THE PROSECUTION V. SULULU MARUGIRA ET AL.

# THE PROSECUTION V. SULULU MARUGIRA ET AL.

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2025-03-28 - Case/document no.: RPAA 00248/2021/CA - Collection: Court of Appeal

## Text

## Page 1

THE PROSECUTION V. SULULU MARUGIRA ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL-RPAA 00248/2021/CA (Gakwaya, P.J.) 28 March 2025 Criminal procedure- Armed robbery- shall also be considered as armed robbery, any situation by which the suspect is caught in possession of sharp, cutting or contusive objects which can be used for killing, injuring or hitting. Criminal Procedure- Armed robbery- the suspect’s conviction of armed robbery does not require that he/she has used or intended to use his weapons for harming, hitting, injuring or killing people, a simple fact of possessing such weapons is enough for the suspect to be convicted of an armed robbery. Held: The Prosecution indicted Micheal Sululu Marugira and Abel Suluku Vigi before the Intermediate Court of Karongi for the offence of armed robbery. The indictment came following a theft event that occurred on the 30 September 2018 at around 1h 00 am, whereby the duo armed with a metal rod, a metallic saw and a metal javelin, took advantage of the night and went to steal at Rugabano Secondary School whereby they broke the window of the School canteen, and stole a variety of items. They had arrived in Rwanda from Congo for a visit to their father, a teacher at the aforesaid school. The seized court heard the case and convicted them for the offence of armed

## Page 2

robbery and sentenced each to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf) . Both defendants appealed the above verdict before Rusizi High Court Chamber, and pleaded for penalty alleviation and fine exemption. Micheal Sululu Marugira argued that the previous court handed him a heavy sentence due to his incomplete guilt-plea as he attempted to cover his brother’s role in the committed offence. He submitted that such an incomplete confession was caused by his low knowledge of the law coupled with the emotions about betraying his own brother. For Abel Sululu Vigi, he argues that he is now pleading guilty of the charged offence. He explains that while before the previous court, he kept denying any wrong doing, and the court handed him a severe penalty. He explained that his denial of the charges was due to his litte knowledge of the law and his lack of legal assistance, which made him unaware of all benefits of plea-bargaining. The court heard their appeals and found that the appellants were given the most legally provided minimum sentence for non-confessing suspects, and their sentence got stayed. The defendants appealed the above verdict before the Court of Appeal. Micheal Sululu Marugira argued that from onset he kept presenting a sincere guilty-plea but the High Court never considered reducing his sentence, and the court blamed him for covering up the complicity of his brother, and it rejected his guilty-plea. While Abel Sululu Viki, he pleaded for leniency, and he prayed the Court to consider his sincere guilty-plea; he confessed that they committed a serious crime by coming around with tools

## Page 3

that included a metal rod, and a metallic saw which they used for breaking the window, but he still denied of possessing any other weapons, and he prayed the court for sentence reduction. And they both argued that the tools they had (a metal rod and a metallic saw) should not be termed as weapons, since such a terminology misled the court, and the latter mistook the tools for serious weaponry. The Prosecution argued that the appellants’ appeal grounds for sentence reduction have no justification. The prosecution added that the appellants showed neither defects nor irregularities of the appealed verdict; and besides, their penalty had already been reduced to the minimum. With regard to the argument by which defendants had no serious weapons, and having used the weapons for a mere sake of breaking the window, the Prosecution argued that such a defence should not be considered since the law never specifies that an armed robber must be in possession of heavy weaponry, neither does it precise that he/she must have used them. Held: 1. Shall also be considered as armed robbery, any situation by which the suspect is caught in possession of sharp, contusive or cutting objects which can be used for killing, injuring or hitting. 2. The suspect’s conviction of armed robbery does not require that he/she has used or intended to use his/her weapons for harming, hitting up, injuring or killing people, a simple fact of possessing such weapons is enough for the suspect to be convicted of an armed robbery

## Page 4

The appeal has justification in part; The verdict only changed on matters pertaining to the sentence. Statutes referred to: Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general, articles 60,165 and 170; Article 2 of the Law n0 059/2023 of 04/12/2023 modifying Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general. Cases referred to: The Prosecution v. Nsabimana and others for case RPA 00060/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 4 April 2022; The Prosecution v. Mptabakana for case RPA 0129/10/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on the 07 March 2014; The Prosecution v. Nteziryayo for case RPA 0249/13/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on the 25 November 2016. Judgment I. THE BACKROUND OF THE CASE.

