Re MURANGWA 2023

Re MURANGWA 2023

The Court held that the statutory provisions allowing the Prosecution to issue search warrants and authorizing warrantless searches in exigent circumstances do not violate the Constitution, provided that adequate legal safeguards and post-search judicial review exist. The Court found that the law does not require...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RLR V.3-2024
Parties
Applicant: Murangwa Edward; Respondent: Leta y’u Rwanda (Government of Rwanda)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
22 December 2023
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Privacy, Judicial Review, Criminal Investigations
Source Language
rw
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Search and Seizure Presumption of Innocence Right to Privacy Judicial Review Criminal Investigations

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murangwa Edward

Applicant

Leta y’u Rwanda (Government of Rwanda)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether statutory provisions allowing search warrants to be issued by the Prosecution, and warrantless searches, violate constitutional rights to privacy, due process, and judicial oversight.
  2. 2 Whether the law requiring any person to provide information to investigators, including suspects, violates the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court should issue interpretive guidance on the meaning of 'reasonable grounds', 'credible evidence', and 'strong evidence' in the context of search and seizure statutes.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the statutory provisions allowing the Prosecution to issue search warrants and authorizing warrantless searches in exigent circumstances do not violate the Constitution, provided that adequate legal safeguards and post-search judicial review exist. The Court found that the law does not require suspects to incriminate themselves or to speak to the media, and that the presumption of innocence is maintained. The request for interpretive guidance on statutory terms was dismissed as procedurally improper and outside the Court's mandate.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition seeking to declare the impugned statutory provisions unconstitutional is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • The petition seeking interpretive guidance on statutory terms is dismissed as not justiciable.