reducing the role of the court to a mere formality. They believe that the a priori control method used in the aforementioned countries should not be preferred over the system in Rwanda, which facilitates institutional functioning and cooperation. [34] They argue that the arrest warrants issued in Rwanda are not comparable to those issued in other countries because, in Rwanda, they are provisional. After their issuance, the suspect must be brought before the court as soon as possible for the body responsible for protecting human rights and freedoms to make a decision, which is the same procedure for seized goods. They explain that the organization and powers of the judicial system do not allow the judge to leave the court and investigate crimes, as this responsibility belongs to the Investigation Bureau and the National Public Prosecution. Therefore, while Rwanda's method may not be common in other countries, it is considered the best because it works effectively, the institutions complement each other, and there is no inconsistency with the Constitution. [35] Regarding the fact that this body is

part of the executive administration and does not carry out activities considered judicial acts, they argue that Rwanda and Rwandans, in accordance with Article 61 of the Constitution, have chosen how the branches of government operate together, complementing each other while maintaining their own independence. They explain that even though in the aforementioned countries, the judge signs the documents initiating prosecution, this does not

Page 513

47 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

change the fact that in all these countries, the Prosecutor General ultimately decides whether to prosecute the offender13. They contend that if, in Rwanda, the responsibility for issuing arrest warrants were transferred to the courts, the courts would then be tasked with conducting investigations before the case is referred to them, which could compromise their independence and impartiality. [36] They argue that the cases of Johnson v. United States and Katz v. United States, which Murangwa Edward relied on, are limited to determining where and when a search should occur. These cases do not address who is to be searched or whether the location to be searched actually contains substantial evidence. This is because the courts found that investigative institutions are credible and that there is a judicial mechanism to review any potential errors that may have occurred during the search at a later stage. They further explain that the National Public Prosecution has no personal interest in the investigation, as its primary objective is to uncover how the crime was committed, which serves the public interest. Therefore, they assert that every investigative officer should be regarded as a person of integrity while carrying out their duties. [37] They argue that there is no valid reason to transfer the responsibility of investigation to the judiciary, as the courts should maintain the authority to ensure that all procedures were carried out in accordance with the law, thereby allowing even the suspect, who claims to have been wronged, the opportunity to present evidence. They point out that in some countries where search warrants are issued by the courts, there exist roles such as the "Juge d'Instruction" (investigating judge) and the "Juge de

13www.lawreview-5693-miller (1).pdf.

Page 514

48

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Détention" (custody judge), which are distinct from regular judges. In their view, assigning investigative duties to judges would lead to both the prosecution and the courts performing the same tasks, resulting in an increased caseload and backlogs in the courts, as well as unnecessary waste of state resources. [38] They submit that if Article 23, paragraph three, and Article 43 of the Constitution are read together, they both indicate that there is allowance for other laws to determine how various documents, such as those used in searches or communications interceptions for suspects, are issued. In particular, article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution stipulates that 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, and this procedure is detailed in Article 38 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure as follows: During investigations and prosecutions and for purposes of ascertaining the truth on commission of offences against national security, offences of corruption and offences of embezzlement of State property, authorities of State security organs specified by the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, Office of the Ombudsman and Rwanda Investigation Bureau may, under written authorization issued by the Prosecutor General listen, understand and audio or video record documents, internet, discussions, telegram, postal cards, high tech communication and any other mode of communication on offences referred to in this Article during communication.

Page 515

49 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[39] They further submit that Articles 5514, 5615, and 5716 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on criminal procedure have conferred power on the competent authorities and established the procedures and conditions under which they will exercise it without violating human rights and freedoms. They argue that Articles 23 and 43 of the Constitution have entrusted the legislator with the responsibility to enact Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, as well as Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. These two laws, they explain, determine other procedures that are not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, as the Constitution does not list all necessary specifics. [40] They further submit that Article 142 of the Constitution provides that the National Public Prosecution Authority is responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes throughout the country, seeking both incriminating and exculpatory evidence. They argue that searches are one of the investigative activities carried out to gather evidence, and it is clear that the Constitution has conferred this responsibility on the National Public Prosecution Authority.

14 That article reads that if the suspect is caught red-handed or is presumed to have been caught red-handed, the requirement for the investigator to obtain a search warrant or observe search hours may not be complied with. 15 That article stipulates that during evidence collection, an investigator or a prosecutor may conduct a body search or body cavity search of a suspect with the help of a qualified person or through appropriate technology. This article also sets out the limits for such a search. 16 This article provides that an investigator or a prosecutor may seize objects or put caveat on immovable asset wherever they are and in any way if the confiscation is carried out in accordance with the Law and such other items that may serve as incriminating or exculpatory evidence against the suspect.

Page 516

50

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[41] With regard to searches conducted without a warrant, they argue that the Investigation Bureau or the Prosecution may conduct such searches in accordance with the procedures laid down by law, particularly Article 10, paragraph 3, subparagraphs a, b, and c of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, as well as Article 55 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. They note that this is not a practice unique to Rwanda but is also applied in other countries, citing Article 2217 of the Criminal Procedure Act of South Africa as an example. [42] The representatives of the Government of Rwanda argue that conducting searches without a warrant does not violate the Constitution, including Article 61 or any other articles cited by the petitioner in his submission. They conclude that it is not appropriate to repeal the contested articles because the Constitution itself, in Articles 23 and 43, provides for these laws to regulate in detail matters not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, in accordance with the hierarchy of norms. They also argue that the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 61, do not replace the role of the judge in issuing search warrants. Instead, they suggest that the judiciary's role is

17 “A police official may without a search warrant search any person or container or premises for the purpose of seizing any article referred to in section 20: if the person concerned consents to the search for and the seizure of the article in question, or if the person who may consent to the search of the container or premises consents to such search and the seizure of the article in question; or if he on reasonable grounds believes: i. that a search warrant will be issued to him under paragraph (a) of section 21(1) if he applies for such warrant; and ii. that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object of the search.”

Page 517

51 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

minimized based on the unique functioning of the branches of government in Rwanda, which maintains the independence and complementarity of these branches. They note that, in some developed countries, search warrants are not required, while in others, the decision to issue a search warrant is made by a judge depending on the nature of the governing laws. [43] With regard to the provisions of Article 10, paragraph one, subparagraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, the representatives of the Government of Rwanda argue that Murangwa Edward and his counsels misinterpret this article. They assert that it does not imply that the accused is compelled to provide information. Rather, it refers to any person, meaning someone other than the accused, who is believed by the Investigation Bureau to possess information that could assist in the investigation, effectively identifying this person as a witness. [44] They state that they agree with Murangwa Edward that everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a competent court. However, they argue that a distinction should be made between those brought before the court and those still under investigation, where evidence is still being gathered. Therefore, they contend that Article 29 of the Constitution,

which pertains to due process of law, establishes standards that are only to be observed during the trial phase and should not be applied during the investigation. [45] They further state that Article 17 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure establishes the investigative organs, and this article is what the investigator relies on when initiating a preliminary investigation. It grants the

Page 518

52

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

investigator the authority to question anyone they believe may have information about the commission of a crime. They clarify that the phrase "any person" does not refer to the accused, as in the preliminary investigation, the suspect has not yet been identified. There are instances where someone may initially be questioned as a witness but later be found to be the person who should be prosecuted. [46] They argue that providing information and self- incrimination are two distinct concepts. Self-incrimination only occurs when a person is informed of the charges against them and is required to provide an explanation regarding those charges. In contrast, providing information about a crime is not limited to the accused, and when the accused does offer information, it is done voluntarily. They explain that the law sets out the procedure for how information related to the commission of a crime should be given. Before someone defends themselves against a crime, they must first be informed of the charges, that they are being questioned, and of their rights, which include the right to remain silent, protection from self-incrimination, and the right to legal representation during interrogation. [47] They further argue that providing information does not imply doing so in the presence of the media or while in detention. The key point is that when someone is asked to provide information,

they are obligated to do so, and this differs from self- incrimination, as the information is provided to assist in the investigation. They clarify that the purpose of the information given during an investigation is not for media dissemination but to uncover the details of the crime and identify those involved. [48] They explain that the contested article in no way requires the suspect to defend themselves before the media, and

Page 519

53 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Murangwa Edward does not reference any other legal provision supporting such a practice. They further state that although the Investigation Bureau takes care to ensure that suspect interrogations are conducted in a quiet and secure environment, this does not prevent the media from arriving first at the crime scene. As a result, the media may record audio and video of the interrogation without the investigator's knowledge. However, they argue that this should not be considered a valid reason to repeal Article 10, paragraph one, subparagraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017, which is alleged to be inconsistent with Article 29 of the Constitution. They conclude that this is a practical issue that can be resolved without resorting to a petition for the unconstitutionality of the legal provision. [49] They conclude that Murangwa Edward's request for this Court to order government agencies involved in the investigation not to parade and question a person under investigation before the media while wearing handcuffs or being restrained should not be considered or decided upon, as it is not related to the petition.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [50] The legal provisions that Murangwa Edward petitions the Court to declare unconstitutional address various issues. However, his submission primarily focuses on matters related to searches, to order for information and taking statements from any person suspected of having information that can help an investigation. These are the issues the Court will consider when reviewing the petition.

Page 520

54

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

a. Search issues i. With regard to search conducted following the issuance of a search warrant [51] Article 10, paragraph one, first part of subparagraph 3, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning stipulates that: In accordance with relevant laws, RIB has the following powers: […] to search a person, enter a building or premises linked to information being sought with a warrant […]. [52] Article 55, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure reads that “If an investigator finds that evidence required is made up of papers, documents and any other items held by the suspect or any other person, he or she may, with a search warrant from the public prosecution, search the place where such items are kept. The prosecutor in charge of case file preparation may also conduct a search at the scene of the offence or at any other place where any evidence necessary for the determination of the truth may be found. The prosecutor may assign such functions to the investigator”. [53] Article 61 of the aforementioned Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 reads that A search warrant is an authorization issued by the Public Prosecution upon authorization by: 1° the Prosecutor General; 2° the Military Prosecutor General in case of members of the military or their co-offender;

Page 521

55 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

3° a National Prosecutor; 4° a Chief Prosecutor at the Intermediate level; 5° a Prosecutor at the Primary level. The warrant provided for under Paragraph One of this Article empowers the person in charge of its enforcement to enter any premises mentioned in the document to uncover evidence or items that may establish the truth in relation to the offence and the suspect. [54] It is in the finding of the court that the law does not define what search is. Legal scholars on criminal procedure define a search as a coercive measure by which a competent authority enters a building or premises in accordance with the conditions and procedures laid down by law for the purpose of establishing a criminal offence, gathering evidence relating to a criminal offence, seizing objects or apprehending suspected perpetrators or accomplices18. They explain that a search is conducted when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that certain items in the possession of a specific person or located in a particular place may help uncover the truth in a criminal case19. [55] Reasonable grounds, or probable cause, exist when the competent authorities, in the exercise of their diligence and

18 “La perquisition est le moyen de coercition par lequel l’autorité compétente pénètre dans une demeure ou une dépendance de celle-ci, dans les conditions et les formes prévues par la loi, afin d’y constater une infraction, de rassembler les preuves relatives à une infraction, de procéder à des saisies ou d’arrêter les auteurs ou complices présumés de celle-ci”; Michel Franchimont et les Autres, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier,2012, p. 515. 19 Etienne du Toit and Others, Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act, Juta, Cape Town, 1996, p. 2-3.

Page 522

56

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

discretion, find reliable information leading them to suspect that evidence related to the commission of an offence can be uncovered through a search20. In other words, a search is conducted to obtain or supplement evidence in a criminal case. It is an investigative act, as confirmed by legal scholar Michel Franchimont21. [56] The legal provisions mentioned above indicate that the search operation, as previously described, is conducted by an investigator or the Prosecutor based on a search warrant issued by the Public Prosecution Authority. Murangwa Edward acknowledges that the investigation should be carried out by the Investigation Bureau or the Public Prosecution; however, the basis of his petition is his disagreement with the fact that the search warrant is issued by the Public Prosecution rather than by the Court. He argues that the issuance of the search warrant by the Prosecutor, rather than the Court, renders the contested legal provisions inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution. [57] The Court finds that although Murangwa Edward groups these articles of the Constitution together, they fall into different categories: a. The category of rights and freedoms; b. The category relating to the promotion and protection of rights and freedoms;

20 Probable cause exists when prudent and caustious police officers have trustworth information leading them to believe that evidence of crime might be obtained through a particular search; John M. Scheb and John M. Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure, Toronto, Thomson and Wadsorth, 2005, p.380. 21 La perquisition est un acte d’instruction […]; Michel Franchimont, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2012, p.516.

Page 523

57 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

c. The category of branches of government. [58] Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, and 29 fall into the category of human rights and freedoms. In particular, Articles 13 and 14 establish the right to the physical and mental inviolability of a human being. Article 13 of the Constitution stipulates that: A human being is sacred and inviolable. The State has an obligation to respect, protect and defend the human being. And article 14 reads that: Everyone has the right to physical and mental integrity. No one shall be subjected to torture or physical abuse, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. No one shall be subjected to experimentation without his or her informed consent. Modalities of the consent and experiments are determined by law. [59] Articles 23 and 24, paragraph one, of the Constitution deal with the right to privacy, liberty, and security of the person. Article 23 reads 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; 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. And article 24, paragraph one, stipulates that: A person's liberty and security are guaranteed by the State… [60] Article 24, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 29 of the Constitution establish the principle of due process of law. Article 24, paragraphs 2 and 3, provides that: No one shall be subjected to prosecution, arrest, detention or punishment unless provided for by laws in force at the time the offence was committed. No

Page 524

58

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

one shall be subjected to security measures except as provided for by law and for reasons of public order or State security. [61] Article 29 of the Constitution stipulates that everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right: 1° to be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence and legal representation; 2° to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court; 3° to appear before a competent Court; 4° not to be subjected to prosecution, arrest, detention or punishment on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence under national or international law at the time it was committed. Offences and their penalties are determined by law; 5° not to be held liable for an offence he or she did not commit. Criminal liability is personal; […]. [62] Article 43 of the Constitution falls under the category of promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms and reads as follows: The Judiciary is the guardian of human rights and freedoms. This duty is exercised in accordance with this Constitution and other laws. And article 61, paragraph 1 and 2, of the Constitution falls under the category relating to the branches of the government, and reads that: Branches of Government are the following: 1° The Legislature ; 2° The Executive ; 3° The Judiciary.

Page 525

59 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

The three branches are separate and independent from each other but are all complementary [...]. [63] The Court finds that the main issue here is to determine whether the fact that the search warrant is not issued by the Court but instead by the Public Prosecution is in violation of some or all of the above-mentioned articles of the Constitution, as claimed by Murangwa Edward. [64] When a crime is committed, the relevant authorities must act swiftly to find and collect evidence that will help identify the perpetrator. To gather evidence, it is necessary to search all places where it is likely to be found, including people's homes, workplaces, and other locations. This operation must be carried out promptly to prevent the evidence from being concealed or destroyed. [65] Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits unlawful interference with a person's privacy, family, home, or correspondence. However, this article acknowledges that a search may be necessary under certain circumstances and in accordance with procedures established by law. Article 24 of the Constitution further provides that surveillance (security measures) may be carried out under circumstances and procedures established by law, and for reasons of public stability or national security. This indicates that the principle of inviolability of a person, as provided by these articles, is not absolute but subject to limitations, though only under the circumstances and manner determined by law. These articles do not assign any specific institution the power to conduct a search or determine how it should be conducted, instead leaving this to be defined by law.

Page 526

60

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[66] To implement the provisions of the aforementioned Articles 23 and 24, Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, along with Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, relating to criminal procedure, were enacted. In these two laws, the Legislator detailed how a search should be conducted, granting the authority to carry out searches to the investigative bodies, namely, the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution, based on the provisions of Article 9(2) of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/201722, and Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/201923. [67] The Public Prosecution, as the body responsible for investigations, is authorized by law to issue search warrants. In countries where the warrant is issued by a judge, there is a special judge responsible for overseeing and following up on investigations, known as the "juge d'instruction" or investigating judge. This judge handles the case files submitted by the public prosecutor and does not participate in hearings, ensuring there is no overlap between the tasks of investigating offences and adjudicating cases. Examples of such countries include the Kingdom of Belgium, France, Cameroon, and others. [68] In the Kingdom of Belgium, the "juge d'instruction" (investigating judge) can, upon request or on their own initiative,

22 RIB has the following mission: 1o […]; 2o To conduct an investigation intended to identify, stop and dismantle existing or emerging criminal acts […] 23 Investigation is carried out by the public prosecution with assistance of the organ in charge of investigation. However, preliminary investigations are carried out by the organ in charge of investigations, on own motion, on complaint or under instructions of public prosecution.

Page 527

61 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

search the suspect's premises or any other location in order to seize documents or other items that may reveal the truth24. This means that the juge d'instruction plays a central role in the investigation. The same applies in France, where the juge d'instruction carries out or supervises all investigative measures, including searches25. [69] In Cameroon, a search warrant may be issued by either the public prosecutor or the investigating judge26, who may also conduct the search personally27. In the Kingdom of Belgium, the

24 Article 87 du Code d’Instruction Criminelle mise à jour au 07/08/2018: “Le juge d'instruction se transportera, s'il en est requis, et pourra même se transporter d'office dans le domicile [de l'inculpé], pour y faire la perquisition des papiers, effets, et généralement de tous les objets qui seront jugés utiles à la manifestation de la vérité. <L 10-07- 1967, art. 1, 52°>. Art. 88 du même code: Le juge d'instruction pourra pareillement se transporter dans les autres lieux où il présumerait qu'on aurait caché les objets dont il est parlé dans l'article précédent.” 25 Article 81, al.1, du Code de procédure pénale, édition 2016: “Le juge d'instruction procède, conformément à la loi, à tous les actes d'information qu'il juge utiles à la manifestation de la vérité. Il instruit à charge et à décharge.” 26 Article 12 du Code de Procédure Pénale du 27 Juillet 2005: “(1) Le Procureur de la République peut décerner: a) des mandats de comparution, d'amener, de perquisition et d'extraction; b) […] (2) Le Juge d'Instruction peut décerner mandat de comparution, d'amener, de perquisition, d'arrêt, de détention provisoire et d'extraction”. L’article 16 du même Code: “Le mandat de perquisition est l'ordre donné à l'officier de police judiciaire par le Procureur de la République, le Juge d'Instruction ou la juridiction de jugement, de pénétrer dans tout lieu public ou privé, de le fouiller aux fins de rechercher et de saisir tous objets ou documents qui ont servi à la commission d'une infraction ou qui apparaissent comme le produit d'une infraction”. 27 Article 177 du Code de Procédure Pénale du 27 Juillet 2005:(1) “Le Juge d'Instruction peut se transporter sur toute l'étendue du ressort territorial de sa

Page 528

62

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

public prosecutor can conduct a search without the authorisation of the investigating judge if the suspect has been caught in the act28. [70] In other countries, the search warrant is issued by the Court, such as in South Africa, the United States of America, Great Britain29, Canada, and elsewhere. In South Africa, Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, provides that a search warrant may be issued by the Court when, after the applicant has taken an oath, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that something is owned or controlled by a certain person or is located in a building within the court's territorial jurisdiction. This article also stipulates that the warrant can be issued by the judge during the hearing if it becomes evident that it is necessary30.

juridiction pour effectuer tous les actes d'information utiles à la manifestation de la vérité, et notamment procéder à des perquisitions et à des saisies”. 28 Article 32 du Code d’Instruction Criminelle mise à jour au 07/08/2018: “Dans tous les cas de flagrant délit, lorsque le fait sera de nature à entraîner une peine [criminelle], le [procureur du Roi] se transportera sur lieu, sans aucun retard, pour y dresser les procès-verbaux nécessaires à l'effet de constater le corps du délit, sont état, l'état des lieux, et pour recevoir les déclarations des personnes qui auraient été présentes, ou qui auraient des renseignements à donner. Le [procureur du Roi] donnera avis de son transport au juge d'instruction, sans être toutefois tenu de l'attendre pour procéder ainsi qu'il est dit au présent chapitre”. 29 Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Rules & article 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 2023 version. 30 (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 22, 24 and 25, an article referred to in section 20 shall be seized only by virtue of a search warrant issued - (a) by a magistrate or justice, if it appears to such magistrate or justice from information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any such article is in the possession or under the control of or upon any person or upon or at any premises within his area of jurisdiction; or (b) by a judge or judicial officer presiding at criminal proceedings, if it appears to such judge

Page 529

63 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[71] In the United States of America, Article 41(b) of the "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 2021" also provides that a search warrant is issued by the Court at the request of a competent law enforcement officer31. The judge who issues the search warrant must be neutral and detached32. [72] In England, a search warrant is issued after a hearing at which the applicant is present, either in person or remotely, during or after working hours33. Judges are assisted by a legal professional, and there are areas where judges or courts are responsible solely for this task34. One of the issues identified by

or judicial officer that any such article in the possession or under the control of any person or upon or at any premises is required in evidence at such proceedings”. 31 At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government: “(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district—or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district—has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district; (2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; (3) a magistrate judge—in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism—with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district […]”. 32 Case Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), para 1, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/443/ 33 “No search warrant can be granted without a private hearing in the presence of the applicant. An applicant need not be physically present: hearings may take place in person, by live link or over the telephone. These hearings will usually take place during court hours, but if the application is particularly urgent it can be heard outside court hours”; UK Law Commission Report No 396, search warrant, 7 October 2020, p.129, para 5.70. 34 “The Justices Clerks Society stated that in the South-East region applicants book themselves in for a hearing using an online diary and then email the

Page 530

64

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the Law Reform Commission in this country is that the regular work of the courts can be disrupted by the process of issuing search warrants35, and delays in issuing them can result in the loss of evidence36. [73] The Court notes that one of the reasons why some of the aforementioned countries require search warrants from the Court is due to a lack of confidence in the professionalism of law enforcement agencies. In the case of Park Ross vs. Director, Office for Serious Economic Offences, the Constitutional Court of South Africa stated that the importance of granting the Court the authority to issue a search warrant is to act as a safeguard between the citizen and the investigating agencies, ensuring that the reasons provided by the agency requesting the search warrant

application to the court. The application is then held by telephone with a justice supported by a legal adviser, who deal with no other types of business”; ibidem, para 5.88. “The West London Magistrates’ Bench informed us that West London has dedicated search warrant courts. A single magistrate hears applications from across London during 30-minute telephone slots which must be booked in advance. The magistrate will read emailed applications and question the applicant during a telephone conference in which a legal adviser also participates. The legal adviser can note additional information provided by the applicant and make minor amendments to the search warrant. The West London Magistrates’ Bench commended the dedicated search warrant court model for saving police and court time”; ibidem, para 5.87. 35 “[…] The second issue, as noted above, is the impact on the running of the courts. Court business may be disrupted and the courts may be put under pressure to deal with warrant applications with undue haste [ …]”; ibidem, para 5.101. 36 “[…] The longer it takes to obtain and execute a search warrant, the higher the risk of evidence being lost and the longer the period of potential offending and therefore harm being caused to members of the public”; ibidem, para 5.129.

Page 531

65 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

are valid37, and to prevent undue interference with citizens' rights by the investigating agencies38. [74] In McDonald v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is too important to be left in the hands of investigating and prosecuting authorities, especially the police, whose use of such powers is not always trusted39. Similarly, in United States v. United States District Court, the Court found that leaving the power to issue search warrants with investigators could result in searches being limited to incriminating evidence, thereby undermining the protection of the right to privacy40. [75] It is clear from the examples provided of practices in various countries that each nation establishes a system it deems appropriate, taking into account available resources, the structure of judicial institutions, the need to expedite the process of gathering evidence, the level of trust in investigating and prosecuting authorities, and other factors. The Court notes that

37 Park Ross v Director, Office for Serious Economic Offences 1995 (2) SA 148 (C) at 172, https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2000/12.pdf 38 Case of National Unions of South African Students v Divisional Commissioner South African Police 1971 (2) SA 553 (C). 39 “It was done so that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals. Power is a heady thing, and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted […]”; McDonald v United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-456, 69 S. Ct 191, 195-96, 93 L.Ed. 153, 158 (1948), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/451/ 40 “[ …] unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy […]”; United States v United States District Court, 407 U.S. at 317, 92 S. Ct 2136, 32 L.Ed. 2d at 766, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/407/297.

Page 532

66

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the primary purpose of a search warrant issued by the Court is to prevent investigating authorities from violating the rights of citizens. This underscores that the most important aspect is respecting the rights of the citizen being searched, ensuring that the search is not used as a pretext or excuse to infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The fact that a search warrant is issued by a particular body is not, in itself, a constitutional right. In other words, whether the search warrant is issued by the court or another authority, the responsibility lies with the body conducting the search to act professionally and in accordance with the law. [76] The Court notes that the mere fact that a search warrant is issued by the court does not necessarily prevent the person conducting the search from violating the rights of the individual being searched. In the case of Ernest et al. v. the Belgian Government before the European Court of Human Rights, the applicants argued that, despite the search being authorised by the investigating judge, the investigating authorities raided their home and failed to respect their right to privacy. Personal data was taken without being itemised, and they were not informed of its disappearance or what it was used for. The court found that the search warrant had been issued without specifying the offence committed or suspected, leaving those being searched to be informed in general terms without clarification of when the search would end, where it would be carried out, or what would be seized. Although the search had been authorised by the judge, the Court concluded that it was disproportionate to the intended purpose and thus in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights41.

41 “116 […] la Cour, rappelant qu'aucune infraction n'était reprochée aux requérants, se doit de constater que les différents mandats de perquisition

Page 533

67 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[77] The Court finds that the above case highlights that the mere fact that a search warrant is issued by the court does not guarantee the protection of the constitutional rights of the person being searched. Instead, the Court asserts that, to ensure the rights of the individual are upheld during the search, there must be a law that clearly outlines the rights to be respected. Furthermore, the law must detail how these rights are to be enforced by the relevant authorities, the scope of their powers, and the procedure for a citizen to demonstrate before the courts that the provisions of the law have been violated, allowing for corrective measures to be taken. [78] This direction, which emphasizes that appropriate laws and established measures for their enforcement are necessary when conducting searches, aligns with the stance upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Funke, Crémieux, and Miaihle v. France. The Court noted : "Serious difficulties

étaient rédigés en termes larges [ …] En effet, le conseiller instructeur ordonna, le 23 juin 1995, la série des perquisitions « à l'effet d'y rechercher et d'y saisir tous documents et objets utiles à l'instruction » (paragraphe 13 ci- dessus), sans aucune limitation. Ces mandats de perquisition, qui ne donnaient aucune information sur l'instruction en cause, sur les lieux précis à visiter et sur les objets à saisir, octroyaient ainsi de larges pouvoirs aux enquêteurs […] Un grand nombre d'objets, dont des disquettes informatiques et des disques durs des ordinateurs des requérants, furent effectivement saisis; le contenu de certains documents et supports magnétiques fut copié. En outre, le Gouvernement admet que les requérants ne reçurent pas d'information sur les poursuites qui ont rendu l'opération nécessaire. Ils ont ainsi été laissés dans l'ignorance quant aux motifs concrets des perquisitions effectuées chez eux.

117. Au vu de tout ce qui précède, [ …] la Cour estime que les perquisitions n'ont pas été proportionnées aux buts légitimes recherchés. Il y a donc eu violation de l'article 8 de la Convention; Ernest et autres c. Belgique, (Requête no 33400/96), 15/10/2003, para 116-117”, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre# {%22itemid%22: [%22001-65779%22]}.

Page 534

68

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

arise from the extent and complexity of banking networks and financial circuits, as well as the numerous possibilities for international investments facilitated by the relative permeability of borders. The Court therefore recognizes that certain measures, such as house searches and seizures, may be necessary to establish material evidence of foreign exchange offences and to prosecute the perpetrators where appropriate. However, legislation and practices in this area must provide adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse42." [79] This direction was reaffirmed in other cases, including Ernest and others v. the Belgian Government, mentioned above43, and Klass and others v. Germany44. The provisions of the law must be clear, detailed, and establish safeguards against potential abuse45.

42 “[…] les États rencontrent de sérieuses difficultés résultant de l’étendue et de la complexité des réseaux bancaires et des circuits financiers ainsi que des multiples possibilités de placements internationaux, facilitées par la relative perméabilité des frontières. La Cour reconnaît donc qu’ils peuvent estimer nécessaire de recourir à certaines mesures, telles les visites domiciliaires et les saisies, pour établir la preuve matérielle de délits de change et en poursuivre le cas échéant les auteurs. Encore faut-il que leur législation et leur pratique en la matière offrent des garanties adéquates et suffisantes contre les abus […]”; urubanza Crémieux c. France, Requête n° 11471/85, 25 février 1993, para39, https://justice.pappers.fr/decision/ca6a962984423bde369ab76a694fb6cc?q= Cr%C3%A9mieux%20c.%20France,% 20Requ%C3%AAte%20n%C2%B0%2011471/85, %2025%20f%C3%A9vrier%201993. 43 Ibidem, para 114. 44 Case of Klass et Autres c. Allemagne, Requête n° 5029/71), 6/09/ 1978, para 50, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-62068 45 Case of Kruslin v. France, no 11801/05, 24 April 1990, para. 36, https://www.google.com/search?q=Kruslin+v.+France%2C+no+11801%2F0 5%2C+24+April+1990&rlz=1C1GCEU_en -

Page 535

69 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[80] In the Colon v. Netherlands case, the European Court of Human Rights found that a search warrant issued by the Prosecution, as permitted by Article 52 of the Arms and Ammunition Act, was not an issue. The most important factor is that there are laws governing what must be observed during the search period, and that these laws have been followed. This includes explaining why the warrant was issued, how it will be executed, determining the scope of the search, and ensuring that the warrant does not exceed the time limits set by the law46. The issue presented to the Court in this case involved a person who argued that in a part of Amsterdam known for low security, the Prosecutor had been granted the authority to infringe upon his right to privacy without a judge's approval, which he claimed

GBRW1045RW1046&oq=Kruslin+v.+France%2C+no+11801; n’urubanza Petri Sallinen v. Finland, no 50882/99, 27 September 2005, para 90, https://www.stradalex.eu/en/se_src_publ_jur_eur_cedh/document/echr_5088 2-99. 46 In areas that have been designated by the Burgomaster as security risk areas in accordance with section 151b, subsection 1 of the Municipalities Act, the public prosecutor may order that any individual can be subjected to a search of his clothing to establish whether he has firearms, ammunition or offensive weapons in his possession. The public prosecutor’s order shall describe the designated area and state the order’s period of validity, which may not exceed twelve hours. The order shall also explain the facts and circumstances that form the basis for concluding that it is necessary to exercise the power to subject any individual to a search of his clothing to establish whether he has weapons or ammunition in his possession […] given the legal framework surrounding such searches and above all the fact, as apparent, that they were effective for their intended purpose, the Court finds that the reasons given by the Government are “relevant” and “sufficient”; Colon v. Netherlands (dec.), n° 49458/06, 15/05/2012, para 93 & 95. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001- 111347&filename=COLON%20v.%20THE%20NETHERLANDS.docx&log Event=False.

Page 536

70

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights47. [81] In this case, the Court pointed out that there are various cases where it has held that, although it is preferable for a warrant to be issued by a judge when interfering with the right to privacy, there are circumstances in which this may not be possible. In such cases, a judge's warrant is not required, provided that other adequate safeguards are in place48. [82] In the case of Delta Pekárny A.S. v. The Czech Republic, decided by the European Court of Human Rights, the claiming company argued that the search of its offices was conducted without a search warrant issued by a judge, thus violating its right to privacy as provided for in Article 8 of the aforementioned European Convention on Human Rights49. The Court explained

47 “The applicant complained that the public prosecutor had been given the power, within the part of Amsterdam city centre designated as a security risk area and for up to twelve hours at a time, to invade his privacy without any form of prior judicial control. He argued that this constituted a violation of Article 8 which, in its relevant part, provides as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private [...] life [ ...]; 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”; Ibidem, para 62. 48 “The Court has accepted in past cases that prior judicial control, although desirable in principle where there is to be interference with a right guaranteed by Article 8, may not always be feasible in practice; in such cases, it may be dispensed with provided that sufficient other safeguards are in place”; Ibidem, para 75. 49 “La société requérante allègue que l’inspection effectuée dans ses locaux sans aucun contrôle judiciaire a enfreint notamment son droit au respect du

Page 537

71 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

that when national legislation allows a search to be conducted without a judge's warrant, judicial oversight is still necessary, even though countries are permitted to determine what is appropriate. The Court further noted that in cases concerning the protection of individuals from administrative actions that may interfere with the rights guaranteed by Article 8, it has consistently affirmed that the absence of a search warrant issued by a judge is not problematic, provided there is subsequent judicial review50. [83] Similarly, in the case of Modesto v. State of Greece, the public prosecutor had ordered the police to search the applicant's home and office, which were located in different places, to gather essential information about the crime that had been committed51. The applicant claimed that the searches of his home and office were conducted in violation of his rights under Article 8 of the

domicile et de la correspondance tel que prévu par l’article 8 de la Convention […]”; Delta Pekárny A.S. c. République Tchèque, no 97/11, 2 octobre 2014, para 62, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-146675 50 “Lorsque le droit national habilite les autorités à conduire une perquisition sans mandat judiciaire, la Cour doit redoubler de vigilance, et ce nonobstant la marge d’appréciation qu’elle reconnaît en la matière aux États contractants. Ainsi, dans les affaires concernant la protection des individus contre des atteintes arbitraires de la puissance publique aux droits garantis par l’article 8, elle a eu l’occasion d’affirmer que l’absence d’un mandat de perquisition peut être compensé par un contrôle judiciaire effectif, réalisé ex post facto […]”; Ibidem, para 83. 51 “Le 23 septembre 2010, le procureur près la cour d’appel d’Athènes ordonna à la Direction de la police de l’Attique, dans le cadre d’une enquête préliminaire conduite dans une affaire concernant S.G. et I.G. ainsi que d’autres personnes qui n’étaient pas nommées, de procéder à des perquisitions à l’adresse de quinze résidences et bureaux situés dans différents endroits à Athènes et dans l’Attique, dont celle du requérant”; Modestou c. Grèce, no 1693/13, 16 mars 2017, para 7, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-171973.

Page 538

72

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

European Convention on Human Rights52. The case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the search warrant issued by the public prosecutor was written in overly general terms. The Court emphasized that in such cases, especially where national law does not provide for prior judicial review, alternative procedures must be established to ensure that irregularities in the issuance and drafting of the search warrant do not lead to rights violations53. This principle was reaffirmed in the case of Leotsakos v. Greek State54. [84] In another case decided by the European Court of Human Rights, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, the plaintiff's house was searched without a warrant issued by a judge, based on the provisions of the country's criminal procedure55. The Court explained that, in

52 “Le requérant allègue que la perquisition effectuée à son domicile privé et professionnel dans le cadre d’une enquête préliminaire a entraîné une violation de l’article 8 de la Convention”; Ibidem, para 25. 53 “La Cour constate que le mandat litigieux était rédigé dans des termes généraux [….] Toutefois, dans de tels cas, et en particulier lorsque la législation nationale ne prévoit pas de contrôle judiciaire ex ante factum sur la légalité et la nécessité de cette mesure d’instruction, il devrait exister d’autres garanties, notamment sur le plan de l’exécution du mandat, de nature à contrebalancer les imperfections liées à l’émission et au contenu du mandat de perquisition”; ibidem para 46 & 48. 54 Arrêt Leotsakos c. Grèce, no 30958/13, 4 octobre 2018, para 49, https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/sites/dalloz- actualite.fr/files/resources/2018/10/affaire_leotsakos_c._gr_ce.pdf. 55 “Dans la présente affaire la perquisition au domicile des quatre requérants a été effectuée sans l’autorisation préalable d’un juge. En effet l’article 161, alinéa 2, du CPP permet aux organes de l’enquête de procéder à de telles perquisitions dans des cas urgents où il existe un danger d’altération de preuves”; Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie, no 34529/10, 15 octobre 2013, para 221, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001- 126982&filename=Case%20OF%20Gutsanovi%20v.%20 Bulgaria%20%5BExtracts%5D.docx&logEvent=False.

Page 539

73 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

such cases, the concern over the absence of a judicial warrant was mitigated by the fact that the Court could later review whether the search was necessary and in accordance with the law56. [85] In the case of Heino v. Finland, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant's rights could be violated if they were unable to appeal to the court before or after the search. The inability of a searched person to appeal to the courts after the search to demonstrate flaws in the decision to search or in the way the search was conducted leaves the citizen inadequately protected by the law. In a country governed by the rule of law and democracy, it is their right to seek such protection57. [86] This direction was reaffirmed in the case of Zosymov v. Ukraine, where the European Court of Human Rights found that

56 “La Cour a déjà eu l’occasion d’affirmer que, dans de telles situations, l’absence d’un mandat de perquisition peut être contrecarrée par un contrôle judiciaire ex post factum sur la légalité et la nécessité de cette mesure d’instruction”; Ibidem para 222. 57 “[…] in the present case the applicant did not have any effective access, a posteriori, to a court to have both the lawfulness of, and justification for, the search warrant reviewed. The applicant's right to respect for her home was thus violated by the fact that there was no prior judicial warrant and no possibility to obtain an effective judicial review a posteriori of either the decision to order the search or the manner in which it was conducted [ …] The situation was aggravated by the fact that the search took place in an attorney's office.

46. The Court therefore concludes that, even if there could be said to be a general legal basis for the impugned measures in Finnish law, that law does not provide sufficient judicial safeguards either before the granting of a search warrant or after the search. The applicant was thus deprived of the minimum degree of protection to which she was entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society”; judgment Heino v. Finland, no 56720/09, 15 February 2011, para 45, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001- 103394.

Page 540

74

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code, which stipulated that no person subjected to a search had the right to appeal against the decision to search or the conduct of the search unless they joined their claim with that of the prosecution for the offence which prompted the search, violated the citizen's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the searched person's complaint was dismissed because, after the investigation, the Public Prosecutor's Office failed to file a complaint for many years, which also prevented the searched person from filing a claim that his rights had been violated58. [87] In light of the foregoing explanations of the provisions of the laws of various countries concerning the authority empowered to issue a search warrant, and of the interpretations

58 “The applicant’s efforts to obtain subsequent judicial review of the lawfulness of the measure were unsuccessful. In particular, as follows from the judgment of 24 December 2004 taken by the Court of Appeal, the relevant complaint could only be brought within the framework of the criminal trial of the case initiated by the police following the disputed visit, in the event that the investigative authority ever brought the case to that stage. In the meantime, by the time the applicant lodged the present application, the relevant criminal proceedings had remained stagnant for several years, and the applicant had not been able to obtain any procedural status in these proceedings, in spite of his numerous efforts. The Court notes that in its recent judgment in the case of Kotiy […] it has already found that a situation where the only possibility for the applicant to challenge the investigator’s conduct had been under Article 234 of the CCP (after the criminal case against him had been committed for trial) was incompatible with Article 8… In particular, it concludes that domestic law did not provide requisite guarantees against arbitrariness in respect of the police’s actions complained of and did not meet the requirement of quality of law for the purposes of the Convention”; judgment Zosymov v. Ukraine, n° 4322/06, 7 July 2016; para 61, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001- 164467.

Page 541

75 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

of various courts on this matter, the Court considers that there is agreement on the following important points: a. The "systems" of the countries are different; in some cases, the search warrant is issued by a special judge in charge of the conduct and follow-up of the investigation, in other cases by the court, and in some cases by the public prosecutor's office. There are also cases where the warrant may be issued by both the court and the public prosecutor's office; b. The fact that the search warrant is issued by one body or another does not, in itself, affect the principles laid down in the Constitution. The main concern is to establish a system that ensures respect for the rights of the citizen who is subject to the search;

c. In order to avoid violating the rights of the person being searched, there must be laws that clearly define what must be respected and preventive measures to guard against abuse; d. There should also be a process for the citizen to report violations of the law to the courts so that they can be addressed. Particularly in countries that do not provide for a warrant to be issued by a judge (contrôle a priori/ex ante factum), there must be subsequent control by the court (contrôle a posteriori/ex post factum). [88] In Rwanda, the National Public Prosecution Authority is empowered to investigate and prosecute crimes throughout the country, based on the provisions of Article 142, paragraph 1, of the Constitution. As the body responsible for conducting and

Page 542

76

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

overseeing investigative activities, it is the law that grants the authority to issue a search warrant, as stipulated in Article 55, paragraph 1, and Article 61 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. [89] In order to respect the rights of individuals subjected to search and to ensure that there is no abuse, Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 clearly outlines the requirements that must be observed by those vested with the authority to conduct a search, including : a. To present a valid service card and a search warrant authorizing him to perform such work signed by the competent authority (Article 60); b. The search can neither be conducted before six (6) a.m. nor after six (6) p.m. (Article 55, Paragraph 3); c. The search is conducted in the presence of the representatives of the local authorities of the place of search (Article 55, Paragraph 4); d. The search is conducted in the presence of the suspect or household members unless they are absent (Article 55, paragraph 5); e. If the search is conducted at an office of a person with a private profession, the search is conducted in the presence of that person under search or his or her duly authorized representatives unless they are absent or cannot be found (Article 55, paragraph 6); f. If the person under search is a member of a professional association, the search is conducted in the presence of the representative of the association (Article 55, paragraph 7);

Page 543

77 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

g. Unless the person is caught red-handed, an investigator or a prosecutor cannot conduct a strip-search or a body cavity search without prior authorisation of the Chief Prosecutor of the prosecution organ where he or she works. A strip-search or body cavity search is conducted exclusively by a medical doctor (Article 56, paragraph 2); h. A strip-search or a body cavity search subject may choose a medical doctor, his/her spouse or any other adult person to accompany him or her (Article 56, paragraph 3). i. An investigator or a prosecutor who concludes any search is required to prepare a search statement (Article 55, Paragraph 8), and give a copy thereof to the concerned persons (Article 64). [90] The Court finds that the measures established by Articles 55, 56, 60, and 64 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 are clear and comprehensible in terms of respecting the rights of citizens who are to be searched, as well as in preventing any abuse. Regarding the avenues available for a citizen to demonstrate to the courts any violation of the law's provisions and request correction, Article 43 of the Constitution assigns the courts the responsibility of safeguarding human rights and freedoms. Additionally, Article 23, paragraph two, stipulates that searches must be conducted in the circumstances and manner prescribed by law. [91] The Court finds that when provisions of the law are not respected during a search, the individual who underwent the search can appeal to the courts to assert their violated rights. In this context, Article 76(20) of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019,

Page 544

78

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

relating to criminal procedure, assigns the judge the responsibility to examine any violations of the law that occurred during the investigation when considering complaints about provisional release and detention. The article stipulates that a judge who hears cases on provisional detention has the duty to verify whether the period of detention and other rights of the suspect have been respected during the investigation. [92] Additionally, the accused can present to the judge hearing their case any findings they believe to be illegal during the investigation, including those related to the search. If the judge determines that evidence was obtained from an illegal search, they will declare such evidence inadmissible. For a person who has been subjected to a search but for whom no file has been prepared to be brought before the judge, there is the right to seek compensation for the unlawful actions in a civil case. ii. Regarding searches conducted without the issuance of a search warrant [93] Article 55, paragraph 4, of the Law N° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure reads that if the suspect is caught red-handed or is presumed to have been caught red- handed, the requirement for the investigator to obtain a search warrant or observe search hours may not be complied with. Search is always conducted in presence of the representatives of the local authorities of the place of search. And article 56, paragraph 2, of the same Law stipulates that Unless the person is caught red-handed, an investigator or a prosecutor cannot conduct a strip-search or a body cavity search without prior authorisation of the Chief Prosecutor of the prosecution organ where he or she works. A strip-search or body cavity search is conducted exclusively by a medical doctor.

Page 545

79 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[94] Article 10, paragraph 3, of the law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning provides that RIB may search any person or property, enter a building or premises without a warrant for the following reasons: a) reasonable grounds for suspicion that a criminal act is being committed or is to be committed; b) reasonable grounds suggesting that the building or premises contain an object used in the commission of criminal act or useful for criminal investigations; c) reasonable evidence that the criminal suspect is in the location and has to be arrested. In that case, a statement for the search is prepared and a report is also made stating the grounds for search without a warrant […]. [95] The court finds that conducting a search without a warrant aims to prevent delays in its issuance from hindering the search's purpose. Neither the Prosecutor nor the investigator should overlook evidence of a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed. On the contrary, it is their duty to consider and obtain any unexpected evidence indicating that a crime has been committed, is currently being committed, or is being planned. [96] The court finds that investigators are often called upon in emergencies; in some cases, they are asked to accompany the police during interventions at specific locations or to dismantle traps set by individuals attempting to commit crimes. The urgency of these actions is what led the Legislator to provide that the investigator or the Prosecutor may not have the time to apply for a search warrant from the authority responsible for issuing it if the person to be searched is caught red-handed, appears to be

Page 546

80

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

caught red-handed, or if one of the reasons mentioned in Article 3 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 applies. [97] The court finds that, to prevent interference with the rights of a person being searched without a warrant, the law stipulates that there must be a statement for any search conducted59. For individuals who are caught red-handed or appear to be caught red-handed, the search is carried out in the presence of local authorities, and the investigator is required to prepare a report detailing the reasons for conducting the search without a warrant. The court concludes that these measures established by the Legislator are intended to prevent abuse by those responsible for conducting searches. As explained above, when there is a violation of the law, the person subjected to the search has the right to appeal to the courts. [98] Based on the foregoing laws and elucidations, the Court finds that the issuance of a search warrant by the Public Prosecution instead of the Court, or the existence of circumstances where a search can be conducted without a warrant, does not conflict with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution. b. With regard to ordering for information and taking statements from any person suspected of having information that can help an investigation [99] Article 10, subparagraph 8, of the law n° 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and

59 Article 55, paragraph 8, of the Law N° 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure reads that an investigator or a prosecutor who concludes any search is required to prepare a search statement.

Page 547

81 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

determining its mission, powers, organisation and functioning reads that RIB has the powers to order for information and take statements from any person suspected of having information that can help an investigation. [100] Whereas, article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, of the Constitution provides that Everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right: […] to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court. [101] The Court notes that the principle of the right to due process of law was reiterated in the case of Kabasinga Florida, decided by this Court on 04.12.2019. In this case, the Court explained that the components of this right are not all listed in Article 29 of the Constitution but indicated that these rights fall into two categories: a. Due process of law is based on procedure, meaning a set of rules that must be observed in the judicial process, in accordance with the principles established by law; b. Due process of law is based on the provisions of the law, which prohibit the enactment of laws or other irrational measures that violate the rights of citizens60. [102] The Court finds that Article 29 of the Constitution does not distinguish between these two types of rights to due process of law, nor does it specify when they begin to be exercised. The representatives of the Government of Rwanda assert that the right to due process of law begins before the courts, but their

60 Judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC, Kabasinga Florida, rendered by the Supreme Court on 04/12/2019, paragraph 13.

Page 548

82

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

conclusions do not provide a basis for this claim. In the Kabasinga Florida case mentioned above, the Court explained that in criminal cases, the right to due process of law begins with investigative activities and continues through criminal investigations, trials, and sentencing for crimes as provided by criminal laws61. [103] Therefore, the Court finds that the right to due process of law particularly the rights to be informed of the nature and reasons for the charges, to defense and legal representation, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court does not begin with the filing of a claim in court, as asserted by the representatives of the Government of Rwanda. The Court holds that the presumption of innocence until a final decision by the competent authority must be upheld throughout all judicial procedures until the final ruling is made. This principle, which places the burden of proof on the party alleging the crime, applies to all institutions62 (including the Public Prosecution). [104] In relation to this case, the issue that must be addressed is whether the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, contain any violation of the principle of the right to due process of law, particularly the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.

61 Ibidem, paragraph 14. 62 Judgment Henrikas Daktaras v Lithuania, n° 42095/98, European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 11 January 2000, para 6, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-5987 Michel Franchimont, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2012, p. 1132.

Page 549

83 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[105] The court finds that, although the term "information" referred to in Article 10, paragraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, as translated from Kinyarwanda into English and French, should not be taken in isolation or given a basic or generic definition linking it to the press or journalists. When enacting that article, it was not the intention of the Legislator to allow the Investigation Bureau to continue to seek out individuals who inform journalists about the commission of crimes. This is why the term "information" should be interpreted in conjunction with the phrase "that would help in the investigation" also appearing in that article. [106] The Court notes that there are at least three ways in which the prosecution obtains information about the commission of a crime: complaints from victims, investigations, and denunciations. During an investigation based on one of these methods, the Investigation Bureau may find that there are other sources from which it can obtain more detailed information or additional evidence that can help the investigation achieve its objectives. These objectives include establishing the crime committed, identifying the persons involved, determining where and when it was committed, and understanding the victims or other consequences. This explanation or evidence, intended to make the investigation more efficient and effective, is what the legislator refers to as "information." [107] The fact that the Investigation Bureau can question any suspect to obtain information about a crime is not unique to Rwanda. In Burundi, Article 10(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that investigators may question persons they believe may have information about a crime that has been

Page 550

84

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

committed63. In Singapore, Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act gives investigators the power to question any person suspected of having information about an offence committed, with the person being obliged to provide the information unless it is deemed incriminating64. This is also the case in Burkina Faso65, Ivory Coast66, and other countries not listed here.

