Re. KABASINGA

Re. KABASINGA

The Supreme Court held that Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is unconstitutional. The provision violates the right to fair trial and judicial independence as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.2 - 2020
Parties
Applicant: Kabasinga Florida; Respondent: Leta y’u Rwanda (Government of Rwanda)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
4 December 2019
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; impugned provision declared unconstitutional and void.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Sentencing, Judicial Independence, Right to Fair Trial, Mitigating Circumstances, Proportionality of Sentences
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Mandatory Sentencing Judicial Independence Right to Fair Trial Mitigating Circumstances Proportionality of Sentences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabasinga Florida

Applicant

Leta y’u Rwanda (Government of Rwanda)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Article 133, paragraph 5 of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is unconstitutional under Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is unconstitutional. The provision violates the right to fair trial and judicial independence as guaranteed by Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution, because it denies judges the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances and to impose proportionate sentences based on the facts of each case.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; impugned provision declared unconstitutional and void.

Orders

  • Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018 is declared unconstitutional and void for violating Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution.
  • The judgment shall be published in the Official Gazette.