Rwanda Case Law

RLR V. 2- 2025

Court

Supreme Court

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it lawfully confers jurisdiction on the court where contempt occurs and does not violate the right to appear before a competent court or the principle against self-judging. However, paragraph two of Article 81, which allows immediate punishment for contempt of court without informing the accused of the charges or allowing defence and legal representation, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court ordered that Article 81 be supplemented to require that the accused be informed o…

Source excerpt

• Due process of law
• Contempt of court
• Presumption of innocence
• Right to appeal
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings

Read case analysis

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

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…

Source excerpt

• Fair trial rights
• Contempt of court
• Judicial independence
• Right to legal representation
• Right to be informed of charges
• Right to appeal

Read case analysis

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

KABASINGA N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00005/2020/CS - RS/INCONST/SPEC 00006/2020/CS

The Supreme Court held that Article 84(4), Article 92 (insofar as it prohibits reduction of sentence for mitigating circumstances), and Article 133(3) of Law No 68/2018 are unconstitutional as they violate the principles of legality, fair trial, and judicial independence by being vague or unduly restricting judicial discretion. Articles 256 and 271 do not violate the Constitution as their limitations on expression and criminalization of counterfeit currency are justified and proportionate to legitimate aims.

Source excerpt

• Nullum crimen sine lege
• Judicial independence
• Fair trial
• Freedom of expression
• Sentencing discretion
• Accessory liability

Read case analysis

Re KABASINGA ET AL

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00005/2020/CS - RS/INCONST/SPEC 00006/2020/CS

Paragraph 4 of Article 84 of Law no 68/2018 is unconstitutional for being vague and granting judges excessive discretion, violating the principle that offences and penalties must be determined by law. The prohibition of penalty reduction in Articles 92 and 133(3) is unconstitutional as it denies due process and judicial independence in sentencing. Article 271 is not unconstitutional but should be clarified. Article 256 is a permissible restriction on freedom of expression, necessary for the administration of justice and fair trial, and is not unconstitutional.

Source excerpt

• Legality of offences and penalties
• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Due process
• Freedom of expression
• Fair trial

Read case analysis

Re KABASINGA ET AL

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00005/2020/CS - RS/INCONST/SPEC 00006/2020/CS

The Rwanda Supreme Court struck down parts of Law No. 68/2018 on accomplice liability and mandatory sentencing, but upheld provisions on negotiable instruments and pending-case speech.

• Clarity of criminal law
• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Due process
• Freedom of expression
• Fair trial

Read case analysis

Re KABASINGA N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00005/2020/CS - RS/INCONST/SPEC 00006/2020/CS

The Supreme Court held that Article 84(4) of Law No 68/2018 is unconstitutional for lack of clarity regarding when accessories who are close relatives may be exempted from punishment, violating the principle of legality and the right to a fair trial. The Court also found that the mandatory minimum sentences in Articles 92 and 133(3), which prohibit mitigation for extenuating circumstances, violate the right to a fair trial and judicial independence. However, the Court held that Articles 271 and 256 do not violate the Constitution, as their restrictions are justified, proportionate, and suffic…

Source excerpt

• Clarity of criminal statutes
• Judicial independence
• Fair trial rights
• Mandatory minimum sentences
• Freedom of expression
• Accessory liability

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUGESERA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RP/GEN 00003/2019/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld Mugesera Léon’s conviction for incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity, rejecting jurisdiction, fair-trial, and evidence challenges.

• Genocide
• Crimes against humanity
• Incitement to genocide
• Fair trial rights
• Judicial independence
• Retroactivity of criminal law

Read case analysis

PROSECUTION v. MUGESERA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RP/GEN 00003/2019/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Mugesera Léon was properly convicted of incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity (persecution) for his public speeches in 1992, notably the Kabaya speech, which called for violence against Tutsi and political opponents. The court found that international crimes were prosecutable under Rwandan and international law at the time, that the right to counsel and fair trial was not violated as delays were due to defense conduct, that the presumption of innocence was not breached by public statements, that the Kabaya speech cassette was authentic and cor…

Source excerpt

• Genocide
• Crimes against humanity
• Incitement to genocide
• Fair trial rights
• Judicial independence
• Non-retroactivity of criminal law

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUGESERA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RP/GEN 00003/2019/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld most of Mugesera Léon’s convictions arising from the Kabaya speech, including direct and public incitement to genocide and persecution.

• Genocide
• Crimes against humanity
• Incitement to genocide
• Fair trial rights
• Judicial independence
• Incitement-to-genocide

Read case analysis