63 Art. 10, al.4 du Code de Procédure Pénale (Loi no 1/09 du 11/05/2018): “[…] Ils procèdent à l’audition des personnes susceptibles de donner des renseignements sur l’infraction et sur ses auteurs. Ils interrogent ces auteurs et recueillent leurs explications”. 64 Art. 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010: “(1) In conducting an investigation under this Part, a police officer, or a forensic specialist acting in the course of his or her duty as such in accordance with the written authorisation of the Commissioner under the Police Force Act 2004 and the lawful directions of the police officer or law enforcement officer he or she assists, may examine orally any person who appears to be acquainted with any of the facts and circumstances of the case — (a) whether before or after that person or anyone else is charged with an offence in connection with the case; and (b) whether or not that person is to be called as a witness in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under this Code in connection with the case. (2) The person examined is bound to state truly what the person knows of the facts and circumstances of the case, except that the person need not say anything that might expose the person to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture”. Available on https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CPC2010. 65 Art. 251-10, al. 1 et 2, du Code de Procédure Pénale 2019: “(1) L’officier de police

judiciaire peut appeler et entendre toute personne susceptible de fournir des renseignements sur les faits ou sur les objets et documents saisis. (2) Les personnes convoquées par lui sont tenues de comparaître et de déposer. Si elles ne satisfont pas à cette obligation, avis en est donné au procureur du Faso qui peut les contraindre à comparaître par la force publique”, https://sgbv-ihrda.uwazi.io/fr/entity/i41i84se8d?page=22. 66 Art. 61 du Code de Procédure Pénale 2018: “L'officier de police judiciaire procède à l' enquête. Il entend toute personne susceptible de fournir des

Page 551

85 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[108] The Court also finds that the phrase "any person" mentioned in Article 10, paragraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 refers to any individual not being prosecuted for the alleged crime, who possesses information that would aid in the investigation process. It does not refer to the suspect of the crime, as claimed by Murangwa Edward, since the suspect is interrogated by the Investigator as the person required to provide explanations regarding the charges brought against them. This distinction is clearly made by the Legislator in Article 45 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. Paragraph 2 of this article reads that: "An investigator or prosecutor interrogates a suspect and makes a written record of the statement made by the suspect. Interrogation is conducted in the language the suspect understands well." And paragraph 3 of the same article stipulates that The investigator or prosecutor may also interrogate any person presumed to have some clarification and requests him or her to give testimony under oath in the manner provided for under Article 47 of this Law. The phrase "any person" mentioned in this paragraph is also the same "any person" referred to in Article 10, Section 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017. [109] In the event that the suspect is interrogated by the Investigation Bureau or the Public Prosecution regarding the commission of a crime, one of the rights they have, as provided by Article 54, paragraph 2 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019,

renseignements sur les faits et toutes celles qui se prétendent lésées par l'infraction. Il procède aux constatations utiles”. Art. 62 du même Code: “La personne convoquée par l'officier de police judiciaire est tenue de comparaître et de déposer. Si la personne convoquée ne satisfait pas à cette obligation, avis en est donné au procureur de la République qui peut la contraindre à comparaître par la force publique”, https://www.caidp.ci/uploads/997a8149124ebaffe41282e96908d822.pdf.

Page 552

86

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

is the right to silence (droit au silence). This means that the suspect is not among those who are obligated to provide information referred to in paragraph 8 of Article 10 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017. [110] Therefore, the Court finds that if the Investigation Bureau were to parade suspects before the media to be questioned about the crime they are charged with, while wearing handcuffs, as claimed by Murangwa Edward and his counsels, the Investigation Bureau would not be acting on the basis of Article 10, paragraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017. There is no provision in that article stating that the Investigation Bureau can present suspects to journalists for questioning them or to obtain information that would assist in the investigation. If such a practice exists, the Court finds that it cannot be rectified by declaring the aforementioned article inconsistent with the Constitution. [111] However, the Court advises that while investigating authorities may work with the media to inform the public about ongoing investigations, they must do everything possible to respect the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This was confirmed in the case of Allenet De Ribemont v. France, where the European Court of Human Rights indicated that the principle of the presumption of innocence does not prevent authorities from informing the public about an ongoing investigation, but they must do so carefully to avoid violating the principle of presumption of innocence when guilt has not yet been proven67.

67 “Freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the

Page 553

87 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[112] In relation to what Murangwa Edward and his counsels argue, even though this Court finds that Article 10(8) of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 referred to above is not inconsistent with the Constitution, their request for the Court to order the deletion of the term "to order" from the article and the addition of the phrase "except the suspect" to the phrase "any person" in order to protect the right to due process of law is beyond the scope of this Court. The Court notes that this matter does not concern a petition for the unconstitutionality of a provision of law, but rather relates to the interpretation of the content of the law, which falls outside this Court's jurisdiction. In previous cases, the Court has, on its own initiative, acted to fill gaps left in legal provisions when part of a law was deleted68, or provided recommendations on what should be addressed or improved in a legal article when necessary, but it has not issued orders regarding such matters69. [113] Therefore, a litigant may petition the Constitutional Court to amend, remove, or add words in a law, based on dissatisfaction with the terms or phrases used, or simply because they believe the legislator did not use the appropriate terms.

public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected”; Allenet de Ribemont v. France (Application no. 15175/89), 10 February 1995, para 38, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001- 57914. 68 For example, see judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/ 2018/SC, Mugisha Richard, rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/04/2019, paragraphs 55 and 132; and judgment RS/Inconst/Pén.0001/08/CS, Murorunkwere Spéciose, rendered by the Supreme Court on 26/09/2008, paragraph 31. 69 For example, see judgment RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC, Murangwa Edward, rendered by the Supreme Court on 29/11/2019, paragraph 105.

Page 554

88

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[114] Based on the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 8, of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning do not in any way prejudice the principle of the right to due process of law as provided for by Article 29, paragraph one, subparagraph 2° of the Constitution. [115] The Court finds that Article 10, paragraphs 3 (a), (b), and (c), as well as paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, and Articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure do not contain any inconsistency with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. II.2. Whether the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds," as used in Article 10 of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organization, and functioning, particularly in paragraphs 3, a, b, and c, should be interpreted in the interests of the law [116] Murangwa Edward and his counsels argue that the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds," used in Article 10,

Paragraph 3 (a), (b), and (c) of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, as mentioned above, were written in such a general manner that it is difficult for the reader to know what they exactly mean. They contend that this vagueness has become an excuse for the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution to conduct warrantless searches. They believe that these terms should be explicitly defined to provide clarity on what

Page 555

89 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

is exactly meant by "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds." [117] They argue that one of the principles that the Government of Rwanda is committed to upholding is enshrined in Article 10, paragraph four, of the Constitution, which emphasizes building a State governed by the rule of law and a pluralistic democratic government. They assert that no citizen's rights should be violated except in the manner and procedures prescribed by Article 41 of the Constitution. Article 41 stipulates that human rights are subject only to limitations provided by law aimed at ensuring the recognition and respect of other people's rights and freedoms, as well as public morals, public order, and social welfare, which are characteristic of a democratic society. [118] They further state that their intention is not to ask the Court to declare that the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds" used in Article 10, paragraph 3 (a), (b), and (c) of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 are inconsistent with the Constitution, as mentioned above. Instead, they request the Court to rely on the provisions of Article 73 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018, which establishes the jurisdiction of the courts, in order to interpret these terms, should the legislator not yet amend this article. [119] They assert that the direction the Supreme Court could take in the

interest of the law would be highly beneficial in protecting the right to privacy and the right to due process for the accused and their family. They further argue that, while they acknowledge that rights may be reduced or suspended when necessary, the Constitution and the international covenants that Rwanda has signed require that such actions be carried out in a manner that respects the image of a democratic country.

Page 556

90

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[120] They assert that the word "direction" in Article 73 of the aforementioned Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 should be understood as referring to practice. Therefore, they ask this Court to declare that this practice, which characterizes the institutions of intelligence, criminal investigation, and prosecution during warrantless searches, should be stopped. They request that this Court refer to the following directions adopted by other courts to provide a proper interpretation of the terms mentioned in Article 10, paragraph 3 (a), (b), and (c) of Law No. 12/2017 of 04/07/2017 : a. To assess whether the provisions of the law allowing for warrantless searches are written in such a general manner that they would affect the right to privacy of an individual and their family, and to determine whether it is necessary to conduct such searches in certain cases70; b. To strike a balance between the right to privacy and the government's responsibility to maintain public order and combat crime71;

70 Gaertner and Others v Minister of Finance and Others (CCT 56/13) [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) (14 November 2013); Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others (CCT13/97) [1998] ZACC 10; 1998 (4) SA 1127; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (29 May 1998). “To sum up: irrespective of legitimate expectations of privacy which may be intruded upon in the process, and without any predetermined safeguards to minimise the extent of such intrusions where the nature of the investigations makes some invasion of privacy necessary, section 28(1) gives the inspectors carte blanche to enter any place, including private dwellings, where they reasonably suspect medicines to be, and then to inspect documents which may be of the most intimate kind”. 71 Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] Zaecellc 8; 2014 (1) Sacr 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013). [i] “in determining whether an individual's right to privacy has been infringed a balance must be struck between the protection of that right on the

Page 557

91 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[121] To assess whether the infringement of the rights to privacy and dignity is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. The Court should also consider the following five measures: 1) the nature of the right; 2) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; 3) the nature and extent of the limitation; 4) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; 5) and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose72. [122] They conclude that the Supreme Court has the authority to provide direction in the interest of the law and that the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds" used in Article 10, Section 3 (a), (b), and (c) of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning are written in such a general manner that their application may lead to the infringement of citizens' rights as established by the Constitution. Therefore, they request that this Court, based on the directions provided above, offer an interpretation of those terms.

one hand and the State's constitutionally mandated task of prosecuting crime on the other”; Van der Merwe v Minister of Police and Another (2530/2018) [2019] Zafshc 118 (11 July 2019). 72 Minister of Police and Others v Kunjana (CCT253/15) [2016] ZACC 21; 2016 (9) BCLR 1237 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 473 (CC) (27 July 2016): “[…] it must be assessed whether the infringement of the rights to privacy and dignity is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society… Section 36 of the Constitution governs the situations in which constitutional rights may be limited”. “It enjoins a court to balance five relevant factors, which are: the nature of the right; the importance of the purpose of the limitation; the nature and extent of the limitation; the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose”.

Page 558

92

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

[123] The representatives of the Government of Rwanda submit that the "change of direction in the interest of the law" is defined in Article 65 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. They argue that the term "direction" should be understood as the decision of the Court in which it analysed the issue presented to it. They further explain that there is no existing direction that can be challenged or altered, and they do not see where Murangwa Edward, who initiated this petition, derives the capacity to do so, as the law provides that such a petition can only be initiated by the Bar Association or the National Public Prosecution Authority. Therefore, they request this Court to declare that the petition should not be admitted for consideration because it was filed in an illegal manner.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [124] Article 65 of the Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, is about petitions relating to the change of direction taken by courts in the interest of the law, and its paragraphs 1 and 2, read that The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the direction of the final judgements taken by the courts to protect the law and give direction on request by the Rwanda Bar Association or the National Public Prosecution Authority. The representative of the Rwanda Bar Association or the National Public Prosecution Authority indicates in the submissions contained in the statement of the application, his/her criticism against the direction taken by the court and the reasons for his/her application for change of such direction. [125] Article 73 of the Law N° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts reads that The petition to

Page 559

93 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

change direction in the interest of the law is examined based on the documents submitted to the court. However, when the court finds that it needs more information, it can summon the applicant or any other person to provide some clarification. The court may, upon request, also authorize amicus curiae experts in the hearing. The decision of the court highlights the challenges of the direction in force and gives a new direction. [126] Murangwa Edward argues that, while the Legislator has not yet amended Article 10, paragraph 3, a, b, and c of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017, the Court should rely on the provisions of Article 73 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018, determining the jurisdiction of courts, to provide an interpretation of the terms used in the aforementioned paragraphs of Article 10. This, he asserts, would prevent the user from resorting to analogy. [127] The Court finds that Murangwa Edward's request is unrelated to what is outlined in Article 73, which explains the procedure for petitions mentioned in Article 65 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018. The direction referred to in those articles pertains to decisions made by the courts. Additionally, the Court notes that petitions to change court directions in the interest of the law, as referenced in the aforementioned Articles 65 and 73, are special petitions that follow a distinct procedure. These petitions can only be initiated by the institutions specified by law and cannot be examined in a petition seeking to declare a law or its provisions unconstitutional. In the case RS/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC of Fast Truck Interior v. Hardware Ltd, decided on 19/05/2023, this Court explained that the purpose of such petitions is to repeal provisions of the law deemed

Page 560

94

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

unconstitutional so that, if the Court finds a law contrary to the Constitution, it may be repealed73. Therefore, the intention is not to interpret the terms contained in the law. [128] In light of the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that Murangwa Edward's petition is unrelated to the petition seeking to declare a law unconstitutional and, therefore, cannot be considered. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [129] Holds that the petition initiated by Murangwa Edward seeking to declare Article 10, Paragraph 3 (a, b, and c), paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning and articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, lacks merit. [130] Holds that Article 10, Paragraph 3 (a, b, and c), paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning and articles 38, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 70 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure are not inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.

73 Judgment RS/INJUST/INCONST/RCOM 00001/2022/SC, FAST TRUCK INTERIOR v. HARDWARE LTD, Rendered by the Supreme Court on 19/05/2023, paragraph 28.

Page 561

95 Re MURANGWA (Fond)

[131] Holds that the petition initiated by Murangwa Edward requesting the Court to provide a direction in the interest of the law with regard to the terms "reasonable grounds," "substantial evidence," and "serious grounds" used in Article 10, Paragraph 3 (a, b, and c) of Law No. 12/2017 of 07/04/2017 establishing the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and determining its mission, powers, organisation, and functioning, should not be considered.

Page 563

PROCEDURAL CASES

Page 565

99

KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al. [Rwanda Supreme Court-RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Karimunda and Hitiyaremye J.) 31 December 2021] Civil procedure – Forced intervention into a case at the appeal level– A party whose first forced intervention into the case occurs at the appeal level, has a right to at least one appeal remedy – While examining the second appeal, the appellate court cannot claim its lack of jurisdiction on the matter yet the case involves a party whose first intervention into the case occurred at the appeal level. The law governing the judgment review on grounds of injustice – A party who files an incidental appeal in the judgment under review on grounds of injustice – A party who did not apply for the judgment review on grounds of injustice cannot make a claim in the course of the hearing of the judgment under review on grounds of injustice. The law governing contracts – Insurance contracts – Liability – Insured person who does not knowingly and deliberately fulfill his/her obligations provided under the insurance contract is not protected by such contract. Facts: The case started when Mbonyinshuti and others sued the former Saham Assurance Rwanda Ltd (currently known as

Page 566

100

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc) before the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, claiming for damages from a certain road accident that involved a Fuso brand lorry that killed Sinzabakwira, one of the 52 passengers that the vehicle had on board in the rear part. Sanlam Assurances Génénerales Plc argued that it has no responsibility since the vehicle that killed Sinzabakwira had been requisitioned by Kirehe District for use, and it carried more passengers than the insured number; and besides, its driver did not have the required driving license. Nonetheless, the Court held that Sanlam Assurance Générales Plc should pay to the plaintiffs the moral damages because its statements do not discharge it from paying to the persons aggrieved by the vehicle as it is not able to prove that by the time Kirehe District requisitioned the concerned vehicle, the insurance agreement had already been rescinded. Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc appealed against the ruling before the High Court and requested for the forced intervention of Gatashya’s heirs and Kirehe District in the case for being held liable for the payment of the charged accident related damages. The civil parties argued that the insurer’s appeal is unfounded. However, the Court held that the insurer’s request for forced intervention of Gatashya’s heirs and Kirehe District in the case was founded. The Court held that Gatashya and Kirehe

District breached the insurance policy when they decided to pack 52 passengers into the lorry; and the vehicle was driven by a person without driving license. The Court ordered that the damages charged to Sanlam Assurances Générales in the appealed judgment should be equally paid by Gatashya’s heirs and Kirehe District. Kirehe District appealed against the above ruling before the Court of Appeal and stated that it was deprived of the opportunity of

Page 567

101 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

attending the pre-trial conference and it was forced to intervene for the first time before the High Court and the Court disregarded the content of insurance contract that Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc concluded with the insured person. The Court of Appeal found that the damages awarded in the appealed judgment do not equate the sum provided under the law and declared the appeal inadmissible as it does not fall under its jurisdiction. Kirehe District petitioned the President of the Supreme Court and prayed him to have the case rendered by the Court of Appeal reviewed on grounds of injustice. The President of the Supreme Court examined the application and sent the case to the Supreme Court’s registry for a subsequent review. Kirehe District argued that any party that is forced to intervene in a case at the appeal level and thereof charged for some dues, should have a right for one remedial appeal; more so that the District had never been a party before the Intermediate Court. The Court made an instant decision and held that a party has a right to one appeal against any unsatisfying ruling that resulted from the forced intervention, and the Supreme Court moved that the Court of Appeal was supposed to admit the District’s appeal. Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc raised an issue of whether the civil parties have any request for the case under review while they have never applied

for injustice-related review of the judgment. The civil parties argued that a mere fact that they have never applied for the review of judgment on grounds of injustice does not deprive them of the right to plead for their appeal filed to the Court of Appeal, its examination was not conducted due to the claim inadmissibility. They argued that, as the judgment is adjudicated anew, it is necessary to examine all issues that were raised and each party can prove the challenged issue.

Page 568

102

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court found that it is only Kirehe District that requested for the injustice-related review of the Court of Appeal’s ruling; and held that the civil parties’ cross-appeals that were aborted by the inadmissibility of the principal appeal before the Court of Appeal and for which no party has ever applied for an injustice-related review, this indicates that they had any interests in such appeal, and the Court moved that for the purpose of the case under review, the civil parties should not bring back their previous cross-appeal they filed in the Court of Appeal. With regard to the determination of the party liable for damages arising from the vehicle accident indicated in this case, the legal counsel of Kirehe District argued that the High Court had no legal grounds for charging the District for damages without first highlighting the District’s liability. For the civil parties, they argued that the insurance legislation that governs motorized vehicles provides that the insurer covers any accident, regardless of its causes, with a reserved right of incurring the loss to the answerable person. The legal counsel stated that Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc should pay the damages related to the accident . The legal counsel of Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc submitted that the vehicle that got involved into the accident is normally a vehicle for transporting goods, and a mere fact

that it got into an accident with 52 passengers on board discharges the insurer since the insured person did not abide by the concluded insurance policy. The Court held that it is only Gatashya’s heirs (the owner of the vehicle) who shall pay for damages since it is him who chose to deliberately breach the content of the insurance agreement. Therefore, the insurance policy cannot cover neither his own loss nor any third-party claims, since he decided to load many persons in a vehicle meant for transporting goods and the vehicle was driven by a person without driving license.

Page 569

103 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Held: 1. A party that has not applied for injustice-related case review cannot take advantage of the reviewing of the case and make any requests. Therefore, any cross-appeal has not been heard due to the inadmissibility of the principal appeal, and for which the appellant has not sought injustice-related case review, such a cross-appeal cannot be examined along another party’s request for case review; because such is considered as if the party is satisfied by the ruling.

2. A party whose first forced intervention into the case occurs at the appeal level, has a right to at least one appeal remedy. Therefore, while examining the second appeal, the appellate court cannot claim its lack of jurisdiction on the matter yet the case involves a party whose first intervention into the case occurred at the appeal level.

3. Insured person who does not knowingly and deliberately fulfill his/her obligations provided under the insurance contract is not protected by such contract. Therefore, when a vehicle driven by a person without specific driving license gets involved into an accident, with a number of passengers on board far exceeding the authorized number in a vehicle normally used for transporting the goods, the owner of the vehicle is accordingly held liable. The appeal that was lodged in the Court of Appeal should be admitted. Statutes referred to: Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, article 63; Law n0 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, articles 64 and 113;

Page 570

104

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Presidential Order n0 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic, article 66; The Decree-law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 regulating insurance, article 11; General regulations for the insurance coverage for motorised vehicles on road as established by CORAR S.A, which later merged with SORAS AG Ltd on 29/06/2010, see articles 22, 23, 24 Cases referred to: Case RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC with AYALA CO Ltd v. APROETEC ASBL and EPTC Ltd rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/10/2020 Case RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2020/SC with Whitefield Investment Company Ltd v. Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/09/2021; The interim court decision for case RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC with Kamugwiza Phoebe v. Sakina Hashim and others; Case RCAA 00045/2016 with Mukaruhanga Alexia v. Nyirahabimana Emertha and Kold Hansen Jesper rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/05/2019; Case RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC with Twagirayezu Alice and others v. Twagirayezu Albert and other rendered by the Supreme Court on 10/12/2021; The case with City of Johnstown v. Bankers Standards Insurance Co, 8777F 2d at 1150 (2ns Cir.

1989) Doctrines referred to: Yvonne Lambert-Faivre et Laurent Leveneur, Droit des assurances, Paris, Dalloz, 2005, p. 201; p. 292

Page 571

105 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Barry Zelma, Insurance Law, Erlanger, The National Underwriter Company, 2015, p.

71. Judgment

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started from the Intermediate Court of Ngoma, Hatunguramye Prosper representing his son Tuyishimire Charles ( still a minor) together with Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Ndagijimana Eugène sued Saham Assurance Rwanda Ltd ( later changed to be Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc,) whereby the claimants requested to the Insurance Company to pay to them some damages emanating from an accident that occurred on 14/11/2014 when a vehicle Mitsubishi Fuso with plate RAA 080 W belonging to Gatashya Ezra. The accident claimed the life of Sinzabakwira Prosper, one of the 52 passengers on board. Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc declined any civil liability and argued that the car that claimed the life of Sinzabakwira Prosper had been requisitioned by the Kirehe District for transporting people, and it carried more passengers than the authorised number, and it was driven by unlicensed driver, since the latter was only qualified for riding motorcycles. Sanlam Assurances Générales PLc requested for damages over being dragged into an unnecessary lawsuit, and for the refund of the counsel fee.

In the judgment RC 00238/2018/TGI/NGOMA rendered by the Intermediate Court of Ngoma on 11/10/2018, the Court found that the statements of Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc that the concerned car had been requisitioned by Kirehe District and transported more passengers than the authorised number and

Page 572

106

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

was driven by a driver without a related driving license, do not discharge it from the obligation of paying the persons harmed by the vehicle as it does not prove that by the time Kirehe District requisitioned the car, the insurance contract with the insured had already been rescinded. The Court also found that the car was still in the hands of its owner and it was driven by the owner’s employee. The Court held that the claim filed by Hatunguramye Prosper representing his son Tuyishimire Charles, and Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène together with Ndagijimana Eugène has merits in parts, and it ordered to Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc to to pay to each claimant 540,000 Frw for moral damages, and the total is 1,620,000 Frw, and it also ordered to the Insurer to pay to them 500,000 Frw for court fee.

Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc appealed against the above ruling before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana and it requested for the forced intervention of the heirs of Gatashya Ezra and Kirehe District into the case for being held liable the charged damages for their faults as the vehicle was driven by a driver without driving license, it transported the passengers that far exceeded the insured number in the rear part meant for carrying the goods. He also explained that the previous court made an incorrect interpretation of the car’s insurance agreement, and a wrong analysis of accident-related insurance coverage legislation. The civil parties argued that the appeal lodged by Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc is ungrounded, it prayed the Court to sustain the appealed ruling.

The High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana first held that the forced intervention of the heirs of Gatashya Ezra and Kirehe District into this case was founded, and in the judgment RCA 00078/2018/HC/RWG rendered on 17/06/2019, the Court found

Page 573

107 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

that Gatashya Ezra and Kirehe District breached the insurance contract when they decided to carry 52 passengers into the vehicle rear part, they allowed a driver without required license to drive the vehicle; Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc is not liable for such fact; therefore, its appeal is grounded. Basing on the articles 258 and 260 of Civil Code book III, the Court held that the damages charged to Sanlam Assurances Générales in the appealed judgment should be equally paid by Gatashya Ezra’s heirs and Kirehe District, it ordered to Hatunguramye Prosper, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Ndagijimana Eugene to jointly pay to Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc 700,000 Frw for counsel fee and procedural fee.

Kirehe District lodged appeal before the Court of Appeal by stating that it was deprived of the opportunity of attending the pre-trial conference and it was forced to intervene into the case for the first time before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana and the Court disregarded the provisions of the insurance contract that Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc concluded with the insured person.

In the judgment RCAA 00025/2019/CA rendered on 24/07/2020, the Court of Appeal found that the charged damages were less than 75,000,000 Frw provided under the article 52 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, and Kirehe District provided no any other legal ground that would justify the court’s jurisdiction for the matter. The Court declared its incompetence for the matter and it ordered to Kirehe District to pay to Sunlam Assurances Générales Plc 500,000 Frw for the counsel fee and pay to the heirs of Gatashya Ezra, represented by Gatashya’s surviving spouse

Page 574

108

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie, 500, 000 Frw for counsel fee and procedural fee.

Kirehe District petitioned the President of the Supreme Court, seeking the review of the judgment RCAA00025/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24/07/2020 on grounds of injustice. The President of the Supreme Court examined the application and issued the decision n0 168/CJ/2021 of 24/05/2021, and sent the case to the Registry of the Supreme for a subsequent review.

In its submissions, Kirehe District argued that the article 116 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that a party forced to intervene into a case and charged for some dues at the appeal level has a right to at least one appeal remedy. The District argued that that provision alone is clear and enough self- explanatory that the Court of Appeal should not reject its appeal on grounds of the litigation monetary value, since the appeal’s monetary value had nothing to do with Kirehe District, more so that the District had never been a party before the Intermediate Court of Ngoma. Kirehe District prayed the Court for the annulment of the Court of Appeal’s ruling for allowing it to prove the injustice it underwent from the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, which ordered to it to pay damages for the non- observance of the insurance contract while such contract is not binding to it.

Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles and Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène argued that the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting the appeal of Kirehe District, they prayed the Court to rectify the error, but for the merit of the case, the

Page 575

109 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Court should order to Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc to pay the damages, as they proved it before the previous courts.

The hearing was conducted in public on 17/11/2021, Kirehe District was represented by Counsel Kayitesi Petronille, and Sanlam Assurances Générales represented by Counsel Nduwamungu Jean Vianney, while Gatashya Ezra’s heirs represented by Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie, Gatasshya’ surving spouse, assisted by Counsel Habakurama François Xavier; whereas Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles and Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène got represented by Counsel Banguwiha Vianney.

The Court first examined whether the Court of Appeal erred when it decided that, even if Kirehe District was forced to intervene at the appeal instance, the Court of Appeal should not admit its appeal with reference to the value of the subject-matter.

Having heard the statements of all the involved parties about this issue, they all concurred that the appeal of Kirehe District should be admitted since it was its first appeal, the Court decided on the bench with reference to the paragraph two of article 116 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and the positions it set in various judgments including the case with Whitfield Investment Company Ltd v. Thomas et Piron Grands Lacs and the case with AYALA Co Ltd v. APROETEC ASBL and EPTC Ltd1, it found that filing the appeal only once constitutes a right that the Legislator reserved for a party who is

1 See case N0 RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 16/10/2020 and case N0 RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2020/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 24/09/2021.

Page 576

110

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

dissatisfied by the ruling on the case in which it was forced to intervene; it held that the appeal lodged by Kirehe District should be admitted as it was the first time it filed the appeal; it held that the ruling by the Court of Appeal is hereby overturned, and the grounds of appeal filed before the Court has to be examined.

Sanlam Assurance Générales Plc raised an issue of whether the civil parties should be allowed to make any requests for this case yet they have never applied for the judgment review on grounds of injustice. Such issue was firstly examined before examining the issue related to the determination of the party liable for the payment of damages resulting from the road accident caused by the car with plate RAA 089A. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL

ISSSUES OF THE CASE 1. Determine whether a party who has never applied for the judgment review on grounds of injustice can make an incidental appeal to make some claims on the issues related to him/her

Counsel Nduwamungu Jean Vianney representing Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc submits that any party who has never applied for the judgment review on grounds of injustice can only be heard as informant without making any claim, he notes that the Gatashya Ezra’s heirs should so be considered, even before the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, they did not lodge the appeal.

Page 577

111 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Counsel Kayitesi Petronille representing Kirehe District submits that any litigant who is not satisfied by the judicial final decision must apply for the judgment review on grounds of injustice; and she argues that since the heirs of Gatashya Ezra, Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles and Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène have not so done, this means that they were satisfied with the court’s final decision. However, she states that there is nothing that forbids possible changes on the side of the party that does not apply for the judgment review.

Counsel Banguwiha Vianney assisting Ndagijimana Eugène, Tuyishimire Charles and Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène, avers that when the President of the Supreme Court orders for the review of a case for grounds of injustice, nothing forbids the court for examining any grievances from a party; otherwise, the court examines the issues from one party; therefore, the judgment review 0n grounds of injustice should not only be limited to the applicant.

Counsel Habakurama François Xavier, assisting Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie, the representative of Gatashya Ezra’s heirs, submits that, even if they did not apply for the judgment review on grounds of injustice, the legislator’s intention in the article 63 of the Law n0 30/2018 on the jurisdiction of courts, was for the reopening of the hearing in the presence of all parties; therefore, the parties do not appear to stand only before the Court. He submits that though it is Kirehe District that has applied for the judgment review on grounds of injustice, Gatashya Ezra’s heirs had as well cross-appealed, and their right of appeal cannot simply be quashed by a mere fact that they have not applied for the case review; yet their cross- appeal has been aborted by the inadmissibility of the principal

Page 578

112

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

appeal due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction, and that is why, when the hearing on the merit of the case reopens, all the involved issues must be examined, and each party should have opportunity to point out the issue for which he/she is not satisfied.

DETEMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 63 of the Law n0 30 /2018 of 02/06/2018 determining 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 judgement on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties”.

With regard to the “new examination” that is underscored under article 63 of the Law n0 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, the Supreme Court found that such afresh examination has been explained along different cases rendered by this Court, including the case with Kamugwiza Phoebe v. Sakina Hashim and others2. This Court found that the new examination of the case should not mean disregarding other provisions of the same Law that require any dissatisfied party to apply for the judgment review on grounds of injustice, with a focus on grounds of the application, and the competent authority that approves the application .The Court explained that the paragraph one of the article 56 and the article 58 of the same Law highlights the delay limits for the application for judgment review on grounds of injustice and they also indicate about the authority that approves the application. It is therefore clear that any

2 See the interlocutory judgement RS/INJUST/RC 00008/2020/SC rendered on 29/10/2021.

Page 579

113 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

litigating party that did not go through such procedure cannot take advantage of another party’s application and make any requests for the examination of his/ her own dissatisfactions.

With regard to this case, the Court finds that it is only Kirehe District that applied for the review on grounds of injustice of the case RCAA 00025/2019/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24/07/2020. Therefore, the existence of some other cross-appeals that were not examined by the Court of Appeal owing to inadmissibility of the principal appeal due the court’s lack of jurisdiction, and for which the appellants never bothered to challenge by applying for the judgment review on grounds of injustice, it is clear that they no longer had an interest into their cross-appeal; therefore, they cannot bring back the issues of the previous cross-appeal for this particular case review.

2. Determination of the party liable for the damages resulting from the accident caused by the car with plate RAA 089 W

Counsel Kayitesi Petronille, representing Kirehe District states that the District has not transported any passengers in Mitsubishi Fuso RAA 089 W, arguing that even the car’s driver was not the District’s employee; Counsel Kayitesi argues that it is by Gatashya’s personal initiative that his neighbors got on board of his car as they went to welcome the President of the Republic like any other residents. The Counsel submits that there is no reason to charge to the District the damages resulting from the accident that claimed the life of Sinzabakwira Prosper. She avers that it is Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc that bestows the liability to Kirehe District for the sake of discharging itself from the payment of the charged damages at the first instance, it

Page 580

114

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

disregarded the fact that it had already paid the parents and one of the siblings of Sinzabakwira Prosper killed in the accident.

She avers that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, had no single ground for charging Kirehe District with the civil damages without indicating the faults it committed, in case the faults were committed, the civil parties should point out them and up to date they do not indicate its role in the accident caused by the Fuso brand car with plate RAA 089 W. She explains that the injured persons were given cows as they were traumatized, Gatashya Ezra was given 9,000, 000 Frw as he had requested the assistance, the fact that the District granted such assistance does not mean that it recognized the faults or such assistance can be always granted, rather it is due to the fact that it was necessary to support its residents who had the road accident when they went to participate in the event organized by the District. She therefore requests the Court to hold that Kirehe Distirct is not bound by the insurance contract and decide that the charged damages are nullified.

Counsel Banguwiha Jean Vianney assisting Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Tuyishimire Charles, states that the article 22 of the General Regulations for Insurance of Motorized Vehicles provides that any accident, regardless of its causes, must be covered by the Insurer, and the latter initiate proceedings against the person who caused the accident. He argues that it is Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc that must pay the damages just like they have been paying for similar cases, and he prayed the Court to order to Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc to pay 540, 000 Frw granted to each sibling of the defunct.

Page 581

115 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Counsel Habakurama François Xavier assisting Nyiramvuyekure Athanasie, the representative of the heirs of Gatashya Ezra, submits that Bamporiki who was driving the car had no driving license, it is Kirehe District that had hired him for driving the car, and the District should pay him for the work. He states that Kirehe District used the vehicle meant for transporting the goods for increasing the residents’ participation into the event it organized, he put the persons in the part used for the goods instead of using passengers’ vehicles, the District paid the fuel for all the involved vehicles at Nyakarambi petroleum station; when the accident occurred, its cars intervened and, on basis of the estimated cost provided by the garage to Gatashya Ezra, it paid to him 9,000,000 Frw; with reference to the articles 104 and 108 of the law governing evidence and its production, Sanlam Assurrances Générales must pay the charged damages without any difficulty, and then initiate proceedings from Kirehe District.

Counsel Nduwamungu Vianney representing Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc states that at the first instance, the Court did not well understand how the insurance contract is interpreted, the vehicle which caused the accident was meant for transporting the goods, the fact that it caused the vehicle while it transported the passengers discharges the insurer from its obligation because the insured did not respect the contract. He explains that such error was corrected by the High Court which held that the liability goes to both the owner of the car and Kirehe District as they agreed to transport the passengers into the vehicle used to carry the goods. He adds that up to now, Gatashya Ezra’s heirs did not prove that Gatashya Ezra accepted to hand over his vehicle under pressure. Concerning other cases lost by Sanlam Assurances Générales which paid, he argues that it is not due to the fact that Sanlam Assurances Générales was convinced by the

Page 582

116

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

rulings of the Court in those cases, it was rather due to the fact that the time limit to lodge appeal was elapsed. He concludes by stating that in case the Court finds it otherwise and holds that Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc is liable for the civil damages, the Court shall set a position according to which the drivers would carry more passengers than the authorized number or understand that the vehicles are licensed to be used for the uninsured activities.

DETERMINATION OF THE

COURT

Article 64 of the Law n0 46/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts provides that “contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties. They may only be revoked at the consent of the parties or for reasons based on law” while the paragraph one of the article 113 of the same Law stipulates that “contracts shall have effect only on contracting parties. They shall not cause any prejudice to a third party and shall only benefit to him/her in case of provisions in favor of a third party”

Paragraph 4 of article 66 of the Presidential order n0 85/01/ of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic provides that “it is forbidden for the driver of an automobile, a motorcycle, or a quadricycle to carry persons in its rear parts or of its trailer.”

Paragraph 3 of article 11 of the Decree-Law n0 20/75 of 20/06/1975 that governs guarantorship provides that “even in the absence of any derogating provision, the guarantor shall not cover any deliberate liability from the guarantee”.

Page 583

117 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Article 22 of General regulations for the insurance coverage for motorised vehicles on road established by CORAR S.A, which later merged with SORAS AG Ltd on 29/06/20103; and currently branding as Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc provides that “when the insured person breaches the insurance agreement, the resulted risks shall not be covered”. However, when CORAR S.A happens to pay third parties’ claims on the behalf of the insured person, CORAR S.A has a reserved right to seek refund from the insured person, notwithstanding any other claims it might make on him”.

Articles 23 and 24 of the above mentioned regulations provide that the insured persons have an obligation to prevent risks. And for them to benefit insurance risk coverage, they must prove that they are faultless, or where need be, they must prove that they have done all their best to abide by terms of the contract. One of the grounds that might lead to non-coverage of the insured person’s risks, is the fact that the insured vehicle was being driven by a driver without a license legally recognized.

With regard to the analysis of the insurance contract, the law scholars that include Yvonne Lambert-Faivre and Laurent Leveneur argue that it is the court that has the authority to analyze the terms of an insurance contract. They argue that when the terms of an insurance contract are clear, understandable and self- explanatory, they must be interpreted as they are written; since any attempt for different interpretation might end up by distorting the intended meaning. And for countries that still have cassation courts, such inferred interpretations of an insurance contract

3 See The Certificate of Amalgamation as issued by Rwanda Development Board on 29/06/2010;

Page 584

118

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

might be quashed4. While for Barry Zalma, when the court is analyzing the terms of insurance contract, it must refer to the plausible intent of the contracting parties. The scholar argues that just like it is a practice for any other contract, the terms that are used in an insurance agreement must always carry the ordinary meanings, with the sole purpose of highlighting the parties’ compromised intended objectives5 .

The case file contains a copy of an insurance contract for a Fuso brand truck with plate number RAA 089W of 11/11/2014, it specifies that the vehicle insurance was for the transportation of goods and 3 passengers. The litigants have no disagreement over this contract, as regards the insured vehicle which should carry the goods and three passengers. The litigants concurred and had no discord on the fact that when the car got involved into the accident, it had 52 passengers in the rear part and it was driven by a driver without the driving license because his driving license was only for motorcycles.

The Court found that from the paragraph 17 up to 21 of the judgment rendered by the High Court, Chamber of

4 “Ce sont les juges du fond qui interprètent les clauses des polices d’assurance. Si celles-ci sont claires, précises et licites, elles doivent être appliquées, sinon la décision du juge encourt le risque de cassation pour dénaturation du contrat.” Yvonne Lambert-Faivre na Laurent Leveneur, Droit des assurances, Paris, Dalloz, 2005, p. 201 5 “Rules of insurance contract interpretation are applied by courts with the intent to fulfill the desires of all parties to the contract. The construction of insurance contract should be governed by the same rules of construction applicable to all contracts…Its terms are given their ordinary and generally accepted meaning and the primary goal of the court is to give effect to the written expression of the parties’ intent.” Barry Zelma, Insurance Law, Erlanger, The National Underwriter Company, 2015, p. 71.

Page 585

119 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Rwamagana, the High Court found that it is Kirehe District and the owner of the car that transported the people into the car, and they hired unqualified driver for driving the car yet he did not have Fuso driving category, as he only had a license for motorcycles. It is therefore clear that the insurance contract was breached, and the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 66 of the Presidential order n0 85/01 of 02/09/2002 regulating general traffic police and road traffic prohibits the drivers from carrying passengers in the rear part used for goods has been blatantly violated.

The Court finds that, after being granted the damages which should be based on the fact that Gatashya Ezra did not abide by the contract, he should not be liable for the damages with reference to the provisions of article 258 and 260 of Civil Code Book III then into force; since those articles have nothing to do with breach of contractual obligations as they rather refer to tort liability. A fact of not distinguishing contractual obligations from the deliberate tort liability led the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana into an error of joining Gatashya Ezra, the contacting party to a certain insurance agreement, and Kirehe District which was not bound by the insurance contract, so that it held that the owner of the car and Kirehe District are jointly liable for the payment of the charged civil damages.

The Supreme Court, along its various previous precedents that include the case with Mukaruhanga Alexia v. Nyirahabimana Emertha and Kold Hansen Jesper, and the case with Twagirayezu Alice and others v. Twagirayezu Albert and other, found that the general principle that is embodied within article 64 and paragraph one of article 113 of the Law n0 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, is that, except when so provided by the law, the effects

Page 586

120

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of a contract are only limited to the contracting parties. Therefore, when the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana has not first highlighted a certain interest that Kirehe District could expect from the insurance agreement between Gatashya Ezra and Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc, the High Court should not have rules that it should be bound by the effects of such contract.

The Court finds that the fact that Kirehe District needed a car to carry people for the event of welcoming the President of the Republic, and it was given Fuso brand type, and when the accident occurred, the District offered a support and sent cars to transport the wounded to the medical facilities, the fact that the District later gave cows to the victims traumatized by the accident, and the fact that it paid to Gatashya Ezra some 9,000,000 Frw for repairing his vehicle, are not related to the insurance contract that the owner of the car had concluded with Insurer because nothing proves that Kirehe District gave such support for fulfilling a certain commitment into the insurance contract. Therefore, it is not understandable how the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, held that Kirehe District breached the insurance contract.

The Court finds that Gatashya Ezra has deliberately decided to carry 52 passengers into the vehicle’s rear part, while he knew that the car had an insurance of only (3) passengers, and he deliberately allowed unlicensed driver to drive his car, this is not normal recklessness that constitutes an ordinary imprudence that contains no malicious intention, and nothing proves that he did so with some calculated and hidden target benefits6. It is

6 Ordinary negligence does not constitute an intention to cause damage, and a calculated risk does not amount to an expectation of damage...” See case City

Page 587

121 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

simply a deliberate negligence and non-observance of his insurance contract, more so that his heirs cannot so far explain the motives of his decisions.

Just as the scholars in insurance legislation put it, the effect of a deliberate and intended breach of the insurance contract on the car owner, is that the insured risks cannot be covered the insurance scheme7 whether for the risks he/she might have personally suffered from, or any other risks from third party complaints. Therefore, and for the purpose of this case, the charged damages shall be paid by the heirs of Gatashya Ezra, since it is him who breached the concluded insurance contract. Considering all the above given explanations, the damages of 1,620,000 Frw that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, has ordered to Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Tuyishimire Charles for the accident that claimed the life of their sibling, shall all be paid by the heirs of Gatashya Ezra alone.

3. About the damages claimed in this case

Kirehe District submits that Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc does not prove the District‘s liability that should

of Johnstown v Bankers Standars Insurance Co., 877 F 2d, at 1150 (2nd Cir.1989). 7 Introduire la garantie du fait intentionnel dans l’opération d’assurance en fausserait donc radicalement les prémisses: la technique d’assurance exige que le risqué assure soit un événement aléatoire, dont la réalisation ne dépend pas de la volonté de l’assuré ou du bénéficiaire du contrat. La réalisation volontaire du risqué par l’assuré ou le bénéficiaire demeure donc hors du champ contractuel : c’est une exclusion légale de risque…” Yvonne Lambert- Faivre and Laurent Leveneur, Droit des assurances, Paris, Dalloz, 2005, p. 292

Page 588

122

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

drag it into unnecessary lawsuits until the District got charged for civil damages, and it requested the Court to order to Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc to pay to it 1,000,000 Rwf for procedural fee.

Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Tuyishimire Charles aver that the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana ordered to them to pay to Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc 700,000 Frw for damages instead of compensating them, they requested the Court to invalidate the High Court’ s decision and instead order to it to pay to them 2,000,000 Frw for procedural fee for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits and 2,000,000 Frw for counsel fee for all levels of proceedings.

The heirs of Gatashya Ezra submit that Kirehe District together with Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc brought them into unnecessary lawsuits, and they requested for 500,000 Frw for procedural fee and 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee.

Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc states that Kirehe District’s request for damages is unfounded, there is no ground to nullify the damages charged to Ndajigimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène, and Tuyishimire Charles by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana, because they should not make an incidental appeal to the application of Kirehe District for the judgment review on the grounds of injustice while they did not lodge appeal, nor apply for the judgment review.

Page 589

123 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

DETERMINATION OF THE

COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure provides that “he claims 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 damages for proceedings claimed by Kirehe District are founded, the heirs of Gatashya Ezra are liable for such damages. However, the Court finds that the claimed amount of 1,000,000 Frw is so excessive, and moreover with no attached justification evidence; in the discretion of the Court, Kirehe District is granted 300,000 Frw for procedural fee.

With regard to the amount of 2,000,000 Frw for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits and 2,000,000 Frw for counsel fee requested by Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyishuti Jean Damascène and Tuyshimire Charles, the Court finds that since they hired a professional lawyer for assisting them before the court of law, they deserve the counsel fee, however as the claimed fees are excessive, in the discretion of the Court, they are all granted 500,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 300,000 Frw for the procedural fee, the total is 800,000 Frw, and it will be paid by the heirs of Gatashya Ezra.

With regard to the damages amounting to 700,000 Frw charged by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana to

Page 590

124

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Tuyishimire Charles, and they claimed that they should be nullified, this Court finds that it has no basis to examine its justification, because, just as it has been above explained, because, a party that has not applied for the judgment review on the grounds of injustice, cannot make an incidental appeal to make some claims.

Concerning the amount 1,000,000 Frw for the counsel fee, and 500,000 Frw for the procedural fee claimed by the heirs of Gatashya Ezra from Kirehe District and Sanlam Assurances Générales Plc for being dragged in unnecessary lawsuits, the Court finds that their request is unfounded, since they have lost the case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal filed by Kirehe District before the Court of Appeal is grounded;

Holds that the judgment RCA 00078/2018/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Chamber of Rwamagana is only overruled on the issue concerning the damages charged to Kirehe District;

Orders to the heirs of Gatashya Ezra to pay to Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyinshuti Jean Damascène and Tuyushime Charles a sum of 1,600,000 Frw as decided by the previous courts;

Orders to the heirs of Gatashya Ezra to pay to Ndagijimana Eugène, Mbonyishuti Jean Damascène, and

Page 591

125 KIREHE DISTRICT VS SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA Ltd, currently known as SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc et Al.

Tuyishimire Charles 800,000 Frw for counsel fee and procedural fee;

Orders to the heirs of Gatashya Ezra to pay to Kirehe District 300,000 Frw for procedural fee.

Page 593

127

RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR

ASSOCIATION [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RAD 00003/2022/SC – (Nyirinkwaya, J. P., Hitiyaremye and Karimunda, J.) April 14, 2023] Administrative procedure – Informal appeal – An informal appeal that does not get a response by an Authority within the set time limit – Even though article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure did not provide for an exception on the principle of “silence means acceptance” (silence vaut acceptation), this does not mean that failure to respond on that appeal should be construed as approving what the claimant was requesting for, whether they are entitled to it it or not, and regardless of whether it is impossible to obtain it. Administrative procedure – Informal appeal – Informal informal appeal – The principle of silence means acceptance (silence vaut acceptation) – Exception on the principle of silence means acceptance – There is a need for an exeption on this principle in order to determine the type of decisions where silence means acceptance, and on the others were silence means refusal, or to determine on the other type of decisions where silence means refusal, and then for the remaining other types of decisions, silence be construed as acceptance for what was appealed for. Administrative procedure – Informal appeal – The principle of silence means acceptance (silence vaut acceptation) – Exception – Decisions where the principle of silence means acceptance is not applicable are those related to 1o national security, safety or

Page 594

128

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

public order, freedom of the public, the rights provided by the Constitution and other laws establishing basic rights; 2o State obligations on regional or international matters; 3o to make or ask payment to the Government organ; 4 o matters not related to the personal rights of the appelant; 5o existing legal provisions or regulations on where silence means acceptance for such an issue; 6o informal appeals against administrative decisions rejecting the request; 7o collaboration between an administrave organ and its employees; 8o documents or certificates issued by administrative organs. Laws governing Rwanda Bar Association – Advocate – Conditions of access to the profession of Advocates – Among the conditions required for the access to the Bar Association include having not been dismissed from duties due to misconduct, and if it the case, the applicant has to present a proof for rehabilitation. Facts: Rukundo applied for the enrollement to the roll of the Bar Association but sooner before the swearing in, he was removed from the list of candidates who had to take their oath. The Bar Association informed him that they learnt that he had been fired from the position of a prosecutor due to misconducts and the decision for his dismissal is still valid, that he was therefore not eligible to be admitted to the Bar Association. Rukundo lodged an informal appeal against that decision

(recours gracieux), and unfortunately, the President of the Bar Association responded to him that his request was unfounded. Rukundo informal appealed that decision to the Council of the Bar Association. After a month with no response, Rukundo filed an ex parte application based on article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, requesting the High Court to rule that,

Page 595

129 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

since he informal appealed against the decision of the President of the Bar Association and did not get a response within the set time limit as per the law, his request is founded, thus the Court has to order that he take his oath as an Advocate. The High Court held that his application was inadmissible for it does not fall under its jurisdiction. Rukundo applied for the review of that judgment for being vitiated by injustice. After it was found that the High Court was competent to hear his case, the Supreme Court decided to resume the hearing of the case in merit, and the Bar Association was summoned to appear. In the merit of that case, Rukundo reiterated that the Supreme Court had to analyse nothing other than ruling that he had respected all procedures of informal appeal, and order that, since he did not get a response for his informal appeal within the time limit as per the law, he has to take his oath as an Advocate, that the silence meant that his requested was accepted. For the Bar Association, the Court should not only refer to the text of Article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the aforementioned Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, by disregarding the purpose of the Legislator when establishing such a provision, since this should lead to the confirmation that the appellant is also given the right he/she is not entitled to or that is not possible, simply because he/she did not

get a response with the time limit set by the Law. The instant Court analysed whether the fact that Rukundo has not received a response by the Bar Association Council on his request of swearing in as an Advocate, his request should be accepted, regardless the basis of the right he informal appealed for, and whether the person who has been dismissed from his/her duties due to misconducts can be eligible to be admitted to the Bar Association.

Page 596

130

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

On the first issue, the very Court found no exception provided by article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the aforementioned Law, meaning that once such article is used as it is written, it could make the appellant’s request founded, be it under the right entitled to him/her or not, or even when it is not possible for him/her to enjoy such a right, and the same Court found this as gap in the Law, since the Legislator’s purpose was not to allow anyone enjoy the right that is not normally entitled to him/her simply because he/she did not get a response for his/her request. To perform such a duty of matching the wording of the disputed article with the Legislator’s purpose, it was in the finding of the Court that failure to get a response does not mean acceptance even on what a person has no right to, and the same Court gave examples of decisions where silence does not mean acceptance for the appellant request. With regard to the second issue, among the conditions required for the access to the Bar Association include having not been dismissed from duties due to misconduct, and if it the case, the applicant has to present a proof for rehabilitation. After finding that Rukundo has been dismissed by National Public Prosecution for the same misconducts, the Court ruled that he is not eligible to take his oath as an Advocate. Held: 1. Even though article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the

Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure did not provide for an exception on the principle of “silence means acceptance” (silence vaut acceptation), this does not mean that failure to issue a decision on the lodged informal appeal should be construed as approving that the appellant has or not the right to what he/she informal appealed for or it is not possible for him/her to have such a right.

