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

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NSENGIYUMVA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00389/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal acquitted Nsengiyumva Sam, finding the evidence insufficient and contradictory to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt.

• Standard of proof
• Sexual offences against minors
• Assessment of evidence
• Presumption of innocence
• Appeals
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs BARIHAFI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00903/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal acquitted Barihafi Devis of defilement, holding that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Standard of proof
• Sexual offences against minors
• Medical evidence
• Presumption of innocence
• Appeals procedure
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

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 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

Re MURANGWA (ADD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that Murangwa Edward had standing to challenge provisions of Rwanda’s investigation and criminal procedure laws, and set the case to continue.

• Standing
• Unconstitutionality
• Search and seizure
• Presumption of innocence
• Media rights
• Privacy

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NZABONIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00474/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal set aside a conviction for defilement of a minor, holding the evidence left reasonable doubt and ordering the defendant’s acquittal.

• Standard of proof
• Evidence in criminal trials
• Sexual offences
• Appeals
• Presumption of innocence
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NDAGIJIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00514/2023/CA

The conviction was based primarily on the testimony of the victim and hearsay evidence from others who did not witness the alleged offence. The medical report did not conclusively establish the accused's guilt, as it did not specify when or how the injury occurred, nor did it link the accused to the injury through forensic evidence. The failure to hear other potential witnesses who could clarify the circumstances further undermined the reliability of the prosecution's case. Given the reasonable doubt arising from the evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Source excerpt

• Standard of proof
• Evaluation of evidence
• Hearsay evidence
• Presumption of innocence
• Sexual offences
• Appeals

Read case analysis