On the 20 September 2018 at around 1h am, Micheal Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi, armed with a metal rod, a metallic saw and a metal javelin took avantage of the night and went to steal at Rugabano

## Page 5

Secondary School (Ecole Secondaire de Rugababo; they broke a window of the School canteen, and they stole items equivalent to one million, one hundred and seventy- three thousand, eight hundred and fifty Rwanda Francs (1, 173,850 Rwf. They had come to Rwanda for a visit to their father who taught at the aforesaid School, and they were caught while on their way heading to steal from some other places.

Following the investigations, the Prosecution indicted Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi before the Intermediate Court of Karongi and prayed the court to convict them of the offence of armed robbery. For Abel Sululu Vigi, the Prosecution sought a sentence of twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine of seven million Rwanda Francs (7,000,000 Rwf); while for Michael Sululu Marugira, the Prosecution solicited fifteen (15) years of jail, and a fine of five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf)

Michael Sululu Marugira pleaded guilty and apologized for the charged offence while Abel Sululu Vigi, the brother, declined the charges.

For case RP 00228/2018/TGI/KNG rendered by the Intermediate Court of Karongi on the 30 July 2019, the court made reference to facts that Micheal Sululu Marugira pleaded guilty and explained how he broke the window fencing with a metallic saw, how he got caught red-handed with the stolen items. The court has also considered his explanation about his future plans of stealing from other places, and the items seizure statement, and it convicted him of an armed robbery. The

## Page 6

court has also held that though Abel Sululu Vigi denied any wrong doing, the evidence is clear that he assisted his brother into committing the offence. They both came from Bukavu in Congo, and they had some tools that included a metallic saw and a breaking chisel and when they arrived in Rwanda, they did not head to their father’s accommodation ; they just went to steal from their father’s work place. Besides, his statements are full of self- contradictions in the face witnesses who testified that when the two were arrested, Abel Sululu run away. Even himself, he to some extent acknowledges about running away ; though he argues that he ran away upon hearing too much open-cries around. The Court sentenced each to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment and a fine of five million (5,000,000 Rwf). The court held that the guity- plea made Micheal Sululu Marugira made no sense since he already had been caught red-handed

Micheal Sululu Marugira appealed the verdict before Rusizi High Court Chamber, and argued that the previous court handed him a heavy sentence due to his incomplete guilt-plea as he attempted to cover his brother’s role in the committed offence. He submitted that such an incomplete confession was caused by his low knowledge of the law coupled with the emotions about betraying his own brother. They argued that the previous court’s decision contradicts the provisions of article 35 of the Law n0 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure; lamenting that the previous court’s decision biasedly favored the Prosecution and violated the provisions of due process of law. He pleaded for reduction of the handed sentence, arguing that the days he spent in

## Page 7

the prison thought him enough lessons on the consequences of a crime; he pleaded for mercy and promised of not committing crimes any more. He prayed for suspension of the jail sentence for him to go back to school; and as a destitute, he prayed the court to exempt him for the fine.

Abel Sululu Vigi appealed the verdict before Rusizi High Court Chamber and argued that while before the previous court, he kept declining the charges, and the court handed him a severe penalty. He explained that his denial of the charges was due to his little knowledge of the law and his lack of legal assistance, which made him unaware of all benefits of a sincere plea-bargaining. He explained that he is a fist time offender and that he is now pleading guilty. He prayed the court for prison sentence reduction for him to resume his studies, and as a student, he prayed the court to consider reducing his fine penalty since he could not afford it.