Page 597

131 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

2. An exception is needed in order to determine the type of decisions where silence means acceptance, and that for all the other types of decisions silence means refusal, or to determine on the type of decisions where silence means refusal, and then for the remaining other types of decisions, silence be construed as acceptance for what was informal appealed for.

3. Decisions where the principle of silence means acceptance should not be applicable are those related to 1o national security, safety or public order, freedom of the public, the rights provided by the Constitution and other laws establishing basic rights; 2o State obligations on regional or international matters; 3o to make or ask payment to the Government organ; 4 o matters not related to the personal rights of the appelant; 5o existing legal provisions or regulations on where silence means acceptance for such an issue; 6o informal appeals against administrative decisions rejecting the request; 7o collaboration between an administrave organ and its employees; 8o documents or certificates issued by administrative organs.

4. Among the conditions required for the access to the Bar Association include having not been dismissed from duties due to misconduct, and if it the case, the applicant has to present a proof for rehabilitation. Therefore, the fact that Rukundo has been dismissed by National Public Prosecution for the same misconducts, he is not eligible to take his oath as an Advocate. Failure to get a response on one’s informal appeal, does not mean that such an informal appeal is founded. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 31 and 49;

Page 598

132

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 178; Law Nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organisation and functioning, article 6 and 20. Other laws referred to: Organic-Law of 08/07/ on public centers for social action (CPAS), article 110; Article 20 de la Loi générale sur la procédure administrative du 7 Août 1990 (n° 241); Article 43 de la Loi N° 30/1992, du 26 novembre 1992, de régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común (LRJAPC), BOE, n° 285, 27 nov.1992. Decree-Law n° 35/2005 determining explicitly decisions where silence means acceptance, and where the principle remains that silence means refusal, article 3. Cases referred to: Rutagarama Eliseus, RS/RECT/RC00001/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/05/2019; Prosecution v Nsengumuremyi Richard et al., RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/11/2018; National Westminster Bank Plc V Spectrum Plus Ltd & Others [2005] UKHL 41, paragraphs 31, 36 and 41; Cour de Cassation (France), Civ 1er, 11 Mai 2017, n° 16-15.549 et 16-60115; Cour de Cassation (France), Chambre commerciale financière et économique, 3 mai 2018, Pourvoi n° 16-15.114;

Page 599

133 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

Conseil d'État (France), 6ème - 5ème chambres réunies, Lecture du jeudi 23 septembre 2021; Conseil d’État (Belgique), décision n° 58.810 du 26 mars 1996, Christiaens Auto-Industries et crts; Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 63.963 du 10 janvier 1997, Commune de Momignies. Authors quoted: Philippe Malaurie na Patrick Morvan, Introduction au droit, LGDJ, Paris, 2020, p.453; Armand Desprairies, La décision implicite d’acceptation en droit administrative français, Thèse de doctorate n droit, Université Paris 1, Panthéon Sorbone, 12 décembre 2019, pp; 154-155. Aurélien Desgree, Le silence de l’Administration: Recherche sur la décision implicite, Thèse de doctorate n droit, le 14 juin 2021, pp.321-322; Maryse Deguergue, Le silence de l’Administration en droit administratif français, in Les Cahiers de droit, Volume 56, numéro 3-4, Septembre–Décembre 2015; François Terré et Nicolas Molfessis, Introduction générale au droit, Paris, Dalloz, 2021, p.792-793; Tom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985- 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 31-32. Romain Jordan, Le devoir de sincérité de l’Avocat, Anwalts Revue De L’avocat, Avril 2018, p.175.

Page 600

134

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case emanates from the ex parte application filed by Rukundo Innocent to the High Court. Rukundo Innocent states that, through the President of the Bar Association, on 07/01/2022, he wrote to the Council of the Bar Association informal appealing against the decision of 04/01/2022 refusing him to be an advocate due his gross misconducts that led to his dismissal from his position as a prosecutor at the intermediate level. He states that, following failure to respond to his informal appeal, and based on article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, he filed a claim to the High Court requesting this Court to order Rwanda Bar Association to respect his right and allow him to take his oath, and be put on the roll of advocates, hence being permitted to perform the profession of advocates.

In the judgment RAD 00002/2022/HC/KIG rendered on 17/03/2022, the High Court found that the impugned decision was not made by the Council of the Bar Association, rather such decision was made by the President of the Bar Association, and those two organs are different as per article 20 of the Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda, and determining its organisation and functioning,1 therefore, such a claim does not fall under the jurisdiction of the

1 Such article provides that organs of the Bar Association are the following: 1º the General Assembly; 2º the Council of the Bar Association; 3º the President of the Bar Association.

Page 601

135 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

High Court. The Court found that, in light of the provisions of article 31, paragraph one, of the Law nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts,2 the claim filed by Rukundo Innocent should be considered as not being outside the jurisdiction of other courts.

Rukundo Innocent wrote to the President of the Court of Informal appeal requesting for the review of the judgment RAD 00002/2022/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 17/03/2022 for being vitiated by injustice. Following examination of that application, the President of the Court of Informal appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting for the applied review. In the decision 153/CJ/2022 of 26/08/2022, the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Registry of the Supreme Court for being tried anew.

The hearing was conducted in public on 14/11/2022, Rukundo Innocent being assisted by Counsel Nsengiyumva Enos and Counsel Nkinzingabo Jotham, and the issue relating to whether the High Court was competent to hear the claim filed by Rukundo Innocent, was analysed first.

In the interlocutory judgement rendered on 02/12/2022, the very Court found that, since the informal appeal was lodged to the Council of the Bar Association, but that it failed to respond within the time limit as per the law, for the appellant to know whether his informal appeal had merit or not, this itself made the claim filed by Rukundo Innocent fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court as per article 49, subparagraph one, of the Law nº 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, and

2 That article provides that “Intermediate Courts hear at the first instance all cases that are outside the jurisdiction of other courts”.

Page 602

136

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that Court ruled that the filed claim has to be admitted and examined, and it ordered that the hearing be resumed on the date and time that would be communicated by the Registry to parties, and the Bar Association was also summoned to appear.

The case was reheard on 28/03/2023, Rukundo Innocent being assisted by Counsel Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham, whereas the Bar Association in Rwanda was represented by Counsel Bimenyimana Eric and Counsel Sebaziga Museruka Sophonie.

Parties debated on the issues relating to whether failure of an Authority to respond to the informal appeal within the time limit set by the law, makes such an informal appeal founded, and the issue of whether Rukundo Innocent has to be allowed to take his oath for him to be admitted to the Bar Association. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether failure of an Authority to respond to the informal appeal within the time limit set by the law, makes such an informal appeal founded

Rukundo Innocent and his Counsel Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham state that he was communicated that he is not allowed to take his oath for being admitted to the Bar Association on 04/01/2022, and he lodged the informal appeal against it on 07/01/2022, and he waited in vain for the response. They state that, after waiting for the whole month without getting a response, Rukundo Innocent had the right to take his oath and be admitted to the Bar Association as per the Law, regardless the reason on which the Bar based on in removing him from the list of those

Page 603

137 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

who had to swear in. They aver that article 178, paragraph 53, of the Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure does not provide that the Court has to examine whether his informal appeal has merit, rather, the Court should find that Rukundo Innocent informal appealed against the decision prohibiting him to take his oath, and that the whole month passed without a response, and then order that he be reinstated his right to swear in as an advocate.

Counsel Bimenyimana Eric representing the Bar Association states that normally a person who informal appealed to an Authority but does not get a response within the time limit set by the law, this means that his request is accepted, however, the Bar Association requested the court to examine as an alternative (“à titre subsidiaire”) whether Rukundo Innocent can be allowed to take his oath as an advocate because his request has not been answered or whether he can get such an authorization if his request has merit.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5, of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure reads that The authority is required to respond in a period of one (1) month which runs from the date he/she received the informal informal appeal. If he/she does not respond, the request is considered as founded… In case the applicant does not get response and not recover his/her rights,

3 That article reads that […] In case the applicant does not get response and not recover his/her rights, he/she can request an administrative court to order the appicant to be reinstated in his/her rights. The claim is filed whithin one (1) month by way of unilateral request.

Page 604

138

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

he/she can request an administrative court to order the appicant to be reinstated in his/her rights. The claim is filed whithin one (1) month by way of unilateral request.

The issue under the debate is of whether provision of an article can be used in requesting the Court hearing administrative cases to order that he be reinstated his rights provided under the aforementioned article 178 and that such provision is clear enough that the role of the Court is to approve only. A legal provision is clear when it is not such as to give rise to doubt in an enlightened mind (une règle est claire lorsqu’elle n’est pas de nature à faire naître un doute dans un esprit éclairé),4 whether it is complete and self-sufficient That is the understanding of Rukundo Innocent for the above paragraph. For the Bar Association, though such paragraph is understandable and clear, the Court has the duty of examining whether the appellant had the right of what he informal appealed for.

The Court finds that provisions of the aforementioned article 178, paragraphs 3 and 5 are not a particularity of Rwanda, since such an issue of determining whether the appellant deserves the right that is not entitled to him/her or that is not possible simply because he/she did not receive a response on his/her informal appeal within the time limit set by the law. Italy, Spain and France are among European countries which adopted the principle of silence means acceptance. Such a principle was established by Article 2 of the Law n° 241 of 7/08/1990.5 However, article 20, paragraph4, of the said law provides that such a principle should not be used for applications relating to

4 See Philippe Malaurie na Patrick Morvan, Introduction au droit, LGDJ, Paris, 2020, p.453. 5 Loi générale sur la procédure administrative du 7 Août 1990 (n° 241).

Page 605

139 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

culture, environment, national security, public order, migrants, refugees, application for nationality and public health or when there exist legislations of European Union ordering the Authority to respond to the informal appeal lodged to him/her.6

The Court's determination is that a legal scholar named Aurélien Desgree affirms that the doctrine of "silence implies consent" was not initially established in Italy as an administrative principle. Instead, it was intended to address delays in administrative processes. Even after the adoption of this principle, the Administrative Court (Council of State) recognized the need to establish limitations. The Court itself ruled that in cases concerning administrative documents or certificates, silence in response to a filed informal appeal within the legally prescribed time frame should be interpreted as a rejection of the request.7 This is the purpose of an Italian Legislator in enacting

6 l’article 20 alinéa 4 de la loi générale de la procédure administrative du 7 août 1990 prévoit que “le silence positif ne s’applique pas aux demandes des administrés en matière de patrimoine culturel et paysager, d’environnement, de défense nationale et de sécurité publique, d’immigration, d’asile et citoyenneté et de santé publique. Il en est de même quand le droit de l’Union européenne impose un acte administratif express.” See Armand Desprairies, La décision implicite d’acceptation en droit administratif français, Thèse de doctorat en droit, Université Paris 1, Panthéon Sorbone, 12 décembre 2019, p. 155. 7 “…le Conseil d’État italien a précisé que le silence-acceptation constitue une fictio iuris, dans la mesure où c’est la loi qui octroie au silence le sens d’un consentement silencieux... De plus, il existe deux sens négatifs du silence en droit public italien: le refus et le rejet. L’illustration du silence-refus donnée par le Conseil d’État … concerne la matière de l’accès aux documents administratifs …, tandis que l’exemple donné pour le second concerne l’hypothèse du défaut de décision expresse dans le cadre d’un recours hiérarchique…” See Aurélien Desgree, Le silence de l’Administration: Recherche sur la décision implicite, Thèse de doctorate en droit, le 14 juin 2021, pp.321-322.

Page 606

140

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the Decree-Law n° 35/2005 where silence means acceptance, and where the principle remains that silence means refusal.8

In Spain, the principle of silence means acceptance (“silence vaut acceptation”) established by article 43 of the Law n° 30/1992 of 26/11/1992.9 However, since 2015, it was introduced exceptions brought by article 24, paragraph one, of the Law n° 39/2015, of 1/10/2015 providing that silence means acceptance when it is provided under national legislations, international legislations, or European laws or when powers reserved for state organs or rights that are likely to affect the environment once entitled, are required.10 Aurélien Desgree further states that in Germany, the principle of silence means acceptance is used for very few issues .11 The principle of silence means acceptance does not exist in Belgium. Article 110, paragraph 1, of the Organic Law of 08/07/1976 on public centers

8 See article 3 of the Decret-loi 35/2005 (enteriné par la loi 80/2005). 9 Loi N° 30/1992, du 26 novembre 1992, de régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común (LRJAPC), BOE, n° 285, 27 nov.1992. 10 “En Espagne, la décision implicite d’acceptation est, depuis 1992, le principe général pour l’ensemble des administrations publiques. Pourtant, de nombreux cas d’exceptions au principe ont récemment été mis en place Ainsi, le silence négatif s’applique si une norme législative, une norme internationale ou du droit de l’Union le prévoit expressément. Le silence de l’administration vaut également rejet s’agissant des demandes qui auraient pour consequence de transférer au requérant, ou à des tiers, des prérogatives relatives au domaine public ou au service public, ainsi qu’aux demandes qui endommageraient l’environnement.” See Armand Desprairies, La décision implicite d’acceptation en droit administrative français, Thèse de doctorate en droit, Université Paris 1, Panthéon Sorbone, 12 décembre 2019, pp. 154-155. 11 “L’Allemagne qui, comme nous l’avons vu, n’ignorait pas la fiction juridique du silence avant l’intervention de la directive européenne mais qui, loin d’en faire une règle générale, lui reservait une place très marginale dans son droit public.”

Page 607

141 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

for social action (CPAS) provides that an Authority who failed to issue directives or a decision required in matters of construction in the Brussels region when mandated by laws, his/her silence is construed as he/she accepted the request.12 However, the Administrative Court (Council of State) later found it necessary to set limitations, and hence ruled that silence means acceptance when the applicant is able to prove that his/her request was lawful and that no other decision was taken on it and that his/her request was the only resort to his concern.13

The Court finds that France used the principle of silence means refusal until 2014. This principle was later revised and it was added the principle of silence means acceptance introduced by article one of the Law n° 2013-1005 of 12/11/2013.14 On 23/10/2015, France again established an exception on the principle of silence means acceptance. Article D231-2 of the

12 “L'autorité qui émet un avis défavorable ou refuse son autorisation ou son approbation au sujet d'une délibération prise par un centre public d'aide sociale en application de la présente loi est tenue de motiver sa décision. Si aucun avis ou décision n'est notifié dans le délai prescrit par la loi, l'autorité de tutelle est censée avoir émis un avis favorable ou avoir donné l'autorisation ou l'approbation requises.” 13 See Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 58.810 du 26 mars 1996, Christiaens Auto-Industries et crts.; Conseil d’État belge, décision n° 63.963 du 10 janvier 1997, Commune de Momignies. 14 “Dans les conditions prévues à l'article 38 de la Constitution, le Gouvernement est autorisé, dans un délai de douze mois à compter de la promulgation de la présente loi, à modifier par ordonnances les dispositions législatives prévoyant que, en l'absence de réponse de l'administration dans un délai que ces dispositions déterminent, la demande est implicitement rejetée, pour disposer que l'absence de réponse vaut décision d'acceptation ou instituer un délai différent.” See Loi N° 2013-1005 du 12 novembre 2013 habilitant le Gouvernement à simplifier les relations entre l'administration et les citoyens.

Page 608

142

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Decree (Ordonnance) n° 2015-1341 on 23/10/2015 providing that the list of decisions governed by the principle of silence means acceptance will be published online on the website of the office of the Prime Minister and it will specify the Authority to be addressed and the timeframe for him/her to respond.15 And article L231-4 of the same Decree provides that the following five reasons constitute exceptions on the principle of silence means acceptance, therefore, once such exceptions exist, silence will mean refusal: - Where the request is not for the adoption of a decision in the nature of an individual decision; - When the request does not form part of a procedure provided for by a legislative or regulatory text or is in the nature of a complaint or an administrative informal appeal; - If the request is of a financial nature, except, in social security matters, in the cases provided for by decree; - In cases, specified by decree in the Conseil d'Etat, where implicit acceptance would not be compatible with compliance with France's international and European commitments, the protection of national security, the protection of freedoms and principles of constitutional value and the safeguarding of public order;

15 “La liste des procédures pour lesquelles le silence gardé sur une demande vaut décision d'acceptation est publiée sur un site internet relevant du Premier ministre. Elle mentionne l'autorité à laquelle doit être adressée la demande ainsi que le délai au terme duquel l'acceptation est acquise.”

Page 609

143 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

- In relations between the administration and its employees.16

The Court further finds that apart from examples provided in the previous paragraph, article L231-5 provides that In view of the purpose of certain decisions or for reasons of good administration, the application of article L. 231-1 providing for the principle of silence means acceptance may be waived by decree of the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) and the Cabinet.17 A legal scholar named Maryse Deguergue state that in that year of 2015, the principle of silence means acceptance was established for exceptions 1.12518. In order to implement ann exception based on the complaint submitted to an Authority or an informal appeal against an administrative decision, Charente

16 “Article L231-4: Par dérogation à l'article L. 231-1, le silence gardé par l'administration pendant deux mois vaut décision de rejet: 1° Lorsque la demande ne tend pas à l'adoption d'une décision présentant le caractère d'une décision individuelle; 2° Lorsque la demande ne s'inscrit pas dans une procédure prévue par un texte législatif ou réglementaire ou présente le caractère d'une réclamation ou d'un recours administratif; 3° Si la demande présente un caractère financier sauf, en matière de sécurité sociale, dans les cas prévus par décret; 4° Dans les cas, précisés par décret en Conseil d'Etat, où une acceptation implicite ne serait pas compatible avec le respect des engagements internationaux et européens de la France, la protection de la sécurité nationale, la protection des libertés et des principes à valeur constitutionnelle et la sauvegarde de l'ordre public; 5° Dans les relations entre l'administration et ses agents.” 17 “Article L231-5: Eu égard à l'objet de certaines décisions ou pour des motifs de bonne administration, l'application de l'article L. 231-1 peut être écartée par décret en Conseil d'Etat et en conseil des ministres.” 18 Maryse Deguergue, Le silence de l’Administration en droit administratif français, in Les Cahiers de droit, Volume 56, numéro 3-4, Septembre– Décembre 2015.

Page 610

144

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

province in France explained that failure of an authority to respond to a request, a complaint or an informal appeal does not mean that the rejected request is now accepted, and this also goes for individual informal appeal on decisions rejecting their applications.19

The Cassation Court in France found that the fact that the company that was mandated to represent the interests of other institutions as for intellectual matters, to give them annual awards and following up certifications on intellectual matters on the European level, such company applied for the extension of its set period in INPI (Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle) and it was not answered within the legal timeframe, such a request cannot be considered as accepted, rather, that silence means that its request was not accepted.20 The Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) also found that the livestock company applied for practicing its livestock activities in a certain area, knowing full well that after submitting its file, there were other requirements relating to submit on the impacts of their activities on that area

19 “Le seul silence gardé par l’admnistration sur les recours administratifs (recours gracieux, recours hiérarchiques et recours admnistratifs péalables obligatoires) ne pourra transformer en décision favorable une première décision qui, par essence, ne l’aura pas été. Le législateur y a adjoint les réclamations des admnistrés contre les décisions indviduelles qui leur sont défavorables.” See www.charente.gouv.fr visited on 07/04/2023. 20 “Encourt dès lors la cassation l'arrêt qui juge que le défaut de réponse par le directeur général de l'INPI à une lettre, adressée par une société tendant à ce qu'elle puisse continuer à exercer les mandats qui lui avaient été confiés par des entreprises pour le paiement des annuités et la réception de toutes notifications relatives au statut des brevets européens, valait décision implicite d'acceptation alors qu'elle constituait une réclamation, de sorte que le défaut de réponse du directeur de l'INPI valait décision implicite de rejet.” See Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale financière et économique, 3 mai 2018, Pourvoi n° 16-15.114.

Page 611

145 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

before starting their livestock business, such a company should not use the delay of the Authority in responding to their first application, and state that its request is accepted.21

The Court finds that article 178, paragraphs three and five, of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, did not provide any exception as it is the case in Italy, Spain and France. The use of this provision as it is written, could lead to the acceptance of the request, regardless of whether the appellant has such a right or not, or whether it is not possible to entitle to him/her such a right. Even though it can be construed that the said Law intended to rectify the negligence of the Authorities who refused to respond the appellant on time, or who intentionally refused to respond to the request while they were obliged to do so, or the set time expired for them because they were so busy in addressing other issues or because they had many backlog requests to deal with, therefore, allowing the appellant to be accorded to the right he/she is not entitled to or that is not possible to entitle such a right to him/her, could lead to problems instead of solving them.

It is in the finding of the Court that the wording of paragraphs three and five of the aforementioned article 178, are clear and understandable, therefore, based on the principle that interpretation stops when a text is clear (interpretatio cessat in claris/l’interprétation cesse lorsqu’un texte est clair), it is not

21 “la demande ainsi formée par l'exploitant, dès lors qu'elle est susceptible de rendre nécessaire le dépôt d'une nouvelle demande d'autorisation devant faire l'objet de l'étude d'impact préalable prévue à l'article L. 122-1 du code de l'environnement, relève des exceptions à l'application du principe selon lequel le silence gardé pendant deux mois par l'autorité administrative vaut décision d'acceptation.” See Conseil d'État, 6ème - 5ème chambres réunies, Lecture du jeudi 23 septembre 2021.

Page 612

146

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

necessary to interpret the impugned paragraphs. However, the Court finds that, in enacting the said paragraphs, the Legislator did not intend to allow the appellant to enjoy the acceptance of his/her request even when he/she has no such a right. The confusion raises from the consequences resulting from use of the wording of the provision and not the wording itself. It is clear to the Court that such consequences have not been provided in the impugned article.

With regard to the issue of whether the Court has the duty to interpret the text of a law while it is clear to it such text is linked to the purpose of the Legislator, meaning that the Law is insufficient, and article 9, paragraph 2, of the Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, reads that a judge cannot refuse to decide a case on any pretext of silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law. This article means that when it is the case, a judge fills the existing gap with the purpose of finding a solution to the raised issue.

They very Court adopted a legal position on this issue in various judgments. In the case of Rutagarama Eliseus, this Court found that article 140, paragraph, of the aforementioned Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, reads that applications for correction or interpretation of judgement are done within one month following its pronouncement. However, three years had passed after the judgment of Rutagarama Eliseus was rendered, and the bank which lost the case, refused to pay him for his identifications was not correct in the judgment. The Court found that the period of one month was meant for fair administration of justice, but this should not be construed as if the purpose of the Legislator was to

Page 613

147 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

maintain errors existing in judgments so that they cannot be executed or serve as a reference to others for different purposes.22

The Court finds that the same legal position was upheld in the case of the Prosecution against Nsengumuremyi Richard et al., on the issue relating to whether forced intervention in the cases relating to injustice, this Court found the provisions of article 116, last paragraph, of the aforementioned Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, that it is prohibited to seek forced intervention in the Court of Informal appeal or Supreme Court for cases relating to review due to injustice, rather, for such cases, anytime a Court finds necessary to resort to forced intervention with the interest of fair administration of justice, such a Court has to do it since not doing so, could lead to make decisions for parties who did not submit on thereof, hence leading to failure to execute a rendered judgment and even to new cases following the trial.23

The Court finds that, on the issue of what should be done, when the use of the Law as it is written results in a solution that is different from the purpose of the Legislator to the extent that it can be questionned whether the achieved solution matches with the intended purpose in adopting such a Law, the Cassation Court of France found that when the meaning of the law, as it results from its wording, is neither obscure nor ambiguous, it must be held to be certain; there is an exception if the application of the text leads to some absurdity (lorsque le sens de la loi, tel qu’il résulte de sa rédaction, n’est ni obscure ni ambigu, (il) doit (…) être tenu pour certain, il y a exception si l’application du texte

22 See judgment RS/RECT/RC00001/2019/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 31/05/2019, from paragraph 6 to 11. 23 See the interlocutory judgment RS/INJUST/RP 00005/2018/SC rendered by the Supreme Court on 23/11/2018 from paragraph 31 to 35.

Page 614

148

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

aboutit à quelque absurdité.)24 .Legal scholars Francois Terré and Nicolas Molfessi also states that when the text (wording) of the Legislator, be that text clear and free from ambiguity, leads to confusing results, an exception thereof is adopted, and the principle of interpretatio cessat in claris (l’interprétation cesse en cas de clarté/interpretation ceases in the event of clarity) is replaced by the principle of claris cessat in absurditas (la clarté cesse en cas d’absurdité/ clarity ceases in the case of absurdity).25

The Court finds that, in the case of National Westminster Bank plc against Spectrum Plus Limited and others, the Supreme Court of England found that disputes among citizens or between citizens and their Government should be settled based on the Law, and it is the duty of the Court to provide the real interpretation of the Law. The same Court elucidated that the main duty of the Court is to apply and analyse laws, however, referring only to the text of the law (declaratory principle) by ignoring its intended purpose (purposive principle) may lead to the weakening of such a law instead of making it stronger, due to failure to adapt it to the time, and this may lead to the poor performance of government institutions.26

24 See judgment Civ 1er, 11 Mai 2017, n° 16-15.549 et 16-60115. 25 “Encore convient-il de ne pas exagérer cette exclusion de l’interprétation en cas de termes clairs, parce qu’il est souvent difficile de distinguer un terme clair d’un terme obscur et parce que le sens de certains termes, clair dans le langage courant, peut cesser de l’être dans le language juridique. De toute façon, il est fait exception à la règle si l’application d’un texte clair aboutit à quelque absurdité: claris cessat in absurditas...” See François Terré et Nicolas Molfessis, Introduction générale au droit, Paris, Dalloz, 2021, p.792-793. 26 “When disputes arise, whether between citizens or between a citizen and the government, they are to be resolved in accordance with the law, and that is a matter for the judicial arm of the state. In this regard it is for the judiciary to decide what is the law, not the legislature or the executive…the essential function of the courts in respect of statutes is to apply and give effect to them.

Page 615

149 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

However, it is in the finding of the Court that, Lord Tom Bingham states that while applying the purposive principle, the Court has to consider the following in order to avoid the abusive exercise of its power: (1) avoid to interfere in the agreements concluded between individuals on their will and at their own risk, in accordance with the laws that were applicable at the signing time; (2) not adopting legal provisions that are normally adopted by the Legislator in establishing fundamental principles, and their definitions and limitations; (3) not interfering in issues requiring the establishment of Government policy on a controversial matter in the society; (4) not interfering in the issue under examination by the Legislator; (5) not carrying out an analysis on issues which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court.27

Rigidity in the operation of a legal system is a sign of weakness, not strength. It deprives a legal system of necessary elasticity. Far from achieving a constitutionally exemplary result, it can produce a legal system unable to function effectively in changing times.” See National Westminster Bank Plc V Spectrum Plus Ltd & Others [2005] UKHL 41, paragraphs 31, 36 and 41. 27“There are however various situations in which most judges, even the reformist, majoritarian tendancy, would regard one or other of these signs as opposite. Such situations would include: (1) Where reasonable and right- minded citizens have legitimately ordered their affairs on the basis of a certain understanding of the law. As Lord Reid put it: And there is another sphere where we have got to be careful. People rely on the certainty of the law in settling their affairs, in particular in making contracts and settlements. It would be very wrong if Judges were to disregard or innovate on what can fairly be regarded as settled law in matters of this kind. (2) Where, although a rule of law is seen to be defective, its amendment calls for a detailed legislative code, with qualifications, exceptions and safeguards which cannot feasibly be introduced by judicial decisions. Such cases call for a rule of judicial abstinence, particularly where wise and effective reform of the law calls for research and consultation of a kind which no Court of law is fitted to undertake. (3) Where the question involves an issue of current social policy on which there is no consensus within the community… (4) Where an issue is the subject of current legislative activity… (5) Where the issue arises in a field far

Page 616

150

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Based on the foregoing elucidations, it is in the finding of the Court that article 178, paragraphs three and five is not among the category of provisions concerned by the exception raised in the previous paragraph. It is the duty of the Court to complete it in order to match the text of that article with the purpose intended by the Legislators for what was intended was not to allow the appellant to be accorded the right that is not entitled to him/her or that is not possible to entitle it to him/her.

A joint view of the foregoing elucidations indicate that it is necessary to establish an exception on the principle of silence means acceptation (silence vaut acceptation) provided under paragraphs three and five of article 178, of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018. An exception may be established in two ways: to determine the type of decisions where silence means acceptance, and that for all the other types of decisions silence means refusal, or to determine on the type of decisions where silence means refusal, and then for the remaining other types of decisions, silence be construed as acceptance for what was informal appealed for.

The Court finds that, based on the fact that the Legislator wished to establish the principle of silence means acceptance (silence vaut acceptation), an exception should determine the type of decisions where silence means refusal, and that for all the other types of decisions where the applicant does not get a response, silence be construed as acceptance for what was requested for. Therefore, decisions where the principle of silence means acceptance can be categorized as follows:

removed far from ordinary judicial experience…” SeeTom Bingham, The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches 1985- 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 31-32.

Page 617

151 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

- Matters relating to national security, safety or public order, freedom of the public, the rights provided by the Constitution and other laws establishing basic rights; - Issues relating to State obligations on regional or international matters; - Matters related to making or asking payment to or from the Government organ; - Matters not related to the personal rights of the appelant; - Existing legal provisions or regulations on where silence means acceptance for such an issue; - complaints or administrative informal appeals against an unfavourable decision (réclamations ou recours administratifs contre une décision défavorable); - Collaboration between an administrave organ and its employees; - Documents or certificates issued by administrative organs.

With regard to instant case, the Court finds, as mentioned above, that the casefile contains the letter number/Ref.: Let 001/Bat/NM/01/2022 of 04/01/2022, Counsel Nkundabarashi Moïse as the President of Bar Association, wrote to Rukundo Innocent informing him that, after they found out that there exist an Order of the Prime Minister dismissing him from his position as the Prosecutor, a decision which is still, he cannot therefore be authorized to take his oath as an advocate. This is the decision against which Rukundo Innocent informal appealed or

Page 618

152

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

complained on 07/01/2022, but his informal appeal was not responded within one month. It is clear to the Court that Rukundo Innocent was provided with explanations for the reasons he was removed from the list, a decision he was not satisfied with, and he then informal appealed.

The Court finds that, even though Rukundo Innocent is fighting for his right to be admitted to the profession of advocates, the fact that he was not satisfied with the response given to him, hence informal appealing against the decision, this makes his informal appeal fall under the category of those which are not governed by the principle of silence means acceptance, rather, in this case, silence means refusal. Such a refusal for what he thinks is in his right pushed him to sue to the Court for it to examine the basis of his request towards the Authorities.

Based on the foregoing elucidations, it is in the finding of the Court that, as explained above, the purpose of the Legislator in establishing article 178, paragraphs three and five, of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, was not to allow the appellant who did not get a response for his/her request to be accorded what is not in his/her right.

2. Whether Rukundo Innocent should be authorized to take his oath for admission to the Bar Association

Rukundo Innocent and his Counsel Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham argue that the decision of the Bar Association to refuse Rukundo Innocent to take his oath was based on his dismissal for the position of Prosecutor, however, they disregarded that article 6 of the Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning does not provides dismissal from public service as a

Page 619

153 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

reason for not being eligible to be admitted to the profession of advocate, in addition, such a dismissal does not make the dismissed person being excluded from performing any other duty in the country. They aver that his integrity should not be judged on the basis of his dismissal from his position, and such a dismissal should not be given more consideration that the penalty of imprisonment, since an imprisonment sentence that is less than six months does not disqualify a person to be admitted to the Bar Association.

They further add that it is not the first time for a person who was dismissed from public service to take his/her oath as an advocate, and examples include Kamagaju Béatrice and Kagabo Théoneste, who were authorized to be admitted to the Bar Association, though they have been fired from their positions as Prosecutors.28Another example is Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham who was refused to take his oath on ground that he had been dismissed from the position of a judge, and the President of the Supreme Court requested the Bar Association to respect the Law, which resulted in authorizing him to swear in as an advocate. For them, the Bar Association failed to prove that that those dismissed from their positions and who later on sworn in as advocates are the ones with misconduct compared to other advocates, which should be the reason to not allow dismissed people to be admitted to the Bar Association.

28Among those examples includes Kagabo Théoneste who was dismissed by the Order of the Prime Minister no 202/03 of 12/09/2019, and he is currently an Advocate with number 1670/T/2020, as well as Kamagaju Béatrice registered under 1407/T/2019, who was also dismissed by the Order of the Prime Minister no 33/03 of 18/03/2014.

Page 620

154

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They further state that courts have the duty to protect human rights and freedoms, and this is why they pray the Supreme Court to hold that Rukundo Innocent has to be treated equally with others, since in not doing so, should be inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. They find that, the arguments of the Bar Association that based on article 51 of the Law establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, reading that in performing his/her profession, an Advocate shall have the obligation to exercise probity, dignity, delicacy, diligence, loyalty, to say the truth and to act for the benefit of his/her clients, therefore, that the dismissal of Rukundo Innocent from his position as Prosecutor, is a proof that he lacks the said values, however, those values are for sworn in advocates and not a candidate, in addition, the Bar Association is unable to prove that he portrayed any kind of misconduct since the time he was dismissed.

In their conclusion, they state that internal rules and regulations of the Bar Association should not be used in the instant case for the following reasons: - The fact that the said internal rules and regulations have no validity for they were not published in the Official Gazette as per their article 213;29 - The fact that those internal rules and regulations especially its article 79 used by the Bar Association, cannot contradict provisions of article 6 of the Law establishing the Bar Association, which does not

29Article 213 reads that this Regulation shall take effect from the date of its adoption by the Council of the Bar. It shall be published in the Official of the Republic of Rwanda.

Page 621

155 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

provide that for being admitted to the profession of advocates one has prove that he/she has never been dismissed from his/her position, and this has been elucidated by the letter of the President of the Supreme Court on the case of Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham.

Counsel Bimenyimana Eric and Counsel Sebaziga Museruka Sophonie representing the Bar Association argue that a document entitled “déclaration sur honneur” that is submitted to a candidate wishing to be an Advocate which serves as a proof of integrity, and by filling in it, a candidate is required to prove that he/she has never been given various sanctions including misconduct, and information provided thereof should coincide with the curriculum vitae and clearance certificate. They state that Rukundo Innocent filled in that document on 19/04/2021, of course after he had been dismissed, but he did not disclose that he had been dismissed from the Prosecution for gross misconduct, and furthermore, he did not use the form submitted to him by the Bar Association, and by doing so, he intended to conceal the truth.

They submit that it is in few days before the swearing in date, that the Bar Association learnt that Rukundo Innocent had been dismissed from the Prosecution, and among reasons for his dismissal includes asking corruption from citizens, and in its analysis, the Bar found out that there exists the Order of the Prime Minister n° 011/03 of 07/06/2021 published in the Official Gazette of 14/06/2021 dismissing him for gross misconduct. They state that all the foregoing reasons indicate that Rukundo Innocent is not a person of integrity in such a way that he could be authorized to be admitted to the Bar Association.

Page 622

156

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They further state that all the daily activities of the Bar Association are governed by Internal rules and regulations, that though they have not yet been published in the Official Gazette, they have been approved by the Council of the Bar Association, and they have been used immediately after they were approved, and in addition, article 79, subparagraph 6 a. and b. was based on in calling for appliactions to be admitted to the Bar Association, and that article provides that the person wishing to be enrolled to the roll of advocates has to certify that: - he/sheis not performing any activities declared by law incompatible with the practice of the profession of Advocate; - his/her activity neverled him/her to do an act which, if itwas known, would prevent his/her enrollment - he/she has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad, been convicted of any disciplinary or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conviction.

They state that, after Rukundo Innocent was refused to take his oath, he was asked to submit on the reasons he refused to tell the truth, and replied that the impugned Order of the Prime Minister should not have an impact on him since it came out after the announcement of the Bar Association call for applying for being enrolled to the roll of advocates was already published, while such an Order executes the decisions of High Council of Prosecution as well as the Cabinet resolutions, which Rukundo Innocent was already aware of. They state that in the subparagraph 8 of the announcement, candidates were reminded to fulfil the requirements provided under article 79 of the Internal rules and regulations, therefore, the fact that Rukundo Innocent

Page 623

157 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

does not deny that he was dismissed due to gross misconduct and that this information was known before he takes his oath, nothing prevent the Bar to suspend such a swearing in.

With regard to the existence of other employees of the Prosecution or the Judiciary who were also dismissed but later on authorized to be admitted to the Bar Association, as stated by Rukundo Innocent, Counsel Bimenyimana Eric and Counsel Sebaziga Museruka Sophonie submit that each candidate’s file is examined in isolation, and the existence of people who were dismissed from their position for the same reasons like him and who were later on authorized to swear in, does not mean that the Bar Association is obliged to receive his oath also. They add that the Bar Association has initiated the process of rectifying its modus operandi, and the decision to refuse Rukundo Innocent from taking his oath corroborates with that vision of not allowing inappropriate people portraying questionable behaviors to be enrolled to the roll of advocates.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 6 of the Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning provides that nobody can practice the profession of Advocate nor other related duties without fulfilling the following requirements: - to be a Rwandan national; - to hold at least a bachelor’s degree in Law or its equivalent; - to have a recognized certificate from Institute of Legal Practice and Development or its equivalence;

Page 624

158

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

- not to have been definitively sentenced to a term of imprisonment equal to or exceeding six (6) months; - to have passed the test conducted by the Bar Association; - not to have been convicted for the crime of genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi; - not to have been convicted for the crime of genocide ideology and related offences…

Article 79, subparagraph 6, of the Internal rules and regulations of the Bar Association in Rwanda reads that a written statement by which the person wishing to be enrolled to the roll of advocates or internee thereof certifies that he/she: - is not performing any activities declared by law incompatible with the practice of the profession of Advocate, that his/her activity never led him/her to do an act which, if it was known, would prevent his/her enrollment; - has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad, been convicted of any disciplinary or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conviction; […]

The case file contains a public announcement of 15/04/2021 highlighting the requirements for a candidate to be admitted to the Bar Association. The subsection 8 of that public announcement requires every applicant to issue a written statement by which the person concerned certifies that he/she has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad, been convicted of any disciplinary or administrative sanction due to gross misconduct

Page 625

159 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conviction.

The case file also contains papers/certificates of Rukundo Innocent he submitted to the Bar Association. The certificate number eight submitted by Rukundo Innocent is entitled “Clearance Certificate”. That certificate reads that: “I, Innocent Rukundo, certify that I have never been definitely convicted of any offence in the Republic of Rwanda or abroad. I hereby declare that this statement contains nothing other than the truth.”

An issue to be analysed by this Court is of whether Rukundo Innocent fulfilled the requirements to be eligible to take his oath as an advocate. Rukundo Innocent states that he was challenged by his misconducts for which he was sanctioned when he was a Prosecutor, however, the foregoing misconducts and sanctions thereof are not listed among barriers to be endrolled to the roll of advocates as per the Law establishing the Bar Association. He further state that such a reason should not be applied on him only, since, as per the modus operandi of the Bar Association, it is clear that there are other former employees of the Prosecution and the Judiciary who were also faced similar sanctions but the Bar Association admitted them. The Bar Association states that, though they accepted the application of Rukundo Innocent, who sat for an exam and passed, just a little time before he took his oath, the Bar learnt that there are some requirements he did not fulfil mentioned in the subsection eight of the announcement for application namely not to have been imposed to disciplinary or administrative sanctions for gross misconducts.

It is in the finding of the Court that, in addition to seven criteria for being authorized to practice the profession of

Page 626

160

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

advocates listed in article 6 of the Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, for Rwandan candidates, the document entitled “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” added the following more requirements: - Application letter addressed to the President of the Rwanda Bar Association (clearly indicating whether you are applying for the admission to the Roll of Advocates or to the list of intern advocates; - Curriculum vitae; - A written statement by which the person concerned certifies that he/she has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad been convicted of any disciplinary or administrative sanction due to gross misconduct or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conditions; - One recent passport size photograph in colour on white background.

The Court finds that the case file indicates that, all the required documents, be it those provided under article 6 of the aforementioned Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 or those added by the document entitled “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association”, Rukundo Innocent submitted all of them except the proof of not having been dismissed for gross misconducts. It is evident to the Court that the curriculum vitae indicates that he is not not performing any activities declared by law incompatible with the practice of the profession of Advocate, a written statement by which the person concerned certifies that he/she has never, in Republic of Rwanda or abroad been convicted of any disciplinary or administrative sanction due to

Page 627

161 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

gross misconduct or criminal offence or that he/she has been pardoned or rehabilitated following such conditions provided under article 79, subparagraph 6, of the Internal Rules and Regulations of the Bar Association of 16/09/2014 reiterated above. The Court further finds that nothing prevents the use of these Internal rules and regulations for they have not been published in the Official Gazette, on ground that article 213 of the said Internal rules provides that this Regulation shall take effect from the date ofits adoption by the Council of the Bar. It shall be published in the Official of the Republic ofRwanda. The fact that they have not been published yet, it cannot make them invalid, while the Council of th Bar approved its commencement on the date they were adopted.

With regard to submissions of Rukundo Innocent that Kamagaju Béatrice, Kagabo Théoneste and Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham30 have also been dismissed from public service and they were later on authorized to be admitted to the Bar Association, with the intention to mean that refusing his request should be construed as treating hin unequally with others, his argument can be accepted only if he could prove that people he mentioned were eligble to be admitted to the Bar Association, and that he was refused such a right, especially since he himself admit that they were fired for gross misconducts and that the decisions dismissing them are still valid. Their inappropriate admission to the Bar cannot be a reason for authorizing him to take his oath as an Advocate.

30 An Order of the Prime Minister dismissing Kamagaju Béatrice and Kagabo Théoneste was provided, where as for Sebintu Nkinzingabo Jotham, a letter from the President of the Supreme Court requesting the Bar Association to respect the Law, was presented.

Page 628

162

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court also finds that the document entitled “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” of 19/08/2022 was for all candidates who submitted their applications on the same date with Rukundo Innocent. In that category, Rukundo Innocent failed to prove that there are some of his co-applicants who had also been dismissed for gross misconducts and who have not been pardoned or rehabilitated, who have been admitted to the Bar Association, therefore, his statements that he was not treated equally with others as per article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 04 June 2003 revised in 2015,31 are baseless.

The Court finds that by the time Rukundo Innocent applied to be admitted to the Bar Association, this Bar had already adopted a position of not admitting candidates who are still under sanctions of being dismissed for gross misconducts, meaning people who are not pardoned or rehabilitated yet. The statements by Rukundo Innocent that the Bar Association should have not based on criteria other than the requirements provided under the Law, are unfounded, since article 6 of the aforementioned Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 provided guidelines on matters relating to basic requirements that should appear in the application file. The Law did not provide details on the nature of some of those requirements. An example here is its silence on the type of a document proving whether the candidate is a Rwandese of a foreigner, because that certificate may be a birth certificate, identification card, passport among others. The Law also remains silent for candidates with foreigner degrees.

31 This article provides that All persons are equal before the law. They are entitled to equal protection of the law.

Page 629

163 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

It also in the finding of the Court that article 6 of the aforementioned Law nº 83/2013 of 11/09/2013 does neither provide that the candidate has to certify that he/she is not performing any activity judged incompatible with the profession of advocate nor does it highlight qualities/values required for a candidate wishing to be admitted to the Bar. However, articles 38 and 51 provides incompatibilities with the profession of advocates and required qualities/values for an Advocate. One cannot be performing an activity that is incompatible with the profession of Advocate and then be authorized to take his oath as an advocate for the resignation to come later. One cannot also be required to portray the values of an Advocate after he/she has been enrolled to the roll of advocates. One should portray such values before being admitted to the Bar, and then after admission, the Bar Association and other concerned institutions have the duty to examine whether the said values required before swearing in are portrayed in every activity as an Advocate. This means that in applying the provisions of article 6, the Bar Association should not only consider its literal interpretation or isolate it, rather the Bar should link it to the provisions of other articles of the same Law as well as those of other Laws, for it to be able to publish a complete list that is clearly explain the type of requirements for one to be enrolled to the roll of advocates, and on the side of the Bar, this cannot be construed as violation of the Law as submitted by Rukundo Innocent.

The Court finds that good morals for every person admitted to the Bar Association is not only benefial to an Advocate only. An Advocate with bad morals loses trust of his/her clients, the Court, his/her confrères, and this can be a reason to infringe public interests instead of protecting them. Such bad morals damage the reputation of the Bar Association as

Page 630

164

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

well as tarnishing the image of other Advocates who portray professional values, hence leading to make the public think that all Advocates have the same bad morals. Even though the Resolutions of the High Council of the Prosecution do no specify the type of misconduct that led to the dismissal of Rukundo Innocent from the Prosecution, an Order by the Prime Minister n° 011/03 of 07/06/2021 dismissing prosecutors from duty, only stating that it based on the decision of the Cabinet meeting of 05/05/2021 by mentioning that Rukundo Innocent is dismissed for gross misconducts, it is evident that both decisions were made before 19/08/2022, the date on which the Bar Association published a notice calling for application to be enrolled to the roll of Advocates.

It is in the finding of the Court that Rukundo Innocent wrote to the Bar Association on 21/04/2021 applying for being enrolled to the roll of Advocates, be it in that letter or in the Clearance Certification attached to that letter, there is nowhere he dared to reveal about decisions of the High Council of the Prosecution, while this was communicated to him via the communiqué of 09/01/2021. This is a clear evidence that Rukundo Innocent intentionally lied that he was not dismissed for gross misconduct, and in addition, he did not include in his application file a document containing that information while this was required as per subsection 8 of the document entitled “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” of 19/08/2022. In addition, the statements of Rukundo Innocent that the criminal record proving that he had never been subject to a penalty of imprisonment he submitted is sufficient to prove his integrity, should not be considered on grounds that criminal prosecution is different from matters relating to disciplinary faults. The fact that at the level of the Bar Association, the

Page 631

165 RUKUNDO v RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION

application file of Rukundo Innocent was not duly examined for its timely rejection, this does not remove from Rukundo Innocent the liability of having issued wrong information, and does neither make his application file complete.

The Court finds that, apart from failing to fulfil the requirements mentioned in the subsection 8 of the document entitled “Requirements for application to the Rwanda Bar Association” of 19/08/2022, he also dared to conceal the truth he was aware of, and he did it intentionally with the purpose to safeguard his objective of being admitted to the Bar, and such an attitude is far different from the value of truthfulness that an Advocate or the person wishing to be an Advocate is required to portray. This duty/value is the main pillar on which an Advocate builds his/her relation with his/her clients, other institutions as well as the Bar Association. In his work entitled “Le devoir de sincérité de l’avocat”, Roman Jordan reiterates a relationship of trust with a lawyer cannot exist if there is any doubt about the lawyer's honesty, probity, rectitude or sincerity. These traditional virtues are also professional obligations, as most of the oaths taken by lawyers at the start of their careers remind us. They are also the necessary guarantors of judicial honesty.32

In light of the foregoing elucidations, it is in the finding of the Court that Rukundo Innocent failed to fulfil the

32 “Les relations de confiance avec un avocat ne peuvent exister s’il y a doute sur l’honnêteté, la probité, la rectitude ou la sincérité de ce dernier: vir probus dicendi peritus. Ces vertus traditionnelles sont aussi des obligations professionnelles, ce que rappellent au demeurant la plupart des serments prononcés par l’avocat au début de sa carrière. Elles sont également les garants nécessaires de la sincérité judiciaire.” See Romain Jordan, Le devoir de sincérité de l’Avocat, Anwalts Revue De L’avocat, Avril 2018, p.175.

Page 632

166

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

requirements for him to take his oath as an Advocate as per the law, therefore, his claim lacks merit. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that, the fact that Rukundo Innocent informal appealed against the decision removing him from the list of candidates who had to take their oath for being admitted to the Rwanda Bar Association, and did not get a response thereof, does not mean that his request was accepted.

Decides that Rukundo Innocent is not authorized to take his oath by the Rwanda Bar Association.

Page 633

CASES IN MERIT

Page 635

LABOUR CASE

Page 637

171

TUYISENGE v. HAYTON Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RSOC 00003/2022/SC – (Nyirinkwaya, P.J, Hitiyaremye and Karimunda, J.) April 14, 2023] Labor law – Employment contract – An employee governed by employment contract – An employee is considered to be governed by unwritten employment contract, when that employee has been employed for at least six consecutive months continuously with the same employer – An employee who claims to be treated in such a manner must provide evidence to prove that they indeed worked during that period continously. Labor law – Employment contract – Casual workers – Social security – Social security contributions must be paid for every employee, regardless of whether they work in the informal sector or engage in casual work. Facts: Hayton Ltd entered into a transport contract with the Rwanda Biomedical Center and sought individuals to assist in this activity, one of them was Tuyisenge who worked for the company without an employment contract from 2014 to August 2017. On that date, upon arriving at his usual place of work, he was informed that there was no work available. He subsequently brought the matter to the Labor Inspectorate in Gatsibo District, but unfortunately, no agreement was reached. Consequently, he seized the courts. Tuyisenge filed a lawsuit in the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare, accusing Hayton Ltd of wrongful termination. He sought damages for illegal dismissal, payment for notice he was

Page 638

172

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

not given, termination benefits, a work certificate which was not provided, unpaid leave, social security contributions not paid, counsel fees, procedural fees and a refund of deposited court fees. The Court dismissed his claim as unfounded due to the casual nature of his work, leading him to appeal to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, which also rejected his appeal. The ruling of the judgment under appeal was sustained and the Court ordered that no damages should be awarded in this instance because both parties were found to have irregularities. The claimant requested a review of the judgment rendered by the High Court, citing injustice. He demonstrated that his injustice stemmed from the fact that he had worked for the respondent on a permanent basis, resulting in an illegal dismissal and claimed that the Court did not award him various damages associated with such a dismissal. Additionally, the respondent failed to pay his social security contributions and he is requesting the Court to order to the defendant to do so. The respondent claims that the claimant did not work for him on a permanent basis but was a casual worker. Therefore, they argue that they did not dismiss him illegally, and as such, he is not entitled to damages. Additionally, they contend that he was not even entitled to social security contributions. Held: 1. An employee under an unwritten contract is defined as any individual who has been employed for at least six consecutive months on a permanent basis with the same employer - An employee who claims to be treated in such a manner must provide evidence to prove that they indeed worked during that period and on a permanent basis.

