Re MIRONKO

Re MIRONKO

Article 81, paragraph 2, of Law No 22/2018 is unconstitutional as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the charges, to defend themselves, and to be represented by counsel, contrary to Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The absence of a hearing before summary punishment for contempt in court violates...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.2-2025
Parties
Applicant: Mironko François Xavier; Respondent: Leta y’u Rwanda
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
7 March 2025
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Partly allowed
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Contempt of Court, Judicial Independence, Right to Legal Representation, Right to Be Informed of Charges, Right to Appeal
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Fair Trial Rights Contempt of Court Judicial Independence Right to Legal Representation Right to Be Informed of Charges +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mironko François Xavier

Applicant

Leta y’u Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Article 81, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law No 22/2018 contravenes Articles 29 and 152 of the Constitution of Rwanda regarding fair trial rights, right to be informed of charges, right to legal representation, right to appeal, and public hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 81, paragraph 2, of Law No 22/2018 is unconstitutional as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the charges, to defend themselves, and to be represented by counsel, contrary to Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The absence of a hearing before summary punishment for contempt in court violates fair trial guarantees. However, paragraph 1 of Article 81 does not contravene the Constitution regarding the allocation of jurisdiction or the right to appeal, as statutory law permits the court where contempt occurs to try the offence, and the limitation on appeal from the Supreme Court is consistent with international standards. The unconstitutional paragraph must be replaced...

Court Disposition

Partly allowed

Orders

  • Article 81, paragraph 2, of Law No 22/2018 declared unconstitutional and void for contravening Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • Article 81, paragraph 1, of Law No 22/2018 upheld as constitutional.