Rwanda Case Law

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution regarding jurisdiction, right to appear before a competent court, right to appeal, public hearings, or prohibition of self-judging. However, Article 81, paragraph two, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, the right to defence, and the right to legal representation. The unconstitutional portion is declared without effect and replaced with a procedure ensuring these rights.

Source excerpt

• Due process
• Contempt of court
• Right to fair trial
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings
• Right to legal representation

Read case analysis

Re MURANGWA (Fond)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00001/2022/SC

The Court held that the issuance of search warrants by the Public Prosecution, rather than the judiciary, and the conduct of searches without a warrant in specified circumstances, do not violate the cited constitutional provisions. The Court found that Rwandan law provides adequate safeguards and judicial remedies for rights violations during searches, and that the challenged statutory language is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court also held that requests for statutory interpretation or amendment are outside its jurisdiction in a constitutional petition.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Due process
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial review
• Human rights

Read case analysis

THE PROSECUTION v. ZOMAHOUN ET AL.

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00504/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal held that a fugitive suspect cannot join an appeal by Skype; true reappearance requires surrender to competent authorities under criminal procedure law.

• Trial of fugitive suspects
• Due process
• Virtual hearings
• Interrogation procedures
• Criminal-procedure
• Fugitive-suspects

Read case analysis

RLR V. 1- 2025

Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate the Constitution. It found that the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination does not require identical penalties for different offences, especially when the nature and impact of the offences differ. The Court determined that the gravity of child defilement and its profound impact on victims and society justify severe penalties, and that such penalties are proportionate and consistent with international standards. The Court further held that due process is not violated, as the law allows for judicial discretion in…

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Proportionality of penalties
• Child defilement
• Due process

Read case analysis

Re MUNYEMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2023/SC

The Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate the principles of equality, non-discrimination, or due process because child defilement is a distinct and particularly serious crime with profound and lasting consequences for victims and society. The differentiation in penalties is justified by the nature and impact of the offense. The penalties, though severe, are proportionate to the gravity of the crime and consistent with international standards. Judicial discretion for sentence reduction exists in the presence of mitigating circumstances. The petitioner's arguments failed to d…

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Proportionality of punishment
• Child protection
• Due process
• Child defilement

Read case analysis

Re MUNYEMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2023/SC

The Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, or due process. The gravity and societal impact of child defilement justify harsher penalties compared to other offences. The applicant failed to demonstrate any arbitrary or unjustified discrimination or disproportionality. The law provides for judicial discretion in sentencing, including mitigation for extenuating circumstances. Comparative and international law support the approach taken. Therefore, the petition lacked merit.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Proportionality of punishment
• Child protection
• Sexual offences
• Due process

Read case analysis

Re MUNYEMENA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2023/SC

The Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, or due process. The differentiation in penalties for child sexual abuse is justified by the unique gravity and societal impact of the offence. The applicant failed to demonstrate any unconstitutional discrimination or disproportionality. The penalties are consistent with international and comparative standards, and the law allows for mitigation in sentencing where appropriate.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Child sexual abuse
• Sentencing proportionality
• Due process

Read case analysis

Re EXCEL SECURITY RWANDA LTD

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2022/SC

The Supreme Court upheld Rwanda’s private security law, finding its special licensing, reporting, and police oversight rules were justified and not discriminatory.

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Due process
• Freedom of expression
• Right to privacy
• Regulation of private security services

Read case analysis

RLR V. 4 - 2021

Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that the limitation of second appeals for those who lost for the same reasons in lower courts does not violate due process, as the right to a first appeal is preserved and extraordinary remedies exist. However, barring second appeals for those who pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unequal treatment and violates the principle of equality before the law. Thus, the relevant parts of article 52(3) and article 46(2) of Law n°30/2018 are unconstitutional as they relate to the inadmissibility of second appeals for parties who pleaded gui…

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Second appeal
• Due process
• Equality before the law

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

The Court held that barring a second appeal solely because the appellant lost for the same reasons in previous courts does not violate due process, as the right to a first appeal is guaranteed and further limitations are legitimate. However, barring a second appeal for those who pleaded guilty, while allowing it for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unequal treatment and violates the principle of equality before the law and due process. Thus, the relevant parts of paragraph 2 of article 46 and paragraph 3 of article 52 of Law no 30/2018 are unconstitutional to the extent they bar a se…

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Due process
• Equality before the law
• Second appeal
• Criminal justice

Read case analysis