Page 639

173 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

2. Social security contributions must be paid for every employee, regardless of whether they work in the informal sector or engage in casual work. Therefore, Tuyisenge must be paid social security contributions by his employer, HAYTON Ltd, even though he worked for it as a casual worker. Application for review of a judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice has merit in parts; The deposited court fees are borne to the respondent. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 12; Law n° 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda, articles 1, 15, 33 and 47; Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3; Law n° 06/2003 of 22/03/2003 modifying and completing the decree-law of August 22, 1974 concerning organisation of Social Security, article 2; Law nº 51/2001 of 30/12/2001 instituting the labour code in Rwanda, articles 17, 29 and 33. Cases referred to: Phoenix Metal v. Rwanteli Ntagara Innocent, RSOCAA 0023/09/CS decided by the Supreme Court on 18/06/2010.

Page 640

174

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 09/09/2014, Rwanda Biomedical Center, referred to as RBC in this instant case, entered into a transport agreement with Hayton Ltd number 068/NCS/NCB/2013-2014/RBC. According to this agreement, Hayton Ltd. had to hire people (manpower) to pack and unload the cartons of medicines and other materials that were placed in different places in the country where RBC should deliver them. It is in this context that Hayton Ltd has sought people to help it in this work, including Tuyisenge Pascal who worked for Hayton Ltd with no employment contract from 2014 to August 2017, where he alleges that on that date he arrived at his usual place of work and was told that there was no work.

Tuyisenge Pascal first presented his case to the Labor Inspectorate in Gatsibo District. On 29/05/2020, in the statement of the mediation between him and Hayton Ltd, the two parties failed to reach an agreement, leading him to seize the courts.

Before the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare, Tuyisenge Pascal claimed that Hayton Ltd dismissed him illegally, requesting for damages for unfair dismissal, for notice payment he was not given, termination benefits, for the work certificate which was also not given to him, unpaid leaves, social security contributions, counsel's fees, procedural fee and court fees.

On 29/10/2019, the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare rendered the judgment RSOC 00008/2018/TGI/NYG and held that the claim of Tuyisenge Pascal is unfounded because he was

Page 641

175 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

doing a casual work without knowledge therefore, he was not dismissed illegally, and ordered that no damages should be given in that case, that even the court fees deposited by Tuyisenge Pascal covers expenses incurred, therefore, thus those fees were borne to Public Treasury.

Tuyisenge Pascal appealed against the judgment to the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, stating that his appeal is based on the following grounds : - the fact that the previous Court ignored that he was dismissed illegally without reason; - the fact that the Court declared that he was an employee who was taken from the street while that Court had evidence that he worked permanently from 2014 to 2017 when he was suspended, thus ignoring this and ruling that he was a casual worker; - the fact that the previous Court declared that both the employee and the employer are guilty of not complying with the law, where it stated that the employee did not have a written contract with the employer, thus concluding that he was a casual worker, while the employee provided evidence that he was a parmanent employee.

On 31/08/2020, the High Court rendered the judgment RSOCA 00015/2019/HC/RWG and held that the appeal filed by Tuyisenge Pascal is unfounded, thus sustaining the judgment under appeal, and ordering that no damages should be given in that case because both parties presented certain irregularities in their performance.

Page 642

176

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In making that decision, the Court based on the following reasons : - The fact that paragraph 341 of article 33 of the Law n0 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 mentioned above, provides that a casual worker is a day-to-day employee, which is similar to the way Hayton Ltd worked with Tuyisenge Pascal, which aligns with the way Hayton Ltd worked with Tuyisenge Pascal. However, the fact that he had been working for the same employer for more than 6 months indicates that he was a permanent employee. - However, according to Article 11 of that law, which stipulates that an unwritten employment contract cannot exceed 90 consecutive days, it appears that both Hayton Ltd and Tuyisenge Pascal made mistakes. Tuyisenge Pascal agreed to work for Hayton Ltd for more than 6 months without entering into a written employment contract, and his employer did not pay the social security contributions for him, despite the law that protects him. Additionally, Hayton Ltd made mistakes by assuming that the workers who assisted in implementing its contract with RBC were casual workers who were not subject to employment contracts and social security contributions. - The fact that Tuyisenge Pascal was dismissed because Hayton Ltd's contract with RBC ended and the new bidder did not employ him makes it clear that he was not dismissed illegally. Hayton Ltd would not

1 But here, the Court erred, it is section 34 of article one.

Page 643

177 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

continue to employ him, especially since the company was no longer working for RBC. - The fact that Tuyisenge Pascal was an employee of Hayton Ltd for about 3 years, yet he did not raise any complaints about non-payment of social security contributions for him while he was still working, despite the existence of a law that protected him, indicates that he could have applied to receive these contributions during his employment. However, he chose to sue for them after his employment ended, leading the Court to find no basis for awarding him compensation, as he was responsible for the situation. - The fact that Tuyisenge Pascal claimed notice and a work certificate showing his employment with Hayton Ltd, without evidence of requesting them from his employer and being denied, means that the Court cannot justify awarding them. Additionally, without evidence of the employment contract or supporting documents, the Court cannot award any damages related to unfair dismissal.

On 28/09/2020, Tuyisenge Pascal wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal requesting that the judgment RSOCA 00015/2019/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, on 31/08/2020, should be reviewed on grounds of being vitiated by injustice. After examining his request, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting him that the judgment should be reviewed on the grounds of injustice, and after reviewing the report on it, the President of the Supreme Court decided that the

Page 644

178

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

case should be heard anew, and it was registered under RS/INJUST/RSOC 00008/2022/ SC.

In his submissions, Tuyisenge Pascal argued that the injustice he sought to be reviewed stemmed from working for Hayton Ltd as a permanent and being unlawfully dismissed without receiving due compensation. He also alleged that Hayton Ltd failed to pay his social security contributions and requested the Court to mandate such payments. In response, Hayton Ltd contended that Tuyisenge Pascal was a casual worker, not a permanent employee, thus denying any claims of unfair dismissal and disputing the obligation to pay social security contributions for him.

The case was heard in public on 20/03/2023, Tuyisenge Pascal assisted by Counsel Uwiragiye Pierre Célestin together with Counsel Ndayambaje Gilbert, while Hayton Ltd was represented by its Managing Director Ruzibiza Rodrigue assisted by Counsel Mugenzi Elie.

During the hearing, the parties argued on the following issues: - Whether Tuyisenge Pascal was unfairly dismissed from work, and should be compensated ; - Whether Hayton Ltd should be ordered to pay social security contributions ; - Regarding the amount of Counsel and procedural fees at all instances.

Page 645

179 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES 1. Whether Tuyisenge Pascal was unfairly dismissed from work

Counsel Uwirigaye Pierre Célestin and Counsel Ndayambaje Gilbert, who are assisting Tuyisenge Pascal, argue that their client was unfairly dismissed. They assert that Tuyisenge Pascal worked for Hayton Ltd from 09/09/2014 until August 2017, for three years. They contend that his employer informed him that he had no job without providing any fault or immediate termination reason, despite the existence of an open- ended contract. They further state that during the three-year period, Tuyisenge Pascal consistently worked on packing and unloading medicine cartons and sorting them according to their type, as specified in the contract between RBC and Hayton Ltd on pages 21 and 22, which outlined the activities to be carried out on a permanent basis and the employee's monthly salary. This contradicts Hayton Ltd's defense that they were casual workers.

They further add that the proof of Tuyisenge Pascal's status as a permanent employee lies in the records of attendance at work (attendance lists) signed by employees upon arrival, which demonstrate his consistent and permanent work performance. They assert that they have located attendance lists for 2016 and 2017, but have been unable to find others because they have contacted RBC, which has refused to respond. Additionally, they cite a letter dated 27/09/2017 from RBC, stating that the employees working on the MPPD (Medical Procurement Product Division) Project were provided by Hayton Ltd, the winning bidder, and any issues regarding these employees should be addressed to RBC as their employer.

Page 646

180

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

They submit that in terms of the provisions of law, the articles 1, 15, paragraph one, 29 and 33 of the Law nº 51/2001 of 30/12/2001 establishing the labour code in Rwanda, which was in force at the time he was working until the time the employment contract was terminated, indicate that he was a permanent employee governed by an unwritten contract, so that he could not be dismissed without a prior notice as well as other employment benefits provided by the law. They also state that they base on the position set in the case RSOCAA 0023/09/CS decided on 18/06/2010 against PHOENIX METAL v. Rwanteli Ntagara Innocent, where the Supreme Court defined the illegal dismissal of the employee and what he/she should be granted.

Tuyisenge Pascal asserts that Hayton Ltd did not recruit him from the casual workers waiting site (indege)2 as it claims. Instead, he states that he had been working for CAMERWA from 2009 to 2012 as a permanent employee. After CAMERWA became RBC, they continued working for the company, which later transitioned to Solidarity, and subsequently became Abakoranarukundo. In 2014, they began working for Hayton Ltd. Pascal concludes by stating that these companies were transferring him and his colleagues, and they were working without a written employment contract.

Counsel Mugenzi Elie assisting the Managing Director of Hayton Ltd, submits that Tuyisenge Pascal was not its permanent employee, instead, he was a casual worker whom he picked from the casual worker waiting site, if he worked for Hayton Ltd from 09/09/2014 to 08/2017 as a permanent employee as he alleges, he would have had a written contract in accordance with the provisions of article 17 of the Law

2 A term indege usually refers to the casual worker waiting site.

Page 647

181 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

regulating Labour mentioned above, which stipulates that an employee who works for more than six (6) months must have a written form of an employmnent contract.

Regarding the attendance lists submitted as proof that Tuyisenge Pascal worked on a permanent basis, Counsel Mugenzi Elie defends that although Hayton Ltd does not accept these lists because their Managing Director has never signed on them, they serve as evidence that they were signed as casual workers, including Tuyisenge Pascal. This is because it seems that they did not work every day, as the names of attendees changed daily, and none of them ever worked five (5) days in a week.

Ruzibiza Rodrigue, Managing Director of Hayton Ltd, states that after entering into a contract with RBC, he went to the casual worker waiting site at different hours every day and selected the required number of workers based on the work needed, such as loading or unloading vehicles, if they arrived. Tuyisenge Pascal was also among them. He explained that upon delivering them to RBC, the security guards registered them into the center and RBC personnel supervised them. In the evening, they were lined up, paid for their work, and allowed to go home.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Both parties in this case agree that Tuyisenge Pascal worked for Hayton Ltd, and there was no written contract of employment between them. The disputed issue is the manner in which they worked. Tuyisenge Pascal claims that he worked under an open-ended contract because he worked for the company on a permanent basis for more than six months, as

Page 648

182

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

required by law. However, Hayton Ltd argues that he was a casual worker because they hired him only when there was work available. This issue needs clarification to determine whether Tuyisenge Pascal has been unfairly dismissed, entitling him to damages commensurate with that dismissal.

Article one, paragraph 33 of Law n013/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labor in Rwanda which was into force when Tuyisenge Pascal worked for Hayton Ltd, stipulates that a permanent worker is a worker hired for a fixed-term or an unspecified period that lasts more than six (6) consecutive months with the same employer, and in section 34, it is stipulates that a daily worker is a worker hired on a day to day basis.

Article 15, paragraph one of the aforementioned Law, provides that the contract of employment can be oral or written. It can be signed in the form that is suitable to the contracting parties [...] All the means available may be invoked in its proving.

The aforementioned articles make it clear that even if the employee does not have a written contract with his employer, if he has worked for the same employer on a permanent basis for at least six consecutive months, he must be considered as an employee covered by a contract, as it is immediately understood that he has an unwritten contract. However, in order for this to be confirmed, the worker claiming this status must provide proof that he or she has actually worked on a permanent basis for six months.

Article 12, paragraph one of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that the claimant must prove

Page 649

183 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case. The provisions of that article are also in line with what is stated in paragraph one of article 3 of Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, which provides that each party must prove his/her allegations.

Regarding to this case, Tuyisenge Pascal claims that he was a permanent employee, and the elements of evidence he presents are the attendance lists, photocopy of the check used while withdrawing money for their payments and the letter RBC wrote certifying that he was an employee of Hayton Ltd.

Regarding the statements of the Managing Director of Hayton Ltd that he does not accept the attendance lists because he did not sign on them, the Court finds that this should not be considered because, after all, based on the agreement dated 18/09/2015 with RBC, no where he would have to sign because in the document called "General Conditions of Contract" which is a part of the agreement, both parties agreed that the monitoring of compliance with such agreement will be carried out by the Project Manager, Mr. Muhoracyeye Plagène, and it is clear that she signed on those lists3.

Elements of evidence consisting of attendance lists that Tuyisenge Pascal submitted to prove to the Court that he worked for Hayton Ltd on a permanent basis, indicate that he worked as follow: - In 2016:

3 CGG 25.2. For the Purpose of the contract management and inspection, the Project Manager shall be: RBC/MPPD/Muhoracyeye Plagene/Warehouse Operation Manager.

Page 650

184

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

• In August, he worked for 15 days; • In September, he worked for 18 days; • In October, he worked for 17 days; - In 2017 : • In February, he worked for 19 days ; • In March, he worked for 19 days ; • In April, he worked for 19 days ; • In May, he worked 23 days ; • In June, he worked 20 days ; • In July, he worked 11 days.

Based on the evidence presented by Tuyisenge Pascal, the Court finds that his statement claiming to have worked for Hayton Ltd for a consecutive six-month period is not accurate. In 2016, he only worked for three months, and it is evident that he did not complete a full month's worth of working days. Similarly, in 2017, he worked for six months, but throughout that period, he did not fulfill a month's worth of working days. Therefore, the Court concludes that he was a casual worker who was paid 1363 Frw per day, as indicated in the letter dated 30.05.2017, which he and his colleagues wrote to RBC requesting a salary increase. The Court also finds that the fact that Tuyisenge Pascal does not admit that they wrote such letter is unfounded as he produced it before the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare, stating that it constitutes one of the elements of evidence supporting their claim of being permanent employees4.

4 See paragraph 7 of the judgment.

Page 651

185 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

Regarding other elements of evidence presented by the applicant, the Court finds that the check provided does not serve as proof of permanent employment during that period. The check merely indicates the amount of money paid to Tuyisenge Gashugi and do not provide additional information regarding his employment status. Concerning the evidence of the letter written by RBC on 27/09/2017, the Court notes that nowhere in the letter it is stated that Tuyisenge Pascal worked for Hayton Ltd on a permanent basis. As the applicant himself admitted, the letter simply confirms his status as one of the employees of Hayton Ltd, a fact that is not disputed.

Based on Article 1, paragraph 33 and Article 15, paragraph one of Law No. 13/2009 of 27/05/2009, as well as the relevant articles pertaining to evidence, the Court concludes that Tuyisenge Pascal has failed to provide sufficient elements of evidence demonstrating his employment with Hayton Ltd on a permanent basis for at least six months, as required by the law to be considered an employee under the contract. Thus, the Court finds that his dismissal was not unlawful, as he did not hold the status of a permanent employee of Hayton Ltd, as established by the elements of evidence presented.

After finding that Tuyisenge Pascal was not unlawfully dismissed by Hayton Ltd because he was not legally employed, the Court finds that it is no longer necessary to consider the issue of damages for dismissal he presented to the Court.

2. Whether Hayton Ltd had to pay for Tuyisenge Pascal social security contributions

Counsel Uwirigaye Pierre Célestin and Counsel Ndayambaje Gilbert both assisting Tuyisenge Pascal, argue that

Page 652

186

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Hayton Ltd should have registered him with the Rwanda Social Security Board from 09/09/2014, and paid for his contributions for the fourth quarter of the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 until the month of August. They state that the contributions should be calculated on the basic salary of 95,000 Frw x 15%, which is the rate appearing on the website of the Rwandan Social Security Board: www.imisanzu.rssb.rw , equivalent to 14,250 Frw per month, so they request to the Court to order to Hayton Ltd to register Uwizeyimana Naphtal in the Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB), and pays for him the social security contributions that it did not pay.

Counsel Mugenzi Elie, assisting the Managing Director of Hayton Ltd., states that no social security contributions should have been paid for Tuyisenge Pascal because he has never been an employee of Hayton Ltd.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 2, paragraph one of Law no 06/2003 of 22/03/2003 modifying and completing the Decree-Law of 22/08/1974 concerning organisation of social security contributions provides that this Law applies to the workers subjected to the provisions of labour regulations, non-retired political appointees and government statutory. And the second paragraph of the same article reads that are considered as salaried workers, workers referred to in paragraph one of this article, occasional or temporary workers, ...

Article 47, pargraph 6 of Law n013/2009 of 27/05/2009 regulating labour in Rwanda which was into force when Tuyisenge Pascal worked for Hayton Ltd, stipulates that one of

Page 653

187 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

the employer's obligations is to affiliate workers to the social security scheme.

The aforementioned articles explicitly state that every worker must be subject to social security contributions, regardless of whether they work in the informal sector or part- time.

As explained above, Tuyisenge Pascal was a casual worker who worked for Hayton Ltd during the period described in paragraph 26 of this instant case, during which the social security contributions should be paid for him based on the provisions of paragraph 6 of article 47 mentioned above because it is the obligation of the employer.

Regarding to the statement made by Hayton Ltd that it should not have paid the social security contributions for Tuyisenge Pascal, based on the fact that he had never worked for them in the form of a contract, the Court finds it unfounded because every employee must be paid for social security contributions regardless of the way he/she works, and the Court bases this conclusion on the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 3 of Law n0 13/2009 of 27/05/2009 mentioned above.

Based on all the foregoing elucidations, the Court finds that Hayton Ltd should approach the Rwanda Social Security Board to calculate the contributions that should be paid for Tuyisenge Pascal throughout the time he worked for it on the basis of 1363 Frw per day as mentioned above.

Page 654

188

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

3. Whether procedural and counsel fees should be awarded

Counsel Uwirigaye Pierre Célestin and Counsel Ndayambaje Gilbert both assisting Tuyisenge Pascal, assert that Hayton Ltd should pay him 3,000,000 Frw for counsel's fees and 300,000 Frw for procedural fees for all instances, all totalling to 3,300,000 Frw, to be reimbursed 60,000 Frw of deposited court fees in the previous Courts.

Counsel Mugenzi Elie, assisting Managing Director of Hayton Ltd, submits that Tuyisenge Pascal should not be compensated because he is the one who dragged himself into unnecessary lawsuits, but instead, Hayton Ltd is the one who should be awarded damages amounting to 2,000,000 Frw for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits and 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee.

Tuyisenge Pascal argues that he should not be liable to pay damages to Hayton Ltd because, through filing a lawsuit seeking justice, he was merely striving to reclaim the rights he had been unjustly denied.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the damages related to the procedural and counsel fees claimed by Tuyisenge Pascal should be granted because it has been proved that there is injustice in the case he requested to be reviewed, and it is clear that he should have sought a lawyer from the previous courts until this instance. The Court finds that the amount of 3,300,000 Frw requested is excessive and there is no justification thereof, so in

Page 655

189 TUYISENGE v HAYTON LTD

its discretion, the Court determines the damages relating to procedural and counsel fees as follows:  300,000 Frw in the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare;  300,000 Frw in the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber;  800,000 Frw in the Supreme Court.

The Court also finds that 60,000 Frw of court fee deposited by Tuyisenge Pascal in the previous courts must also be reimbursed by Hayton Ltd. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that Tuyisenge Pascal's application for the review on grounds of injustice of the judgment

RSOCA 00011/2019/HC/RWG rendered by the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber, on 31/08/2022 has merit in parts;

Holds that the judgment under the review due to injustice is reversed on matters relating to the social security contributions Hayton Ltd has to pay for Tuyisenge Pascal;

Orders to Hayton Ltd to pay for Tuyisenge Pascal the social security contributions equal to the days he worked in 2016 and 2017 as stated above;

Orders to Hayton Ltd to pay to Tuyisenge Pascal counsel and procedural fees equal to:

Page 656

190

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

 300,000 Frw in the Intermediate Court of Nyagatare  300,000 Frw in the High Court, Rwamagana Chamber  800,000 Frw in the Supreme Court.

Orders to Hayton Ltd to reimburse to Tuyisenge Pascal 60,000 Frw for the court fees he deposited in the previous courts.

Page 657

CIVIL CASES

Page 659

193

NDAYISENGA ET. AL v

HABIYAMBERE [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2021/SC (Cyanzayire, P.J., Hitiyaremye and Nyirinkwaya, J.) 16 December 2022.] Civil law – Obligations – An obligation for the payment of a joint debt – For a joint debt, the creditor may seek a collective payment from the debtors, but he/she can also collect payment portions from each separate debtor – Still, the creditor can claim payment from one of the debtors, and the clearing debtor shall have a right to claim refund from the co-debtors. Civil law – Procedure – Proving the creditorship – Anyone who alleges a state of creditorship must prove it. Facts: Habiyamabere bought Mukandekezi’s house via the public auction of the 29/09/20011 for the enforcement of a court case she lost against Umuhoza; but Mukandekezi refused to surrender the house and Habiyambere sued her before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. Habiyambere failed to make a follow-up over his case, and his claim got written off from the Court’s list of cases. Later on, he resumed his claim from the very Court and he claimed for his house, the house rental income and for a variety of damage- compensations. The Court found that his claim has justification, and ruled that he should get his house and granted him some money for the incurred case-related expenses and the Counsel fee, and the compensation was to be paid by Mukandekezi-daughter, Mukandengo, and Ndayisenga, all Mukandekezi’s heirs, for she had already died.

Page 660

194

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Habiyambere was not satisfied with the above ruling and he appealed it before the High Court lamenting that the Intermediate Court did not allow him the income from the house rentals. The High Court held that Mukandekezi’s heirs should jointly give him a variety of damage-compensations, including the received house rentals. Mukandekezi’s heirs petitioned the Ombudsman Office, and they pleaded that case RCA 035-410/15/HC/KIG should be reviewed for injustice-related grounds. The Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Supreme Court and prayed him to have the case reviewed, the case got reviewed by the Supreme Court, and it examined about the available evidence that lead to the awarding of damage for income loss, and the Court has as well examined about Mukandengo’s extra balance claim. The complainants lamented that the High Court awarded Habiyambere more income-loss damages than he had requested for, and the High Court so did with no single justification reference. For Mukandengo, she pleaded the Court to have her refunded for the extra balance she made when she was clearing the dues for this case, arguing that she paid more than she was supposed to. Habiyambere argued that the Court made no error, since it awarded him income loss-related damages which he had requested for, and he added that Mukandengo ought to pay him for the execution of a case he had won them on. Held: 1. Anyone who alleges a state of creditorship must prove it. This means that it is Habiyambere who had the burden to produce the evidence for the 17, 714,000 Rwf which he alleged to be the income from the rent of his house. Therefore, he could only be given the rental income of 5, 265,000 since it is only this amount that could be evidenced.

Page 661

195 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

2. For a joint debt, the creditor may seek a collective payment from the debtors, but he/she can also collect payment portions from each separate debtor. Still, the creditor can claim payment from one of the debtors, and the clearing debtor shall have a right to claim refund from the co-debtors. Therefore, it is clear that Mukandengo’s claim for the extra-balance refund has no justification since she was bound to pay for the full debt. The application review has merit in part The appealed judgment has only changed in relation to the amount of house rent that Mukandekezi succession owes Habiyambere. Statutes referred to: Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 12; Law No 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its production, article 3. No cases were referred to. Doctrines for reference: Alain BENABENT, Droit des obligations, 19ème édition, LGDJ, § 128 et 680. Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU- TERNEYRE, in their book “Droit civil, Les obligations”, 17ème édition, 2020-2021, SIREY, § 2547 et 2548.

Page 662

196

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Judgment I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Habiyambere Ignace bought a house from Mukandekezi Euphrasie in the public auction of the 28/09/2011 for the enforcement of a certain case she had lost against Umuhoza Anonciata, her daughter-in-law. But from the time he bought the house, he has never accessed it since Mukandekezi Euphrasie refused to let it out. Habiyambere sued her before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, and he requested for his house, the rental income, the case follow-up related costs, and the Counsel fee.

On the 13/03/2013, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge heard case RC 0696/12/TGI/NYGE, and moved to have Habiyambere’s claim written off from the court’s list of cases due time prescription.

Habiyambere Ignace refiled a case before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge and sought for the resumption of his case, the case was docketed as RC 0119/15/TGI/NYGE, and it was heard in Mukandekezi’s absence because she had already died, and it is her heirs: Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie and Ndayisenga Protais who got summoned.

On 26/06/2015, the seized Court heard Habiyambere’s claim on the resumption of case RC 0696/12/TGI/NYGE and moved that his claim is relevant, and it as well held that his complaint over a house he bought through the public auction has justification, and the court ruled that Mukandekezi’s heirs , who

Page 663

197 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

included Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie and Ndayisenga Protais should give him the house with immediate effect, and it also ordered them to give him 750,000 for all the Counsel fee, the incurred case-related expenses and the Court fee.

Both Habiyambere Ignace and Ndayisenga Protais cross- appealed the above ruling before the High Court with Habiyambere Ignace lamenting that the High Court disregarded his request on the house rental income, while Ndayisenga Protais appealed for the following reasons :  The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge was not supposed to admit the resumption of the case yet the fifteen days for case resumption had already elapsed.  The Court has erroneously written that the case was heard by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo yet untrue.  The Court did not summon all of Mukandekezi’s heirs, since it only summoned three, yet they are five.

On 29/01/2016, the High Court heard case RCA 0358- 410/15/HC/KIG and held that the appeal by Habiyambere Ignace has merit while the appeal by Ndayisenga Protais has no justification, and the Court ordered Mukandekezi’s heirs to jointly give Habiyambere Ignace 17, 714,000 Rwf for the house rental income, 500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee, and 75,000 Rwf for the deposited court fee.

The High Court based the above ruling on the following grounds:

Page 664

198

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

 With regard to the resumption of the case, the Court explained that there is no legal provision that sets a deadline for resuming a case that got written off due to prescription.  With regard to the summoning of a few heirs, the Court explained that Ndayisenga Protais could not prove that he has ever raised this concern, and the Judge declined it.  Concerning a fact that the judgement has been written to have been heard by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, instead of the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, the Court explained that such a mistake could have been a typographical error which needs to corrected.  With regard to the house rental income Habiyambere Ignace requested for, the Court explained that since the defendants failed to prove that the concerned houses were not let out, they had no reasons to evade from the payment of the house rental income.

On the 31/05/2016, Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie and Ndayisenga Protais petitioned the Ombudsman Office and pleaded for the review of case RCA 0358/410/15/KIG rendered on the 29/01/2016, and they wanted it reviewed for injustice grounds. And, on the 24/09/2019, the Ombudsman Office wrote to Chief Justice, and requested him to have the concerned case reviewed.

Following the examination of a related report from the Inspectorate of Courts, the President of the Supreme Court issued

Page 665

199 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

a writ on 04/10/2021, ordering the retrial of the above mentioned case, and the claim was docketed as RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2021/SC.

The claimants submitted their conclusions and lamented that the High Court awarded Habiyambere Ignace with the house rental income amounting to 17,714, 000 Rwf, a sum he has never requested for. For Mukandengo Aurélie, she separately complained for the refund of an extra-balance she paid at the time the concerned case was being enforced. Habiyambere Ignace argued that the High Court made no error since it awarded him the rental income he had requested for, and he also argued that he received Mukandengo’s payment since he deserved it, more so that it was for an enforcement of a judgement he had won.

During the hearing of 13/01/2022, Counsel Muhizi Alexis represented both Mukandekezi Marie and Ndayisenga Protais, and he also assisted Mukandengo Aurélie, whereas Habiyambere Ignace was represented by Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul. However, the hearing was postponed since Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul claimed that the file contains a number of suspicious documents that he intends to first attack for forgery.

On 01/03/2022, Habiyambere Ignace wrote to the Supreme Court explaining the challenges he faced in the process of having the suspected documents forensically examined, and he pleaded the Court to proceed the hearing with the rest of the evidence.

The hearing was resumed on the 12/09/2022 with Mukandengo Aurélie assisted by Counsel Muhizi Alexis together with Counsel Mutarindwa Félix, who as well both represented Ndayisenga Protais and Mukandekezi Marie; while Habiyambere

Page 666

200

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Ignace was assisted by Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul. In the Course of the hearing, some other individuals appeared, and these were Uwitonze Diane and Mugabe Gilbert, assisted by Counsel Butare Godfrey, and they sought a voluntary intervention into the case.

The Court heard the reasons as to why the duo wanted to intervene into the case, they explained that they as well are heirs to Mukandekezi Euphrasie, who once had a case against Umuhoza Annonciata1, and they are the ones who received the payment from the expropriation of the disputed properties, and the Court found that the parties who sought a voluntary intervention into the case only had an interest into a case Mukandekezi Euphrasie, their grand-mother, had against their own mother, and this case had already been decisively adjudicated and even executed. The Court reminded the interveners that this particular case concerns disagreements over the amount of the house rental income that the High Court awarded Habiyamabere Ignace, and the court reminded that the plaintiffs have no complaints on the auction itself, and thus, the court moved that those who sought a voluntary intervention into the case have no interest to protect, and their request was not admitted.

The hearing proceeded, and the Court later deemed it wise to adjourn the proceedings and first allow those who sought the case-review to first submit their additional conclusions with their proposal on the appropriate amount of house rental income that Habiyambere Ignace deserves ; with details on their computation modalities in reference to the High Court’s figure. The hearing was then slated on the 14/11/2022.

1 This is the interveners’ mother.

Page 667

201 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

On the above date, the case was heard in public with Ndayisenga Protais and Mukandekezi Marie represented by Counsel Muhizi Alexis together with Counsel Mutarindwa Félix, and who both represented Mukandengo Aurélie as well; while Habiyambere Ignace was represented by Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul.

Looking at the nature of this case, the main issues that were examined were about the determination of the appropriate amount of house rental income for Habiyambere Ignace, and whether Mukandengo Aurélie should be refunded for the extra- balance she had earlier paid for the execution of the present case under review. II. ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THEIR

ANALYSIS Determination of the appropriate income loss-related compensation that Habiyambere Ignace deserved.

Counsel Muhizi Alexis, and Counsel Mutarindwa Félix who jointly plead for all Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie and Ndayisenga Protais, argued that the undergone injustice resides into a fact that the High Court awarded Habiyambere Ignace with 17,714,000 Rwf for the income-loss related damages, yet he has never requested for such an amount whether in his submission into the system, neither in his pleadings.

They argued that for the additional submission that Counsel Mbera Martine, Habiyambere’s former attorney, submitted on the 24/07/2015, indicated that the requested

Page 668

202

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

income-loss related compensation was 5,265,000 Rwf, and by the time of the hearing, they requested for 5,866,000 Rwf, just as it is evidenced by the minutes of the hearing of 19/01/ 2016.

They argued that Habiyambere Ignace deserved an income-loss damage of 5,265,000 Rwf, an amount that has evidence justification since the additional submission referred to the litigated property whereby the concerned house rental income information was collected with the assistance from Kora Cell Executive Secretary, and whereby each renting tenant was interrogated about how much they paid for rent, and which was thereby recorded.

They concluded by requesting the Court that Habiyambere Igance is entitled to a damage- compensation of 5,265,000 Rwf, the amount that he has requested for, and which has justificatory evidence. They lamented that allowing unrequested damage-compensation contradicts the provision of article 7 of the Law n0 21/2012 of 30/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure in force at the time of the ruling; they also argued that such a stance violates the provision of article 8 of the very Law which stipulates that a judge cannot base his/her decision on the facts which have not been raised during the hearing. Neither can he/she decide a case on the basis of personal knowledge of the case.

Habiyambere Ignace together with Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul, his attorney, submitted to the Court that the High Court has never awarded him unrequested compensation as it is alleged, they explained that the Court awarded a compensation that had been earlier requested for but till then not honoured just as it can be indicted by the submission of the 26/01/2015, drawn by Counsel Mbera Martine, on the

Page 669

203 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

behalf of Habiyambere Igance for case n0 RC 0119/15/TGI/NYGE, and the sought damage-compensation was 17,714,000 Rwf. They argued that when the Intermediate Court decided not to award the sought compensation, they appealed for it before the High Court, and the latter granted it.

Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul argues that at this level of proceedings, the Court requested the party seeking the case review to produce their version of the appropriate amount for the requested damage-compensation, and they did not do it. He also argues that for Habiyambere Igance, he had the justification evidence for the damages he requested for just as it is evident under paragraph 6, on page 2 of the ruling by the Intermediate Court. He also argues that another evidence that proves the amount he requested for damage-compensation include a fact that while pleading before the High Court, his attorney extorted him for 1/3 of the 17,714,000 Rwf that he had sought for the total damage-compensation, adding that such a fact can be evidenced by a letter his attorney addressed to Rwanda Bar Association requesting the Bar to help him agree with Habiyambere Ignace for the payment the agreed sum since his service fee had even been included into the filed submissions.

With regard to the damages requested for before the High Court, he argues that the file contains two different submissions, explaining that he is not the author of the so-called additional submission, which the claimants brought forth for evidence of the requested compensation; therefore, arguing that the High Court could not get any other reference for the compensation it awarded, if not from Habiyambere’s request.

With regard to the Intermediate Court’s decision of not awarding Habiyambere Ignace the claimed compensation due to

Page 670

204

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

lack of justificatory evidence, Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul, argues that the concerned house was made of 5 units for commercial activities and it had two other houses in the backyard. He argued that the commercial units were let out for 60, 000 Rwf per month, while the backyard houses were leased for 50,000 Rwf per month, and all the rental income computed across the elapsed months amounted to 17, 740,000 Rwf.

With regard to testimonies collected from the then house tenants whom the claimants allege to have signed statements proving their monthly rent payments, Counsel Nemeyebahizi explained that when Habiyambere Ignace conducted a related investigation, he found that the alleged tenants have never existed, and he found that the actual tenants have not even been interviewed. He even disclosed about the existence of a criminal indictment against such ghost tenants pending before the Prosecution.

With regard to the question addressed to Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul for producing any other evidence that back up their request of 17,714,000 Rwf for the income-loss related damages, a part from having requested for them before the High Court, Counsel Nemeyehabizi responded that he so far has no any other evidence. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT.

The Court found that for the purpose of this case, both parties agree on the existence of some income loss-related compensation that Habiyambere Ignace deserves, but parties are not agreeing on the amount. The party applicant for injustice related case review argues that Habiyambere Ignace deserves

Page 671

205 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

5,265,000 Rwf, the amount he had requested for before the High Court, but Habiyambere insisted on the staying of 17,714,000 Rwf which the High Court granted him, as he had requested.

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, failure to which the defendant wins the case” the content of that article corroborates the provision of paragraph one of article 3 of the Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production which stipulates that “each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges” the provisions of the both articles concur with the doctrine by Alain Benabent, a law scholar who referred to article 1353 of French Civil code book, and explained that anyone alleging a state of creditorship must prove it (Charge de la preuve. L’article 1353 nouveau met très clairement à la charge de celui qui se prétend créancier l’obligation de prouver sa créance: celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver) […].2

Looking at the nature of this particular case, though the litigating parties kept arguing on whether Habiyambere Ignace has or has not requested for the income loss-related compensation that the High Court has granted him, this Court has found the biggest issue of this case resides into the evidence that can help for determination of the disputed compensation.

The documents within the file, indicate that Habiyambere Ignace has prayed the Intermediate Court to allow him 17, 714,000 Rwf for income loss compensation from his houses rentals; and the Intermediate Court declined his request due to

2 Alain BENABENT, Droit des obligations, 19ème édition, LGDJ, § 128.

Page 672

206

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

lack of evidence. The very documents from the case file indicate that he appealed the above ruling before the High Court and he kept on requesting the same compensation, and the High Court granted the compensation with reference to the defendants’ failure to disprove about the 17,714,000 Rwf that Habiyambere Ignace alleged to be the total rental income from his houses.

Again, the file contains a letter of 14/08/2015 that Counsel Mbera Martine wrote on the behalf of Habiyambere Ignace and it was addressed to the Executive Secretary of Kora Cell, the location of the concerned property. By the above letter, Counsel Mbera Martine inquired about details on the rental income from Habiyambere’s houses, arguing that due to lack of such information, the Court failed to determine about the exact rental income that was generated from the concerned houses. From the file, it is clear that the Executive Secretary of Kora Cell replied the letter on the 15/09/2015, and notified Counsel Mbera Martine about the number of tenants who rented Habiyambere’s houses and their corresponding monthly rental payment. The Court therefore found that it is by this later information that Counsel Mbera Martine drew an additional submission, that now contained a set of evidence that justify the 5,265,000 Rwf that she requested for income loss-related damage compensation.

With regard to Habiyambere’s argument by which he disowned the above additional conclusion lamenting that it did not emanate from his attorney, the Court found, just as it has been above hinted about, that in the hearing of the 13/01/2022, Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul requested the Court some time to initiate a forgery indictment against a number of document and the additional submission inclusive, and the Court allowed to do so. Nevertheless, on 01/03/2023, Habiyambere Ignace wrote to the

Page 673

207 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

Court highlighting the challenges he faced in having the concerned documents forensically examined, and he prayed the Court to resume the proceedings, and adjudicate the case with reference to the available evidence. Therefore, this Court moves that he has no reasons to object about this additional submission. Furthermore, the Court found that Habiyambere Ignace has no reason to claim that the concerned additional submission was not drawn by Counsel Mbera Martine, more so that the documents that served for its drawing, just as it has been above explained, were signed well before the trial meeting of the 28/09/2015, a meeting which both Counsel Mbera Martine and Habiyambere Ignace attended to.

With regard to Habiyambere’s arguments by which the concerned house comprised 5 units for commercial activities let out for 60, 000 Rwf per month, and two other residential houses in the backyard for 50,000 Rwf monthly rent, arguing that the above total times the all the elapsed months brings it to a sum of 17, 714,000 Rwf; the Court moved that apart from a such mere verbal submission, he has no evidence to prove it. The Court has rather found that the only available evidence for this dispute is the information provided by the Executive Secretary of Kora Cell, the location of the concerned houses, availed to Counsel Mbera Martine upon request, and it is such information that she used while drawing the additional submission that contains a sum of 5,265,000 Rwf, as the exact rental income from the concerned houses.

With reference to paragraph one of article 12 of the Law no 22/2018 and paragraph one of article 3 of the Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 that were both mentioned above, coupled with all the provided explanations, the Court found that it is Habiyambere

Page 674

208

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Ignace who had the burden to prove about the 17,714,000 Rwf he was requesting for his houses rental income. Therefore, the appropriate awardable income loss compensation for this case was 5, 265,000 Rwf since it is the only amount that is provably justified just as it has been above explained. Therefore, the Court found that the application by Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie and Ndayisenga Protais for the review of case RCA 0358/15/HC/KIG-RCA 0410/15/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on the 29/01/2016 has justification on that particular issue alone. Whether Mukandengo Aurélie might have paid extra amount for the execution of this very case under review.

Mukandengo Aurélie together with Counsel Muhizi Alexis who assisted her for this case, argue that on the 15/01/2020, Counsel Mutaganda Louis, the Court bailiff, enforced the ruling on case n0 RC 0119/15/TGI/NYGE and case RCA 0358-410/15/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on the 29/01/2016 and he ordered that the heirs to Mukandekezi Euphrasie, that is Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie and Ndayisenga Protais to give Habiyambere Ignace 17,714,000 Rwf + 500,000 Rwf +75,000 + 75,000 Rwf, which totalled to 19, 039,000 Rwf, a payment that is supposed to be equally shared by the trio; that is, at a tune of 6, 346,000 + 300,000 Rwf for Counsel fee per each.

They lamented a fact that Mukandengo unfairly paid 6,663,000 to redeem her immovable property that had been seized. She argues that since the total due damage-compensation was 5,265,000 Rwf, this means that each heir was supposed to pay 1,755,000 Rwf, and she requested to be refunded for an extra balance of 4,891,000 that she unduly paid. She submitted that

Page 675

209 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

such balance can be evidenced by the minutes of the 15/01/2020 for the execution of the judgement, and a related cheque she drew on the 19/03/2019.

Mukandengo Aurélie has also explained that when they went back to the Court looking for more explanations about the payment of the concerned compensation, the Court explained that each of the three shall pay the equal amount, and the Court gave them related figures.

Counsel Nemeyebahizi Jean Paul, who pleads for Habiyambere Ignace argues that a judgement is enforced as it has been rendered, and he explains that while ruling on the case, the High Court has never indicated separate payments. He also argued that since this case concerned the succession debt, the payment of the due fell on the most solvent among the heirs. With regard to the aforementioned rectifying judgement, Counsel Nemeyebahizi claimed of having not known about it, and he however submits that in case of its existence, he prayed the Supreme Court to thereof provide an appropriate remedy.

DETERMIANATION OF THE COURT

The Court found that for this case under review for injustice- related grounds, the Court held that Mukandekezi’s heirs, that is, Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie, and Ndayisenga Protais should jointly give Habiyambere Ignace 17,714,000 Rwf for income loss damage-compensation, 750, 000 Rwf that had earlier been ordered by the Intermediate Court, 500, 000 Rwf for Counsel fee, and 75,000Rwf for the Court fee deposit. Mukandengo Aurélie lodged a claim with the Court

Page 676

210

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

seeking clarification on each person’s portion for the payment of the due, but a judge moved that her claim is not admitted.

This Court found that a fact that the Court ordered Mukandekezi Marie, Mukandengo Aurélie, and Ndayisenga Protais, Mukandekezi’s heirs, to jointly give Habiyambere Ignace the above mentioned sum without determining each person’s portion, it means that the judge wanted them to jointly the creditor (obligation in solidum), whereby Habiyambere Ignace had a right to claim his payment from the most solvent debtor, who in turn, could seek refund from his co-debtors.

The above stance concurs with the doctrine of Yvaine, Buffelan-Lanore and Virginie Larribea-Terneyre, the law scholars in the book tittled “Droit civil, les obligations” explained it in French that Concernant l’obligation à la dette, s’il y a plusieurs coresponsables, chacun est tenu pour le tout à l’égard de la victime, en vertu de l’obligation in solidum. La victime peut donc réclamer l’intégralité de la réparation à n’importe lequel des coresponsables. […]. Concernant la contribution à la dette, c’est-à- dire la répartition de la charge définitive de la dette de responsabilité, les coresponsables disposent entre eux de recours récursoires. Celui ou ceux qui ont indemnisé la victime peuvent ainsi recourir contre les autres coauteurs à proportion de leur part de responsabilité si la victime ne l’avait pas fait, car ils sont subrogés dans ses droits. […]3. Another scholar by the name of Alain Benabent, in his book “Droit des obligations” explained that in case of co-debtorship, the creditor can seek a solidary

3 Yvaine BUFFELAN-LANORE, Virginie LARRIBAU-TERNEYRE, mu gitabo cyabo “Droit civil, Les obligations”, 17ème édition, 2020-2021, SIREY, § 2547 et 2548.

Page 677

211 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

payment, or claim payment for each of the debtors. However though, the creditor may seek payment from one of the co- debtors. The advantage of this arrangement, it saves the creditor from some debtor’s insolvency, since the co-debtors clear the due, and they then seek refund for their insolvent co-debtor. Alain Benabent wrote it in the following French language terms: Lorsque plusieurs personnes sont responsables du même dommage, la victime peut évidemment les poursuivre ensemble, ou même successivement. Mais on lui permet aussi de demander réparation intégrale à l’un quelconque des responsables: l’avantage de cette responsabilité dite « in solidum » est de ne pas faire supporter par la victime la charge de l’insolvabilité éventuelle de l’un d’eux, mais par les autres responsables qui, ayant payé, ne pourront exercer leur recours contributif contre l’insolvable […]4

The Court found that when the High Court hear the case and held that Mukandekezi’s heirs should jointly pay Habiyambere Ignace for the above mentioned amount without determining each person’s portion of payment, the Court intended to have the creditor jointly and fully paid ( obligation in solidum), the Court has also found that the Court bailiff who went for the judgment’s execution, and who decided to have the creditor’s due divided by three, and ordering each debtor to pay 1/3 of the total debt, did it so in violation of the court’s ruling, since the Court had never determined each debtor’s portion of payment.

The Court has also found that the amount that Mukandengo Aurélie and her co-debtors disagreed with limits to the sole income loss compensation and this means that all parties

4 Alain BENABENT, Droit des obligations, 19ème édition, LGDJ, § 680.

Page 678

212

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

have no complaints to the 750,000 Rwf that the Intermediate Court had ordered, neither do they have any problem with the 500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee or for a Court fee of 75,000 Rwf that Habiyambere Ignace pre-deposited. This explicates that the only balance that Mukandengo Aurélie is claiming for is the extra-amount she paid on the rental income loss compensation.

With reference to the minutes drawn at the execution of the concerned judgement, the Court found that Mukandengo Aurélie gave Habiyambere Igance 6,346,000 Rwf and not 6,663,000 Rwf since the excess was meant for the Court bailiff fee. The total amount that Mukandengo Aurélie paid include a damage-compensation of 750,000 Rwf ordered by the Intermediate Court, an income loss damage-compensation of 17,714,000 that has been ordered by the High Court, plus 500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee and 75,000 Rwf that Habiyambere Ignace had deposited for the Court fee and she only paid 1/3 of the above total sum.

As it has been above explained, the Court found that the income loss compensation that Habiyambere Ignace was entitled to is 5,265,000 Rwf which means that he was only entitled to 5,265,000 Rwf + 750,000 Rwf+ 500,000 Rwf + 75,000 Rwf= 6,590,000 Rwf.

With reference to joint payment obligation (obligation in solidum) which we have earlier explained, and with a fact that Mukandengo Aurélie only gave him 6,346,000 Rwf, which is even less to what Habiyambere Ignace was supposed to be given, the Court found that Mukandengo Aurélie hereby deserves no refunding.

Page 679

213 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

About the damage-compensations sought by parties along this case.

Counsel Muhizi Alexis argues that the plaintiffs have been unnecessary dragged into courts and in other administrative organs, and they therefore seek 2,000,000 Rwf for damage- compensation and Mukandengo Aurélie who had already cleared 6,663,000 Rwf for her due requested for 1,000,000 Rwf for income loss compensation. They also requested for refund of 500,000Rwf for the incurred cases related expenses, and 1,500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee.

Counsel Nemeyabahizi Jean Paul argues that it is the plaintiffs who kept dragging themselves into courts, and at same time putting Habiyambere Igance into unnecessary trouble arguing that had they released the house that Habiyambere had bought, there could not have happened any dispute. He also added that the plaintiffs were never satisfied with the courts’ decisions, and they kept multiplying their appeals, and he concluded that they should bear the associated consequences.

He also argued that since the plaintiffs have deceitfully persisted, and have dragged Habiyambere Ignace into unnecessary lawsuits which made him waste his time and finances, adding on unnecessary stress due to the halt of his businesses, forced frequent travels from his home in Muhanga to Courts, meetings his attorneys, and miscellaneous costs that include travel meals and the alike; for all these expenses he requested for a random damage-compensation of 5,000,000 Rwf which include 2,000,000 Rwf for Counsel fee, and 3,000,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related expenses including travel tickets, communication, and the alike costs.

Page 680

214

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

The Court found that the plaintiffs that included Mukandengo Aurélie, Mukandekezi Marie, and Ndayisenga Protais deserve damage-compensation for the incurred case- related expenses and for the Counsel fee since they have won the case, and they have hired lawyers for the case. But the Court found their request for 1,500,000 Rwf to be excessive, and it discretionally awarded them 500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee, and 300,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related costs.

With regard to other compensations they have requested for, the Court moved not to allow any since they have not justified them. The same applies to the separate request by Mukandengo Aurélie, the Court allowed her no compensation since she separately won nothing from this case.

With regard to the compensation request by Habiyambere Ignace, the Court moved that he deserves no compensation since he won nothing for this case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the application for injustice-related review of case RCA 0358/15/HC/KIG-RCA 0410/15/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on the 29/01/2016 has merit in part;

Holds that the above ruling changes only on the amount of the income loss compensation that the heirs of Mukandakezi Euphrasie, that is, Mukandengo Aurélie, Mukandekezi Marie, and Ndayisenga Protais, should jointly give Habiyambere Ignace.

Page 681

215 NDAYISENGA ET. AL v HABIYAMBERE

Holds that the amount that Habiyambere Ignace is entitled to for his income loss compensation is 5,256,000 Rwf;

Orders to Habiyambere Ignace to give to all Mukandekezi’heirs, and those are Mukandengo Aurélie, Mukandekezi Marie, and Ndayisenga Protais 800,000 Rwf for both Counsel fee and the incurred case-related costs.

Page 683

217

KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RCAA 00039/2022/CA (Kamere, P.J.) 13 October 2023] Civil Procedure – Replacement of a judge – Pending case – When a judge replaces another in an on going case decides to resume the case from where the haring with the previous judge had reached, he/she cannot invalidate the decisions made by the previous judge. Facts: This case started from the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, Kabagwira and Uwamahoro sued Seneza by requesting to the Court to order to him to return back their family property he appropriated himself and pay various damages. They argue that they had been living in the claimed property whereby there were buildings in one part while in the other part there were no buildings; later they left the property in 1988 following the death of their father Kagyibwami, and when they came back in 2012, they found that Seneza has appropriated himself the property. Seneza states that the concerned property was lawfully acquired, and he possesses emphyteutic lease. In the judgment RC00648/2018/TGI/NYGE, the Court held that the claim filed by Kabagwira and Uwamahoro has no justification, and it decided that the disputed property should remain under the possession of Seneza. Kabagwira and Uwamahoro were not satisfied with the Court’s decision, and the appealed against the ruling before the High Court.