For case RPA 00319/2019/HC/RSZ rendered by Rusizi High Court Chamber on the 17 December 2020, the court made reference to facts that while before the previous court, the Prosecution had requested for a sentence of twenty (20) years for imprisonment and a fine of seven million (7,000,000 Rwf) for each convict. The High court examined the case and found that the duo co- authored the offence (they were more than one person); the court visited the crime scene, and it found that no one single person could pass the stolen items from the concerned window while unassisted. The suspects had weapons that included a metal saw which they used for

## Page 8

breaking the window; they stole from a workplace house, and held that the convicts, irrespective of their insistence on innocence, were given the most possibly minimum sentence, and that they deserve no more sentence reduction; since their penalty has been considerably reduced, and the handed sentence is appropriate. The court has also dismissed Michael Sululu Marugira’s request of sentence suspension since it is exceeded five (5) years.

On the 30 December 2020, Michael Sululu Marugira appealed the above verdict before the Court of Appeal, and argued that from onset he kept presenting a sincere guilty-plea but the High Court never considered reducing his sentence, and the court blamed him for covering up the complicity of his brother, and it rejected his guilty-plea. He lamented that the court mistook the tools they had for heavy weaponry yet it was just a metal saw for cutting the window, and he pleaded the court for justice and sentence reduction.

On the 20 October 2021, Micheal Sululu Marugira filed an additional submission, and he complained that Rusizi High Court Chamber denied him a right to explain how he came to Rugabano Secondary School and how he stole from there. He lamented about the Prosecution’s statement on possessing weapons, yet he only had some simple tools that included a metal rod and saw, arguing that such a statement misled the court, and made it believe that he had serious weaponry, and it handed him a severe sentence. He therefore prayed this court to allow him a chance to explain about the simple tools he had for the

## Page 9

court to requalify his offence and change it into a simple theft more so that he even never used the tools he had. He thus pleaded for sentence reduction arguing that he is a first time offender whose offence had no serious negative effects more so that the stolen items were returned back. He also pleaded the court to imprison him nearby his mother’s home for facilitating him prison visits, lamenting of their long separation from since his arrest.

On the 30 December 2020, Abel Sululu Vigi has as well appealed his verdict before the Court of Appeal and he pleaded for leniency; he prayed the Court to consider his sincere guilty-plea; he confessed that he committed a serious crime by coming around with tools that included a metal rod, and a metallic saw which they used for breaking the window, but he still denied of possessing any other weapons, and he prayed the court for sentence reduction

On the 20 October 2021, Abel Sululu Vigi filed an additional submission and lamented that the High Court never gave him enough opportunity to explain the content of the first filed submission, and he then prayed this very court to allow him enough time to make his full defence.

The Prosecution argued that the appellants’ appeal grounds for sentence reduction have no justification. The prosecution added that the appellants showed neither defects nor irregularities of the appealed verdict; and besides, their penalty had already been considerably reduced.

## Page 10

The case was registered as RPAA 00248/2021/CA and it was heard on the 10/03/2025 with Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi represented by Counsel Ruberwa N. Silas. Mr. Gatera Athanase assisted them as courtroom interpreter, and the Prosecution was represented Habimana Jean Cabin, a Prosecutor at the National level.

During the hearing, Michael Sululu Marugira withdrew his previous request of sending him to his mother’s home nearest prison facility.

Looking at the defendants’ filed submissions and their subsequent defence before the court, issues that need determination are about requalification of the charged offence, and charging them for the offence of a simple theft instead of armed robbery; since the tools they had were wrongly inflated and interpreted as heavy weapons. The court will also determine whether the appellants deserve any sentence reduction. II. ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THEIR ANALYSIS - II. 1. Whether the tools the suspects possessed at the crime scene should not be considered as weapons, and whether the qualification of the charged offence should change from an armed robbery into a simple theft.

## Page 11

Michael Sululu Marugira argued that the tools they had at the crime scene were meant neither for fighting nor for harming anyone; arguing that even the person who caught them red-handed was alone and he never got harmed; adding that the tools they had around included a metal rod and a saw, and these tools misled the court, and got interpreted as heavy weapons, and ended up leading to a severe sentence. And he prayed the court to only punish him for a simple theft.

