Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
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
The Supreme Court upheld article 39 of Rwanda’s cybercrimes law, holding that criminalizing harmful online rumours does not violate freedom of expression.
Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not contravene Articles 15 or 38 of the Constitution, as their restrictions on journalistic activity are justified, proportionate, and consistent with the protection of privacy, dignity, public order, and justice. Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign dignitaries, creates unjustified privilege and is inconsistent with equality before the law and freedom of expression, and is therefore unconstitutional and void.
Source excerpt
The Court held that Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not violate the Constitution, as they establish necessary and proportionate limitations on freedom of expression and the press to protect privacy, dignity, public order, and justice. However, Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign heads of state and diplomats, creates unjustified privilege and is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of expression, and is therefore void.
Source excerpt
The Court held that articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law n° 68/2018 are not inconsistent with the Constitution, as they establish necessary and proportionate limitations on freedom of press, expression, and access to information to protect privacy, dignity, public order, and fair justice. Article 218, however, was found inconsistent with articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution because it grants undue special protection to foreign officials, impeding critical reporting and violating equality before the law and freedom of expression.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld most challenged media and criminal provisions, but struck down article 218 for giving unjustified special protection to foreign dignitaries.
The Court held that Articles 156, 157, 194, and 251 of Law No. 68/2018 do not contravene the Constitution, as they provide necessary and proportionate limitations on freedom of expression to protect privacy, public order, and justice. However, Article 218, which criminalizes defamation or insult against foreign heads of state and diplomats, violates Articles 15 and 38 of the Constitution by granting unjustified special protection and unduly restricting press freedom. Therefore, Article 218 is declared null and void.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court partly allowed a constitutional petition, striking down provisions on religious insult and public-official humiliation while upholding most family-related offences.
The Supreme Court partly allowed Kalisa’s appeal, awarding defamation damages for IPB’s disclosure of his dismissal, but rejecting claims for promotion-related loss and family distress.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda found that circulating a dismissal ground without a hearing could amount to defamation, but rejected several other damage claims.
Explore more