Page 684

218

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Seneza raised an objection and prayed the Court to dismiss the claim, arguing that the time limit for lodging appeal provided under the law was elapsed. In the interlocutory judgment RCA 00088/2020/HC/ KIG, the Court held that Seneza’s objection has no justification. Before the hearing of the case on the merits, one of the judges of the bench got replaced by another judge, and when the latter reopened the hearing, he decided that Kabagwira and Uwamahoro filed appeal when the time limit for lodging appeal was elapsed and held that their appeal is therefore not admissible. Kabagwira and Uwamahoro were not satisfied with the above decision, and they appealed against the ruling before the Court of Appeal, they state that the judge who adjudicated the case in the High Court is not the one who pronounced it. They submit that the judge who ruled about the objection on the claim inadmissibility is not the one who adjudicated it, while the judge who adjudicated it had taken the decision about it. Seneza pleaded that the High Court’s decision of dismissing the appeal of Kabagwira and Uwamahoro is founded because they filed appeal before the Court of Appeal when the time limit for appeal was elapsed. Held: When a judge replaces another in an on going case decides to resume the case from where the haring with the previous judge had reached, he/she cannot invalidate the decisions made by the previous judge. The claim must be admitted and be heard on the merits by the High Court without payment of any other court fee.

Page 685

219 KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA

Statutes referred to: Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure No cases were referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In the judgment RC 00648/2018/TGI/NYGE, Kabagwira Epiphanie and Uwamahoro Berthilde sued Seneza Abias before the Court, and they prayed the Court to order to him to return back their family land together with its components which he appropriated himself and they claimed for damages for procedural and lawyer fees.

They argue that before 1988, they were living in the disputed property, a piece land located in Ubumanzi Village, Rugenge Cell, Muhima Sector, Gasabo District, City of Kigali where they had a plot with 46 m of width to 90 m of length whereby there were buildings in one part while in the other one there were no buildings. They argue that they left the property in 1988 following the death of their father Kagyibwami Gabriel, and they went to live in their mother’s family in Ruhengeri and when they came back in 2012, they found that Seneza Abias has appropriated himself their property.

Seneza Abias avers that the property he owns is composed of a building and a carwash located in Ubumanzi Village, Rugenge Cell, Muhima Sector, Nyarugenge District, and it is

Page 686

220

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

registered under emphyteutic lease with UPI: 1/01/06/05/13, he states that it is a piece of land that he faithfully acquired since he bought it from different individuals and he merged the pieces. He argue that his land is not related with the plot claimed by the litigants, and he requests the Court to order to them to pay to his various damages.

On the 17/01/2020, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge heard the case and held that the plaintiffs’ claim has no justification, and it moved that the disputed land should remain under the possession of Seneza Abias, and it ordered to the plaintiffs to pay to Seneza Abias a sum of 500,000 Frw for counsel fee.

Kabagwira Epiphanie and Uwamahoro Berthilde were not satisfied with the Court’s decision and they appealed against the ruling before the High Court, but Seneza Abias raised an objection and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal arguing that the time limit for appeal was elapsed.

In the interlocutory judgment of 19/11/2021, the Court held that Seneza’s objection has no justification, and it moved that the plaintiffs’ appeal is admitted, and notified the parties that the hearing should continue on 13/01/2022 from 11h 30 am.

The hearing of the case was resumed on 12/07/2022 but one of the judges of the bench was not present and had been replaced by another judge. The case was heard and closed and the pronouncement was fixed on 11/08/2022. It is on this date that the High Court pronounced the ruling and it held that the plaintiffs ’appeal is not admitted since it was filed when the time limit for appeal was elapsed and it ordered to the plaintiffs to pay

Page 687

221 KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA

to Seneza Abias 100,000 Frw for the procedural fee and 250,000 Frw for counsel fee.

Kabagwira Epiphanie and Uwamahoro Berthile were not satisfied with the judgement and they appealed against the ruling before the Court of Appeal; and they argued that the reason for their second appeal is due to the fact that the ruling on their case before the High Court was pronounced by a judge who never heard the case. They also added that a judge who decided on the appeal’s inadmissibility had never heard the related objection and yet the judge who heard the raised objection had already decided on it; this fact led to two contradictory rulings at different occasions while the case is the same.

Seneza Abias contends that the High Court’s decision on inadmissibility of the plaintiff’s appeal was justified since they filed their appeal before the High Court when the time limit for appeal was elapsed as they lodged it in on 18/02/2020 yet the appeal deadline was fixed on 16/02/2020. He avers that when he raised such an objection before the High Court, the Court found it justified and held that their appeal is not admitted due to the fact that it was lodged when the time limit was elapsed.

Before the Court of Appeal, the plaintiffs’ appeal was docketed as RCAA 00039/2022/CA, and the case hearing was fixed on 4/10/2023 whereby Uwamahoro Berthilde appeared assisted by Counsel Ilimubuhanga Jean de Dieu, who at the same time represented Kabagwira Epiphanie, while Seneza Abias was assisted by Counsel Mugemanyi Vedaste. On that date, the Court heard the parties’debate on the issue of whether the High Court’s judge made an error when he declared the claim inadmissible over an objection he did not hear. The Court of Appeal also heard the litigants on the issue of whether the new jugde had a right to

Page 688

222

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

overturn his colleague’s decision over an objection he never heard; the Court has as well examined any adverse effects such a stance might have on this case.

From the parties’ debate on the issue, the Court finds that the most important aspect is to determine whether the judge on the new bench decided to proceed with the case from where the previous judge had left it or whether he first invalidated the previous judge’s decision, as a prior procedure that might have led him to a new decision of rejecting an appeal which his colleague had already admitted. It is only by this analysis that the Court of Appeal will find whether the appeal of Kabagwira Epiphanie and Uwamahoro Berthilde should have been admitted (with reference to the decision of the judge in the bench which firstly tried the case) or not admitted (with reference to the decision which was later taken by the judge in the bench that replaced the one which firstly heard the case)

The pronouncement of the Court’s ruling on the above issue was fixed on 13/10/2023, the date on which the was pronounced in public. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES

OF THE CASE Determine whether the appeal filed by Kabagwira Epiphanie and Uwamahoro Berthilde before the High Court should have been admitted and the effects on the proceedings

Uwamahoro Berthilde and her legal counsel who, at the same time, represented Kabagwira Epiphanie, submit that the judge who firstly heard the case had rejected the objection related

Page 689

223 KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA

to the appeal inadmissibility raised by Seneza Abias; that at the end of the hearing, the parties were notified of the pronouncement date, which kept adjourning till later when the judge who had heard the case on the raised objection was assigned with some other duties, and the case was assigned to a new judge who, upon resumption of the case, declared that he would not re-examine the litigated matters, but while making the decision, he moved by confirming the raised objection and declaring the plaintiff’s appeal inadmissible. They prayed the Court of Appeal to hold that the High Court erred when it overturned its decision which ended up bringing about two contradictory decisions on the same case.

Counsel Ilimubuhanga Jean de Dieu who assisted Uwamahoro Berthilde and represented Kabagwira Epiphanie highlighted that the case hearing minutes of 12/07/2022 indicate that the judge in the new bench decided to proceed with the case from where the previous judge had stopped it. He submits that in case the Court finds that the second judge erred, the case should be refiled in the High Court for being heard since it has unlawfullfy disqualified itself from hearing the merit of the lodged case.

Seneza Abias and Counsel Mugemanyi Vedaste submit that even if the second judge resumed the proceeding from where the previous judge had stopped it, the second judge had all the file details at his disposal and nothing could prevent the judge from examining the case, more so that he took a decision of public order; arguing that such an approach cannot be interpreted as ignoring the plaintiffs’ pleas. They submit that if this Court finds that the second judge erred, the case should be heard by the Court of Appeal, and examine on the merits the issue between the

Page 690

224

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

parties which is to determine the owner of the disputed property and if the case is so adjudicated, no law would be violated.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 74 of the Law n0 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides the following “when a judge or one of the judges having sat in a case is unable to continue to sit in the same case due to various reasons, he/she is replaced with another judge upon decision by the president of the court concerned. In such a case, the hearing resumes from where it had stopped and decisions taken in the proceedings remain valid. However, if a judge believes that there are acts performed in breach of the law, he/she may decide the reopening of the hearing or modify some acts after hearing parties and provide reasons therefor. A party who is not satisfied with such a decision may lodge an appeal against it together with the case on the merits”.

Paragraph 2 of article 158 of the above mentioned law provides that: “However, if the appeal court finds that the seizure of jurisdiction at the first degree was lawful and that court declared it inadmissible when it was to receive and judge the case, the court of appeal hears the case and declares that it was of the competence of that lower court; it declares this judgement void and refers the case to the first instance court so that it hears it again on the merits, without payment of any other court fees”.

The case file contains the hearing minutes of 12/07/2022, indicating that when the second judge resumed the case from where the previous judge had stopped it, he opened the proceedings as follows: “As you can see, this case had been heard

Page 691

225 KABAGWIRA ET.AL V SENEZA

by the previous bench, and the hearing had been closed. Let me read it for you to allow you to remember the facts, if anyone has anything to add, because we have all your previous pleadings and that is what we have read for you”.

With reference to such a statement by which the second judge opened the hearing with, the Court found that it is clear that, as per the above mentioned article, the judge chose to resume the hearing from where the colleague had left it, therefore all the previous judge’s decisions, including the admitted appeal, and the rejection of the raised objection were to remain valid.

The Court of Appeal finds that on 19/11/2021, the High Court decided on the objection raised by Seneza Abias for the inadmissibility of the appeal of Uwamahoro Berthilde and Kabagwira Epiphanie because it was allegedly lodged when the time limit was elapsed; whereby the Court held that the appeal filed by Uwamahoro Berthilde na Kabagwira Epiphanie is nonetheless admitted, while the adverse objection was admitted; that the objection on the claim inadmissibility as the time limit for appeal was elapsed, is unfounded, it held that the hearing on the case would continue on 13/01/2022 from 11h 30 am. The fact that the second judge took the decision of dismissing the appeal for having exceeded the time limit for lodging appeal and dismissed the ruling of the previous judge without indicating to the parties the errors committed by the previous and allowing them to debate on them, the Court of Appeal finds that such is contrary to the article 74 above mentioned. Therefore, since it is clear that the second judge took a decision of resuming the hearing from where the previous judge had stopped it, this Court finds that the High Court’s decision of 19/11/2021 admitting that plaintiffs’ appeal should stay, and the hearing should proceed

Page 692

226

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

with the examination of the merits of the grounds of the appeal filed Uwamahoro Berthilde and Kabagwira Epiphanie.

With regard to the determination of a competent court for hearing the merit of issues that remained unheard before the High Court due to the latter’s error of dismissing an admissible appeal, the Court of Appeal refers to the provision of paragraph 2 of article 158 of the above mentioned Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and holds that this case must be resent to the High Court for being heard on the merits of the first appeal without any other court fee deposited by the appellants. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the decision of dismissing the appeal of Uwamahoro Berthilde and Kabagwira Epiphanie as per the judgment RCA 00088/2020/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 11/08/2022, is quashed ;

Holds that the High Court had already admitted the appeal filed by Uwamahoro Berthilde and Kabagwira Epiphanie in the case RCA 0008/2020/HC/KIG, and it should be heard on the merits ;

Orders to the Registry of the Court of Appeal to return the case n0 RCA 00088/2020/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 11/08/2022 to the High Court for being heard on the merits without depositing any other court fee ;

Rules that the court fee deposited by the appellants at this instance covers the expenses of the proceedings.

Page 693

COMMERCIAL CASES

Page 695

229

ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE TRADING LTD ET AL. [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RCOM 00004/2022/SC (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Karimunda and Hitiyaremye, J.) February 10, 2023] Law on mortgages – Mortgage – The mortgagor cannot dispose off the mortgaged property which was registered in his/her names without written approval. Facts: Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd and Gisande Trading Ltd, represented by its Managing Director Niyigaba Ignace and his wife, who also acted as guarantor, state that on various occasions they have been involved in commercial activities related to minerals, Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd provided funds to Gisande Trading Ltd to purchase minerals and export them to Singapore. However, it was discovered that Gisande Trading Ltd had breached the agreement, and as a result, the Managing Director and the guarantor mortgaged their immovable properties to secure the payment because they owed a significant loan to Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd. While Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd was in the process of registering the mortgage, it was surprised to discover that the caveat was registered on some of the properties by Rwanda Revenue Authority due to unpaid taxes. As a result, Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd filed a claim against Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantor in the Commercial Court. It requests to the Court to order to the respondent to return the mortgaged

Page 696

230

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

properties for securing the payment, reimbursing the remaining balance of the loan if the proceeds from the sale of the properties were insufficient to cover the entire loan amount, and to award various damages. Gisande Trading Ltd together with its Managing Director Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, raised an objection to the inadmissibility of the claim on the basis that the agreement between the parties included an arbitration clause stipulating that any conflict or dispute would be resolved through arbitration in London. On the merit of the case, they argued that the claim lacked merit because Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd failed to provide evidence to prove their claim. The Commercial Court adjudicated the case and held that the objection raised by Gisande Trading Ltd lacked merit. Regarding the merits of the case, the Court found that the claim filed by Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd was without merit. Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd lodged an appeal to the Commercial High Court which ruled that the appeal has merit and overturned the ruling of the appealed judgment. The Court ordered to Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally to immediately participate in the registration of the mortgage they provided to Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd in line with the loan and mortgage agreement they concluded. Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the Commercial High Court disregarded the agreement stated in the mortgage contract they entered into. They further argued that the Court erroneously ordered to them to pay damages while they did not breach the contract. They request the instant Court to rectify

Page 697

231 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

these errors and award them damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits. In the interlocutory judgment, the Court found that the parties should provide further explanations on the required step for the lawful registration of the mortgages. It also requested that the parties should submit the titles of the properties furnished as mortgage in the agreement. Additionally, the Court requested Niyigaba Ignace to personally appear and provide clarification on the required explanations. Gisande Trading Ltd argued that the properties mentioned in Exhibit A, which were provided as mortgage by Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, are still under the possession of Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd. They also stated that conferred to Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd the power of attorney to register the mortgage in case the mortgagors are not available. It states that, according to the contract, Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd accepted to provide to it the funds, him and his wife accepted to mortgage their property once the agreed-upon funds were received, but as the loan was not granted, the mortgage was not recorded, resulting in a suspension of the intended transactions. Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd argues that Akingeneye Dally and Niyigaba Ignace breached the contract by transferring the mortgaged property to another person, it was impossible to register the mortgage which was no longer recorded on the mortgagors. Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors assert that they requested the Commercial High Court to dismiss the appeal lodged by Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd concerning the payment of the

Page 698

232

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

remaining balance of the loan, in the event that the mortgage is sold, because it did not file a claim for the payment of the loan. They further contend that no loan was established in the appealed decision of the Commercial High Court, Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd requested for the registration of mortgages in the names of the mortgagors, with the purpose of securing the payment. AMT Ltd wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting a review of the judgment RCOMAA 00091/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the grounds of injustice. The reason cited for this request is that the Court of Appeal failed to acknowledge that, from the beginning, Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors did not raise any objection about the execution of the loan agreement they entered into, it requests the instant Court to order the deregistration of the furnished mortgages at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreement and to have them re-registered in the names of the mortgagors. Held: The mortgagor cannot dispose off the mortgaged property which was registered in his/her names without written approval. Appeal with merit. Court fee is borne to the applicant. Statute and statutory instrument referred to: Law n° 10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages, article 4. No case referred to.

Page 699

233 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

Judgment

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case was initially filed in the Commercial Court on RCOM 01669/2019/TC, AMT Ltd sued Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and his wife Akingeneye Dally, providing the following explanations: - On several occasions, AMT Ltd entered into undertakings with Gisande Trading Ltd, represented by Niyigaba Ignace, for the mineral business of Tin and Tantalium. This was indicated by the agreement concluded on 25/05/2018, wherein AMT Ltd provided funds to Gisande Trading Ltd, and the latter would purchase and export the minerals to Singapore; - Later, AMT Ltd realized that Gisande Trading Ltd owed to it a huge loan, raising doubts about the repayment. To address the issue, AMT Ltd reached an agreement with the Managing Director of Gisande Trading Ltd to conclude a new loan and mortgage agreement, it requested information about the properties that could serve as mortgage, on 7/11/2018, the National Land Authority indicated that the properties in question are registered in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and his wife, Akingeneye Dally. On 24/12/2018, they signed the loan and mortgage agreement, in which they acknowledged that the outstanding loan amount owed by Gisande Trading Ltd to them totaled 5,380,456 USD. This amount comprised 4,680,456 USD from the existing loan and an additional 700,000 USD from the loan addendum.

Page 700

234

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

In that agreement, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally also undertook to guarantee the loan owed by Gisande Trading Ltd to AMT Ltd by providing a mortgage over their personal properties, consisting of three houses and a school premises located in Kayonza District.

- The undertakings between both parties continued, but Gisande Trading Ltd breached its obligation to deliver minerals amounting to the agreed sum of money. It only exported minerals equivalent to 700,000 USD, as evidenced by the invoices (shipment remittances) dated 11/12/2018 and 20/12/2018. Furthermore, Gisande Trading Ltd made a payment of 680,456 USD, resulting in an outstanding loan balance of 4.7 million USD, since 2019, Gisande Trading Ltd has not sent any minerals to AMT Ltd. - While AMT Ltd was still in the process of registering the mortgage, it was surprised to discover that the caveat was registered on some of the properties by Rwanda Revenue Authority for tax purposes, the school was registered in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and his wife Akingeneye Dally as their personal property at the time of signing the agreement, it wa recorded in the name of a company called International Technical School (ITS of Kigali Ltd), of which they held 100% shareholding, all of these factors hindered AMT Ltd from registering the mortgage as agreed upon in the contract. - After realizing that Gisande Trading Ltd had breached the contract by failing to export the minerals of which

Page 701

235 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

the value is equivalent to the loan amount granted or to make the necessary payments, and that its guarantors had also not fulfilled their obligations under the mortgage contract, AMT Ltd sent them a notice letter on 15/05/2019. However, they took no action in response to the notice. Subsequently, on 09/08/2019, AMT Ltd decided to refer the case to the court for the contract execution. In doing so, AMT Ltd requested that the respondents should be ordered to record afresh the school with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 in their names, and also to register it with RDB as a mortgage to guarantee the payment of the loan owed by Gisande Trading Ltd. Additionally, AMT Ltd sought an order that the respondents should be required to pay the outstanding loan in the event that the proceeds from the mortgage sale do not cover the entire loan amount.

Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim, alleging that in the contract of 25/05/2018, both parties agreed that any dispute that might arise should be referred to arbitration in London, England. Regarding the merits of the case, they pleaded by stating that the claim lacks merit because AMT Ltd has not demonstrated the fault they allegedly committed because it signed the mortgage agreement on 24/12/2018 having the information about the properties provided as mortgages and no changes were made to those properties.

The Commercial Court adjudicated the case RCOM 01669/2019/TC on 31/10/2019. Regarding the objection, it decided that it was inadmissible because the agreement signed by

Page 702

236

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

the parties on 25/05/2018 is not the subject matter of the case. Instead, the agreement they concluded on 24/12/2018 clearly states that in the event of any dispute that cannot be resolved amicably, it may be referred to the courts in Rwanda. Regarding the merits of the case, the Court decided that the claim of AMT Ltd lacks merit and ordered to it to pay Gisande Trading Ltd counsel and procedural fees amounting to 600,000 Frw.

While reaching that decision, the Court clarified that it would not order that the property should be registered afresh in the names of the mortgagors because AMT Ltd negligently failed to promptly register them with the competent authority. Furthermore, there was no indication that AMT Ltd initiated the caveat registration against the land transfer after being informed about the persons registered on the properties by the National Land Authority in November 2018 and concluding the agreement with the respondents in December 2018 for stating that there were errors committed by an organ that effected the transfer, notwithstanding the caveat.

AMT Ltd appealed to the Commercial High Court, arguing that the fact that the Commercial Court did not decide that the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 should be deregistered from ITS Kigali Ltd for being registered afresh on Niyigaba Ignace and his wife Akingeneye Dally and recorded in RDB as mortgage, is contrary to the agreement concluded on 24/12/2018, it criticizes the Commercial Court for remaining silent on their requests to decide that if the proceeds from the mortgage sale do not cover the payment of the entire loan, the respondents should be ordered to pay the outstanding loan.

The Commercial High Court adjudicated the case RCOMA 00946/2019/HCC on 08/10/2020 and held that the

Page 703

237 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

appeal of AMT Ltd has merit. As a result, the ruling of the appealed judgment was reversed. The Court ordered to Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally to jointly participate in the registration of the mortgages they provided to AMT Ltd in the loan and mortgage agreement they entered into on 24/12/2018. If necessary, the names of the property owners should be modified to allow such mortgages to be properly registered. Furthermore, in the event that the mortgages do not cover the full payment of the loan owed to AMT Ltd, the outstanding loan should be paid by Gisande Trading Ltd and Niyigaba Ignace. It also ordered to Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally to jointly pay to AMT Ltd counsel and procedural fees amounting to 3,500,000 Frw at the first instance and 1,500,000 Frw at the appeal level, the total is 5,000,000 Frw.

The Court clarified that the elements of evidence including the correspondences from the Registrar of Land titles addressed to Counsel Rwigamba Molly (Counsel for AMT Ltd) on 07/11/2018 and on 10/06/2019, indicate that the information given to AMT Ltd regarding the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 was modified after 24/12/2018 when the parties signed the agreement. The first letter indicated that the property was registered in the names of Niyigaba Ignace, whereas the second letter indicated that it was registered under ITS of Kigali Ltd. This discrepancy clearly demonstrates that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally did not comply with the terms of the mortgage agreement they concluded with AMT Ltd. It concluded that based on the agreements of the parties in the contract and articles 64 and 65 of Law Nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, the respondents are ordered to register the mortgage as agreed with AMT Ltd. This is especially

Page 704

238

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

important since ITS of Kigali Ltd, on which the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 is registered, belongs to Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally with 100% shareholding, as demonstrated by the document titled "Full Registration Information of Domestic Company" issued by RDB on 09/10/2018.

Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Commercial High Court disregarded the following: - the fact that the properties provided by Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally as mortgages are listed in Exhibit A of the mortgage agreement they concluded. These properties are still in their possession, and they failed to take any action to fulfill their obligations as stated in clause 3, subparagraphs 31 and 212 of the mortgage agreement dated 24/12/2018 that they entered into with AMT Ltd. - The fact that AMT Ltd did not indicate that there had been changes on the mortgages received, if there were sold or mortgaged to another by Niyigaba Ignace, or that it attempted and failed to register the mortgages received, especially it was conferred the power of attorney for the mortgage registration in case the mortgagors are not available. - The fact that the ITS of Kigali Ltd belongs to the mortgagors implies that the property is still under

1 The Loanor and the Guarantor agree not to mortage or sell property described in Exhibit A and any developments thereon, to any entity whatsoever without the knowledge and written consent from the Creditor. 2 The Collateral as described in Exhibit A and any future developments thereon shall remain the Creditor security up to the total reimbursement of the facility.

Page 705

239 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

their ownership, and nothing is therefore likely to prevent AMT Ltd from cooperating with them for the registration of the mortgage. - The fact that AMT Ltd did not file a claim for payment of the loan seeking a related decision and it does not allege that the mortgages cannot be used for payment in case they are not recorded in RDB and in case they are not sold for the purpose of indicating the remaining loan for which a claim would be filed, as mentioned in subparagraph 20 of the mortgage agreement dated 24/12/2018; - The fact that Gisande Trading Ltd indicated that it did not discontinue making payments as evidenced by the correspondence addressed to it by AMT Ltd on 18/02/2020, which shows that the loan owed amounts to 3,772,064.15 USD, this contradicts the content of the claim filed by AMT Ltd, where it states that Gisande Trading Ltd owes a loan amounting to 4,7 million USD.

These grounds of appeal have been the subject of debate in the hearing of 28/06/2021, but when the hearing was resumed on 11/10/2021, Niyigaba Ignace appeared in person as ordered by the Court. He stated that the mortgage was not registered because AMT Ltd breached the contract. He explained that Gisande Trading Ltd incurred losses due to the fall in mineral prices and the problem of mineral theft. He also mentioned that they concluded another contract with AMT Ltd on 24/12/2018, in which each party made certain commitments. On the side of AMT Ltd, it had the obligation to continue helping Gisande Trading Ltd by providing it with money, while Niyigaba Ignace

Page 706

240

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and his wife would provide mortgage over their property once Gisande Trading Ltd received the agreed-upon amount of money. However, the loan was not granted, this hindered the registration of the mortgage and ended the undertakings. He further argued that, for the registration of mortgage over the property, they first need to reach an agreement with AMT Ltd to be granted the agreed-upon amount as per the contract.

In the case RCOMA 00091/2020/CA rendered on 05/11/2021, the Court of Appeal declared that the appeal filed by Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally has merit. As a result, the Court ordered to AMT Ltd to pay to the appellants 1,500,000 Frw as counsel fee for all levels and 50,000 Frw as court fee.

The Court of Appeal made its decision based on the following reasons:  Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally should not have been ordered to get the mortgage registered as agreed with AMT Ltd, especially since AMT Ltd did not fulfill its obligation to release the accepted loan amounting to 700,000 USD, in addition to the existing loan of 4,680,456 USD. Furthermore, AMT Ltd has not demonstrated what actions were taken to preserve the good collaboration, considering the agreements they made that AMT Ltd would continue to support Gisande Trading Ltd as before by providing it with money according to the prevailing situation.

Page 707

241 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

 The property registered under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229, which was initially registered in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally at the time of the conclusion of the mortgage contract, is to date registered in the names of ITS of Kigali Ltd. There is no basis upon which the Court could rely to order for its deregistration from that school and its registration in the names of the persons to whom it was originally registered and that school was not sued in the instant case.  Regarding the loan, AMT Ltd's loan is not secured with mortgages to date because it did not register them. Therefore, it should not consider selling the mortgages it does not have. While no claim was initiated regarding the amount of the loan, and no decision over it has been made, the Court has no basis to order to Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally to pay unspecified loan.

On 20/11/2021, AMT Ltd, represented by Counsel Rwigamba Molly, wrote to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting the review of the judgment

RCOMAA 00091/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 05/11/2021 on the grounds of injustice. After assessing that application, in the order No. 034/CJ/2022 of 25/02/2022, the President of the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case to the Supreme Court registry for record and adjudication. It was given the docket number RS/INJUST/RCOM 00004/2022/SC.

The case was heard for the first time on 14/06/2022, the Court noted that AMT Ltd was represented by Counsel

Page 708

242

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Rwigamba Molly and Counsel Dushimimana Reuben. On the other hand, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally were represented by Counsel Hakizimana François Xavier. The counsel for AMT Ltd informed the Court that among the properties stated in the contract that AMT Ltd concluded with the respondents, the disputed property for which it requests that a related decision should be taken is registered in the names of ITS of Kigali Ltd. On that day, the hearing was not closed to allow for the forced intervention of that school in the case. The Court also ordered that no transfer of ownership should be executed again over that property until the judgment pronouncement.

The hearing was resumed on 12/10/2022, with AMT Ltd, Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace, and Akingeneye Dally represented as before. ITS of Kigali Ltd was represented by Counsel Karenzi Jean Paul. The latter informed the Court that such company is no longer registered under Niyigaba Ignace and his wife Akingeneye Dally; instead, it is now registered under Ingabire Jeannine since 11/02/2022, as indicated by the document titled "Full Registration Information of Domestic Company" issued by RDB. They also mentioned that the disputed property was provided as a mortgage to KCB Bank Rwanda Plc, currently BPR Bank Plc. Based on that information, the legal counsel for AMT Ltd requested that BPR Bank Plc should intervene in the case. Following the arguments of the other parties regarding that request, the Court adjourned the hearing for the purpose of BPR Bank Plc intervention in the case.

The hearing was resumed on 13/12/2022, with AMT Ltd, Gisande Trading Ltd, and Akingeneye Dally being represented as before, while ITS of Kigali Ltd was also represented as before. BPR Bank Plc was represented by Counsel Buzayire Angèle.

Page 709

243 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

Considering the submissions of ITS of Kigali Ltd and BPR Bank Plc uploaded in the system, they request mainly not to be considered parties to the case, as they believe that being forced to intervene in the case for the first time at the Supreme Court instance violates the article 116 of Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the Court recalled that the decision over their intervention has already been made. The position on the matter regarding the intervention in cases tainted with injustice had already been adopted in various cases.

The hearing proceeded to consider the merits of the case by determining the following issues: 1. Whether the property registered under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 should be deregistered from ITS of Kigali Ltd and registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, in order to be recorded as mortgage in favor of AMT Ltd; 2. Whether the respondents should be ordered to pay the remaining loan if the proceeds of the mortgage do not cover the payment of the entire loan. 3 Damages sought in this case.

Page 710

244

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. Whether the property registered under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 should be deregistered from ITS of Kigali Ltd and registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, in order to be recorded as mortgage in favor of AMT Ltd

Counsel Rwigamba Molly and Counsel Dushimimana Reuben argue that the Court of Appeal decided that AMT Ltd, which they represent, breached the contract it concluded with Gisande Trading Ltd on 24/12/2018 for granting it an addendum loan of 700,000 USD. The Court based this decision solely on the untrue statements made by Niyigaba Ignace during the hearing on 11/10/2021 when he was ordered to appear in person, and explained that they intentionally concealed the property registered under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 because AMT Ltd failed to provide them with the additional loan as previously agreed.

They state that the Court of Appeal adopted this position while disregarding the fact that, from the first instance, Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors did not criticize AMT Ltd regarding the execution of the loan agreement they concluded. Instead, they alleged that AMT Ltd's claim lacks merit because it does not indicate any changes over the properties they provided as mortgage following the contract they concluded. Furthermore, they argue that AMT Ltd attempted and failed to register the mortgage, as it was conferred the power of attorney for mortgage registration in case the mortgagors were not available.

They further state that the Court of Appeal disregarded the elements of evidence in the file proving that on 11/12/2018, AMT Ltd paid 400,000 USD, and on 20/12/2018, it paid 300,000

Page 711

245 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

USD, totaling 700,000 USD. They explain that the reason for the conclusion of the agreement on 24/12/2018 is that AMT Ltd used to provide Gisande Trading Ltd with US dollars to buy minerals on its behalf for a long time, but it failed to fulfil its obligations. This led to a reevaluation of the transactions, and as a result, they agreed that AMT Ltd would grant an additional amount of 700,000 USD, the total owed loan is 4,680,456 USD. AMT Ltd signed the new agreement in Singapore on 6/12/2018, and Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors signed it on 24/12/2018 in the presence of a notary public in Rwanda, as they had to sign it after being granted that additional loan of 700,000 USD.

They also state that the loan and mortgage agreement of 24/12/2018 deserves to be interpreted in conjunction with the prior agreement of 25/05/2018, which relates to the commercial transactions of minerals they used to carry out together. In this prior agreement, AMT Ltd used to provide Gisande Trading Ltd with money, and in turn, the latter used to buy and export the minerals to Singapore. This is the reason why, in the preamble of the agreement, it was stated that Gisande Trading Ltd still owes to AMT Ltd the loan amounting to 4,680,000 USD. This suggests that the mortgages stated in this agreement were meant to secure such an existing loan, along with the new loan amounting to 700,000 USD.

Regarding the arguments of Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors from the first instance, claiming that AMT does not indicate the fault they committed because it was given the power of attorney, they allege that, despite being given that power, it was hindered by the fact that the title deeds it was handed were photocopies, while the registration of the mortgage requires the presentation of original documents. They further state that the

Page 712

246

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

confession made by Niyigaba Ignace before the High Court, admitting that they concealed the mortgages, constitutes evidence proving that the failure to register the mortgages is not their fault, but rather the fault of him and his wife.

They also argue that from the signature of the loan and mortgage agreement on 24/12/2018 to the date of registration of the properties to ITS of Kigali Ltd on 19/03/2019, there is a period of three months, AMT Ltd would not have anticipated that Niyigaba Ignace, with whom they have undertaken transactions and trusted each other, would immediately dispose of the property so that it would apply for the caveat registration on the property just after the signing of the agreement, especially that Niyigaba Ignace alleged that he was absent as he was travelling. They further argue that when it was realized that the properties were no longer registered in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, AMT Ltd immediately filed a claim and requested that the properties should be registered afresh in their names so as to be recorded in RDB as mortgage.

Counsel Rwigamba Molly and Counsel Dushimimana Reuben argue that there is injustice in the judgment RCOMAA 00091/2020/CA based on the Court of Appeal noted that the disputed property was indeed registered under the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally at the time of the mortgage agreement, but it disregarded this registration and ruled that the parties were not obliged to fulfill the terms of the contract they had entered into by registering afresh the property in their names which should be recorded in Rwanda Development Board (RDB) as mortgage in favor of AMT Ltd, on the pretext that the school ITS of Kigali Ltd on which the property is registered was not a party to the ongoing lawsuit.

Page 713

247 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

They argue that the Court of Appeal so ruled by disregarding the fact that the acts of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally breach the agreement and violate Article 64 of Law N°45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, and Article 7 of Law N°10/2009 of 14/05/2009 on mortgages. Additionally, they point out that the Court did not consider the position adopted by the Supreme Court in the case RCOMAA 0008/14/CS rendered on 22/07/2016 between Mujawimana Rose and others vs. Bank of Kigali. In paragraph 17 of that ruling, the Supreme Court held that when a mortgage agreement is concluded in accordance with the law, it binds the parties and cannot be invalidated even if the mortgage is not recorded.

They argue that when Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally won the case before the Court of Appeal, they sought the cancellation of the caveat lodged by AMT Ltd over the property in dispute, upon realizing that the application for review due to injustice was filed on 03/03/2022, they hurriedly went to KCB Bank Rwanda Plc, currently BPR Bank Plc, and on 14/03/2022 they mortgaged the concerned property for the loan application on behalf of their school, ITS of Kigali Ltd, they sought another shareholder to whom they registered that school to indicate that it does not belong to them, all these facts are indicative of fraud committed by Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally.

They argue that the transfer of the property to ITS of Kigali Ltd by Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally could be considered as transferring stolen property. Therefore, they assert that any transfer made over the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 after the contract was signed on 24/12/2018, as well as any other mortgage provided to BPR Bank Plc, should be

Page 714

248

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

invalidated. They propose that the property should be registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally and recorded as mortgage in RDB for AMT Ltd.

Counsel Hakizimana François Xavier, representing Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace, and Akingeneye Dally, states that the 700,000 USD, as stated by the legal counsel for AMT Ltd, were granted in the context of executing the agreement dated 25/05/2018. According to this agreement, Gisande Trading Ltd should be provided with dollars for the purchase of minerals, and the value of each supplied batch of minerals would be subtracted from the loan until full reimbursement. Therefore, these dollars were not granted to comply with the agreement of 24/12/2018, as the latter was not yet concluded, and they would not be granted before the conclusion of the agreement.

When he was asked how he reconciled the dollars transferred to Gisande Trading Ltd on 11/12/2018 and on 20/12/2018 with the clauses of the agreement dated 25/05/2018, he stated that the said agreement was intended to revise the one of 08/01/2017, under which 700,000 USD were granted.

He further states that there is other agreement they concluded later on 01/04/2019, in which they agreed on another way of collaboration and how percentages would be shared over the supplied minerals. However, this agreement was not respected, and that is the reason why Niyigaba Ignace, after realizing that Gisande Trading Ltd fell short of money, sold the mortgage with the consent of AMT Ltd.

Regarding the arguments of the legal counsel for AMT Ltd that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally breached the mortgage agreement they entered into, he

Page 715

249 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

argues that in article 3, subparagraph 19 of such contract, they recorded that both parties shall jointly participate in the registration of the mortgage, but that, in the event that the mortgagors are not available, the mortgagee has the power of attorney to do so on their behalf. Therefore, AMT Ltd cannot allege that Niyigaba Ignace was not available for the registration of the mortgage when he was entrusted with the right to do so.

In contrast, regarding the statements of AMT Ltd that when they took a step for registration of the mortgage over the property given as a mortgage, they realized that it was no longer registered in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, as it was instead registered under ITS of Kigali Ltd, he argues that this change occurred after the courts had discharged them of the duty of registration of the mortgage.

Counsel Karenzi Jean Paul states that the ITS of Kigali Ltd School, which he represents, was purchased by Ingabire Jeannine on 11/02/2022, as indicated by the document issued by RDB and included in the file. She bought the school along with all its assets, including the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229. At the time of purchase, she verified that the sellers legally owned it, and there were no other problems, such as being under caveat or mortgaged. Subsequently, on 11/03/2022, the school provided the property as a mortgage to be granted a loan by KCB Bank Rwanda Plc, currently BPR Bank Plc. The mortgage has been duly registered with RDB.

He states that ITS of Kigali Ltd owns the property with good faith, and any other agreement over it would bind the contracting parties. In case of any breach, Niyigaba Ignace, Akingeneye Dally and Gisande Trading Ltd should be held liable

Page 716

250

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

for their respective obligations, while Advanced Material Trading Pte Ltd should be accountable for its own obligations.

Counsel Buzayire Angèle, representing BPR Bank Plc, argues AMT Ltd does not have any guarantee to date because it did not register it. The mortgages stated in the agreement it concluded with Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors would have been valid if they were recorded to comply with article 4 of the Law n° 10/2009 of 04/05/2009 on mortgages, which states that “a mortgage is considered valid when recorded in the mortgage register in the office of the Registrar General”.

She states that the arguments made by AMT Ltd, claiming to have lost the original land title in order to register the mortgage, should not be considered. This is because they could have relied on Article 213 of Law N° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedures providing that “any creditor or interested party may submit a request to the Registrar of land titles or to the officer in charge of land in the Sector or the District in the area where the property is located in order to prevent any transfer of the immovable property belonging to the loanor.” AMT Ltd also had the option to lodge a caveat against the transfer of the property that was provided as mortgage and subsequently file a claim to request the respect of the mortgage contract, as per that provision. The fact that they did not take these actions leads to the conclusion that the mortgage contract no longer exists, and the only valid contract is the mortgage agreement. Consequently, AMT Ltd would be considered an unsecured creditor.

She also argues that BPR Bank Plc did not commit any fault or fraud during the registration of the mortgage. Moreover, since this Bank complied with the requirements of the Law on

Page 717

251 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

mortgages before granting the loan to ITS of Kigali Ltd, it cannot be deprived of its rights when it acted in accordance with the law.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT i. Regarding the statements of AMT Ltd that it respected the agreement concluded with Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors

Before determining whether the property registered on UPI 1/02/11/02/229 should be registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally in order to get recorded in the mortgage register of the office of the Registrar General in RDB as mortgage given to AMT Ltd, it must first be examined whether, as decided by the Court of Appeal, AMT Ltd breached its obligations relating to the grant of additional loan stated in the agreement of 24/12/2018. If it is found that such a breach occurred, then AMT Ltd would not be entitled to request that Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors should be ordered to execute their obligations relating to the mortgages they agreed to provide under this agreement.

This issue shall be examined on the basis of the provisions of article 9 of the Law N° 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production reading that “An evidence (…) can be established by a written document, testimony, presumption or circumstantial evidence, admission of a party or any other material evidence”, as well as article 12 of the Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, stating that “the claimant must prove a claim, failing which the respondent wins the case. Likewise, a party who alleges that he/she has been discharged from an

Page 718

252

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

obligation established by evidence must justify the cause as a result of which the obligation has extinguished. Failure to do so, the other party wins the case”.

The Court observes that the case file of the Commercial High Court includes two documents, called payment details, indicating that on 11/12/2018, AMT Ltd transferred 400,000 USD to Gisande Trading Ltd, and again on 20/12/2018, an additional 300,000 USD was sent, making the total transfer 700,000 USD. These are the documents on which AMT Ltd relies to argue that it granted to Gisande Trading Ltd an additional loan, as stated in the agreement they concluded. However, Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors retort that those dollars were not paid in the context of the execution of the agreement of 24/12/2018. They claim that the payments were instead made to fulfill the terms of the agreement dated 08/01/2017, which was later amended by the agreement of 25/05/2018. According to them, the additional loan of 700,000 USD would not have been granted before the conclusion of the agreement on 24/12/2018.

The Court finds that the loan and mortgage agreement concluded between the parties on 24/12/2018 does not contain any clause proving that there is a loan that AMT Ltd should pay to Gisande Trading Ltd. The agreement only states that AMT Ltd should do its best to maintain good collaboration between them. The parties who concluded that agreement instead concur that Gisande Trading Ltd owes AMT Ltd the loan amounting to 5,380,456 USD, comprising 4,680,456 USD of the loan it previously owed and 700,000 USD of the additional loan. All of these are indications that they concluded the agreement when Gisande Trading had received the additional loan. The statements made by Gisande Trading and its guarantors that the loan would

Page 719

253 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

not be granted before the conclusion of the contract should not be given any merit. The same applies to the allegations that the 700,000 USD were sent in the context of the execution of the agreement of 8/1/2017, amended by the agreement of 25/05/2018, because they merely assert this without demonstrating how they reconcile these agreements with the dollars transferred on 11/12/2018 and 20/12/2018.

The Court also finds that considering the pleadings and court submissions of Gisande Trading Ltd and its legal counsel from the first instance until they lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and during the pleading before that Court on 28/06/2021, it is evident that they did not criticize AMT Ltd regarding the execution of the agreement they concluded on 24/12/2018. Instead, they only alleged that AMT Ltd failed to point out the faults they committed, which led to the failure of registering the mortgage they provided to it in RDB. This also leads to the understanding that the statements they made for the first time during the hearing on 11/10/2021 before the Court of Appeal, when the hearing was resumed, claiming that AMT Ltd did not grant the additional loan as agreed in the contract, are not true.

Basing on the produced elements of evidence, the Court finds that AMT Ltd respected the contract it concluded with Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors for granting an additional loan of 700,000 USD. Therefore, the Court of Appeal based its decision on a non-existent reason when it held that Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally would not be ordered to register the mortgage they promised to AMT Ltd as long as AMT Ltd does not also fulfill its obligation of granting the loan as agreed.

Page 720

254

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

ii. Whether the property registered under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 should be deregistered from ITS of Kigali Ltd and registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally in order to be registered as mortgage in favor of AMT Ltd

Article 147 of the Law nº 45/2011 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts, in its first paragraph, provides that “the court may order a party who has breached or is about to breach the contract to perform contractual obligations.”

Regarding the statements of Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors that AMT Ltd was entrusted with the full right to register the mortgage and, therefore, should not allege that they did not fulfill their obligations, the Court finds that this amounts to disregard the correspondences from the National Land Authority dated 07/11/2018 and 10/06/2019, which were mentioned earlier. These correspondences indicate that the information given to AMT Ltd about the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 was modified after the conclusion of the contract on 24/12/2018 by the parties. The first correspondence indicated that the property was registered under Niyigaba Ignace, while the second indicated that it was registered under ITS of Kigali Ltd. Moreover, the Court also takes into account the email written by that company on 22/08/2022, which is filed in the case file at this instance and it confirms that the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 got registered under ITS of Kigali Ltd on 19/03/2019. Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally's acts of deregistering the property and transferring it to ITS of Kigali Ltd before even three-month time elapsed since the conclusion of the loan and mortgage contract suggest that they are responsible for the failure to register the mortgage.

Page 721

255 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

Regarding the statements of Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors that they sold the mortgage in agreement with AMT Ltd, the Court finds that these statements should not be considered as true since they are not supported by evidence, they are contradiced by Niyigaba Ignace's statements before the Court of Appeal that they refused to provide the mortgage because AMT Ltd did not fulfill its promise to grant the loan while this is not true because, as above explained, the agreement was signed while Gisande Trading Ltd had already provided it.

Regarding the statements by the counsel of BPR Bank Plc that AMT Ltd is devoid of mortgage over the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 because it is not recorded in the register of the Registrar General in RDB, the Court finds that the subject matter in this case is not to determine whether the unregistered mortgage is valid. Instead, the subject matter regards the execution of the mortgage contract that was supposed to be provided by Niyigaba Ignace and his wife Akingeneye Dally to secure the payment of the loan owed by Gisande Trading Ltd to AMT Ltd.

Furthermore, regarding the arguments made that the mortgage no longer exists because AMT Ltd did not lodge a caveat on the transfer of the property that was provided as mortgage and is to date not registered to the persons with whom they entered into the contract, the Court finds them groundless. As pointed out above, the failure to register the mortgage was the fault of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, who deregistered the property from their names when it should have been registered as mortgage for AMT Ltd in RDB. In constrast, the issue at hand is to determine whether the transfer of the property between Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally and ITS of

Page 722

256

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Kigali Ltd, should be considered valid, taking into account the text of the agreement they concluded with AMT Ltd.

In the agreement of 24/12/2018, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally committed to be guarantors for the loan owed by Gisande Trading to AMT Ltd by providing their own properties as mortgage, including the School located in Kayonza District. They also agreed that those properties would serve as mortgage for AMT Ltd until the full payment of the loan (article 2, the last sentence). It was specified that these properties should not be sold or used as a guarantee for any other person without the written approval of AMT Ltd (article 3.3). Additionally, Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors committed to informing AMT Ltd of any changes that may occur concerning the attached property (article 3.17) and to undertake all necessary processes for the registration of these properties as mortgage provided to AMT Ltd (article 3.19).

Basing on the mortgage contract that Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally concluded with AMT Ltd, the Court finds that they had no right to deregister the property under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 from their names without the written authorization from AMT Ltd and without informing them.

The Court further finds that the haste with which Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally deregistered the property from their names and registered it to ITS of Kigali Ltd School indicates that AMT Ltd could not exercise the power of attorney it was entrusted with to apply for mortgage registration in RDB. This perception is also evident in the statements made by Niyigaba Ignace before the Court of Appeal, where he mentioned that he declined to provide the mortgage because AMT Ltd refused to grant them an additional loan. He also stated that

Page 723

257 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

nothing would prevent the deregistration of the property under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 from ITS of Kigali Ltd and its new registration under his and Akingeneye Dally's names, should AMT Ltd comply with the agreement they concluded.

The Court observes that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally concluded the loan and mortgage contract with AMT Ltd. While AMT Ltd complied with its obligations from this contract, on the other hand, they took all possible actions to hinder the execution of the contract regarding their obligations as guarantors. This behavior implies that their attitude and actions during the execution of the contract were characterized by bad faith, which amounts to a violation of the law governing contracts, as stated above that reads that Contracts made in accordance with the law shall be binding between parties [....]. They shall be performed in good faith (article 64). A contract shall not only cover the subject matter but also the effects that equity, practices or law impute to the obligations according to the nature of the contract (article 65). Each party shall have obligation to perfom the contract in good faith and fair dealing between parties (article 70).

The Court deems that, for compelling the respondentd to respect the contract they concluded with AMT Ltd, the property registered under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 should be deregistered from ITS of Kigali Ltd School and registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally. This step is necessary to facilitate the registration of the mortgage for AMT Ltd since they deregistered the property in breach of the agreement they had with AMT Ltd. Article 147 of the law governing contracts, as stated above, empowers the court to order a party who has

Page 724

258

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

breached or is about to breach the contract to perform their contractual obligations.

Regarding other agreements concluded in relation to the property under UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 subsequently to the trial of the case N° RCOMA 00091/2020/CA, the Court deems that since the decisions taken in that judgment are quashed and the status quo is restored, such contracts are invalid with respect to the execution of the loan and mortgage agreement that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace, and Akingeneye Dally concluded with AMT Ltd. b. Whether the respondents should be ordered to pay the outstanding loan if the proceeds of the mortgage do not cover the payment of the entire loan

Counsel Rwigamba Molly and Counsel Dushimimana Reuben, representing AMT Ltd, argue that Gisande Trading Ltd owes their client a substantial amount of dollars compared to the value of the mortgage it provided. Therefore, they request that in the event the proceeds from the registered and auctioned mortgages do not cover the entire loan, the respondents should be ordered to pay to AMT Ltd the remaining balance of dollars from other properties owned by Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors instead of having to return to court to file a claim for the unpaid loan.

Regarding the holdings of the Court of Appeal that there is no basis to order to Gisande Trading Ltd to pay an undetermined loan, Counsel Rwigamba Molly argues that the Court should base its decision on the audit document present in the case file, signed by both parties, which indicates that on 28/01/2019, Gisande Trading Ltd owed to AMT Ltd a loan

Page 725

259 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

amounting to 3,994,409.95 USD (3,772,064 USD + 222,345.95 USD).

Counsel Hakizimana François Xavier, representing Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally, states that in this case, AMT Ltd has never filed for the loan. It only requested the Court to be paid the balance that would remain unpaid after the auction of the mortgage, which is impossible because the mortgages are not yet registered for being sold. Consequently, the Court has no basis to order to Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors to pay to AMT Ltd the unspecified amount of money. He further argues that the arguments by legal counsel of the AMT Ltd that both parties agreed on the loan amount due to AMT Ltd, are false. He cites that on 18/02/2020, AMT Ltd wrote to Gisande Trading Ltd, informing it that the evaluated loan amount was 3,772,064 USD. The letter also requested confirmation from Gisande Trading Ltd if they concurred with the same. This suggests that the amount of the loan has never been agreed upon between the parties.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

As it is evident in the claim filed by AMT Ltd before the trial court and in its pleadings until this Court level that the subject matter of this case does not consist of ordering to Gisande Trading Ltd and its guarantors to pay the loan they owe to AMT Ltd. Instead, it consists of ordering to them to pay the potential balance of the unpaid loan in case the proceeds from the mortgage sale do not cover the entire amount of payment.

The Court further finds that no debates were held about the exact amount of the loan that Gisande Trading Ltd still has to

Page 726

260

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

pay to AMT Ltd during all previous tried cases to be likely subject to a decision for the first time at this court level.

Therefore, the Court finds that, as explained by the Court of Appeal, the respondents should not be ordered to pay the potential balance of the loan following the auction of the mortgage, as that potential balance is undetermined. Consequently, the claim filed by AMT Ltd lacks merit. C. Claimed damages

Counsel Rwigamba Molly and Counsel Dushimimana Reuben, representing AMT Ltd, state that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally breached the mortgage contract concluded with AMT Ltd and did not pay the loan they were granted. Instead, they unnecessarily dragged it into lawsuits. For this reason, they request that the respondents should pay 3,300,000 Frw of counsel and procedural fees to their client.