Abel Sululu Vigi has added that they had a challenge to do with lack of legal knowledge, arguing that they actually thought that armed rubbery must necessarily involve either a gun or grenades.

Counsel Ruberwa N. Silas who assisted Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi submitted that he took time and explained to his clients that the tools they had are considered as weapons and they were used in the theft; adding that the qualification of the charged offence is actually correct, submitting that the only request they can make before this court consists into sentence reduction.

The Prosecution concurred with Counsel Ruberwa N. Silas, the suspects’ defence lawyer, and added that the tools the suspects had at the crime scene are weapons. The only disagreement consisted into the suspects’ interpretation by which the possession of light weapons could not lead to conviction of armed robbery. The Prosecution explained that any tool that can be used in the commission of theft, and which can be used for fighting, regardless of whether it is heavy or light, is considered as

## Page 12

a weapon. He therefore asserted that the charged offence is correctly qualified.

The Prosecution went on and prayed for dismissing the appellants’ defence of possessing light weapons which they only used for breaking the window, with no any other ill intention; and he cited the provisions of article 170 of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general whereby the aforesaid article never provides that an armed robber must be in possession of a heavy weaponry, neither does it say that he/she must have used the weapons. He therefore argued that the appellants’ request for offence requalification must be dismissed. DETERMIANTION OF THE COURT

The disagreement into this issue lies into determining whether the tools which Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi had at the crime scene can be considered as weapons in the sense of the above mentioned Law and whether the committed offence can be requalified, and make them convicted for a simple theft rather than the armed robbery.

Article 165 (2) of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties in general provides that an armed robbery is a theft committed with an instrument such as a gun, a knife, or any other sharp, piercing or pounding object which can be used for killing, hurting, or hitting wither it is found in the plain sight, hidden or found near the crime scene.

## Page 13

Article 170 of the above mentioned Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 provides that “anyone committing theft with a weapon, commits an armed robbery”

When the aforesaid articles 165 and 170 are examined together, they denote that anyone committing theft with a sharp, piercing, contusive weapon which can kill, hit or cause an injury, whether it carried visibly or concealed, such a person is convictable of the offence of armed robbery regardless of whether the suspect has or has not used such a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi claimed that they should be charged for the offence of simple theft, and not for an armed robbery; arguing that the tools they came with are not heavy weapons, and moreover, they never used them for hurting anyone, apart from using them for cutting and breaking the canteen window.

The Court of Appeal made reference to the provisions of the above mentioned article 165 (2) of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 and dismissed the defendants’ allegation of having come around in possession of simple tools and thus contesting their conviction to armed robbery. The court found that a metal saw they came with is a sharp and cutting instrument that can kill, cause an injury or hit; they court has also found that the metal rod they had was an object that could kill, cause any injury and hit, and this version concurs with the stance of Georges Minuer, a legal scholar, who explained

## Page 14

about the non-exhaustive list of plausible weapons in the sense of our case1 .

The Court of Appeal has also dismissed the defendants’’ allegation of not using and not intending to use their weapons for causing any harm, and thus not convictable for the offence of armed robbery; the court explained that regardless a fact that they used their weapons for breaking the canteen window; their conviction to the offence of armed robbery does not require of having used their weapons for any harm, like hitting, injuring or killing anyone, a simple fact of coming around in possession of such tools is enough2 to make them convicted of the charged offence.

Considering all the above provided explanations, the Court of Appeal found no defects in Rusizi High Court Chamber’s verdict which convicted the accused of the offence of armed robbery, and not a simple theft as they allege.

