Rwanda Case Law

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate persons mentioned during trial does not amount to treating them as accused, nor does it infringe on prosecutorial independence or the separation of powers. The prosecution retains discretion on whether to prosecute after investigation. The provision ensures judicial oversight and the pursuit of justice without undermining constitutional guarantees.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial powers
• Prosecutorial independence
• Criminal investigation
• Constitutional review

Read case analysis

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate individuals mentioned during trial does not amount to judicial encroachment on prosecutorial functions or breach the presumption of innocence. The judiciary does not conduct investigations or dictate prosecutorial outcomes, but acts within its constitutional mandate to ensure justice and complementarity among state organs. The provision is consistent with the separation of powers, prosecutorial independence, and the right to a fair trial.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial powers
• Prosecutorial independence
• Criminal investigations

Read case analysis

Re HABIMANA (ADD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00003/2024/SC

The Organic Law No 04/2012/OL abolishing Gacaca courts is no longer in force and cannot be challenged for constitutionality. The challenge to Article 197(4) of Law No 027/2019 is admissible because the legal grounds and factual context differ from those in the Kamanzi Anaclet case, so res judicata does not apply.

Source excerpt

• Constitutionality of statutes
• Equality before the law
• Res judicata
• Access to justice
• Gacaca courts

Read case analysis

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (ADD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

The petition is admissible because Article 106 of Law No 027/2019, though similar in part to the previously reviewed Article 121 of Law No 13/2004, contains new elements and wording, and the applicant raises new constitutional grounds. Res judicata does not bar review where the legal provision or its context has materially changed.

Source excerpt

• Res judicata
• Constitutionality of statutes
• Judicial review
• Criminal investigation powers

Read case analysis

RLR V.4 - 2025

Court

Supreme Court

Article 129(3) of Law No 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution, as it provides a justified and reasonable distinction between parties whose objections are dismissed and those who pleaded against them, ensuring both retain the right to appeal in a manner appropriate to their procedural posture; the right to a competent court is preserved, and the provision does not create unconstitutional inequality.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Right to competent court
• Appeal on admissibility
• Judicial procedure

Read case analysis

Re NSABIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2025/SC

Article 41 of Law n° 30/2018 does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution because it does not discriminate between litigants within the same category. Differentiation between categories of accused persons, based on their roles and the courts of first instance, is justified by legitimate purposes and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Jurisdiction of courts
• Genocide crimes
• Appeals process
• Non-discrimination

Read case analysis

Re NSABIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2025/SC

The Supreme Court held that Article 41 of Law No 30/2018 does not violate the Constitution, finding the appeal distinction in genocide cases justified.

• Equality before the law
• Appeals in genocide cases
• Judicial review of statutes
• Equality-before-the-law
• Constitutional-review
• Criminal-appeals

Read case analysis

RLR V. 3- 2025

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of internal rules and regulations of the Bar Association. The requirement for an ILPD diploma and Bar admission test for advocates, but not for judges/prosecutors or other professions, does not violate the principle of equality before the law because the legal profession is distinct and requires specialized qualifications. The legislator had discretion to provide transitional exemptions for certain advocates and judicial defenders, and the exclusion of judges/prosecutors from these exemptions does not constitute unconstituti…

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Judicial review
• Bar admission requirements

Read case analysis

Re IBAMBE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2024/SC

Article 39 of Law No 60/2018, which criminalizes the knowing publication of false information via computer systems that may harm a person's reputation, is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution. The limitation is justified to protect the rights and reputations of others and does not unduly infringe on freedom of expression or media freedom.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Media freedom
• Cybercrime
• Defamation
• Constitutional interpretation

Read case analysis

Re IBAMBE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2024/SC

The Supreme Court upheld article 39 of Rwanda’s cybercrimes law, holding that criminalizing harmful online rumours does not violate freedom of expression.

• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of the press
• Cybercrimes
• Defamation
• Protection of dignity
• Rumour publication

Read case analysis