[Counsel Hakizimana François Xavier, representing Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace, and Akingeneye Dally, retorts that the claimant should not be awarded the requested damages because he himself opted for judicial remedy, and should, therefore, bear the consequences. He instead requests that AMT Ltd is the one that should pay them 2,000,000 Frw of counsel and procedural fees to each of them, the total being 6,000,000 Frw.

The legal counsel for AMT Ltd argues that the respondents are responsible for the disputes that led to the court case and AMT Ltd applied for a review because it suffered injustice. For this reason, it should not be held liable for damages.

Page 727

261 ADVANCE MATERIAL TRADING PTE LTD (AMT LTD) v GISANDE

TRADING LTD ET AL

Counsel Buzayire Angèle, representing BPR Bank Plc, requests that AMT Ltd which dragged it into unnecessary lawsuits, should be ordered to pay 3,000,000 Frw of procedural and counsel fees.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure reads 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 [....]”.

The Court finds that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally should pay to AMT Ltd counsel and procedural fees because they breached the mortgage contract they concluded, and it was necessary for AMT Ltd to file the case to request the execution of the contract. The Court finds that the 3,300,000 Frw requested by AMT Ltd are reasonable, considering the four court instances the case went through since the beginning of the trial.

The Court also finds that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally should pay to BPR Bank Plc procedural and counsel fees. Although they did not request for its forced intervention, they are responsible for its intervention to avoid that the decisions to be taken would affect it while it has not been the party to the case. The awarded amount of 800,000 Frw is reasonable since they did not support the amount they requested with evidence.

Page 728

262

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Finds the application for review of the judgment RCOMAA 0091/2020/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 05/11/2021 due to injustice, with merit in parts;

Orders the deregistration of the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 located in Cyaruzinge Cell, Ndera Sector, Gasabo District, Kigali City from International Technical School of Kigali Ltd and be registered afresh in the names of Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally;

Orders the deregistration of the property with UPI: 1/02/11/02/229 from BPR Bank Plc in the mortgage register in the office of the Registrar General of RDB, and be registered in the names of Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd;

Decides that Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally cannot be ordered to pay the potential balance of the loan in the event the proceeds of the mortgage sale do not cover cover the entire payment for the reasons mentioned above;

Orders to Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally to pay to Advance Material Trading Pte Ltd 3,300,000 Frw for counsel and procedural fees;

Orders to Gisande Trading Ltd, Niyigaba Ignace and Akingeneye Dally to pay to BPR Bank Plc 800,000 Frw for counsel and procedural fees.

Page 729

263

BENEDETTA GROUP LTD v RAB [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL-RCOMAA 00015/2022/CA (Munyangeli, P.J) 20 January 2023] Commercial Procedure – Standing to sue – Joint venture – Standing (locus standi) – A company under a joint venture scheme has the right to sue in its own name when it is only claiming for its share – No company has standing to sue for the full due on the behalf of a joint venture, especially when the claiming company is not suing for the interests of the joint venture. Facts: Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) entered into an agreement with Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering Joint Venture, the agreement was about conducting some feasibility study on 16,000 hectares of land, and the agreement was termed as “feasibility study and detailed design of a proposed ha 16,000 gross area hillside and marshland and irrigation lots 2: Gashora area”. Those hectares were split into 4 lots whereby Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture was assigned to work in Rweru area with 4, 797 hectares for 887,908,560 Frw. Both parties agreed on the contract execution and the payment modalities in instalments. Benedetta Group Ltd sued Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) before the Commercial Court and stated that RAB refused to pay to it the last instalment of the payment, which is 40% of the whole tender, equivalent to 335, 163, 425 Frw, and it prayed the Court to order to RAB to pay the claimed sum together with damages computed at 8% of the tender value, amounting to 15,640,959 Frw, for the unlawful breach of the contract.

Page 730

264

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

For the above case, Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) submitted that it never had any agreement with Benedetta Group Ltd, rather it concluded the contract with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture. For the raised objection, the Commercial Court found that, though the contract was concluded with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, Benedetta Group Ltd was assigned with the follow-up of the contract execution and the Court held that the objection raised by RAB has no justification. The Commercial Court decided on the merits of the case and moved that the claim filed by Benedetta Group Ltd is founded, and it ordered to Rwanda Agriculture Board to pay 335,163,425 Frw for the remained instalment together with 12,065,883 Frw for late payment interests with 500,000 Frw for counsel fee and 40,000 Frw for the procedural fee and 20, 000 Frw for the deposited court fee. RAB was not satisfied with the Court’s decision and it appealed against the ruling before the Commercial High Court, and prayed the appellate Court to determine whether the claim filed by Benedetta Group Ltd should be admitted and whether, by ordering to it to pay, the Commercial Court took into consideration the agreement and whether the judge should try the case while he had taken a related decision and examine whether the services delivered to RAB are proportionate to the surface on which the detailed study was conducted. The Commercial High Court held that the appeal filed by Rwanda Agriculture Board has merit, and it moved that the claim lodged by Benedetta Group Ltd should not be admitted, and it held that the Commercial Court’s decision for case RCOM 01604/2018/TC should be set aside.

Page 731

265 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

Benedetta Group Ltd appealed against the above ruling before the Court of Appeal, and challenged the fact that the Commercial High Court held that its claim should not be admitted so that it did not take into consideration the debt for which it filed a claim and the interests. It bases its appeal on the fact that by the contract it concluded with RAB, they agreed that it should deposit the payment on Benedetta Group Ltd Bank account in Access Bank Ltd and it deposited on such account the first instalments; it states that such was done in the context of the contract execution and that fact entitles it to claim its rights on basis of the contract, especially that it is Benedetta Group Ltd that signed the agreement that RAB concluded with Benedetta Group Ltd & I.A Engineering Ltd Joint Venture. On the other hand, the respondent submits that it concluded the agreement with Joint Venture, and the latter had no legal personality, it avers that such fact entitles a company under the joint venture to file its own claim, and representing a company does not deprive it of its rights. Held: A company under a joint venture scheme has standing to sue that is limited only to its own name and its sole part when it claims for it, but it does not have standing to sue for the full debt of Joint Venture in its name, especially when the claiming company is not suing for the interests of the joint venture The appeal is unfounded. The deposited court fee covers the expenses of the proceedings. Statutes referred to: Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 3 and 33;

Page 732

266

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Law no 62/2018 of 25/08/2018 governing Public Procurement, article 84. No cases were referred to. Doctrines Anthony BEM, “Le droit, l’intérêt et la qualité à agir comme conditions de recevabilité des demandes en justice”, Article published on 22/04/2015. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On 08/08/2016, Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) concluded the contract referred to as “contract 1. 11/1242/016/BL/H. Q” with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture. The contract was about conducting a feasibility study on 16,000 hectares of land covering a hillside and a marshland located in Gashora area of Bugesera District; and the contract was termed as “ FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN OF A PROPOSED HA 16,000 GROSS AREA HILLSIDE AND MARSHLAND AND IRRIGATION ( lots 2: GASHORA AREA )” the 16,000 ha were split into 4 sections, and Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering Joint Venture was assigned work at Rweru area on 4,797 hectares for 887,908,560 Frw. Both parties agreed on the contract execution and the payment modalities in instalments.

Benedetta Group Ltd argues that RAB declined to pay for the last instalment of the due, and that is 40% of the whole tender

Page 733

267 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

value, equivalent to 335,163, 425 Frw, and that is why it seized the Commercial Court and prayed the Court to order to RAB to pay the remaining debt of 335,163, 425 Frw originating from the unlawful breach of the contract together with interests computed at 8% of the tender value, equivalent to 15, 640, 959 Frw.

Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) states that the claim lodged by Benedetta Group Ltd should not be admitted because it has never concluded an agreement with it, rather it signed a contract with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture. It submits that the assigned work surface area got reduced, as it came from the initial 4,797 hectares down to 3,525 hectares; RAB argues that when it invited Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd for renegotiating the salary for the remained assignment, the invitation was not honored; adding that the plaintiff’s mere allegation of the works completion is untrue, more so that it has no evidence that proves that it completed the work assigned and it was satisfied, Benedetta Group Ltd did not submit the bidding document; therefore it should not be granted the interests for which it claims because Rwanda Agriculture Board is not a profit-making institution.

On 24/12/2018, the Commercial Court decided on the RAB’s objection over the plaintiff lack of standing to sue for the case RCOM 01604/2018/TC, whereby Rwanda Agriculture Board argued that it had no contract with Benedetta Group Ltd, it states that it only concluded the contract with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture. While examining the litigants’ submissions together with related evidence, the Commercial Court found that though Rwanda Agriculture Board concluded the concerned contract with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, the analysis proved that Benedetta Group Ltd

Page 734

268

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

was mandated for the follow-up of the concluded contract and the Court therefore held that RAB’s objection has no justification.

On 28/01/2019, the Commercial Court heard the case on the merits and held that the claim by Benedetta Group Ltd is founded, and ordered to Rwanda Agriculture Board to pay a debt of 335,163,425 Frw, together with 12, 065,883 Frw for late payment interests, and 500,000 Frw for counsel fee, 40,000 Frw for the procedural fee, and 20, 000 Frw for the deposited court fee.

Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) appealed against the ruling before the Commercial High Court, and prayed the appellate Court to determine whether the claim filed by Benedetta Group Ltd should be admitted and whether, by ordering to it to pay, the Commercial Court took into consideration the agreement and whether the judge should try the case while he had taken a related decision and examine whether the services delivered to RAB are proportionate to the surface on which the detailed study was conducted.

For the case RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC rendered on 12/11/2021, the Commercial High Court held that the appeal lodged by Rwanda Agriculture Board is founded, and held that the claim by Benedetta Group Ltd is inadmissible and the Commercial Court’s decision on the case RCOM 01604/2018/TC is set aside.

On 11/12/2021, Benedetta Group Ltd appealed against such decision before the Court of Appeal, the appeal was docketed as RCOMAA 00015/2022/CA, and it challenges the fact that the Commercial High Court declared its appeal inadmissible so that it did not take into consideration the debt and accrued interests for which it filed a claim.

Page 735

269 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

The case was heard in public on 04/01/2023, Benedetta Group Ltd was represented by Counsel Uwizeyimana Jean Baptiste, while Rwanda Agriculture Board was represented by Counsel Kabibi Spéciose together with Counsel Ntarugera Nicholas, the case pronouncement was fixed on 13/01/2023, but by this date, the judgement was not pronounced because its drafting was still ongoing and the pronouncement was adjourned to 20/01/2023. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES OF

THE CASE 1. Whether Benedetta Group Ltd had the standing to sue

Counsel Mutabazi Célestin who represented Benedetta Group Ltd for the pre-trial conference of 06/10/2022, argues that on 06/09/2015, A.I Engineering Ltd Company mandated Benedetta Group Ltd for making a follow-up of the public tender concerning the work on the 4, 797 hectares of land. He submits that Benedetta Group Ltd was awarded the tender and on 8/08/2016, it concluded a related contract with RAB, it executed such contract as per agreement of both parties.

He further submits that the statement of Rwanda Agriculture Board that Benedetta Group Ltd had no standing to file a claim against the contract signed between it and Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, and the Commercial High Court so upheld, is not true, because the article 1(8) of the concerned contract stipulates that it is Benedetta Group Ltd with TIN 103336551, which should be paid, the payment should be deposited on its account n0 1002100103539001 in Access Bank Rwanda PLC and this is the very Bank Account that

Page 736

270

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Rwanda Agriculture Board had been using for the payment of the previous instalments, the fact that it is Benedetta Group Ltd that had right to payments, insinuates that it should have accomplished some works in accordance with the contract, it entitles it to exercise its rights arising from the contract signed between it and Rwanda Agriculture Board.

He adds that a letter of 29/06/2018 that Rwanda Agriculture Board wrote in reply to the lawyer of Benedetta Group Ltd, proves that Benedetta Group Ltd had done the assigned work “feasibility study”; and it states that it needs amicable settlement rather than referring the matter to courts. He argues that during the hearing of 05/11/2018, Rwanda Agriculture Board stated that there was a committee that was handling the issue for amicable settlement of the dispute, it never submitted that Benedetta Group Ltd has no standing to sue; therefore, all these elements prove that the Commercial High Court disregarded the evidence together with the agreement of 08/08/2016 which Benedetta Group Ltd concluded with RAB, which entitle to it the standing and interest to file a claim against it.

He concludes by emphasizing the fact that Benedetta Group Ltd was mandated by Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering Joint Venture, the fact that it is Benedetta Group Ltd which signed the agreement of 08/08/2016, the fact that it was paid, are enough for holding that Benedetta Group Ltd had standing and capacity to sue for any interest arising from that contract.

Counsel Uwizeyimana Jean Baptiste who represented Benedetta Group Ltd in the hearing of 04/01/2023 does not concur with the Commercial High Court’s stance on this issue, he argues that due to the fact that the agreement concluded by Rwanda Agriculture Board and Benedetta Group & A.I Engineering Joint

Page 737

271 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

Venture includes the account of Benedetta Group Ltd on which the payments should be deposited, it is entitled to sue for the remaining part, given that other payments were deposited on its account.

He further states that each time Benedetta Group Ltd claimed for payment from RAB, while the latter proposed an amicable settlement of the dispute, it is always Benedetta Group Ltd that was invited for negotiations, given the fact that it is its account that has always been used for payments to Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, and he now wonders how Benedetta Group Ltd has no more a representation mandate for Joint Venture it always represented.

He concludes by arguing that he personally notes that by filing a claim, Benedetta Group Ltd did not replace Benedetta Group Ltd &A. I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, but it represents the interests of Benedetta Group Ltd &A. I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture as it always represented it for all the previous transactions.

Counsel Kabibi Spéciose who represented Rwanda Agriculture Board explained that RAB concluded an agreement with the Joint Venture that comprised Benedetta Group Ltd and A.I Engineering Ltd, and she argues that since the contracting Joint Venture had no legal personality, it is then clear that in case of any disputes, each company sues for itself. She therefore argues that Benedetta Group Ltd has no standing to sue for the full debt on the behalf of the Joint Venture, and she proposed that had the plaintiff observed the terms of the contract, the claim should have been filed in the name of the Joint Venture, represented by Benedetta Group Ltd.

Page 738

272

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

She further submits that the document of 06/09/2015 that Benedetta Group Ltd brought forth as an evidence of the Joint Venture representation mandate is void since the document itself was meant for representation assignment, and representing a company does not mean replacing it; just as it has been explained under paragraph 20 of the appealed judgement, Benedetta Group Ltd had a mandate of representation, as by signing the concerned agreement, it acted on its behalf.

With regard to the statement of Benedetta Group Ltd that the company it represents had the standing to sue for the unpaid due, is based on the fact that the previous payments were all deposited on the plaintiff’s bank account, Counsel Kabibi Spéciose avers that even though the due payments were made through Benedetta Group Ltd bank account, the payment bills were drawn in the names of Benedetta Group Ltd & I.A Engineering Ltd Joint Venture.

With regard to the above issue, Counsel Kabibi concludes by arguing that Benedetta Group Ltd had no standing to initiate a case on basis of the contract with Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture; rather, such would be possible in case it claimed for its own interest, in its explanations, it confused the standing and the capacity.

Counsel Ntarugera Nicholas argues that the Commercial High Court found that a mere fact that Benedetta Group Ltd had a representation mandate from Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture with the assignments of signing the contract on the behalf of the Joint Venture, and receiving contract- related due payments does not give the current plaintiff the standing to sue for this case alone; just as it is evidenced by the concerned agreement, Benedetta Group Ltd signed the agreement

Page 739

273 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

on the behalf of both biding companies, and a fact that all the due payments were deposited on Benedetta Group Ltd bank account came as a common agreement between both companies, and never meant that the payments were unilaterally made to Benedetta Group Ltd alone, and concluded that the plaintiff therefore has no right to refer on a contract that is not their own and sue for this case.

With regard to this issue, Counsel Ntarugera referred to article 3 of the Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, and concluded that Benedetta Group Ltd had no standing to sue for this particular case.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 3 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that unless otherwise provided by law, a claim is admissible in court only if the claimant has standing, interest and capacity to sue. In the case of associations, organizations and institutions without legal personality, their leaders sue and are sued on behalf of their members.

Paragraph one of article 33 of the above mentioned law provides that “[…] However, persons with shared interests in a case file their claims in one motion instituting proceedings and pay only one filing fee

Article 84, 40 of the Law n0 62/2018 of 25/08/2018 governing Public Procurement provides that “in case of joint venture, companies participating in the joint venture must enter into a written agreement signed before the notary, indicating the

Page 740

274

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

leading company that represent other companies throughout the procurement process and the scope of its power. This agreement must be part of the document submitted in the bid of the joint venture”

When the Commercial High Court held that the Commercial Court should not have admitted the claim from Benedetta Group Ltd, it considered the fact that Benedetta Group Ltd sued for the case as if it sued for its own sole interests; and as though it had concluded the contract alone yet it was acting under a representation mandate; and the contract which it put forth for evidence was not its own since the contract belonged to the Joint Venture, and the plaintiff did not specify whether it sued for its own part of the due, and it had no standing to sue on the behalf of Benedetta Group Ltd & I.A Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, since the tender was won by the companies under the Joint Venture, and the plaintiff’s right was only limited to Joint Venture’s representation mandate.

The case file contains a certain agreement of 06/09/2015, whereby A.I engineering Ltd represented by Paola Sorba and Benedetta Group Ltd represented by Dr. Edward Kamugisha agreed for the formation of a temporary Joint Venture, and by which Benedetta Group Ltd was mandated to make a follow-up of the concluded contract.

The case also contains another type of agreement concluded between Rwanda Agriculture Board and Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Joint Venture, whereby Dr. Kamugisha Edward signed the contract on the behalf of the Joint Venture, and Benedetta Group Ltd bank account within Access Bank was submitted for use in case of contract-related payments deposits.

Page 741

275 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

The Court of Appeal finds that Benedetta Group Ltd was mandated for representing Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture for following-up the execution of contractual obligations between the Joint Venture and Rwanda Agriculture Board.

The Court of Appeal finds that Benedetta Group Ltd was mandated for representing the companies under the Joint Venture as per the existing legal provisions, but the Court finds that the power of representation for the execution of contractual obligations is deferent from the standing to sue in courts since such standing comes in when contract-related disputes arise; it is therefore clear that seeking justice is far different from executing parties’ contractual obligations.

The Court also finds that, just as law scholars explained, anyone intending to seize the court must have a claim1.

By the claim of Benedetta Group Ltd, this claiming company has half right on the full debt that Rwanda Agriculture Board owes to the companies under the Joint Venture, and the other half belongs to A.I Engineering Ltd and the latter did not appear in this case, and yet Benedetta Group Ltd argues that it sued for the Joint Venture’s full due; the Court finds that Benedetta Group Ltd has no standing to sue for this case, as above explained. Even in case Benedetta Group Ltd secures the standing to sue for this case, it cannot approach the case as if it replaced the mandator, it can exercise the representation assignment, but the mandator must always appear for the case as the principal litigant.

1 Anthony BEM, “Le droit, l’intérêt et la qualité à agir comme conditions de recevabilité des demandes en justice”, Article published on 22/04/2015.

Page 742

276

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds that, as the Commercial High Court found it, Benedetta Group Ltd had the standing to sue for its own part of the due and in its own name, but it had no standing to sue for the full debt and on the behalf of the Joint Venture, especially when the time for enforcing the court’s decision comes, the execution engages the parties that appear in the copies of the judgement, since the execution of a judicial decision never concerns the Joint Ventures’ agreements. Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff filed a claim in its own name and moreover for the Joint Venture full due brings about doubts of whether the remaining company is as well a litigant along a case that has been unilaterally initiated by Benedetta Group Ltd.

The Court finds that the representation mandate for overseeing the execution of some contractual obligations, signing a contract on the behalf of one of the companies under Benedetta Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture, or submitting Benedetta Group Ltd bank account for payments deposit, none of the above gives the plaintiff a right to sue for this case in its own name and for the full due on the behalf of the Joint venture. It is therefore clear that the appeal filed by Benedetta Group Ltd on this issue is unfounded.

2. Whether the Commercial High Court should grant to Rwanda Agriculture Board the procedural fee and the lawyer’s fee for which it claimed (cross appeal filed by RAB) [35] Counsel Kabibi Spéciose requests the Court of Appeal to grant to Rwanda Agriculture Board a sum of 5,000,000 Frw for damages, the very amount she had requested in the case RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC but which was not awarded, the Court never considered the principle of costs follow by event.

Page 743

277 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

[36] Counsel Mutabazi Célestin who represented Benedetta Group Ltd during the pre-trial conference argues that the damages that RAB requested before the Commercial High Court have no justification, he states that his client did no wrong, adding that it is Rwanda Agriculture Board that caused the whole trouble when it refused to pay the due debt, so that the disputes arose.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of the law relating to the 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”.

Paragraph one of article 75 of the above mentioned law provides that “in general, no documents, submission, brief or pleading notes may be deposited with the court after the pretrial conference”

The case file indicates that during the pretrial conference for the case RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC convened on 29/04/2019, the litigants debated on the following issues: - Whether the Court was supposed to admit and hear a claim that Benedetta Group Ltd has filed in its own name; - Whether the Court first considered the agreement between Rwanda Agriculture Board and Benedetta

Page 744

278

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Group Ltd & A.I Engineering Ltd Joint Venture before it decided about the payment; - Whether the judge who had already declared a stance on the onset of the case was supposed to remain and hear the merit of the RAB case. - whether the services delivered to RAB are proportionate to the surface on which the detailed study was conducted. - -Whether the cross-appeal was founded.

Having examined the first ground of RAB’s appeal which states that the claim filed by Benedetta Group Ltd should not be admitted, the Commercial High Court found that this claim was indeed inadmissible, and it set aside the Commercial Court’s ruling, it decided that it was not necessary to examine other appeal grounds as it was expounded that the claim should not be admitted at the first instance.

The Court of Appeal finds that the Commercial High Court did not err when it declined RAB’s request for damages for the incurred case-related expenses and the representation fee due to the fact that the issue over the incurred case follow-up costs was not raised whether during the pretrial conference neither in the course of the hearing of 14/10/2020 just as indicated in the hearing minutes.

3. Determine the justification of the procedural fee and the representation fee claimed by Benedetta Group Ltd

Counsel Mutabazi Célestin who represented Benedetta Group Ltd during the pre-trial conference requested to the Court of Appeal to order to Rwanda Agriculture Board to pay to

Page 745

279 BENEDETTA GROUP LTD vs RAB

Benedetta Group Ltd a sum of 2,000, 000 Frw for the procedural fee and for the counsel fee as damages for being dragged into unnecessary lawsuits.

Counsel Ntarugera Nicholas avers that the damages claimed by Benedetta Group Ltd has no justification since Rwanda Agriculture Board has never dragged it into lawsuits because it is the plaintiff who initiated the whole trouble when it declined to attend the meeting that was meant for evaluating the performed works, the surface where the works were carried out, and the related appropriate payment.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the 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 since the appeal filed by Benedetta Group Ltd is unfounded, it shall not be granted the procedural fee and the representation fee. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal lodged by Benedetta Group Ltd is ungrounded.

Page 746

280

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Holds that the case RCOMA 00188/2019/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court on the 12/11/2020 is not overruled.

Orders that the court fee deposited by Benedetta Group Ltd when it lodged the appeal, covers the expenses of the proceedings.

Page 747

281

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE

DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT-RS/INJUST/RCOM 00017/2022/SC (Mukamulisa, P.J., Cyanzayire and Hitiyaremye, J.) 22 December 2023. Taxation law – Value Added Tax (VAT) – VAT exemption – Transportation carried out for the purpose of distributing goods, even if done by someone who has been granted permission but is not the main activity, is considered an accessory service to that main activity of distributing goods, when that main activity is not exempt from VAT, even if the transportation itself is not exempt – The transport activity which is exempt from VAT is that carried out as a principal activity of transporting peple and goods. – Law No.37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value-added tax, articles 6 and 9 Facts: This case originates from a certain disagreement between Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) and SRDS Ltd Company with regard a certain Value Added Tax that the company had been imposed due its’ activities of distributing BRALIRWA’s products. SRDS Ltd lamented that it is not subject to the payment of the above mentioned tax, arguing that such a tax relates to RURA- licensed transport services and yet such services are VAT exempt. Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) argues that SRDS Ltd has stealthily reduced BRALIRWA’s recommended prices, and reserved the deductions for transport service cost with a malicious

Page 748

282

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

intent of eluding VAT, yet they have rendered no VAT exempt transport service. SRDS Ltd and RRA litigated the dispute from the Commercial Court up to the Court of Appeal, whereby for case RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA of the 25/03/2022, the Court of Appeal held that SRDS Ltd was illegally imposed for Value Added Tax, yet they were performing licenced transport services for the transportation of their customers’ goods and yet this type of transport is legally VAT exempt. RRA alleged injustice and applied for the review of the above ruling; they argued that the Court of Appeal unfairly held that SRDS Ltd has been imposed for Valued Added Tax on VAT exempt activities adding that the taxed income was from the provided transport services. RRA argued that the transport fees featuring on SRDS Ltd receipts are not transportation costs, and even BRALIRWA’s recommended prices prove that SRDS Ltd does not provide transport services. RRA lamented that the Court of Appeal has unfairly disfavored them when it ruled that the law on competition and consumer protection prohibits collusive price-fixing, and labels it as an anti- competitive practice. RRA argues that the business between BLARIRWA and SRDS Ltd is about products distribution, whereby SRDS Ltd distributes BRALIRWA’s products upon a commission, and it is clear that the distributor can never trade the consigned products below the recommended prices. RRA argued that the Court of Appeal has erroneously interpreted the content of the agreement between BRALIRWA and SRDS Ltd; when it moved that the distributor has a right to negotiate the products prices due to a mere fact that the concluded agreement was referred to as « recommended price », yet such a term never

Page 749

283 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

meant that the prices were to be rebated, more so that the BRALIRWA’s intended recommended prices were actually the minimum prices. SRDS Ltd rebutted and argued that RRA’ complaint has no justification and accused them of favoritism and discriminating some taxpayers, alleging that they do not consider distributors like any other business traders since they failed to clarify about the existing traders categories to clearly prove that distributors are not traders yet they transact in the business of distributing BRALIRWA’s products, on the top of transporting their clients’ purchased products, and for perfecting their service delivery, for which they have the RURA’s license and they are paid the transport costs for by their customers. SRDS Ltd went on and explained that « recommended prices » does not necessarily mean fixed prices, more so that article 8 of the agreement of 01/02/2015 concluded between BRALIRWA and SRDS Ltd stipulates that The Distributor buys the products at the price determined by Bralirwa and resells the products at the recommended distribution price, and SRDS Ltd prayed the court to determine the contextual meaning of the term « recommend » and move that the term does not imply an order, as it is more of a proposal . SRDS Ltd submits that they sell products to their clients and they provide the transportation service on a cost and that they never charge their

clients for VAT due to transport VAT exemption. SRDS Ltd argues the deals it makes with its’ customers incur no loss to RRA, and it also argues that distributing BRALIRWA’s products is not a business that involves State-regulated prices, as prices are mutually agreed on between the seller and buyer (free market), and therefore, RRA cannot claim that the BRALIRWA’s products were sold below the recommended prices.

Page 750

284

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Held: 1. Transportation carried out for the purpose of distributing goods, even if done by someone who has been granted permission but is not the main activity, is considered an accessory service to that main activity of distributing goods, when that main activity is not exempt from VAT, even if the transportation itself is not exempt.

2. The transport activity which is exempt from VAT is that carried out as a principal activity of transporting peple and goods. The application review has merit. Statutes referred to: Law N0 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing Value Added Tax (VAT), articles 6, 9 and 11. No cases were referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case started from the Commercial Court with Société Rwandaise de Distribution et Services Ltd (hereinafter referred to as SRDS Ltd) suing Rwanda Revenue Authority (hereinafter referred to as RRA) for an imposed Value Added Tax (VAT) of 222, 316,907 Rwf, together with related fines for the years of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. SRDS Ltd appealed the decision before RRA Commissioner General lamenting that it was imposed VAT for transporting BRALIRWA’s products yet such transport service is VAT exempt. The Commissioner General replied that

Page 751

285 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

their appeal has no justification and, that is when they lodged a claim seeking the removal of the tax imposed on the exempted transport services.

RRA rebutted the claim and argued that SRDS’s claim has no justification since they were taxed upon the unpaid declared income due, since the taxable value is always determined by the buyer’s paid price.

For case RCOM 0120/2020/TC of the 17/11/2021, the Commercial Court held that SRDS Ltd’s claim has merit, and ordered the removal of 222,316,907 Rwf for the imposed tax and related fines for the years of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, and it ordered RRA to give SRDS Ltd 700,000 Rwf for Counsel fee.

For taking the above decision, the Commercial Court considered a fact that SRDS Ltd was carrying out RURA- licensed transport services coupled with a fact that such services are VAT exempt as per the provision of article 6 of the Law n0 37/2012 of 09/12/2012 establishing Value Added Tax as so far revised and updated. The Court found no RRA’s evidence for proving that SRDS Ltd has fraudulently featured unprovided transport costs on customers’ receipts, and the Court reminded that it is RRA that has the burden to prove about its’ allegation as article 3 of the Law n0 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to Evidence and its production so provides.

RRA appealed the ruling before the Commercial High Court and prayed the Court to examine whether the income that SRDS Ltd featured on its’ receipts are really for the provided transportation services, and determine whether BRALIRWA’s recommended prices prove that SRDS Ltd never trades into transport services.

Page 752

286

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

For case RCOMA 00869/2020/HC rendered on the 17/11/2021, the Commercial High Court held that the RRA’s appeal has no merit, and moved that the ruling on case RCOM 01210/2020/TC rendered by the Commercial Court stays. The Commercial High Court ordered for the removal of the 222, 316, 907 Rwf VAT together with related fines that SRDS Ltd had been imposed for the years of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, and it ordered RRA to give SRDS Ltd 2,000,000 Rwf for Counsel fee and 200,000 Rwf for the incurred case-related expenses adding to the charges from the previous instance, and it all totaled to 2, 940,000 Rwf.

For making the above decision, the Commercial High Court considered a fact that BRALIRWA-SRDS Ltd agreement contains no clause that prevents SRDS Ltd from charging customers for the transport services. The Court has as well found that SDRS Ltd ‘s submissions prove that they possess an authentic license for providing transport services, and yet such services are legally tax exempt. And the Court moved that it is RRA that had a burden to prove that the transport costs that feature on SRDS Ltd’s receipts are actually not for transport services.

RRA appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, and it prayed the Court to examine whether SRDS Ltd’s taxed income was really VAT exempt. And, for case RCOMAA 0001/2022/CA heard on the 25/03/2022, the Court of Appeal held that the RRA’s appeal has no justification, and it moved that the ruling on case RCOMA 00869/2020/HCC rendered by the Commercial High Court stays. The Court of Appeal ordered RRA to give SRDS Ltd 500,000 Rwf for Counsel fee, and 200,000 Rwf for case follow- up costs, all adding to the 2,940, 000 Rwf charges from the previous courts, and it all came to 3, 640,000 Rwf.

Page 753

287 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

For taking the above decision, the Court of Appeal considered a fact that RRA’s argument by which SRDS Ltd had never traded in transport services to be a mere verbal submission with no single evidence that can rebut SRDS Ltd’s proof for the provision of such transport services. The Court of Appeal has as well found with no doubt that SRDS Ltd, as a company that distributes BRALIRWA’s products, would as well trade in transportation services; since it is actually absurd to think that «the distribution» can be done without transportation works. This stance is as well corroborated by the terms of BRALIRWA- SRDS Ltd agreement, whereby the agreement was concluded principally for BRALIRWA’s products distribution purposes.

On the 23/04/2022, RRA petitioned the President of the Supreme Court and pleaded him for injustice related review of case RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 25/03/2022. Upon the examination of a related report on the case, on the 17/11/2022, Hon. Chief Justice issued writ n0 272/CJ/2022 and ordered for the review of case RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA, and the claim was docketed as RS/INJUST/RCOM 00017/2022/SC.

In their submissions, RRA argues that SRDS Ltd had been cutting BLARIRWA’s prices and receipting less amount on every product they sold, and they never paid VAT for the saved price cut as they fraudulently labelled it as tax-exempted transportation service income with a malicious intention of eluding the attached VAT, yet their services were not tax exempt. SRDS Ltd thereby argued that they have always abode by the law, and they convinced the Court to move that they have been taxed on VAT exempted transactions.

Page 754

288

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The case was heard in public on the 18/07/2013 with RRA represented by Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptiste while SRDS Ltd was represented by Counsel Irazirikana Israël together with Counsel Habimana Pie. Litigants debated on the issue of whether SRDS Ltd was taxed Value Added Tax on VAT-exempted services, and they also debated about a variety of damages solicited by parties along this case. At the end of the hearing, the pronouncement of the ruling was slated on the 22/09/2023, but it kept adjourning till 22/12/2023. But close to that date, some of the judges on the bench had been replaced, and the hearing got reopened, and it was now slated on the 21/11/2023 for purposes of recomposing the new hearing jury. II. ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THEIR

ANALYSIS 1. Whether SRDS was taxed Value Added tax (VAT) on tax- exempted businesses.

Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptiste representing RRA, argues that the Court of Appeal held that RRA taxed SRDS Ltd on VAT-exempted income generated from transport services; the Counsel argued that the affirmation is no true, for SDRS Ltd was not trading in transportation services, and the amount featuring on their receipts disguised as transportation costs are actually not for transport services. He also underscored that even the BRALIRWA’s recommended prices for the distributed products indicate that SRDS Ltd was not trading in transport businesses.

Counsel Twahirwa also submits that SRDS Ltd’s defense by which they argue that the amount featuring on the receipts they drew for their customers are for transport costs contains no truth;

Page 755

289 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

more so that every SRDS Ltd’s drawn receipt for a number of various years uniformly features a cost of 300 Rwf for the transportation of a single crate of beer or lemonades alike for any customer. He argues that this brings a question of doubting whether SRDS Ltd could uniformly provide transportation service for each and every customer as if no customer could do it by themselves. He gave an example of SRDS Ltd’s receipt n0 14256/14469NS of 23/06/2015 which SRDS Ltd drew for selling BRALIRWA’s beverages, the receipt indicates that SRDS Ltd sold a crate of TURBO KING beers of 50cl for 9.550 Rwf, while BRALIRWA-SDRS Ltd concluded agreement of 01/02/2015 provided that such a crate should be sold at 10,000 Rwf (distributor selling price VAT included (RWF/Crate), but SRDS Ltd chose cut the sale price by 450 Rwf, a balance they fraudulently meant for transportation cost.

He also argued that SRDS Ltd’s receipt indicates that they sold a crate of PRIMUS beers of 50cl for 8,000 Rwf, yet the BRALIRWA’s recommended prices were at 8,450 per a crate, and thus receipting the sale less by 450 Rwf. He also presented that SRDS Ltd sold a crate of small TURBO KING beers of 33cl for 7,550 Rwf yet the BRALIRWA’s recommended price was at 8,000 Rwf, thus cutting the recommended sale price by 450 Rwf. He lamented that similar practice replicated on receipt n0 14259/14472 NS of 23/06/2015 whereby SRDS Ltd deceitfully recorded that a customer was charged 350 Rwf for transportation costs, yet this amount is a balance that SDRS Ltd cut on the BRALIRWA recommended price, and this balance includes VAT; arguing that such a balance contains neither VAT-exempt quota, not even a portion for transport costs as SRDS Ltd alleges it.

Page 756

290

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

He also went on and disclosed about some other BRALIRWA’s distributors who colluded for the above practice with a purpose of VAT evasion; and these distributors included SOVEPROA Ltd and the alike who uniformly drew receipts that featured a transportation cost of 300 Rwf for each crate of either beer or lemonades, and he questions the coincidence of such a uniform cost for two different companies; arguing that such practice contradicts the provision of article 11, 10 of the Law n0 37/2012 of 09/12/2012 establishing Valued Added Tax which provides that « the taxable value of each good or service is determined as follows: 1º except where this Law provides otherwise, the taxable value on goods or services is the consideration paid in money by the recipient »

Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptiste goes on to argue that the Court of Appeal has actually prejudiced RRA especially under paragraph 21 of its’ ruling where the Court held that article 21 of the Law n0 36/2012 of 09/11/2012 on Competition and Consumer Protection prohibits the collusion for price-fixing as an anti- competitive practice, the Counsel lamented that the Court actually did not well understand the nature of the deal between SRDS Ltd and BRALIRWA since the Court took their trade for a normal business transaction whereby a person buys some products for resell in the light of the existing market conditions. Yet, for this case, the deal is different, and it is a trade whereby SRDS Ltd committed to distribute BRALIRWA’s products upon « a commission payment » and this means that the distributor could not at all cut BRALIRWA’s recommended prices.

He also argued that paragraph 27 of this case under review indicates that the Court of Appeal has mistakenly interpreted the content of BRALIRWA-SDRS Ltd agreement, especially where

Page 757

291 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

the Court moved that the distributor had a right to modify BRALIRWA’s prices since those prices were termed as « recommended prices », yet this term was not meant for abating the prices, as it rather referred to price increment especially due to the standards of retailing traders ( like hotels or small shops), and it is only the retailers who possess such a margin of price adjustments. Counsel argues that recommended prices meant BRALIRWA’s minimum selling prices.

He concluded by submitting that article 29 of the case for review makes it clear that the Court of Appeal held that RRA has not proved that SRDS Ltd abated BRALIRWA’s recommended prices, yet RRA had submitted the copy of BRALIRWA-SRDS Ltd products distribution agreement, and the very agreement contained clauses on BRALIRWA’s recommended minimum prices; an evidence that adds on RRA’s submission of SRDS’s receipts featuring price cuts. And, he prayed the Court to move that a tax of 222,316,907 Rwf RRA imposed on SRDS Ltd stays.

Counsel Irazirikana Israël and Counsel Habimana Pie representing SRDS Ltd submitted that RRA’s claim has no justification since they discriminate taxpayers whereby some taxpayers such as Ets FURAHA are favored with tax exemption1

1 SRDS Ltd filed a letter of 15/07/2022 which RRA Commissioner General wrote to Ets FURAHA in reaction to latter’s appeal against the imposed tax; whereby the Commissioner General referred to article 6(50) of the Law n0 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing Value Added Tax which stipulates transportation services are exempted from the payment of VAT, whereby point (d) of the paragraph provides that services of transport of goods by roads are VAT exempt, the Commissioner General has also based his decision on a fact that Ets FURAHA was taxed for the VAT yet they possessed RURA’s license for trading in transport services; and he also referred to a certain judicial precedent from cases RCOMA 00190/2021/HCC and RCOMAA

Page 758

292

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

while others and SRDS Ltd included are taxed yet all taxpayers are deemed equal before the law just as article 15 of the Constitution of the Rwandan Constitution so provides .

They also argued that when RRA again inspected SRDS Ltd for the years of 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, it found that SRDS Ltd still rebated the recommended prices on each and every product they sold; whereby the cut balance was reserved for transport costs, but RRA never questioned the practice. They therefore argued that the RRA’s attitude for the later inspection proves that even RRA themselves acknowledge that SRDS Ltd had unfairly been imposed VAT on exempted transportation services.

[22] They went on and argued that RRA poorly interprets BRALIRWA’s prices because (a) RRA does not consider products distributors like any other traders; (b) « recommended price » does not mean a fixed price; Prices agreement between BRALIRWA and SRDS Ltd have nothing to do with RRA, and the latter has no right to refer to the agreement of 01/02/2015 and raise complaints because RRA is not a party to the agreement as per the famous principle by which, an agreement can only bind its’ contracting parties.

Counsel Irazirikana Israël and Counsel Habimana Pie argue that RRA does not consider products distributors like any other traders since it failed to clarify about the existing traders’

00001/2022/CA between RRA and SRDS Ltd, whereby RRA lost similar cases against other BRALIRWA’s distributors, and the Commissioner moved that the appeal by Ets FURAHA has justification, and he therefore removed a VAT of 77,781,312 Rwf that Ets FURAHA had been imposed on the provided transportation services.

Page 759

293 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

categories to clearly prove that distributors are not business traders yet they trade in the business of distributing BRALIRWA’s products, and on the top of transporting their customers’ products, every distributor does their best to make more transactions for more income generation. It is in this line that SRDS Ltd engages in transporting the products for every customer who buys from them, coupled with the initiative of offering quality services to customers; the transport work for which they possess RURA’s license, and they are paid for by the served customers.

They have also argued that « recommended prices » does not necessarily mean fixed prices, more so that article 8 of the agreement of 01/02/2015 concluded in English language between BRALIRWA and SRDS Ltd stipulates that The Distributor buys the products at the price determined by Bralirwa and resells the products at the recommended distribution price, and they prayed the Court to examine the contextual meaning of the term « recommended » and move that it does not compound an order, as it is rather an advice, and the advised person has a right of choice on the advisory. And, they therefore argued that discarding BRALIRWA’s recommended prices constitutes no wrong.

They also argue that a fact that SRDS Ltd sells and transports the purchased products for customers with no VAT charges on transport costs is due to a fact that transport services are VAT exempt, and the practice incurs no loss to RRA, arguing that had SRDS Ltd not transported the products for its customers, they could have been transported by any other transporter, and the latter could not pay any VAT, since transport service is VAT free.

They also argue that the taxation laws can neither inconvenience nor repeal other laws, especially the law on Competition and Consumer Protection, arguing that a mere fact

Page 760

294

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that SRDS Ltd is BRALIRWA’s distributor does not remove compliance with the Law no 36/2012 of 09/11/2012 on Competition and Consumer Protection. They argued that the observation of article 7 of the above mentioned law is not conditioned to special and particular relations between traders such as commission allowance to one of them; explaining that BRALIRWA-SRDS Ltd agreement underscored that competition laws must be abode by just as it is highlighted under article 1 (2) of the agreement which stipulates that the trader shall distribute the products in due compliance with the Rwandan statutes and other national legislations with the Competition laws inclusive.

Counsel Irazirikana Israël and Counsel Habimana Pie argue that distributing BRALIRWA’s products is not a business that involves State-regulated prices, as prices are mutually agreed on between the seller and buyer (free market), and therefore, RRA cannot claim that the BRALIRWA’s products were sold below the recommended prices. They also argue that even BRALIRWA- SRDS Ltd agreement itself does not compel SDRS Ltd to go by BRALIRWA’s proposed prices, arguing that RRA should therefore not insist on the agreement’s price-related clauses, since such content is actually legally prohibited.

They have added that RRA’s evidence on SRDS Ltd’s receipts such us receipt n0 14256-14469 NS whereby SRDS Ltd sold the consigned products below BRALIRWA’s recommended prices should not be considered since such a practice causes no prejudice; and moreover, SRDS Ltd was not bound to abide by BRALIRWA’s recommended prices. While for receipt n0 14259- 14472 NS featuring that SRDS Ltd charged a customer with 300 Rwf for transport service, together with some other SRDS Ltd’s receipts that feature 300 Rwf for products transportation costs,

Page 761

295 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

SRDS Ltd’s attorneys argued such practices were legally conducted and SRDS Ltd had RURA’s license permitting them to trade in transport services.

With regard to a report on the meeting of the 16/01/2018 that convened RRA’s officials and BRALIRWA’s distributors, SRDS Ltd’s attorneys prayed the Court not to consider such an evidence since RRA was compelling the traders to abide by BRALIRWA’s recommended prices, a practice which contradicts the provision of article 7 of the above mentioned law n0 36/2012 of the 21/09/2012, and yet such a legislation of public order.

Counsel Irazirikana Israël and Counsel Habimana Pie who represent SRDS Ltd, argued that the Supreme Court’s overrule on the impugned judgement might tarnish the whole judicial system, as it might publicly convey an erroneous perception that sole the Supreme Court can render justice; and they based such an argument on the famous principle by which « Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen done », more especially, due to a fact that the case under review had already been decided by the Court of Appeal, and it had already been published as a referral legal precedent and overturning it might have adverse effects on the judicial apparatus as it might undermine the initiatives of resolving disputes with reference to available judicial precedents .

They concluded by rejecting a set of precedents that RRA presented for similar cases; the jurisprudence included the case with RRA v. Ntawangwanabose, and the case between RRA and SOVEPROA, arguing that such cases cannot serve as references for this particular dispute, since they are not of the same subject matter, and they have been decided by lower courts.

Page 762

296

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of article 11 of the Law n0 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing Value Added Tax in force by the time SRDS Ltd was imposed the contested tax, provides that « except where this Law provides otherwise, the taxable value on goods or services is the consideration paid in money by the recipient ».

Paragraph 5 of article 6 of the above mentioned Law n0 37/2012 of 09/11/2012 stipulates that the transportation services provided by licensed traders are VAT exempted.

Article 9 of the same Law provides that « subject to the provisions of this Law, supply of goods or particular services as complementary goods or services of another kind is treated as part of the principal goods or services… »

Both the litigating parties concur on a fact that SRDS Ltd is one of the companies that distribute BRALIRWA’s products and the possess a related license for providing road transportation services issued by Rwanda Utility Regulatory Agency (RURA). One issue of discord and which sparked disputes for this case is whether the transportation services that SRDS Ltd provides for the distribution of BRALIRWA’s products qualify for VAT exempt services.

The Court found that the above mentioned Law n0 37/2012 of 9/11/2012 has not specified about transporters who should be exempted for VAT, and the Court moved to resolve the litigants’ disputes with reference to a set of existing legal doctrines.

Delebecque Philippe, Isabelle Bon-Garbin and Maurice Bernadet agree on the difference between private and public

Page 763

297 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

transport. They argue that the public transport is actually carried out by professionals who provide transport services on a cost, while the private transport is not necessarily carried out by professionals, and quite often it is meant to support a certain principal activity such as trading and the alike. (Il y a une distinction entre transport pour compte propre (transports privés) et les transports pour compte d’autrui (transports publics). Les transporteurs publics sont des professionnels dont le métier consiste à exécuter des transports contre rémunération pour des clients qui sont des entreprises industrielles ou commerciales, des entreprises de services, des administrations ou encore des particuliers. Par opposition, le transport pour le compte propre n’est pas assuré par des professionnels du transport, mais par des entreprises industrielles ou commerciales qui disposent de leurs propres parcs de véhicules et de leurs conducteurs pour réaliser des transports liés à leur activité principale. Pour être qualifié de compte propre, un transport ne constitue qu’une activité accessoire de l’entreprise)2.

Another Scholar, Jean Pierre Kesteloot, wrote in his book «Droits des Transports» and argued that from long time ago, transport contracts have always been considered as business- oriented contracts since they are associated with trade industry. He however adds that the most important aspect in the realm of transport is not the transportation cost, more so that the transport service can be provided cost free. He argues that what matters most is a fact that the transport service was provided by a professional transporter. (le contrat de transport a longtemps été considéré comme étant un contrat à titre onéreux puisqu’il s’agit d’une variété de contrat d’entreprise… l’élément constitutif à

2 Delebecque Philippe, Isabelle Bon-Garcin et Maurice Bernadet, Droit des transports, 2018, Dalloz, p. 2932.

Page 764

298

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

retenir n’est donc plus la rémunération en tant que telle puisqu’un contrat de transport peut être conclu à titre onéreux ou à titre gratuit, mais bien le caractère professionnel du transporteur).3

With regard to a scenario whereby the transport service has a status of a « complementary service » as enshrined in article 9 of the above mentioned Law n0 37/2012 of 09/11/2012, the Court found that the Legislator did not thereby give it an ample elaboration, and that is why the Court referred the matter to a set of legal doctrines for more clarifications. For Anon, a Complementary Service may be defined as a service that comes with a product for support. They are the services that are offered in addition to any business's core service and assist the customer in using the main service […]).

With regard to trade supporting transport services in particular, the law scholar Jean Pierre Keresteloot argues that the sale agreement may provide that the seller shall transport any purchased item such a washing machine or a television set up to the buyer’s place and such an arrangement shall not be termed as a transport contract especially due to a fact that the provided transport service is secondarily attached to the principal contract of sale, and in such a scenario, transport-related laws do not apply. (Il y a d’autres contrats que le contrat de transport qui contiennent ou peuvent contenir un élément de déplacement. Un contrat de vente peut prévoir que le vendeur déplace la marchandise pour la livrer à l’acheteur. Comme par exemple lors de la vente d’une machine à laver ou d’une télévision... Le transport par le vendeur n’est qu’un accessoire du contrat de vente. Les règles propres au

3 Kesteloot, Jean Pierre et HOC, Arnaud, Droit des transports, 2020, Larcier, p.29-30.

Page 765

299 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

contrat de transport ne s’appliquent donc pas dans les relations entre le vendeur et l’acheteur)4.

The above provided explanations clarified the following important issues: - Sole professional transporters whose principal activity is providing transport services are exempted for VAT - -Transport activities that are primarily meant for goods distribution purposes remain secondary and included in the distribution scheme even when performed by a licensed transporter. When the principal activity is not VAT exempt, neither is the associated transport service.

With reference to the above provided clarifications and for the purpose of this particular case, the Court found that thought SRDS Ltd has a license to provide transport services, the agreement they concluded with BRALIRWA proves that the main purpose of the agreement was about distributing BRALIRWA’s products ( distribution), while the thereby provided transport service comes in as a complementary activity that supports the main business of distributing BRALIRWA’s products; and yet the distribution services are not VAT exempt. Therefore, the Court found that the transport services that SRDS Ltd provides for the distribution of BRALIRWA’s products are not VAT exempt.