1 ‘’On entend par armes, un instrument qui sert à attaquer ou à défendre, “toutes machines, tous instruments, tous ustensiles ou autre objets tranchants, perçants ou contondants”. Constituent donc des armes, les fusils, revolvers, lances, bâtons, couteaux, machettes, etc,’’G. Mineur, Commentaire du code pénal congolais, deuxième édition, Larcier, Bruxelles, 1953, P. 200. 2 ‘’ (…..) érige en circonstance aggravante le port d’armes sans distinguer entre le cas où l’on en aurait fait usage contre les personnes ou contre les animaux. Le seul fait qu’un auteur est porteur d’une arme autorise l’application de l’article (……)’’, idem.

## Page 15

Looking at all the provided clarifications, the Court of Appeal found that the appellants’ request for the offence requalification has no justification. - II. 2. Whether Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi deserve any sentence reduction due to their highlighted offence mitigating circumstances.

Michael Sululu Marugira argued that he is a fist time offender, and his offence caused no serious negative effects more so that the stolen items were returned to the owners, and pleaded the court to consider such offence mitigations and reduce his penalty.

Abel Sululu Vigi submitted that prior to his fall into criminality, he was a person of good conduct, and he is therefore a first time offender. He also adds that the offence he committed had no serious negative impacts and all the stolen items were immediately handed back to the owners. He said that they had no intention of harming anyone, and pleaded the court to look into such mitigating circumstances and reduce his sentence.

Counsel Ruberwa N. Silas who represented Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi argued that the High Court ought not to hand them the most legally provided minimum sentence, arguing that a judge has a jurisdiction to use his own discretion and base on all the available offence mitigating circumstances for due process of law. He referred his argument on the Supreme Court’s precedents from case RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC and case

## Page 16

RPAA 00314/2022/CA with the Prosecution v. Hakizimana Innocent, whereby the court held that the judge is not barred from giving a penalty that is less than the legally provided minimum sentence, especially in the evidence of offence mitigating circumstances and thus for the court to proportionate its sentence to the committed offence. He therefore prayed the court to sentence his clients to a penalty lesser than the legally provided minimum sentence; just as it has been held along case RPAA 00193/2022/CA CMB RPAA 00207/2022 with the Prosecution v. Musabyimana Jean Bosco and others who got sentenced to only eight (8) years of imprisonment.

The Prosecution argued that the convicts’ appeals have no justifications; arguing that a mere fact that they are now pleading guilty and praying for sentence reduction at the second appeal level, makes it clear that they concur with the appealed verdict, and it therefore contains no defects. The Prosecution went on and argued that the appellants were rather supposed to highlight the defaults of the appealed verdict just as it is provided under article 183 of the Law n0 027/2019 of 19/09/2019 relating to criminal procedure. Besides, their guilty-plea is not sincere especially due its incompleteness. The prosecution requested the court to hold that the previous judge committed no error; especially due to the appellants’ failure to highlight the previous court’s misapplication of the law or the court’s wrong assessment in sentence determination; arguing that the sentence reduction is only possible when the sentence is found disproportional to both the gravity of the committed offence or to its effects.

## Page 17

The Prosecution went ahead and argued that in case the court finds any disproportionality in the handed sentence; it might consider reducing it , but in not less than eight (8) years of imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf) as per the outlay of article 2 of the Law n0 59/2023 of 04/12/2023 modifying Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018 determining offences and penalties as modified and updated, whereby sub- paragraph (b) of the above article provides that in case of offence mitigating circumstances, a fixed-term penalty can be reduced, but it can never go below a half ½ of the legally provided minimum sentence. And he reminded the court that the appellants’ legal minimum sentence was 15 years of imprisonment. DETEMINATION OF THE COURT

The disagreement on this issue resides into whether Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi deserve any sentence reduction owing to offences mitigating circumstances they have highlighted.

Article 60 (2) of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/8/2018 as modified by article 2 (b) of the Law n0 059/2023 of 4/12/2023 determining offences and penalties in general provides that when a judge approves mitigating circumstance, a fixed-term imprisonment from six months and above may be reduced but it cannot go less than a half of the minimum sentence provided for the committed offence.