With regard to SDRS Ltd’s complaint by which RRA discriminates the taxpayers by favoring some such as Ets FURAHA, and the argument by which RRA’s inspection for the

4 Idem, p.31.

Page 766

300

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

years 2019 and 2020 has never found any malpractice in RSDS Ltd’s record books, and never claimed for any transport income tax, yet SRDS Ltd has never changed its’ trading practice; arguing that such silence proves that RRA acknowledges that SRDS Ltd transport services are VAT exempt; the Court has indeed found that the file contains a letter of 15/07/2022 by which RRA exempted Ets FURAHA for VAT on transport services provided in the distribution of BRALIRWA’s products, but the Court explained that the above mentioned VAT exemption case is not legally justifiable since Ets FURAHA’s transport services are no different from the SRDS Ltd’s, and they are equally not VAT exempt. And, the same explanation answers the question on RRA’s inspection into SRDS Ltd for the years 2019 and 2020. The Court’s general decision on the issue raised.

Considering all the above provided elucidations, the Supreme Court found that SRDS Ltd has not been imposed Valued Added Tax on VAT exempted activities; and therefore, RRA’s application for injustice related review of case RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 25/03/2022 has justification.

2. About the requested damage-compensations.

Counsel Twahirwa Jean Baptiste representing RRA referred to article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure and requested SDRS to give RRA 3,000,000 Rwf for both representation fee, and all the so far incurred case-related expenses.

Counsel Irazirikana Israël and Counsel Habimana Pie who represented SRDS Ltd argue that RRA deserves no damage-

Page 767

301 RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) v SOCIÉTÉ RWANDAISE DE DISTRIBUTION ET SERVICES LTD (SRDS LTD)

compensation, arguing that it RRA that kept on initiating lawsuits, and lamented that RRA cannot be compensated for their own turpitudes

They argued that it is rather SRDS Ltd that deserves damage-compensations. They based their request on the article 34 of RBA scale of Advocates’ fees, and solicited 3,000,000 Rwf for Counsel fee and 2,000,000 Rwf for the incurred case- related costs and it all totaled to 5,000,000Rwf. And they requested that the solicited amount should add on the 3,640,000 Rwf that had been ordered by the previous courts.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of the Law n0 22/2018 of the 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labor 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.

With regard to the requested damage-compensation, the Court found that the content of the preceding paragraph indicates that the losing party must refund the winning party for the incurred case-related costs, such the representation fee, and other various case follow-up expenses.

The Court held that SRDS Ltd deserves no damage- compensation since they have lost the case, and it held that RRA deserves damage-compensation since they won the case, and they kept on incurring expenses right away from the onset of the case till the end.

Page 768

302

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court found that RRA deserves some damage- compensation, but since their request of 3,000,000 Rwf is excessive and moreover unjustified, the Court allowed them 500,000 Rwf for the representation fee, and 300,000 Rwf for the incurred case related expenses. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the RRA’s application for injustice related review of case RCOMAA 00001/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 25/03/2022 has justification.

Holds that the ruling on case RCOMAA 0001/2022/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 25/03/2022, is entirely overturned.

Orders SRDS Ltd to pay 222,331,907 Rwf for Value Added Tax, as imposed by RRA for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Orders SRDS Ltd to give RRA 500,000 Rwf for the judicial representation fee and 300,000 Rwf for the incurred case related expenses, and it all sums up to 800,000 Rwf.

Page 769

CRIMINAL CASES

Page 771

305

PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL – RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA – (Rugabirwa, J. P., Tugireyezu and Kaliwabo, J.) February 28, 2020] Criminal procedure – Detention and release – Provisional release – A person detained in the context of enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment he/she has been sentenced to cannot be provisionally released on grounds of unlawful detention by investigation organs. Criminal procedure – Criminal liability – Acquittal – No accused can claim that a judgment from another court acquitted him/her as long as they have not been involved as a party. Law of evidence – Evidence in criminal cases – Testimony – Probative value of testimony – The determination of the probative value of testimonial evidence following the hearing of witness declarations – A judge may consider certain parts of testimony and reject other parts – In the event witness declarations from two witnesses contradict each other after the hearing of witnesses, it is the court that determines which witness declarations are valid. Criminal procedure – Genocide and crimes against humanity – Crime of Conspiracy to commit genocide – Although it is not provided under Rwandan law, the connivance to commit genocide amounts to the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide. Facts: This case was initiated for the first time before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, whereby Habyarimana was

Page 772

306

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

accused of committing offenses with the intention of conspiracy, planning, inciting others, supervising, and leading genocide or other crimes against humanity while he was exercising a leadership role in the MRND political party up to the level of City of Kigali Prefecture. This Court found him guilty of the acts of inciting, formation of a criminal gang, and leading the barricades where Tutsi people were killed with the intention to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. Concerning the objection he raised regarding the fact that he had been detained unlawfully, the Court rejected it on the grounds that he raised it in violation of the law. The Court sentenced him to the penalty of life imprisonment with reclusion. The defendant lodged an appeal to the High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes, alleging that the previous court disregarded the fact that he had been imprisoned unlawfully, was tried without legal assistance, and the court heard the merits of the case without prior examining the objection he raised. The High Court held that such an objection should have been examined first, but at this level of appeal, it would not entertain it because the case has already been tried on its merits. Regarding the new charges, the defendant requested that they should not be subject to trial on the grounds that they were introduced in the appeal

claim by the prosecution despite falling beyond the scope of the appeal. The High Court found that according to the content of the pieces of evidence submitted by the prosecution, they fall within the scope of his appeal claim because they pertain to his participation as one of the leaders of the MRND political party. This includes being present in meetings that planned genocide, selecting the youth, providing training and equipment. Consequently, these are not new charges

Page 773

307 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

except for his role in the establishment of the RTLM radio station, which should not be examined because he was not charged with it at the trial court. Therefore, it decided that he is guilty of the offences of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide for having incited to commit genocide and provided equipment used for committing genocide. However, it found him not guilty of heading barricades where Tutsi people were killed, for which he was convicted by the Intermediate Court. The High Court maintained the penalty of life imprisonment with reclusion that he was sentenced to by the trial court. As a result, he lodges an appeal to the Supreme Court, but his case was transferred to the Court of Appeal established by the reform of the judiciary. In his appeal, he maintained that he had been unlawfully detained, which the prosecution refutes because he was sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion. They argue that the fact that such a decision was taken without citing the relevant law does not have any effect, especially as this involves a defect in the form of the judgment and not in its substance. Held: 1. A person detained in the context of enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment he/she has been sentenced to cannot be provisionally released on grounds of unlawful detention by investigation organs.

2. No accused can claim that a judgment from another court acquitted him/her as long as they have not been involved as a party.

3. It is the duty of the court to determine the relevant pieces of evidence after hearing the witnesses – A judge may consider certain parts of testimony and reject other parts – In the event witness declarations from two witnesses contradict each other

Page 774

308

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

after the hearing of witnesses, it is the court that determines which witness declarations are valid.

4. Although it is not provided under Rwandan law, the connivance to commit genocide amounts to the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide. Appeal with merit. The ruling of the High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes is reversed in parts. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic-Law Nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 132. International covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966, article 14. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 09 December 1948, article 3. Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, article 155. Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 on jurisdiction of courts, article 105. Article nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 184. Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 on evidence and its production, article 65 and 119. Cases referred to: Prosecution v. Bandora Charles, RPA 0001/12/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 22/03/2019.

Page 775

309 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Prosecution v. Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, ICTR-98-44-T. Prosecution v. Simon Bikindi, ICTR –2001 -72 –T. Prosecution v. Yussuf Munyakazi, ICTR-97-36A-A. Prosecution v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-A. Prosecution v. Jean Paul Akayesu, ICTR -96-4-T. Prosecution v. Seromba Athanase, ICTR-01-66-A. Prosecution v. Ntagerura André and co-accused, ICTR-99-46-A. Prosecution v. Musema Alfred, ICTR-96-13-T. Prosecution v. Nahimana Ferdinand and co-accused, ICTR-99- 52-A. Judgment

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Habyarimana Jean was the president of MRND (Mouvement Révolutionaire National pour le Développement) in the Prefecture of the City of Kigali and a member of the political bureau of that political organization at the national level. He is accused of committing the acts of conspiracy, planning, inciting others, supervising, and leading genocide or other crimes against humanity while being a member of the leadership of MRND at the level of the City of Kigali. Specifically, he is alleged to have formed a criminal gang by selecting youths to receive military training and providing them with equipment used to kill Tutsi people. He is also accused of participating in meetings planning genocide and supervising the barricades extending from Nyabugogo to Muhima to APACOPE School, where many victims, including Rutayisire alias Tigana, were killed.

Page 776

310

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The judgment was initiated for the first time in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on 01/03/2016. This Court tried the case RP GEN 0002/15/TGI/NYGE and found Habyarimana Jean guilty of the acts of inciting, forming a criminal gang, and heading the barricades where Tutsi people were killed with the intent to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. The Court held that the objection regarding the unlawful detention raised by Habyarimana Jean could not be given merit because he raised it irregularly and sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion.

Habyarimana Jean was dissatisfied with the ruling and lodged an appeal to the High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes1, alleging that the Intermediate Court disregarded the fact that he was unlawfully detained, tried without legal assistance, and that it proceeded to try the case on its merits without prior examination of the objection he raised.

In addition, in his appeal, Habyarimana Jean alleged that the High Court disregarded the fact that he should not be charged with the offence of formation of a criminal gang because it was time-barred. He also claimed that he was convicted on the basis of irrelevant witness declarations that were sought with the objective of securing his conviction, and that the witnesses were not summoned to the hearing. Furthermore, he argued that the Court refused to allow the prosecution to present some exculpatory documents, including the hearing minutes on provisional detention and release, and the investigation carried out by the prosecution in Muhima sector.

1 In this case, "High Court" shall be used to refer to the "High Court, Specialized Chamber for international and transnational crimes."

Page 777

311 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

In the judgment RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI rendered on 28/04/2017, the High Court recognized that the Intermediate Court should have first examined the objection raised by Habyarimana Jean about his unlawful detention. However, at the appeal level, the High Court stated that it would not examine it because the trial of the merits of the case has already been conducted, and Habyarimana Jean was sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion. Therefore, the examination of that objection is not likely to have any effect.

Regarding new charges that Habyarimana Jean alleged to have been brought at the appeal level by the Prosecution, and not within the scope of the appeal, he requested them to be rejected. These charges include the meeting he is accused to have held with Renzaho Tharcisse for planning genocide, the role of MRND in the planning of genocide, membership in the shareholders of RTLM (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines), and leading attacks in different locations across the county except at Muhima.The Court found that the contents of the evidence provided by the prosecution fall within the scope of his appeal because they relate to his role as one of the leaders of the MRND political organization. This includes his participation in meetings planning genocide, the selection and training of youth, and providing them with equipment, which are not new charges, except for his role in establishing RTLM, which should not be examined since he was not charged with it before the trial court.

The Court decided that Habyarimana Jean's appeal has merit in parts and held that he is guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in committing genocide for inciting to commit genocide and providing munitions that were used to commit genocide. However, the

Page 778

312

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Court found him not guilty of leading the barricades where Tutsi people were killed, as declared by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge. It upheld the life imprisonment with reclusion sentence imposed on him by the trial court.

Habyarimana Jean was dissatisfied with the ruling and lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting it to examine several issues. He raised concerns about being unlawfully detained, the High Court's decision without considering the precedents of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)2, not being given adequate time for cross-examination of inculpatory witnesses, and the High Court's disregard of the declarations of exculpatory witnesses. Additionally, he claimed that the High Court made a mistake in declaring him guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide.

After the establishment of the Court of Appeal, Habyarimana Jean's appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal in accordance with article 105 of Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdictions of courts3. It was recorded with the docket number RPAA/GEN 00008/2019/CA.

The hearing of the case was originally scheduled for 13/11/2019, but on that day, it was postponed because the judges were participating in training. It was rescheduled for 18/11/2019, but since then, the hearing has been repeatedly postponed for various reasons. The hearing of the case resumed in public on

2 Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda. 3Article 105, paragraph 1: 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.

Page 779

313 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

09/01/2020 and 13/01/2020. Habyarimana Jean was assisted by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, and the prosecution was represented by Rudatinya Nyangezi Gaspard, a national prosecutor. II. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Issues that should be determined in this case are as follows: - Whether Habyarimana Jean is unlawfully imprisoned; - Whether the case law of Matayo Ngirumpatse and Edouard Karemera, tried by TPIR, would exculpate Habyarimana Jean from criminal liability for the conspiracy to commit genocide. - Whether the High Court should have summoned Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent for cross-examination with Habyarimana Jean in any way, and whether the instant court should also summon them for cross-examination. - Whether the High Court disregarded witness declarations exculpating Habyarimana Jean. - Whether the High Court made a mistake in declaring Habyarimana Jean guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide and the offence of complicity in genocide, and providing munitions used to commit genocide.

1. Whether Habyarimana Jean is unlawfully imprisoned

Habyarimana Jean and Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, who assists him, state that in paragraph 12 of the appealed judgment before this court, the High Court found that the Intermediate

Page 780

314

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Court should have priorly addressed the objection raised by Habyarimana Jean before the trial court regarding the fact that he was unlawfully imprisoned before the trial of the merits of the case. This was specified by article 105, paragraph 3 of the Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure that was in force at the time of the trial of the said case. However, the High Court did not rectify such irregularity. Instead, it explained that it would not take any action regarding it because he is in prison based on the judgment that sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion. Therefore, the High Court immediately proceeded to hear the case on its merits before making a decision on such an objection. Additionally, it did not cite the legal instruments it referred to in reaching such a decision. They request this court to address such objection and release Habyarimana Jean provisionally before the hearing of the merits of the case.

Habyarimana Jean explains that he was apprehended on 20/12/1996 based on the list of genocide fugitives of the 1994 genocide. He was incarcerated on 12/03/1997, and an arrest warrant MAP)4 was issued for him on 02/04/1997. However, he claims that he was never brought to court for the purpose of provisional detention. Instead, it was only in the year 2009 when he learned that there was no dossier for his case. He alleges that the Director of Prison at the time, named Gahima Rusa, and the prosecutor at the Intermediate level, named Ndibwami Rugambwa, kept him in prison unlawfully based on expired arrest warrants. This caused him psychological torture as he was coerced to admit to offenses he did not commit and implicate his colleagues. Habyarimana Jean also claims that during this time, he was deprived of the right to be tried while free and the right to legal counsel. He states that he intends to file a separate claim

4 Mandat d’arrêt provisoire.

Page 781

315 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

before a competent court to seek justice and have these civil servant leaders punished according to the law. Additionally, he seeks damages, even if symbolic, for the 20 years of imprisonment he endured unjustly.

Habyarimana Jean and his legal counsel argue that, based on articles 78 (8º) and 96, paragraph 3 of Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, he should be provisionally released before the trial of the case. They contend that the judge's provisional detention order has never been issued, and as per Article 19 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda, he is still considered innocent. They request the instant court to consider the case law RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 06/12/2018 between the Prosecution vs Nshimiyimana Diane Rwigara and Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara, as that court released the accused despite being provisionally detained.

The Prosecutor argues that Habyarimana Jean is not unlawfully imprisoned because he was sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion, as even held by the High Court in paragraph 12 of the appealed judgment. They further contend that the fact that the judge did not mention the provisions of the law they applied to reach such a decision is a drafting issue and not a defect in the judgment itself.

He also argues that Article 96, paragraph 3 of the Law Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure cannot be relied upon in this case, as Habyarimana Jean did not appeal against the provisional arrest warrant. Moreover, even before the High Court, Habyarimana Jean was no longer provisionally detained, as he lodged an appeal against the judgment that was tried at the second instance level, which sentenced him to life

Page 782

316

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

imprisonment with reclusion. This means that he should remain in the same imprisonment situation imposed by the previous courts and should therefore proceed with his second appeal while being in prison, in accordance with Article 184, paragraph one of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure that was in force at the time Habyarimana Jean was under trial.However, if he wishes to sue the persons who unlawfully imprisoned him, he would need to file a separate claim before the competent court in accordance with Articles 144 and 145 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, as mentioned above. This is because the Court of Appeal does not have trial jurisdiction over actions related to unlawful imprisonment.

He further argues that the case law between the Prosecution vs Rwigara Diane should not be considered as a precedent in this case. In the Rwigara Diane case, she was released after being declared innocent, but in contrast, Habyarimana Jean is currently imprisoned because of the enforcement of the judgment that sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion, as previously clarified.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 184, paragraph one of the Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure that was into force at the time when Habyarimana Jean’s case was pending trial, provides that the accused held in provisional detention before the detention judgement is rendered, remains in detention notwithstanding his or her appeal5.

5This is the same provision that changed to become article 187, paragraph one of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure providing

Page 783

317 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

The ruling of the judgment appealed before this Court, in paragraph 12, indicates that the High Court held that even though the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge did not address the objection raised by Habyarimana Jean regarding the fact that he was unlawfully imprisoned before the adjudication of the merits of the case according to the law, the High Court asserted that it would not examine such objection raised at the Nyarugenge Intermediate court level, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion for the offenses he committed. Instead, the High Court stated that it should examine his grounds of appeal to establish whether or not they are founded. After hearing the case on its merits, the High Court decided that Habyarimana Jean is guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in committing genocide for inciting to commit genocide and providing ammunition used to commit genocide. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with reclusion, as mentioned in paragraphs 145 and 147 of the appealed judgment.

The Court is of the view that although Habyarimana Jean was unlawfully imprisoned as decided by the previous courts, it should not examine this issue to establish whether he would benefit from provisional release before the trial of the current case. This is because such a release would not benefit him in the context of serving out the sentence of life imprisonment with reclusion he received for the offense of genocide he is accused of. This indicates that the previous court did not make any mistake when ruling that Habyarimana Jean should remain in prison while he appealed his case. All these imply that he would not be provisionally released before the trial of this case,

that “The accused held in provisional detention before the detention judgement is rendered, remains in detention notwithstanding his or her appeal.”

Page 784

318

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

according to the provisions of article 187, paragraph one of the aforementioned law.

The Court deems that it cannot rely on the judgment RP 00036/2017/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 06/12/2018 between the prosecution vs Mukangemanyi Adeline Rwigara and co-accused, as raised by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire assisting Habyarimana Jean. This is because in that ruling, the accused were released after being declared innocent of the offense of causing uprising or unrest among the population for which they were prosecuted. In contrast, in the instant case, Habyarimana Jean was imprisoned due to being sentenced to life imprisonment with reclusion by the trial court and appellate court, as explained above. Whether the case law of Matayo Ngirumpatse and Edouard Karemera, tried by TPIR, would exculpate Habyarimana Jean from criminal liability for the conspiracy to commit genocide6

Habyarimana Jean, assisted by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, lodged an appeal alleging that the High Court declared him guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, disregarding the judgment ICTR-98-44-T tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTR ruling stated that before the date of April 8, 1994, there had been no occurrence of conspiracy to commit genocide with regard to Matayo Ngirumpatse and Edouard Karemera, as well as other high political leaders of MRND.

6Matters regarding the classification of this offense shall be addressed in the instant case in Part II.5.

Page 785

319 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Habyarimana Jean defended himself, arguing that since it was established that the high leaders of MRND did not conspire to commit genocide, he, as a leader of MRND at the City of Kigali level, should not be held liable for forming the group of Interahamwe and providing them with military training with the purpose of committing genocide. He further contended that the prosecution failed to prove any concertation and conspiracy he may have had with his deputies or any other person with the intent to commit genocide.

Habyarimana Jean requested that, for this reason, the first paragraph of Rule 9 of the rules of procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda should be applied. This rule states that no person should be tried by a domestic court for acts that gravely violate international humanitarian law if they have already been tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for the same criminal acts.

The Prosecution replied that the case law of Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard does not benefit Habyarimana Jean in any way. Instead, he selectively considers only the part of the ruling that he believes benefits him, disregarding the fact that paragraph [201] of this judgment established that Ngirumpatse Matayo, as a leader of MRND, had the power to supervise the acts of Interahamwe. Additionally, the witness HJB confirmed that Habyarimana Jean himself played a role in the selection of young people to join the group of Interahamwe.

The Prosecution pursues that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decided that the leading committee of MRDN at the national level could not transmit the message to the partisans without passing it to the president of the party at the

Page 786

320

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

prefecture level7. They clarify that Habyarimana Jean is not prosecuted for merely being the leader of Interahamwe; rather, he is held liable for the role he played in the formation of this group and training it militarily with the intent to exterminate Tutsi, and these actions were revealed in various meetings.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 155 of the Law nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal prosecure, paragraph 2, provides that Prosecution cannot be instituted if the accused proves that they were subject to a final judgment delivered abroad (on the offence they are prosecuted for).

Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of December 16, 1966 stating that No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.8

Basing on the case ICTR-98-44-T rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the elements of evidence produced, Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard were found guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, and

7 ICTR-98-44-T, the case between Prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph 201: “De plus, la Chambre juge peu probable que le Comité National Provisoire ait pu, sans l’implication du président préfectoral s’adresser aux militants du MRND”. 8 Art. 14 point 7 du Pacte International du 16 Décembre 1966 relatif aux droits civils et politiques ratifié par le Rwanda par le Décret-loi Nº 8/7bya5 du 12 Février 1975.

Page 787

321 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

homicide for their role in the formation of the Interahamwe militia and providing it with military training. They were also found guilty of conspiring to exterminate Tutsi people, based on evidence presented and discussions of various meetings where MRND leaders and partisans participated and tagged Tutsi people as enemies.However, the Court clarified that their criminal liability cannot be engaged for actions that occurred before April 8, 1994.9 Nevertheless, in the appeal, that court held that Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Matayo are guilty of genocide, inciting to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder committed after April 18, 1994, in furtherance of executing the joint criminal enterprise.Therefore, Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Matayo were not declared not guilty of those acts, as alleged by Habyarimana.10

Additionally, the Court of Appeal observes that the trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda had initially found Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard not guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide based on actions that occurred before April 08, 1994. However, at the appellate chamber (ICTR-98-44-A), the decision of the trial chamber was changed. The appellate chamber held that Ngirumpatse Matayo is guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, while maintaining the decision that Karemera Edouard is guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, at least from May 25,

9 ICTR-98-44-T Case between the prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph 1573: Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994. 10 ICTR-98-44-A Case between the prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraphs 146-156.

Page 788

322

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

199411.This implies that the appellate chamber considered the pieces of evidence regarding each individual's actions, which is the same approach the High Court took in Habyarimana Jean's case before declaring him guilty12.

The High Court finds, therefore, that whether it is the genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, crimes against humanity committed for the execution of the joint criminal enterprise, or conspiracy to commit an offense, Ngirumpatse and Karemera Edouard were not declared innocent of them, as alleged by Habyarimana Jean, except for criminal actions that occurred before April 8, 199413. Therefore, the ground of appeal raised by Habyarimana Jean, claiming that as the former leader of MRND at the City of Kigali level, he should not be found guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide as long as Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard, as top leaders of MRND, were not declared guilty, lacks merit.

The Court further finds that the ground of appeal advanced by Habyarimana Jean, whereby he requested to respect Article 9 of the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda14, lacks merit because he had not been involved as a

11 ICTR-98-44-A between the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Paragraph 745: “The Appeals Chamber has reversed the Trial Chamber's finding that Ngirumpatse was responsible for conspiracy to commit genocide, but has upheld the Trial Chamber's finding that Karemera was responsible for conspiracyt o commit genocide by at least 25 May 1994.” 12 See the case RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI. 13 The role of Habyarimana Jean in the actions that occurred before April 8, 1994, is going to be examined in Part II.5 of this case. 14 “No person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations of international humanitarian law under the present Statute,

Page 789

323 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

party in the judgment ICTR-98-44-T that definitively declared Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard not guilty of the conspiracy to commit genocide. The holdings of this case concern Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard only, as the persons who are involved in it, and they are, by the same reason, protected by Article 9 as stated in this paragraph, in the event they would be accused of the offenses for which they had already been judged. This is the same provision as stated in Article 155 of Law no. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. The second paragraph of this article states that prosecution cannot be instituted if the accused proves that he or she was subject to a final judgment delivered abroad for the same offense he is accused of. However, Habyarimana Jean does not demonstrate that he was judged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Based on the foregoing provisions of the law, the explanations, and the opinions of legal scholars advancing that only parties prosecuted for the same facts are protected by the principle of “res judicata”15, the Court of Appeal finds that Habyarimana Jean's ground of appeal, asserting that the High Court disregarded the application of the judgment of

for which he or she has already been tried by the International Tribunal for Rwanda.” 15 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacobs et Adrien Masset, Manuel de procedure pénale, 2eme éd., Larcier, 2006, pp.978- 981: “Pour qu’il y ait “autorité de la chose jugée” du pénal sur le pénal, il faut que la demande soit formée contre les mêmes parties en la même qualité et que les prévenus soient poursuivis pour les mêmes faits que ceux qui ont déjà fait l’objet d’un jugement. Il n’y a pas d’autorité de la chose jugée entre co-autreurs et complices s’ils sont poursuivis séparément. La décision rendue précédemment ne peut ni leur nuire ni leur profiter, même si cela débouche sur des décisions contradictoires”.

Page 790

324

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera Edouard despite him being declared not guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, is groundless. 3.Whether the High Court should have summoned Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent for cross-examination with Habyarimana Jean in any way, and whether the instant Court should also summon them for cross-examination.

Habyarimana Jean states that the High Court declared him guilty based on the witness declarations of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent without summoning them for cross-examination, arguing that their statements are doubtful. He explains that the testimony of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite should be invalidated because it is contradictory. Before the prosecution, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite never mentioned the "Comité de Crise," but he talked about it during his testimony at the time of the investigation in Kanombe Hospital where he was admitted. Furthermore, he brought in the names of other witnesses that he did not mention before the prosecution.

He further argues that the witness declarations issued by Mbarushimana Vincent before investigation organs should be invalidated. This is because he did not address them to the High Court for cross-examination to be carried out. Instead, the court was unable to locate him as he stated that he could not provide testimony until he met with Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, who used to employ him in the Cooperative of tire repairers. He, therefore, requests the instant court to summon them for cross-examination.

Page 791

325 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Habyarimana Jean explains that the testimony of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite should not be considered. Nyiringondo Epaphrodite stated that he went to register with the councillor of Muhima sector at the time of the recruitment of young persons to join the Interahamwe group. He claimed to have seen the attendance of the "Comité National Provisoire" of Interahamwe in the first phase, including Habyarimana Jean, Ngirumpatse, and Kabuga. Additionally, he said he saw the attendance of Munyakazi, who was the commander of gendarmerie, and Renzaho Tharcisse, who was the Prefet of the City of Kigali, in the second phase. However, Habyarimana Jean disputes these statements, asserting that those meetings did not occur. According to Habyarimana Jean, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite would not have been able to attend them due to being a Tutsi and a member of Parti Libéral (PL).

He further argues that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite declared that, in those meetings, Habyarimana Jean instructed the Councillor of Muhima sector to list the young people desirous of joining the Interahamwe. However, Habyarimana Jean would not interfere with Interahamwe actions because they had a president, vice-president, and secretary. Another thing he mentions is that the Councillor of Muhima Sector, who was a civil servant, or Renzaho Tharcisse and Munyakazi, who were soldiers, would not join political organizations. This was because such affiliations were done only during the period of MRND, which was a state party.

He explains that, in his testimony, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite declared that he was prepared to incriminate Habyarimana Jean in the Gacaca court. However, he did not do it because he realized that Habyarimana Jean was listed in the first

Page 792

326

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

category of genocidaires that were supposed to be tried in regular courts. He wonders why Nyiringondo Epaphrodite did not provide such testimony in writing at that time.

He pursues the argument that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite stated that Kamatamu used to invite young people to train themselves to be Interahamwe. However, afterward, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite declared that Kamatamu invited them to go and watch over security instead. Furthermore, he points out that the prosecution declared that Habyarimana Jean was a member of the "Comité de Crise," while another witness named Mukagatare declared that such a "Comité de Crise" never existed.

He added that Mbarushimana Vincent stated that a meeting was held in which Habyarimana Jean and Ngirumpatse attended, calling on young people to be militarily trained. Mbarushimana Vincent further stated that Habyarimana Jean took those people to Camp Kigali using his own vehicle, a Land Rover model. Additionally, he claims that Habyarimana Jean had previously fired Tutsi people, as supported by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite. However, Habyarimana Jean would not be able to bring those young people to Camp Kigali using his own vehicle because there were too many of them.

Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, assisting him, states that based on Article 111 of Law no 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, which provides that the benefit of doubt is given to the accused, the testimony of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent should not be given merit. He argues that their statements align themselves with the prosecution, and they did not declare it before the court, which deprived Habyarimana Jean of the opportunity to ask them questions face to face.

Page 793

327 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

He further states that based on Article 62 of Law no. 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, which provides that testimonial evidence is statements made in court, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent should be summoned to appear before this Court to provide their testimony. This will allow Habyarimana Jean and his legal counsel to ask them questions. He argues that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite provided his testimony while in Kanombe hospital where he was admitted, but Habyarimana Jean was not given the opportunity to contradict him because he was not there. Furthermore, he states that although Mbarushimana Vincent was missing, he should be summoned again before this court to provide his testimony and undergo cross-examination. If he remains missing, the conclusion should be drawn that he is definitively missing.

The Prosecutor argues that, based on Article 86 of Law no. 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, evidence in criminal cases is based on all the facts. Furthermore, according to Article 65 of Law no 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, only the court can assess the relevance of testimonial evidence. Cosequently, he notes that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent should not be summoned again as witnesses before this court because the testimony they made before the investigation organs is relevant. This is supported by another testimony made before the High Court by Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJD, and HJE, as indicated by paragraphs 35 to 39 and 47 of the appealed judgment. Additionally, the prosecutor contends that Habyarimana Jean was given enough time to ask them questions as he wished, and they provided answers.

Page 794

328

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

He explains that the High Court attended to Nyiringondo Epaphrodite in Kanombe Hospital, where he was admitted, and asked him all the questions that Habyarimana Jean intended to ask him, to which he replied. Afterward, the court read Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's declarations to both Habyarimana Jean and the prosecution, who also retorted about them.

He continues to explain that the High Court summoned Mbarushimana Vincent for cross-examination, but it did not occur because he did not appear. The summons contained in the file stated that he is no longer present at his former domicile. Nevertheless, he argues that Mbarushimana Vincent's testimony is relevant because it was provided before the investigation organs in compliance with the law.

He adds that even if Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent are summoned before this court, it would serve no purpose because they have already provided their testimony before the investigation organs and the High Court. Moreover, he argues that their declarations are relevant as they are supported by the testimonial declarations made by other witnesses that are in the dossier.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 119 of the Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings. In addition, article 62 of the same law provides that testimonial evidence consists of statements made in court by an individual regarding what he or

Page 795

329 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

she personally saw or heard that is relevant to the subject matter of the trial.

Again, article 65 of the above stated law provides that the court assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations.

The legal scholars clarify that though the principle of adverserial procedure permits opposing parties to contradict and discuss the evidence collected during the preliminary phase of the criminal trial, but, the trial judge may base his conviction on those elements of evidence without necessarily being repeated orally and adversarially during the hearing by the interrogated witnesses.16

It is noted in the case file that before the prosecution on 24/10/2014 and the High Court on 23/11/2016, during the investigation at Kanombe Hospital where Nyiringondo Epaphrodite was admitted, the latter explained that Habyarimana Jean played a role in selecting youth for interahamwe, who received military training. Subsequently, these youth were involved in the killing of numerous Tutsi individuals, including

16 Michel Franchimont, Ann Jacob et Adrien Masset, Manuel de Procédure Pénale, Liège, Belgique, 2012, p.758: “Le caractère contradictoire de la procédure permet, certes, aux parties de contredire et discuter les éléments recueillis au cours de la phase préliminaire du procès pénal, mais (…) le juge du fond peut fonder sa conviction sur des éléments de l’information et de l’instruction qui ont été recueillis non contradictoirement et qui ne doivent pas nécessairement être repris oralement et contradictoirement à l’audience”.

Page 796

330

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Rutayisire Deo, also known as Tigana, Gasongo, Munyankindi, and Vénantie.

It is further noted that following that investigation, the court reconvened for a hearing on 08/12/2016. During this hearing, both Habyarimana Jean and the prosecution were given ample time to respond to the testimony. In his response, Habyarimana Jean argued that the testimony given by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite during the initial investigation should not be taken into account, as it contradicts the statement he had given before the prosecution on 24/10/2014.

It is also evident from the file that Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, provided a testimony to the prosecution on 24/10/2014. In this testimony, he implicated Habyarimana Jean in the process of gathering youth from Muhima and Kimisagara, transporting them to Camp Kigali, and providing them with firearms training. According to his statement, between 10/04/1994 and 13/04/1994, these interahamwe youth were responsible for the killing of the Inkotanyi cadres.

Furthermore, it is observed in the file that the hearing of the case was repeatedly postponed to various dates, including 20/10/2016, 24/10/2016, 01/11/2016, and 11/11/2016, to allow the High Court to hear Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, as a witness, as per the request of Habyarimana Jean. However, this witness failed to appear due to lack of information about his residence. Nonetheless, Habyarimana Jean was granted ample time to respond to the testimonies he had given before the prosecution on 24/10/2014, as well as those of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite mentioned in paragraphs [20], [52], [53], [98], [99], and [108] of the aforementioned judgment.

Page 797

331 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Moreover, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, the High Court clarified that the testimonies provided by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, as mentioned previously, should be regarded as evidence supporting the assertion that Habyarimana Jean was among the individuals involved in the selection of interahamwe youth for military training. Their testimonies are significant as they affirm their direct knowledge of the selection process, despite being sidelined due to their Tutsi ethnicity. The court also determined that such testimony should be accorded weight, as it finds support from other witnesses, including Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE. These witnesses corroborated that Habyarimana Jean was actively involved in the selection of youth for military training. This involvement was facilitated by the bourgmestres of various Communes and Sectors, as motivated by him. They further detailed that a meeting took place at the MRND party headquarters located in Muhima, specifically the Kabuga building, before the youth were subsequently sent for military training. These clarifications were provided by the witnesses in paragraphs [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41] of the appealed judgment.

In accordance with legal provisions and the opinions of legal scholars, the Court determines that during the case proceedings, Habyarimana Jean was granted ample opportunity, as highlighted in paragraphs [20], [52], [53], [98], [99], and [108] of the appealed judgment, to challenge the testimonies presented by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo. Additionally, exercising its discretion under Article 65 of Law no. 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, the Court has deemed these testimonies credible. They find support in the accounts provided by other

Page 798

332

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

witnesses, including Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE, as elaborated in paragraph 41 of the aforementioned judgment. It is evident that the Court made a reasoned decision in relying on the testimonies of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, which were documented in the affidavit established by both the prosecution and the High Court for investigative purposes. In criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means of fact or law provided they are subject to adversarial proceedings, as stipulated in Article 119 of the aforementioned law. This underscores the point that there is no necessity to summon Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, particularly considering the unavailability of Mbarushimana Vincent due to his unknown whereabouts, as previously explained. Therefore, it is unnecessary to call them for cross- examination in this case, given the circumstances.

The Court concludes that the validity of the declarations made by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent, also known as Gasongo, rests upon their alignment with alternate forms of evidence presented through the testimonies of multiple witnesses, as mentioned earlier. This assessment should be conducted in conjunction with other evidentiary elements contained within the case file. Such a comprehensive analysis is crucial to determining the extent of Habyarimana Jean's involvement in the offenses for which he was found guilty by the High Court. This matter will be further elucidated in the subsequent paragraphs of this case.

The Court concludes that Habyarimana Jean's assertion that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's testimony should not carry weight due to its contradictions lacks merit. The inclusion of statements pertaining to the "Comité de crise" before the High

Page 799

333 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Court and the introduction of names of witnesses not previously mentioned to the prosecution does not substantiate a contradiction in his statements. Rather, it is evident that Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's addition of these details is likely a consequence of the passage of twenty years since the occurrence of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. This extended time span between the events and his testimony provided before the prosecution on 24/10/2014, as well as before the court on 23/12/2016, offers a plausible explanation for the inclusion of these elements. This also aligns with the conclusions of the judgment ICT–2001-72–T in the case involving the prosecution and Bikindi Simon, who was tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on 02/12/2008. In this judgment, it was elucidated that the existence of contradictions or minor errors in witness statements, or even instances where these statements differ from earlier declarations, should not diminish the credibility of the testimony. This phenomenon may arise due to the considerable passage of time between the occurrence of the offense mentioned in the indictment and the actual presentation of the testimony before the court17.

The Court concludes that, furthermore, the aforementioned court did not err in its consideration of Nyiringondo Epaphrodite's testimony. It deliberated on a portion of his testimony that implicated Habyarimana Jean in the selection of interahamwe youth for military training, while

17 ICTR –2001 -72 –T between the Prosecution vs Simon Bikindi, paragraph 32: “La Chambre reconnaît qu'il s'est écoulé une longue période entre la date des faits allégués dans l'acte d'accusation et celle des dépositions à I'audience. Ainsi, Ie manque de précision ou I'existence de contradictions mineures entre les dépositions de différents témoins ou entre la déposition d'un témoin et ses déclarations antérieures, n'ont généralement pas été considérés comme jetant nécessairement Ie discrédit sur ces dépositions”.

Page 800

334

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

omitting another segment. This action aligns with the provisions of Article 65 of the aforementioned Law. This article empowers the court to exercise its discretion in evaluating the relevance, pertinence, admissibility, or rejection of testimonial evidence, particularly by assessing the witnesses' understanding of the facts and their objectivity and sincerity in delivering their statements. This also corresponds to the decision rendered in the judgment ICT–2001-72–T of the prosecution versus Bikindi Simon, as mentioned earlier. In this case, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established that a segment of the testimony can be considered valid as long as it is the portion that holds credibility18. 4.Whether the High Court disregarded witness declarations exculpating Habyarimana Jean

Habyarimana Jean, assisted by counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, states that there exists exculpatory evidence in his favor that was disregarded by the High Court. This evidence includes the testimony provided by Setiba Joseph, the former Interahamwe President in Kigali Sector. Setiba Joseph declared that the person named Turatsinze Jean Pierre was the chairperson of Interahamwe in Kigali Ngali. He further stated that Turatsinze Jean Pierre prevented Interahamwe who were attempting to attack his home, where Tutsi sought refuge. Setiba Joseph explains that the distribution of ammunition to those Interahamwe used to take place in the barracks where training sessions were held. This implies, therefore, that Turatsinze Jean Pierre was not the person in charge of dispatching the

18 ICTR –2001 -72 –T between the prosecution versus Bikindi Simon, paragraph 32: “Même si elle a parfois décidé de ne pas se fonder sur certains aspects de la déposition d’un témoin, la Chambre a néamoins retenu d’autres parties de celle- ci jugées fiables et crédibles”.

Page 801

335 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

ammunitions to Interahamwe, as he was wrongly accused of doing so.

He continues by stating that another witness, named HJD, who was the president of Interahamwe in the Nyakabanda sector, was summoned to provide exculpatory evidence regarding the testimony given by the HJC witness. This HJC witness was a well-known Interahamwe member, as confirmed by the ALJ witness designated by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, as well as HJE in the High Court.In the testimony of HJC, he asserted that a resolution was reached during a meeting to expel the Tutsi who remained within the sectors and villages. This meeting supposedly occurred on 15/05/1994 and was chaired by Renzaho Tharcisse. However, the High Court disregarded the testimony of HJD, who maintained that the meeting on 15/05/1994 had never taken place. Instead, HJD claimed that the meeting had occurred on 20/05/1994 at Nyakabanda School. The purpose of this meeting was to recruit Interahamwe members in order to support soldiers and reclaim Mburabuturo, which had been seized by the Inkotanyi forces.

Habyarimana Jean argues that another witness's testimony, which was also disregarded by the High Court, is that of Mucanda Vital. Mucanda Vital declared that Habyarimana Jean was the person responsible for conducting the meetings, which used to include Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa individuals. However, the court chose not to consider his statements during deliberation.

Concerning the meeting of 16/01/1994, Habyarimana Jean explained that following the RPF attack, mistrust arose between Hutu and Tutsi populations, accompanied by preexisting tensions between Abakiga and Abanyenduga groups, as well as

Page 802

336

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

district-based conflicts involving the MDR political party of Kayibanda and the MRND led by Habyarimana Jean. Thus, the purpose of this meeting was to alert the Interahamwe to remain vigilant. Habyarimana Jean explained that the ideology of "Hutu Power" originated from the statements made by Karamira during the meeting of 23/10/1993. This meeting aimed to mobilize the entire population, including Hutu, Twa, and Tutsi, to condemn the assassination of President Ndadaye and he (Habyarimana Jean) delivered a speech during this meeting.

Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, assisting Habyarimana Jean, states that in the exculpatory testimony in favor of Habyarimana Jean, the witnesses indicated that he was not the individual who played a role in the meetings that incited Hutu to kill Tutsi and in the preparation of the genocide. The prosecution is unable to provide evidence that demonstrates Habyarimana Jean's involvement in inciting Hutu individuals to commit genocide against Tutsi. Consequently, he has requested the prosecution to provide a cassette recording, excerpt, or a written testimony that tangibly proves his alleged role. He further states that his client was pronounced guilty due to his alleged involvement in the meeting held at Nyamirambo stadium, where Hutu individuals were supposedly incited to commit violence against Tutsi. However, the actual purpose of the meeting was to condemn the death of Ndadaye, who was the president of Burundi. While Habyarimana does not deny being present at the event or delivering a speech, he maintains that his intention was to provide comfort to the general population and to discourage the youth from engaging in harmful actions.

The Prosecutor argues that the statements made by Setiba Joseph are inconsistent with the testimonies of various witnesses,

Page 803

337 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

including HJE, HJA, and even Habyarimana Jean himself, as detailed in paragraphs [69] to [77] of the appealed judgment. The High Court provided numerous reasons for rejecting these witness statements, thereby casting doubt on their reliability. It is perplexing that Setiba Joseph, who initially informed the prosecution during prison interviews that he was unfamiliar with Habyarimana Jean, later claimed before the court that he knew him and that he had not committed any wrong during the genocide against the Tutsi. These glaring contradictions are precisely why the High Court chose not to place reliance on his testimony.

He proceeds to argue that the testimony provided by witness identified as HJD should not be regarded as reliable. According to him, Habyarimana Jean has not presented any evidence proving that he was genuinely the president of Interahamwe in Nyakabanda. In contrast, the High Court has found the statements of the witness HJC credible, as he had participated in the meeting that supposedly incited Hutu to commit violence against Tutsi. Habyarimana Jean himself mentioned HJC as a witness in an attempt to absolve himself from guilt. Furthermore, there is another individual he attempted to involve as a witness, who affirmed that he never incited Hutu to harm Tutsi but instead encouraged unity among them. This assertion is, however, untrue because in various meetings where the incitement of Hutu against Tutsi took place, Habyarimana Jean repeatedly stated that the enemies of Burundi are the same as the enemies of Rwanda. He encouraged Hutu to unite against the perceived enemy, the Tutsi, which he expressed during the meeting on 16/01/1994, as documented in paragraph [569] of the judgment involving Karemera Edouard and Matayo Ngirumpatse.

Page 804

338

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding the distribution of ammunition, the prosecutor contends that despite Habyarimana Jean's assertion of having exonerating witnesses on his side, the High Court thoroughly outlined his involvement, as documented in paragraphs [69] to [77] of the appealed judgment. Considering that Habyarimana Jean held a leadership position within the MRND at the City of Kigali level, a political party known to have Interahamwe members, dismissing any role he played in the distribution of ammunition used during the genocide would be a mistake. This is because he was frequently engaged in various meetings with other leaders, including those involving military leaders, in all the agenda.

The Prosecutor presents that the statements made by Habyarimana Jean, inciting Hutu individuals to unite and combat the perceived enemy during the meetings held on 23/10/1993 and 16/01/1994, are documented in paragraphs [521], [522], [514], [517], [518], and [519] of the judgment involving Karemera Edouard and Matayo Ngirumpatse. Additionally, in paragraph [524] of the same judgment, it becomes clear that he expressed the concept of Hutu power ideology. He explains that during the meeting of 16/01/1994, as highlighted particularly in paragraphs [573] and [574], Habyarimana Jean declared his intention to provide a document outlining the conflict between Hutu and Tutsi, along with the methods of punishing the perceived enemy, which in this context were Tutsi individuals. He goes on to argue that it was the witness HJC who clarified that Councillor Karushara Rose had requested firearms during the meeting, and Habyarimana Jean did not dispute her statement. This lack of contradiction implies his endorsement of her appeal, signifying his involvement in inciting people to partake in acts of genocide and providing support for such actions.

Page 805

339 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 65 of the Law n⁰ 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production provides that it is the court that assesses with discretion the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It is not bound by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their declarations.

From the case file, it is evident that in the appealed judgment, Setiba Joseph, HJD, and Mucanda Vital asserted that there was no collaboration between Interahamwe and the MRND political organization’s leadership. They also stated that no political party leader played a role in selecting the youth who underwent military training. However, the High Court dismissed these statements as unsubstantiated, as even they themselves acknowledge that there were joint activities carried out by Interahamwe and MRND members. These activities included participating in meetings, providing security services to party supporters during gatherings, participating in demonstrations, and encouraging youth to join the MRND19.

Habyarimana Jean asserts in his appeal that the High Court found him guilty of playing a role in the genocide committed against the Tutsi population in Rwanda in 1994, despite the testimonies of exonerating witnesses such as Setiba Joseph, HJD (referred to under this name for security reasons), and Mucanda Vital. The present court shall therefore determine whether the High Court indeed disregarded these statements.

19 Judgment RPA GEN 00002/2016/HCCI, paragraph [42].

Page 806

340

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Regarding the witness, Setiba Joseph

From the case file, it is evident that during the hearing on 28/02/2017 before the High Court, Setiba Joseph clarified that he and his colleagues, who were part of Interahamwe, did not maintain a permanent collaboration with the MRND party. Their interaction was primarily confined to situations involving gatherings and demonstrations in Kigali. During these events, they were dispatched by the Interahamwe leadership to receive guidance from the top cadre of the MRND party at the City of Kigali level. He emphasized that Turatsinze Jean Pierre was the individual who maintained a close collaboration with the MRND party and acted as a liaison between them and the national leadership. He further stated that he had never witnessed Habyarimana Jean participating in Interahamwe activities. Instead, he recalled seeing Habyarimana Jean present at gatherings held at Stade Régional in Nyamirambo in 1993. Habyarimana's role in those instances was to oversee the welcome of visitors. Concerning the training and provision of firearms to the Interahamwe, Setiba Joseph stated that such tasks were the responsibility of soldiers. These soldiers were also in charge of transporting them to Gabiro. He further indicated that none of the political party leaders used to be present for these activities.

As detailed above, Habyarimana Jean asserts in his appeal that Setiba Joseph, who held the position of Interahamwe president in Kigali Sector, exonerated him. Setiba Joseph clarified that Turatsinze Jean Pierre served as the leader of Interahamwe in Kigali Ngali. It was Turatsinze who prevented Interahamwe from attacking Habyarimana's home to search for Tutsi individuals he had assisted in hiding. Additionally,

Page 807

341 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Habyarimana Jean explains that the distribution of firearms was conducted within military camps, and as such, he played no role in their dispatch.

The Court of Appeal determines that the fact Setiba Joseph mentioned Turatsinze Jean Pierre as the president of Interahamwe in Kigali Ngali does not necessarily constitute exoneration for Habyarimana Jean. This is because Habyarimana Jean was not specifically charged with holding the position of Interahamwe President, making it unnecessary for Setiba Joseph to contradict such a charge. Instead, Habyarimana Jean was convicted of various offenses stemming from his role as the president of the MRND party in the City of Kigali prefecture. This included charges of conspiring to commit genocide and being complicit in genocide by inciting and distributing firearms used in the genocide. These charges were based on testimonies provided by Nkubito, HJE, HJC, HJB, HJA, Mbarushimana, and Nyiringongo during the investigation and court proceedings.

Regarding the assertion that Setiba Joseph prevented Interahamwe from attacking Habyarimana Jean's residence in search of hidden Tutsi individuals, the Court finds that this question was posed during the inquiry into the role of the MRND leadership at the barricades. Habyarimana Jean was not convicted of leading barricades where Tutsi individuals were killed. Furthermore, the possibility of him hiding Tutsi individuals does not serve as exculpatory evidence, as it does not negate the other actions constituting the offense of genocide for which he was found guilty by the High Court.

Regarding the dispatch and training of firearms to Interahamwe, the Court of Appeal acknowledges that, as the High Court also recognized, Setiba Joseph's statement contradicts that

Page 808

342

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of Nkubito Isaac. Nkubito Isaac, the former president of the MRND party in the former Kacyiru Commune, was cross- examined during the hearing on 28/02/2017 before the High Court. He explained that after the meeting held at Nyamirambo stadium in 1993, there were subsequent trainings of MRND and PSD (Parti Social Démocrate) youth, known as Abakombozi. They would convene at the MRND permanent office for meetings, where they were informed that the enemies were Tutsi individuals. Following this, they received training in Gabiro after being briefed by Habyarimana Jean. Therefore, he indicated that while he personally witnessed certain actions mentioned in his statements, others were based on hearsay.

The Court finds, as the High Court has also determined, that Nkubito Isaac's statements should be considered credible. This is further supported by the testimony of HJA, who was interrogated at the same time. HJA stated that the selection of Interahamwe youth was conducted by representatives of the MRND at the sector and cell levels, including individuals like Kaboyi Jérémie, who served as the councillor of Nyamirambo sector, and Karushara Rose, who was the councillor of Kimisagara Sector. These representatives received briefings about the youth's training from the MRND leadership, which included Habyarimana Jean. It is noted that this has also been reiterated by HJB, who stated that he was a member of the MRND political party alongside Habyarimana Jean. HJB clarified that as a leader of this party, Habyarimana Jean could not have been unaware of the establishment of the Interahamwe youth. This youth group was initially formed in Kigali city, underwent military training, and was provided with firearms for the attacks they carried out. These trainings occurred at locations such as Kabuga building in Muhima, Bigogwe, and other places.

Page 809

343 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

Additionally, HJB emphasized that the same Interahamwe individuals who came from Kigali were responsible for the killings of Tutsi individuals in Bugesera, Bigogwe, Butare, and various other regions. He further asserted that he frequently observed information about these training activities, primarily in reports signed by Habyarimana Jean.

The Court also finds that other witnesses interrogated during the High Court proceedings, including HJC, HJE, Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, and Mbarushimana Vincent, asserted that Habyarimana Jean played a role in the distribution of firearms to the Interahamwe. For instance, HJC, who was one of the beneficiaries, stated that the distribution of firearms was preceded by a meeting on 15/5/1994, in which Habyarimana Jean participated and supported that idea raised by Karushara Rose20. Additionally, HJE stated that Habyarimana Jean, as a leader of the MRND, played a role in establishing the Interahamwe wing and organizing their training. The Court further finds that during the investigation phase, witnesses Nyiringondo Epaphrodite and Mbarushimana Vincent indicated Habyarimana Jean's role in selecting Interahamwe youth, organizing their training, and distributing firearms for their use in the killings of Tutsi individuals. Additionally, the issue of firearms distribution was reiterated and affirmed in the judgment ICTR-98-44-T in the case of the Prosecution against Edouard Karemera and Ngirumpatse Matayo21.

20 He was the Councillor of Kimisagara Sector 21 ICTR-98-44-T, Prosecution against Edouard Karemera and Ngirumpatse Matayo, paragraph 444: “La chambre conclut que le Procureur a établi au délà de tout doute raisonnable qu’à compter de 1993, des armes ont été fournies aux Interahamwe pendant que d’autres étaient stockées pour leur ệtre distribuées à une date ultérieure”.

Page 810

344

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds that, as even the High Court noted, the testimonies of Nkubito Isaac, HJC, and HJE should be given greater weight. They possess sufficient information about the events, as some of them were closely affiliated with Habyarimana Jean in the MRND party and were also Interahamwe members. In contrast, Setiba Joseph, who did not have a continuous association with the MRND to the extent of being aware of Habyarimana Jean's activities, as he claimed in his testimony, should be considered differently.

The Court of Appeal therefore determines that the High Court did not disregard the testimony provided by Setiba Joseph, as alleged by Habyarimana Jean. Instead, it thoroughly analyzed this testimony and concluded that it should not be given significant weight due to contradictions with the testimony of Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, HJE, Nyirangondo Epaphrodite, and Mbarushimana Vincent. The Court finds that these individuals possess ample information about the events. According to Article 65 of the law relating to evidence and its production, as mentioned earlier, it is in the court's discretion to judiciously assess the relevance, pertinence, and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence, taking into account the witnesses' knowledge and ability to narrate the facts. The selection of testimony based on the events corroborates the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case of Yussuf Munyakazi. In that case, the Court relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution rather than considering that presented by the accused. This decision was made because, when discrepancies arise in the events, it is the trial court's

Page 811

345 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

responsibility to determine which pieces of evidence should be given credence after hearing from witnesses22. Regarding the witness HJD

It is observed from the case file that HJD, who was provided this name for security reasons and served as the President of MRND in Nyakabanda Sector, was also interrogated during the hearing on 28/02/2017 before the High Court. HJD stated that the leadership of Interahamwe had no direct collaboration with that of MRND. However, the leadership of MRND had the option to request the presence of Interahamwe youth for meetings, and Turatsinze was responsible for such collaboration. He stated that he has no knowledge of the meeting on 15/05/1994 aimed at pursuing Tutsi people. The meeting he is aware of occurred during the last days of that month with the objective of recruiting youths who would liberate Mburabuturo mountain. This meeting was organized by the military. He further mentioned that he had never seen Mbarushimana Jean come to Nyakabanda to request Interahamwe youths. Additionally, he emphasized that MRND and its leadership at the city level did not play any role in planning or carrying out the genocide against the Tutsi.

The Court of Appeal observes that Habyarimana Jean claimed that he requested HJD to be interrogated in order to dispute the information provided by HJC. HJC asserted that on

22 ICTR-97-36A-A, Prosecution vs Yussuf Munyakazi, paragraph 118: “The Appeals Chamber recalls that, when faced with competing versions of events, it is the duty of the Trial Chamber that heard the witnesses to determine which evidence it considers more probative. Based on the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to accept the Prosecution evidence over Witness Nahimana’s account.”

Page 812

346

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

15/05/1994, a decision was made during a meeting to pursue Tutsi individuals who remained in sectors and villages. However, Habyarimana Jean contends that the meeting had a different purpose – recruiting youths for the liberation of Mburabututo, which had been seized by the Inkotanyi forces. Despite his assertions, the High Court did not consider his declarations.

The Court of Appeal acknowledges that HJD stated that he was not aware of the meeting on 15/05/1994 intended for the pursuit of Tutsi individuals. Instead, he claimed knowledge of a meeting held in the last days of May 1994 with the objective of liberating Mburabuturo. However, HJC clarified that the meeting on 15/05/1994 did indeed take place. It was led by Colonel Renzaho Tharcisse, Colonel Ndahimana (the army commander in Kigali City and Eastern region), and Colonel Edouard Hakizimana. HJC also mentioned that Habyarimana Jean was personally present at this meeting, which aimed to pursue Tutsi individuals in their homes. HJC stated that he was given five firearms because they were needed for these activities, based on the opinion of Karushara Rose, an opinion that Habyarimana Jean supported. Therefore, the way HJC narrates these actions suggests that he is recounting what he genuinely knows. The court considers that he has no vested interest in fabricating lies against Habyarimana Jean, particularly since he was a member of Interahamwe, a group known to be affiliated with MRND. Therefore, the Court finds that Habyarimana Jean's claims that this witness, HJD, exonerates him are untrue. This is because the meeting regarding which he alleges that HJD exonerated him is unknown to HJD himself. Furthermore, Habyarimana Jean failed to contradict the information provided by HJC, who accused him of being involved in that meeting. Consequently, the decision

Page 813

347 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

taken by the High Court to reject the testimony of HJD regarding this issue is justified.

The Court of Appeal notes that, as even the High Court has determined, the testimony provided by HJC carries more weight compared to that provided by HJD. This aligns with the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda whereby it held in the case of Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda that where there are two conflicting testimonies, it falls to the Trial Chamber before which the witness testified to decide which of the testimonies has more weight23. Regarding the witness Mucanda Vital

Mucanda Vital was also interrogated during the hearing on 28/02/2017. He stated that he was a member of Interahamwe at the sector level and served as their moral instructor in Gitega/Karambo sector. He explained that they used to accompany their supporters as their bodyguards, and a person named Twahirwa Séraphin was responsible for briefing them about their activities, whether it was participating in demonstrations or gatherings. He declared that they had no interactions with Habyarimana Jean, except during demonstrations and gatherings. He stated that he never set foot in their meetings. The one place he remembers coming into contact with Habyarimana Jean was during a gathering held in Nyamirambo in the year 1993. During this gathering, Habyarimana Jean took the floor and stated that whether they were Batwa, Hutu, or Tutsi, they should know that the enemy of

23 ICTR-96-3-A, Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, paragraph 501: Appeals Chamber recalled that “where there are two conflicting testimonies, it falls to the Trial Chamber before which the witness testified to decide which of the testimonies has more weight […].”

Page 814

348

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Rwanda is also the same enemy of Burundi. He emphasized that they should all condemn the assassination of President Ndadaye.

The Court of Appeal notes that in his pleadings, Habyarimana Jean had requested that Mucanda Vital be interrogated to explain that he was responsible for organizing gatherings that brought together the entire population, including Hutu, Tutsi, and Batwa. However, the High Court disregarded this request.

Regarding the statements of Mucanda Vital, the Court notes that in the explanations he provided to the court, he stated that the leadership of MRND had no collaboration with that of Interahamwe, except for participating in demonstrations and gatherings. However, as advanced by Nyiringondo Epaphrodite, Mbarushimana Vincent, HJA, HJB, HJE, and Nkubito Isaac, Habyarimana Jean, as a leader of the MRND party in Kigali City, played a significant role in establishing the Interahamwe youth and providing them with training and firearms that were used to pursue and kill Tutsi.

The Court finds that regarding the gathering of 23/10/1993, Micanda Vital stated that Habyarimana Jean's words were that they condemn the assassination of President Ndadaye24 and that the enemy of Burundi is the same as the enemy of Rwanda. He mentioned that at that time, there were Batwa, Hutu, and Tutsi present. Habyarimana Jean does not dispute the fact that he spoke at that gathering. However, Nkubito Isaac, HJA, and HJE clarified to the Court that when they mentioned "the enemy," it meant Tutsi. This interpretation was also supported by

24He was the President of Burundi since 10/07/1993 until 21/10/1993; Region week.com, visited on 17/02/2010.

Page 815

349 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case ICTR- 98-44-T involving the prosecution against Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse25. Therefore, Habyarimana Jean's speech condemning the enemy of Rwanda is an indication that he strongly incited those present to unite in fighting against Tutsi, wherever they may be.

The Court finds that the statements made by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, who is assisting Habyarimana Jean, claiming that the purpose of the meeting on 23/10/1993 was to condemn the death of President Ndadaye of Burundi are groundless. If such had been the case, all the speakers at that meeting, including Habyarimana Jean, have in contrast emphasized on the need to condemn the death of Ndadaye. However, the witnesses interrogated during the investigation phase and before the High Court, as mentioned above, explained that the focus of the meeting was to incite attendees to unite and fight against the enemy, who were the Tutsi. Additionally, this interpretation is supported by the testimony of witnesses ALC, UB, and AWD, who were present at the gathering. This interpretation aligns with the case between the Prosecution vs. Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Mathieu, tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)26, where the word "Umwanzi" was defined to mean a Tutsi, as also provided in the case ICTR-96-4- T, Prosecution vs. Jean Paul Akayesu.27

25 ICTR-98-44-T prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph [537]. 26 ICTR 98-44-T Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, paragraphs [520], [521], [522] na [524]. 27 ICTR -96-4-T Prosecution vs Jean Paul Akayesu, paragraph 123.

Page 816

350

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

It also finds that Habyarimana Jean participated in the meeting of 16/01/1994, as he himself explained to the present court during the hearing on 13/01/2020. This participation is evident in paragraph [573] of the case ICTR-98-44-T between the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, as referred to above. In paragraph [598] of the same case, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decisively established that on 16/01/1994, a demonstration took place at Nyamirambo stadium, during which Karemera Edouard, Ngirumpatse Mathieu, and other top leaders of MRND were given the opportunity to speak. Members of Interahamwe were also in attendance. It is crucial to note that all the attendees expressed support for the idea of "Hutu Power28." This strongly supports Habyarimana Jean's role in various meetings where the plan to unite Hutu and incite them to fight against the Tutsi population was conspired. Contrary to Habyarimana Jean's claim, this meeting was not solely intended to inform the Interahamwe to exercise caution.

It also finds that the arguments presented by Counsel Nyirihirwe Hilaire, suggesting that cassette recordings or extracts of written testimony should be used to establish the role of Habyarimana Jean, are unfounded. This is because witness evidence is not excluded in such cases, and the Law relating to evidence and its production stipulates that in criminal cases, evidence can be established by all means, whether factual or

28 ICTR 98-44-T: [….], De l’avis de la Chambre, “Le Procureur a établi au – delà de tout doute raisonnable qu’un meeting s’était tenu au stade de Nyamirambo le 16 janvier 1994, que Karemera, Ngirumpatse et d’autres hauts responsables du MRND avaient assisté à ce meeting et s’étaient adressés à l’assistance, que des membres de la milice Interahamwe y avaient également pris part, et qu’on y avait épousé la cause de l’idéologie Hutu Power”.

Page 817

351 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

legal, as long as they are subject to adversarial proceedings. This demonstrates the freedom in the presentation of evidence within the bounds of the law in criminal cases29. Therefore, there is no valid reason to discredit witness evidence as long as it is lawful. Conversely, Habyarimana Jean and his legal counsel have the duty to challenge witness statements incriminating him, a duty which they have failed to fulfill.

Considering the explanations provided above, the Court of Appeal finds that the High Court did not disregard the statements of HJD, Setiba Joseph, and Mucanda Vital. Instead, it collectively assessed them along with other pieces of evidence available in the file and found them to be without merit. Thus, the present court concurs with the decision reached by the High Court because, as indicated, there are other testimonial statements challenging the one provided by Setiba Joseph. These should be considered for the reasons clarified above.

5. Whether the High Court made a mistake in declaring Habyarimana Jean guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit genocide and the offence of complicity in genocide, and providing munitions used to commit genocide.

Habyarimana Jean argues that the High Court erred in convicting him of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in inciting to commit genocide, and providing firearms used to commit genocide based on incriminating testimonial declarations. He points out that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda held that Ngirumpatse Matayo, Karemera Edouard, as well as other top leaders of MRND, were

29 Article 119 of the Law N⁰15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production.

Page 818

352

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

not guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide for acts that occurred before 08/04/1994.

The Prosecution argues that the case involving Ngirumpatse Matayo and Karemera does not benefit Habyarimana Jean because he is not prosecuted for having been an Interahamwe leader. Instead, he is charged for the role he played in the establishment of such a group and training it militarily with the purpose of exterminating Tutsi, as proved by witnesses.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT Regarding the fact that the High Court convicted Habyarimana Jean of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide

Article 132(4º) of the Organic Law nº 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code30, as well as article 3(b) of the Convention of 09/12/1948 on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide31, provide for the offence of participation and conspiracy to commit genocide. Such offence has also been clarified in various cases tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda incuding that of Alfred Musema

30Without prejudice to other provisions of this Organic Law relating to attempt and criminal participation, the following acts shall be punished by penalties provided under this Chapter […] conspiracy to commit a crime, even when not followed by the commission [..]. The text of this article is the same as that of article 93(1º) of the Law nº68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. 31 [….] The following acts shall be punishable […] Conspiracy to commit genocide (Art. 3, e of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Page 819

353 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

tried on 27/01/2000 where it stated that conspiracy to commit genocide consists of a resolution to act on which at least two persons have agreed with a view to committing genocide32.

The High Court convicted Habyarimana Jean of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide based on Article 132(4⁰) of the Organic Law no. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012, instituting the penal code. This conviction relied on the testimonies of witnesses who incriminated him, including Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE. These witnesses asserted that he played a role in selecting Interahamwe youth who received military training and the ammunition used to kill Tutsi individuals. This took place in his presence at Muhima in Kabuga building, in collaboration with individuals such as Ngirumpatse Mathieu, Nzirorera Joseph, Renzaho Tharcisse, Munyakazi Laurent, Kajuga Robert, Rutaganda Georges, Kamatamu Euphrasie, and others. Additionally, similar activities occurred in other parts of the Kigali City prefecture, where youth were selected, trained, and provided with ammunition for use in the genocide.

Another element upon which the High Court relied in convicting Habyarimana Jean of conspiracy to commit genocide is the fact that he frequently held meetings with MRND party leaders at the Commune level, which he headed. During these meetings, he would brief them about the resolutions of the party's

32 ICTR-96-13-T, Prosecution vs Musema Alfred, paragraph 191 “… La Chambre définit l’entente en vue de commettre le genocide comme une résolution d’agir sur laquelle au moins deux personnes se sont accordées en vue de commettre un jenocide”, ICTR-99-52-A, Prosecution vs Nahimana Ferdinand and co-accused, paragraph 344; ICTR-99-46-A, Prosecution vs Ntagerura André and co-accused, paragraph 92; ICTR-01-66-A, Prosecution vs Seromba Athanase, paragraph 218.

Page 820

354

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

top leadership regarding the identification of the enemy and strategies for combating them. Subsequently, these leaders would relay this information to their subordinates at the Sector level. The High Court concluded that the holding of these meetings and the willingness of the leaders to transmit these messages to others indicated a consensus reached during these gatherings. It further concluded that the fact that Habyarimana Jean participated in the meeting of 15/05/1994 convened by Prefet Renzaho Tharcisse, where various individuals were invited, including Colonel Ndahimana, Colonel Edouard Hakizimana, and Councilor Karushara Rose, and where the pursuit of remaining Tutsi individuals and their accomplices was on the agenda, along with the dispatch of firearms to facilitate this act, further indicated a consensus to pursue Tutsi and their alleged accomplices33.

Basing on the provisions of article 132(4⁰) of the Organic Law N⁰ 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code and article 3(b) of the Convention of 09/12/1948 on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Court of Appeal finds that the correct classification of the offence for which Habyarimana Jean was convicted by the High Court should have been conspiracy to commit genocide, instead of plotting to commit genocide, because the plotting is not the classification provided by the law; it is rather the definition demonstrating how the offence is reached. This is also the same ruling as in the judgment RPA 0001/12/CS tried by the Supreme Court, between the Prosecution vs Bandora Charles. In this case, Bandora Charles was initially convicted of the offence of plotting to commit genocide by the High Court, but the Supreme Court

33 Judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, paragraphs 131-133.

Page 821

355 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

changed the classification to conspiracy to commit genocide.34 As a matter of fact, the Court of Appeal finds that although there is a difference between the terms "conspiracy" and "plotting," in general, the classification of "conspiracy to commit genocide" used in Article 132(4⁰) of the above-stated Organic Law no. 01/2012/OL is the same as "conspiracy to commit genocide" expressed in Article 3(b) of the Convention of 09/12/1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This classification aligns with the one adopted by the Supreme Court in the case involving Bandora Charles.

Regarding the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in the case ICTR-98-44-T involving the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Ngirumpatse Matayo, ruled that Edouard Karemera, Ngirumpatse Matayo, as well as other MRND leaders, could not be found guilty of offenses including genocide, incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, and murder committed to fulfill the joint criminal enterprise. Additionally, they could not be found guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide based on acts that occurred before 8/04/199435.The Court of Appeal truly finds that the Appellate Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decided that liability based on joint criminal enterprise could not be established by considering acts that occurred before 08/04/1994. It is reasonable to conclude that the role of Karemera and Ngirumpatse in the acts committed before 8/04/1994 does not fall within the offenses provided by the

34 RPA 0001/12/CS rendered on 22/03/2019 involving the Prosecution vs Bandora Charles, paragraph 53. 35 ICTR-98-44-T Prosecution vs Ngirumpatse Mathieu and Karemera Edouard, paragraph 1573: “Aucune déclaration de culpabilité ne serait dès lors être prononcée relativement aux faits survenus avant le 8 avril 1994.”

Page 822

356

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Statutes36. Therefore, the First Trial Chamber did not err in holding that this was not the only possible resolution that could result from the pieces of material evidence, leading to the conviction of Karemera and Ngirumpatse for conspiracy to commit genocide based on acts that occurred before 8/04/199437.

The Court of Appeal finds, however, that even though it was decided as such, this judgment from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda does not apply to Habyarimana Jean, as he alleges. Instead, it applies to Karemera Edouard and Ngirumpatse Matayo, who were involved in that case. Therefore, Habyarimana Jean should not invoke it to allege that it acquitted him of the offenses of incitement to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, murder committed to fulfill the joint criminal enterprise, and the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide for acts that occurred before 08/04/1994, as clarified in Part II of the instant case (II.2).

Regarding the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, the Court of Appeal finds that Habyarimana Jean was convicted of that offense by the High Court based on pieces of evidence that

36 Statut du Tribunal Pénal International pour Le Rwanda. 37 ICTR-98-44-A tried on 29/09/2014 between the Prosecution vs Edouard Karemera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, paragraph 741: “The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the considerations identified by the Trial Chamber reasonably support its finding on the reasonable possibility that Karemera's and Ngirumpatse's involvement in the pre-8 April 1994 events had not been conducted with the intent that crimes covered by the Statute be committed. Consequently, the Trial Chamber did not err in concluding that it was not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence that Karemera and Ngirumpatse possessed the requisite mens rea for a conviction for conspiracy to commit genocide in relation to the pre-8 April 1994 events.”

Page 823

357 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

include meetings and acts that occurred in 1993, which implies events both before and after 08/04/1994. Regarding the issue of whether evidence before 08/04/1994 can be relied upon for his conviction, the Court of Appeal finds that, while some legal scholars have confirmed that although the genocide itself was especially perpetrated on 7/04/1994 until late July 1994, it was planned long before and pursued by the masterminds, perpetrators, and their accomplices, continuing during the dry season and after crossing the border between Zaïre and Rwanda38. Therefore, in this case involving Habyarimana Jean, the Court of Appeal finds that it was determined by the High Court that there are witnesses, including Nkubito Isaac, HJA, HJB, HJC, and HJE, who asserted that Habyarimana Jean was present in meetings held in 1993 and on 15/05/1994 for the purpose of selecting Interahamwe youth, providing them with military training, and firearms. These youths played a significant role in the perpetration of genocide in Kigali City and various parts of the country. The Court of Appeal finds, further, that as observed by the High Court, aside from the classification that was changed, such an offense is established by the fact that Habyarimana Jean, as an MRND president in Kigali City, played a role in various meetings he presided over. In these meetings, he conveyed to his subordinates that the enemy is the Tutsi, as clarified by witnesses

38 Géraud de La Pradelle, Imprescriptible: L’implication française dans le génocide tutsi portée devant les tribunaux, France, 2005, p. 109: “ Bien sur, le génocide proprement dit a été commis pour l’essentiel, sur le territoire national du Rwanda entre le 7 avril et la fin juillet 1994 ; mais Il a été préparé de longue date et l’activité criminelle de ses concepteurs, comme de ses agents et complices, ne s’est pas arrêtée à la fin de l’été, une fois passée la frontière qui sépare le Rwanda du Zaïre.”

Page 824

358

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

including Nkubito and HJB, as mentioned above. These witnesses also conveyed this message to their subordinates. Additionally, the fact that he was present in the meeting on 15/5/1994 with the purpose of inciting the population to pursue the remaining Tutsi and accomplices, and where firearms were dispatched for such acts, further supports this conclusion. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal concurs with the High Court regarding the conviction of Habyarimana Jean for the offense of conspiracy to commit genocide, except for the classification of the offense. Regarding the conviction of Habyarimana Jean of the offense of being an accomplice in genocide for incitement to commit genocide and the distribution of firearms used in genocide by the High Court Article 132(3⁰) of the Organic Law No. 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code39 and Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide40 define and punish the offense of incitement to commit genocide. The acts of incitement to commit genocide were clarified in the case ICTR-2001-72-T involving the Prosecution against Bikindi Simon. It explained that public incitement to commit genocide presupposes the existence of genocidal intent

39 Without prejudice to other provisions of this Organic Law relating to attempt and criminal participation, the following acts shall be punished by penalties provided under this Chapter […] incitement to commit such a crime, even when not followed by the commission […]. The provisions of this article are the same as those of article 93(3º) of Law Nº68/2018 dated 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general. 40 The following acts shall be punishable […] “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” (Art.3, c of The Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the crime of Genocide.

Page 825

359 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

on the part of the person engaging in it, and it is not necessary for this incitement to be followed by the actual act leading to genocide41. In addition, article 132(5⁰) of the Organic Law no 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code42 criminalizes and punishes abetment to commit a crime, even when not followed by the commission. The High Court, having noted that Habyarimana Jean committed complicity in genocide and incitement to commit genocide through various acts as detailed above, relied on article 98 of Organic Law no. 01/2012/OL dated 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code and convicted him of complicity in genocide for inciting people to commit genocide and distributing firearms used in genocide. On one hand, the High Court found Habyarimana Jean guilty of the offense of incitement to commit genocide because he participated in the meeting of 23/10/1993 in which he expressed his intention to incite Hutu to unite and fight the enemy, who were the Tutsi, as clarified above. On the other hand,

41 ICTR -2001-72-T Prosecution vs Bikindi Simon, paragraph 419: “Commet le crime d’incitation directe et publique à commettre le genocide la personne qui agit avec l’intention d’inciter directement et publiquement autrui à commettre le génocide, ce qui suppose l’existence d’une intention génocide. Infraction formelle, l’incitation directe et publique à commettre le génocide est punissable mệme si aucun acte de génocide n’en a résulté”. 42 Without prejudice to other provisions of this Organic Law relating to attempt and criminal participation, the following acts shall be punished by penalties provided under this Chapter […] abetment to commit a crime, even when not followed by the commission. The provisions of this article are the same as those of article 93(5º) of Law Nº68/2018 dated 30/08/2018 determining offenses and penalties in general.

Page 826

360

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

it found him complicit in genocide because he played a role in providing military training and firearms to Interahamwe youth. Additionally, his participation in the meeting in May 1994, where he supported the distribution of firearms to be used against the hidden Tutsi in the Cells, indicates that he provided significant support to those who killed Tutsi at barricades, in homes, and elsewhere within the prefecture of Kigali city and across the country43. The Court of Appeal finds that while the High Court convicted Habyarimana Jean of the offenses he is charged with, it believes that there should be a rectification of the classification of the offense. Specifically, it should distinguish between the offense of complicity in genocide for incitement to commit genocide. Based on the evidence presented above, Habyarimana Jean should be found guilty of complicity in genocide and the offense of incitement to commit genocide as separate and independent offenses. This is because each offense has its own constitutive elements, and the acts relied upon by the High Court to establish these two offenses are distinct. The Court of Appeal finds, therefore, that Habyarimana Jean is guilty of all three offenses, namely conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in committing genocide, and incitement to commit genocide. These offenses result in the ideal concurrence of offenses, as provided in article 84 of Law N⁰ 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012, as recalled above44, because they all have been

43 Paragraph 139 of the judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI. 44 If an offender would receive several penalties of imprisonment or fine as a result of one or several acts, the judge shall apply the most severe penalty and increase its duration or the amount depending on the circumstances of the

Page 827

361 PROSECUTION v. HABYARIMANA

committed with the same intent of committing genocide. Therefore, Habyarimana Jean should be subject to a life imprisonment penalty, as provided for such crimes, instead of the life imprisonment with reclusion given to him by the High Court, as such a penalty is not provided for in Rwandan law, as per article 26 of Law n° 68/2018 dated 30/8/2018, determining offenses and penalties in general.45 From the foregoing explanations, the Court of Appeal finds the appeal lodged by Habyarimana Jean without merit. As the High Court also noted, he did not submit any evidence contradicting the evidence relied upon by the High Court for his conviction for those offenses. Consequently, the judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, tried by the High Court on 28/04/2017, should be upheld, except only regarding the classifications given to the offenses for which Habyarimana Jean was convicted, and the penalty. III. DECISION OF THE COURT Holds that the appeal lodged by Habyarimana Jean is unfounded. Holds that the ruling of the judgment RPA GEN 00002/16/HCCI, tried on 28/04/2017 by the High Court, Specialised Chamber for international and transnational crimes, is only reversed with regard to the classification of offenses and the imposed penalty.

offences, but not exceeding half (1/2) in addition to the maximum of the most severe penalty. 45 Such article 26 provides that the penalty of imprisonment may be for a fixed term or for life.

Page 828

362

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Convicts Habyarimana of the offenses of conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in genocide, and incitement to commit genocide. Sentences Habyarimana Jean to life imprisonment. Instructs that the court fees are borne to the Public Treasury.

Page 829

363

THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al. [ Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL - RPAA 00504/2021/CA (Nyirandabaruta, P.J., Kaliwabo and Umugwaneza, J.) September 24, 2021] Criminal Procedure –Trial of a fugitive suspect – As long as a criminal case is still pending and the suspect has not yet been decisively acquitted over the charged offences, when a fugitive suspect later appears before the competent organs ( either by surrendering or subsequent arrest) all the previous proceedings are thereby nullified and the suspect is interrogated by the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution, (if deemed necessary by those organs) the reappeared fugitive suspect must be re-indicted for the sake of preserving all his/her rights to due process of law. Facts: This case originated from the Prosecution’s indictment of three suspects Zomahoun, Kibuye Mukwende, and Umulinga before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo on various charges. All suspects, except for Zomahoun, who was a fugitive and lacked legal representation, were tried with legal assistance. After hearing the case, the Court declared all suspects not guilty due to doubtful incriminating elements of evidence. The Prosecution appealed the above verdict before the High Court, and on the hearing date, all the accused appeared in person except Zomahoun who was not personally present but appeared through his representatives, who thereby reminded the Court that he had requested the Court to allow him follow his trial online

Page 830

364

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and the Court ruled that he would attend his trial via Skype. The Public Prosecution thereof raised an objection and requested the Court to first decide on the objection before the hearing proceeds. The Public Prosecution stated that Zomahoun, who was first tried as a fugitive suspect, cannot appear at the appeal trial, yet he has never been interrogated by the Public Prosecution. They prayed the Court to suspend the trial, and first order him to appear for an adversarial interrogation by both the Public Prosecution and the Investigation Bureau, and for case proper filing procedure as per the provision of article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. The High Court examined the objection, and held that Zomahoun must first be subjected to a certain virtual interrogation and have his case file completed. The Prosecution was not satisfied with the above decision and appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, submitting that their appeal stems from the provisions of articles 72 and 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure especially on matters pertaining to the making of interrogation statements and to the prosecution of fugitive suspects; arguing that since Zomahoun has never reported himself to judicial organs, he has no right to stand his trial at the appeal level. Before the Court of Appeal, the issue arose

as to whether Zomahoun, who was tried as a fugitive by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, could be a party to the appeal before the High Court, and whether the High Court should have ordered that he should be virtually interrogated. The Prosecution argued that, since Zomahoun had not been interrogated and could not be tried without an interrogation, the file should be viewed as having adhered to the formalities of the criminal investigation. They contended that these formalities must be respected even if the case is appealed and the fugitive suspect later appears.

Page 831

365 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

Accordingly, they argued that the fugitive must report to the Investigation Bureau for a preliminary investigation, after which the case file would be submitted to the Prosecution. Additionally, they noted that an acquittal at the first level does not guarantee the same outcome on appeal. For Zomahoun and his legal counsel, they submitted that tried fugitive suspects who must report themselves to judicial organs are the convicted, while for the acquitted suspects, the law is silent. The defence argued that Zomahoun, who got declared not guilty by the previous court, had no more reasons for reporting himself to judicial organs, yet he was acquitted by the previous judge, and argued that the High Court had no ground to try him in absentia, yet he appeared on Skype, and moreover he had been summoned. Held 1. As long as a criminal case is still pending and the suspect has not yet been definitely acquitted over the charged offences, when a fugitive suspect later reappears before the competent Organs ( either by surrendering or subsequent arrest) all the previous proceedings are thereby nullified and the suspect is now interrogated by the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution and, (if deemed necessary by those organs) the reappeared suspect must be re-indicted for the sake of preserving all his/her rights to the due process of law. Therefore, a mere fact that Zomahoun reappeared online cannot be construed as the reappearance meant under article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure.

2. The High Court should not have held that Zomahoun reappeared on a mere fact that he appeared on Skype, since such a reappearance is different from the fugitive suspect’s reappearance meant by the provision of article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure.

Page 832

366

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Therefore, the High Court should not have allowed him to appear in such a way nor hear him on any matter. The case should therefore bounce back to the High Court, and the suspect should be tried the same way he was tried by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, and he should be tried as a fugitive suspect unless he reports himself to the competent judicial organs as the Law so requires. The Public Prosecution’s indictment has merit. The Court’s decision that ordered the Public Prosecution to arrange for ZOMAHOUN’s online interrogation is hereby quashed. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 29; Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, articles 160 and 162 No cases were referred to. Authors quoted: Stephani Gaston, Levasseur Georges et Bouloc Bernard, Procedure pénale, 16 éd, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, pp.770- 771.

Page 833

367 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Prosecution indicted Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry, Kibuye Mukwende Jean Pierre and Umulinga Alice before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo for various charges. All the indicted suspects were provided with legal assistance for the trial, except Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry who got tried as fugitive suspect. The seized court heard the case RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO on 07/01/2021, and declared all the suspects not guilty due to doubtful incriminating elements of evidence.

The Prosecution appealed against the above verdict before the High Court, and the appeal was docketed as RPA/ECON 00020/2021/HC/KIG, and on the trial day, Kibuye Mukwende Jean Pierre and Umulinga Alice appeared before the Court together with their legal counsels and Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry did not appear to the Court, instead, it is Counsel Mutabingwa Aloys, and Counsel Kimanuka who appeared on his behalf, and who thereby reminded the Court that Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry had written to the Court requesting and providing an online link for his trial, and the Court allowed him to appear via Skype.

The Prosecution raised an objection for which they requested the Court to first decide on before the trial proceeds. They argued that Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry, whom the previous Court tried as fugitive suspect, cannot appear at the appeal level, yet the Prosecution had never interrogated him over his charges. The Prosecution prayed the Court to adjourn the trial

Page 834

368

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

and order ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry to first appear before the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution for an adversarial interrogation, and have his case file completed as per the provision of article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure.

ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry together with Counsel MUTABINGWA Aloys and Counsel KIMANUKA assisting him and the rest of the co-accused submitted to the Court that there is no reason that can prevent ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry from being heard by the Court; more so that he had highlighted the challenges that impeded his personal appearance before the Court, which included his personal illness, his wife’s sickness and Covid-19-pandemic, arguing that ZOMAHOUN made his submissions in Kinyarwanda and there is nothing that can prevent him from standing the appeal trial.

The High Court examined the raised objection, and held that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry must first be interrogated, and have his case file completed, but the Court ordered that his interrogation shall be conducted online, and moved that the hearing on the merits of the case should be resumed on 07/05/2021.

The Prosecution was not satisfied with the above decision and appealed against it before the Court of Appeal on 13/04/2021, and the appeal case was registered under RPAA 00504/2021/CA. The Prosecution argued that their appeal stems from the provisions of articles 72 and 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure on matters pertaining respectively to the making of interrogation statements and to the prosecution of fugitive suspects. The Prosecution argued that a

Page 835

369 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

simple fact that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry never reported himself to judicial organs prevents him for appearing for the trial.

The case was heard in public on 03/09/2021, with ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry appearing the hearing online via Skype while Counsel Sadi Jashi and Counsel Mutabingwa Aloys assisted him in the Court, whereas Kalinda Steven served as ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry 's interpreter, hired by ZOMAHOUN himself. The Prosecution was represented by Bunyoye Grace, National Prosecutor.

On the above date, so appeared KIBUYE Mukwende Jean Pierre and UMULINGA Alice both assisted by Counsel SHEMA Gakuba Charles, Counsel SEBUKONOKE Innocent and Counsel Mutabingwa Aloys, whereas AIMS-NEI (African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Next Einstein Initiative) was represented by Counsel NGABONZIZA Joseph. However, the Court, based on the nature of the Prosecution’s indictment, held that Kibuye Mukwende Jean Pierre, Umulinga Alice, and AIMS-NEI are not relevant to the issue at hand and, therefore, are not required for these proceedings.

The hearing resumed with examination of whether ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry, who was once tried as fugitive suspect in the case RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, could have appeared before the High Court for the appeal on the aforementioned case, and the Court of Appeal also examined whether the High Court should not have ordered the Prosecution to arrange an online interrogation for ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry.

Page 836

370

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry who was once tried as fugitive suspect in the case RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo could have appeared before the High Court for the appeal on the above mentioned case

For the above issue, ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry submits that any related explanations can be provided by his defence team since it is a legal issue.

Counsel SADI Jashi argued that article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure provides that it is the convicted fugitive suspects that must report themselves to either the Investigation Bureau, or the Public Prosecution or to the Administration of Correction services, but for the case of acquitted suspects, the article is silent. He argues that Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry declared by the previous Court not guilty had no more reasons of reporting himself to judicial organs, yet he got acquitted at the first instance. Counsel SADI Jashi argued that the High Court could not try him as fugitive suspect (in absentia) yet he appeared before the Court via Skype, and moreover he had been summoned.

For Counsel MUTABINGWA Aloys, the above mentioned article 168 concerns the re-indictment of a fugitive suspect, whereby when the latter reappears has to report himself either to the Investigation Bureau, to the Prosecution or to the Administration of Correction services. He argues that while before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry was tried as a fugitive suspect and he was found

Page 837

371 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

not guilty; and such a status cleared him on reasons that would compel him to report himself to judicial organs, more so that the grounds for such self-reporting were already cleared by his innocence.

Counsel MUTABINGWA Aloys further argues that it is the Public Prosecution that appealed the Intermediate Court’s decision, and with a fact that the Intermediate Court had found ZOMAHOUN Sosthène not guilty, the High Court had no more reason to prevent him from appearing, and neither could the Court continue trying him as a fugitive suspect, all for the sake of preserving his constitutional rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda and other ordinary principles of law that seek due process of law. He argues that while before the Intermediate Court, ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry was tried as a fugitive suspect, and before the High Court, he had an adversarial trial and moreover no single law forbids so. He argues that law remained silent on the re-indictment of a fugitive suspect acquitted at first instance, because such a scenario constituted no legal issue.

The Public Prosecution disagreed with ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry’s legal counsels on their interpretation of article 168 (above mentioned) and avers that the suspect has never been interrogated and he therefore cannot be tried without a prior interrogation on the charged offences, arguing that the all criminal prosecution procedures must be always observed even when a fugitive suspect reappears at the appeal level. They requested that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry must report himself to the Investigation Bureau for preliminary investigations and later to the Prosecution for interrogation, and nothing assures

Page 838

372

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

that his innocence declared at the first trial will again be upheld by the appellate court. II. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 160 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure provides that “when the suspect, whether he or she is in Rwanda or in a foreign country, is not arrested because he or she hides or escapes justice, the public prosecution prepares a file for him or her and submits it to the competent court even if the suspect was not interrogated. After receiving the file, the court orders the accused to appear within one (1) month, failing which the court declares that he or she has disobeyed the law”.

Article 162 of the above mentioned law provides that “If the fugitive suspect fails to respect the time limits provided for under Article 160 of this Law, he or she is tried in absentia. The court rules on the case based solely on the submissions of the public prosecution” whereas paragraph one of article 168 provides that “ when a convicted fugitive surrenders himself or herself to the judicial police, the Public Prosecution or before the prison administration or if he or she is arrested before the penalty prescribes, the judgement and proceedings conducted from the time the fugitive was ordered to appear until the pronouncement of the judgment become void and the prosecution of the fugitive re-commences in accordance with the ordinary procedure”.

Regarding fugitive suspects, the law scholars argue that when a suspect is not available for trial and he/she chose to escape justice, he/she must be tried as a fugitive suspect. However, when he/she surrenders him/herself to the Administration of Correction

Page 839

373 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

services or he/she is arrested before his/her sentence prescribes , all the previous proceedings must be nullified, and the suspect must be re-indicted1 .

The case file indicates that while before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo for the case RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO decided on 07/01/2021 (see paragraphs 6 and 12), ZOMAHOUN Sosthène got tried as a fugitive suspect, while his co-accused were provided with legal assistance and the Court held that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry and his co-suspects are not guilty (see paragraphs 80-84).

The case file also contains a judgement on the Prosecution’s appeal case RPA/ECON/00020/2021/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 09/04/2021 where the High Court held that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry has no reason that can prevent him from standing his trial online, more so that all the involved parties can clearly see him. And on the Prosecution’s request of ordering the suspect to personally appear before both the Investigation Bureau and the Public Prosecution for interrogation, the Court examined ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry’s raised challenges about coming to Rwanda for interrogation, and it moved that the Prosecution should thereof arrange for him a virtual interrogation.

1 Stephani Gaston, Levasseur Georges et Bouloc Bernard, Procedure pénale, 16éd, Dalloz, Paris, 1996, pp.770-771. (Lorsque l’accusé n’est pas présent, soit qu’il se soit dérobé à la justice dès le début des poursuites, soit qu’il se soit évadé au cours de celles -ci, il est jugé par contumace…Si l’accusé se constitue prisonnier ou s’il vient à être arrêté avant la prescription de la peine, la décision se trouve automatiquement anéantie.

Page 840

374

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The analysis of article 168 of the above mentioned Law n0 027/2019, specifies that a suspect who got tried as a fugitive suspect loses on some of his legal rights ( especially rights to due process of law provided under article 292 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003, revised in 2015), and that is why when a fugitive suspect reappears either by surrendering to the competent Judicial Organs or by a subsequent arrest before the his/her sentence prescribes, the verdict on his previous trial is quashed and the suspect is again re-indicted and all his rights to due process of law must be observed (the suspect must be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence and legal representation ), rights that he/she all lost while convicted as a fugitive suspect. The same still applies to a fugitive suspect who, as long as the case is still pending and it has not yet

2 Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 reads that: Everyone has the right to due process of law, which includes the right: 1° to be informed of the nature and cause of charges and the right to defence and legal representation; 2° to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent Court; 3° to appear before a competent Court; 4° not to be subjected to prosecution, arrest, detention or punishment on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence under national or international law at the time it was committed. Offences and their penalties are determined by law; 5° not to be held liable for an offence he or she did not commit. Criminal liability is personal; 6° not to be punished for an offence with a penalty that is severer than the penalty provided for by the law at the time that offence was committed; 7° not to be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation; 8° not to be prosecuted or punished for a crime which has reached its statute of limitations. However, the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to statute of limitations. A law may determine other crimes which are not subject to statute of limitations.

Page 841

375 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

finally decided for a definitive acquittal, reappears ( either by surrendering to the above mentioned Judicial organs or by subsequent arrest) all the previous proceedings are thereby nullified, the reappeared fugitive suspect must now be interrogated by the Investigation Bureau and then by the Public Prosecution, and (if deemed necessary by those organs), the reappeared suspect must be re-indicted for the sake of preserving all his/her rights to due process of law .

The analysis of this article indicates that the reappearance of a fugitive suspect refers either to any self-reporting to the competent Judicial Organs (the Investigation Bureau, the Public Prosecution, or to Administration of Correction services) or to any subsequent arrest.

With regard to this case, this Court finds that when ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry’s trial in the judgment RP/ECON 00055/2020/TGI/GSBO rendered by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo on 07/01/2021 was appealed before the High Court, all parties were still in a constant status as imposed by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo which tried ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry as a fugitive suspect, while KIBUYE Mukwende Jean Pierre and UMULINGA Alice appeared before the Court being assisted; and the Intermediate Court’s decision regarding the proceedings and the parties’ appearance for the trial has never been appealed. Therefore, the fact that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry reappeared online should not be regarded as the reappearance meant by the provision of article 168 of the above mentioned Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, since the Investigation organs which the provision specifies about still cannot access him; and legally, he is still considered as a fugitive suspect.

Page 842

376

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

The Court finds baseless the argument by ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry’s legal counsels by which ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry is not concerned by the provision of article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure, stating that their client was declared innocent at the first instance and yet the article concerns convicted fugitives whose sentence is not yet prescribed. The Court explained that the judgment that declared ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry not guilty is not final since it has been challenged by an appeal. Therefore, as it has been above explained, he has no reason of violating the provision of the above mentioned article which required him to surrender himself to the criminal investigation organs for interrogation and a retrial just as the above mentioned article 168 so provides.

The Court of Appeal finds that his defence counsels failed to legally prove about their client’s rights to appear before the High Court for a virtual adversarial trial, yet the procedure of his previous trial has never changed, more so that a judicial procedure cannot be altered by the parties’ appreciations or preferences as the appealed verdict intends to put it. On the contrary, a procedure must always abide by the applicable laws.

The Court finds that if ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry really wanted to appear before the court and stand the trial on the Prosecution’s indictment as it has been above explained, he has to abide by the provision of article 168 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure; that is, surrendering himself to the Investigation Bureau and to the Public Prosecution for interrogation. His virtual (Skype) appearance before the High Court and his defence against the verdict on the case in which he had tried as a fugitive suspect violate the provision of the above

Page 843

377 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

mentioned law since he could not be tried without a prior interrogation, and moreover his reappearance had nullified the previous verdict, and the re-prosecution was supposed to start anew. Nonetheless, the High Court held that he has no reason that can prevent him from standing an online trial; though it also ordered that he must first undergo an interrogation by the Public Prosecution.

In light of the above explanations and the referenced legal provisions, the High Court should not have concluded that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry had reappeared for trial merely because he participated via Skype in the hearing of the case RPA/ECON/00020/2020/HC/KIG on 26/04/2021. Such an appearance differs from the reappearance of fugitive suspects as defined under Article 168 of Law No. 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 on criminal procedure. Furthermore, according to this provision, the High Court should not have allowed ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry to appear online for his trial, nor could it decide his case using such a procedure. The Court of Appeal finds that the procedure adopted by the High Court was unlawful. Consequently, the case No. RPA/ECON/00020/HC/KIG will be returned to the High Court, where it shall be heard in the same manner as the first trial conducted by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo. ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry will still be tried as a fugitive suspect unless he surrenders himself to the competent criminal investigation authorities, as required by law. b. Whether the High Court should order to the Prosecution to arrange a virtual interrogation for ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry

The Prosecution argued that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry got tried as a fugitive suspect by the Intermediate Court

Page 844

378

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

of Gasabo; but for the appeal trial before the High Court, he appeared online intending to stand his trial via Skype. The Prosecution objected and prayed the Court not to allow him appear online arguing that such a procedure violates the provisions of article 72 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. The Court deliberated on the objection and admitted this objection, and subsequently held that all the previous trial-related proceedings must be nullified, and ordered that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry must first be interrogated, adding that he shall be interrogated via an online arrangement. The Public Prosecution re-objected the court’s decision and argued that the interrogated suspects must personally sign the interrogation statements, and reminded that at times, interrogation sessions involve adversarial debates, arguing that online interrogation precedent will cause many negative effects on future trials since many of the fugitive suspects might bring it forth for reference, yet it contradicts the provision of the above mentioned article 72.

The Public Prosecution rebutted the argument by which the suspect’s defence team submitted that the provision of article 168 of the above mentioned law relating to criminal procedure does not concern him since he was acquitted at first instance; the Public Prosecution argues that such a defence is unfounded since the case is not finally decided yet, and the fact that the Prosecution has lodged an appeal against it, nothing proves that the previous decision verdict will be upheld.

The Public Prosecution further submits that if ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry wishes to avail himself to judicial organs, he should surrender to the Investigation Bureau and undergo an in-person interrogation as required by law. It

Page 845

379 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

contends that his claim of not being a fugitive is inaccurate and the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada does not justify his absence, as the pandemic is worldwide, and flights are operational in Canada. As for his family issues, including his wife’s illness and his scheduled doctor’s appointment, the Prosecution avers that these are insufficient reasons for failing to surrender to the investigative authorities, noting that if these commitments coincide with the date of the interrogation, an alternative date could be provided.

ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry submitted that they started investigating on him while he was on a work trip in Canada, he argues that he did not go to Canada as a fugitive and he explains that since he has no more job in Rwanda he has no reasons of coming back in the country. He also argues that his work trip coupled with some other challenges that he explained in the letter he addressed to the President of the High Court, and the one he wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal on 23/06/2021, and his concerns included the gravity of the 4th wave of Covid -19 pandemic in Canada which imposed restrictions on peoples’ movements in Canada, for him it was impossible to travel. And, such a scenario added to his own family problems that included his wife’s cancer terminal illness which needed a lot of his time and a special care. Besides, he states that after 10 years of his services to African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Next Einstein Initiative, the Institute fired him, and he thereof developed related serious health complications, and he is now on regular medical appointments. He avers that all the above concerns are the serious reasons that made him fail to come back to Rwanda.

Page 846

380

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Counsel

SADI Jashi representing

ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry for this case referred to article 92 of the Law relating to criminal procedure and argued that with the provision of the above article, the Prosecution had various ways of interrogating the suspect such as “rogatory commission” arrangement more so that in these modern times, and due to the possibility of virtual trials, hearing reports are no longer necessarily signed, as hearings are conducted via Skype. He also gave a reference on judgment RS/PSV/SPEC 00001/2021/CS rendered on 04/02/2021, whereby the Supreme Court held that the Covid-19 Pandemic constituted an excuse of force majeure and ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry could as well have been interrogated via Zoom, and thus interrogating him on each issue at a time.

Counsel MUTABINGWA Aloys submits that article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda recognises the right to due process of law for each individual litigant, and such a right is of public order; and the Public Prosecution cannot so far explain about any harm that might result from virtually interrogating the suspect. He argues that the signing of the interrogation statements does not constitute an issue more so that in this modern era, the signing of hearing reports is no long a practice. He argues that his client has a right to be informed of the nature of his charges together with the right to defence and the right to obtain legal assistance, as per the provision of article 68 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure.

Page 847

381 THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN et al

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Paragraph one of the article 168 of the above mentioned Law n0 027/ 2019 provides that “when a convicted fugitive surrenders himself or herself to the judicial police, the Public Prosecution or before the prison administration or if he or she is arrested before the penalty prescribes, the judgement and proceedings conducted from the time the fugitive was ordered to appear until the pronouncement of the judgment become void and the prosecution of the fugitive re-commences in accordance with the ordinary procedure”.

Just as it has been above explained, the Court of Appeal finds that the High Court held that ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry appeared with reference to the parties’ perspectives, and not to the existing legal references; and the High Court heard his defence yet he was supposed to be tried as fugitive suspect. Such a platform led the Court into examining the challenges he raised about his failure to come in Rwanda, yet it was not for the Court to hear and examine such concerns. Conversely, it is the investigation organs that had the competence to hear his challenges and then bring it to court for decision. In no case, should it be the appellate court to hear him, moreover, for the appeal of a judgement in which he was tried as a fugitive suspect.

The Court of Appeal therefore finds that the High Court had no authority to examine the suspect’s challenges on reporting back to Rwanda, since the issues to do with criminal investigations and prosecution were not in the court’s jurisdiction. And the Court of Appeal disqualifies as well itself from examining his concerns over not coming back to Rwanda, since it equally has no jurisdiction for such matter.

Page 848

382

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the Prosecution’s indictment has merit;

Holds that the High Court’s decision for case RPA/ECON/ 00020/2021/HC/KIG of 09/04/2021 ordering the Prosecution to arrange a virtual interrogation for Zomahoun Sosthène Thierry is hereby quashed;

Orders for the resumption of the case RPA/ECON/ 00020/2021/HC/KIG pending before the High Court, and ZOMAHOUN Sosthène Thierry shall be tried as a fugitive suspect, just as it had been so held by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo;

Holds that the decision on court fees is temporarily suspended.