## Page 18

Article 170 of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/8/2018 determining offences and penalties in general provides that when armed robbery is committed by more than one (1) person , using the weapons in possession, and committed against an occupied house or its surroundings, even if the house is temporarily inhabited or used as a workplace, the convicted person is sentenced to not less than (15) years but not more than twenty (20) years of imprisonment and the fine is not less than five million Rwanda Francs (5,000,000 Rwf) but not more than seven million ( 7,000,000 Rwf)

Just as it has been held along case RPA 00060/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 4 April 2022 with the Prosecution v. Nsabimana Callixte, A.K.A Sankara and his co-accused3, when a defendant has nothing to blame the verdict he/she appealed, except pleading for sentence reduction, each judge at any level has the jurisdiction to use his/her own discretion and hand a sentence that is proportional to the committed offence and to resulted effects (…) Nonetheless, the appeal judge can only change the appealed verdict after highlighting that the previous court’s sentence contains errors of misapplication of the law or the court’s discretional wrong assessment.

Under paragraph (23) and (24) of the appealed verdict, Rusizi High Court Chamber made reference to article 60 of the Law n0 68/2018 of 30/08/2018

3 See case RPA 00060/2021/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on the 4 April 2022 with the Prosecution v. Nsabimana Callixte and his co-accused, paragraph 252 and 254.

## Page 19

determining offences and penalties in general and to the Supreme Court’s precedent from case RPA 0129/10/CS4 rendered on the 07 March 2014 with the Prosecution v. Mpitabakana and to a precedent drawn from case RPA 0249/13/CS5 rendered by the Supreme Court on the 25 November 2016 between the Prosecution and Nteziryayo Emmanuel, and then the court held that Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi deserve no more sentence reduction since their appeal grounds have fully been considered by the previous court, and they were given fifteen (15) years of jail and a fine of five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf), the most legally provided minimum sentence for the offence of armed robbery committed by more than one person, using weapons in possession, committed against an occupied house or its surroundings, even if the house is temporary inhabited or it is meant for workplace.

Looking at the above provided precedents together with the submissions made by Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi before Rusizi High Court Chamber whereby they presented their offence mitigating circumstances and pleaded for sentence reduction, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court ought not to hold that they deserve no more sentence reduction just because the earlier court had remarkably reduced their

4 Held that the offence mitigating circumstances that have already been captured and considered by the previous court for sentence reduction cannot serve more reduction 5 Held that no one can claim for more sentence reduction yet the previous court has remarkably reduced his/her sentence, and made it very proportional to the committed offence.

## Page 20

penalties; the High Court had a mandate of examining their appeals and determine whether the handed sentence is very proportional to the committed offence vis-a-vis the highlighted mitigating circumstances

This court has therefore found that regardless a fact that Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi were convicted of an armed robbery, a felony by all the aggravating circumstances as the previous courts have clarified it, the convicts’ behaviors that followed the commission of the offence, coupled with their expressed remorse, and the absence of offence related negative effects, and looking at their actual age of twenty (20) years-old for one and twenty-three ( 23) for the other, and a fact that they are both first time offenders, all these grounds needed a consideration and they make them deserve some more sentence reduction, and make them get a sentence that appropriately considers all prior and later circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence .

The Court of Appeal made reference the aforesaid legal provisions and to its own precedents as indicated above, and it based on its own discretion together with the rest of explanations as highlighted in the preceding paragraph, and held that a sentence that is more proportional and appropriate for the offence Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi are convicted of, should be eight (8) years of imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf)

Considering all the above provided elucidations, the court of Appeal found that the appeal made by

## Page 21

Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi is relevant. Therefore, partially justified. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Holds that the appeal made by Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi has justification in part;

Holds that Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi are convicted of the offence of armed robbery;

Holds that the ruling on case RPA 00319/2019/HC/RSZ rendered by Rusizi High Court Chamber has only changed on matters pertaining to the convicts’ sentence;

Holds that Michael Sululu Marugira and Abel Sululu Vigi are sentenced to eight (8) years of imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf), replacing the fifteen (15) years of jail and five million Rwanda francs (5,000,000 Rwf) which had been pronounced by the previous courts.

Rules that the court fees shall be borne by the State Treasury.