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
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 requirement for journalists to seek permission 48 hours before recording in court is a necessary and proportionate regulation to protect the rights of litigants, witnesses, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. It does not violate the constitutional guarantee of press freedom, as the Constitution allows reasonable limitations to safeguard other rights and public order.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that requiring journalists to obtain prior written permission to record audio or video in courtrooms is a necessary and appropriate measure to ensure the orderly conduct of proceedings and to protect the rights and privacy of litigants and witnesses. The restriction is not unconstitutional as it does not negate the principle of open justice or press freedom but provides a reasonable framework for their exercise. The petition to declare Article 71(5) of Law No. 22/2018 unconstitutional was dismissed as unfounded.
Source excerpt
The requirement to seek prior written permission to record audio or video in courtrooms is a justified and proportionate limitation on press freedom, necessary to protect the rights of litigants, witnesses, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. Article 71(5) of Law No. 22/2018 does not violate Article 38 of the Constitution.
Source excerpt
The applicant, as a professional journalist, has both a personal and public interest in challenging the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, as they directly affect his professional duties and the broader right to freedom of the press. The Court finds that locus standi in constitutional matters must be interpreted broadly, but applicants must still demonstrate a specific personal interest. The applicant meets this threshold.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that journalist Byansi Samuel Baker had standing to challenge criminal-law provisions affecting media work and freedom of the press.
The Supreme Court held that Byansi Samuel Baker, a journalist, had standing to challenge criminal law provisions affecting press freedom and ordered the merits hearing to continue.
The Supreme Court held that journalist Byansi Samuel Baker had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law governing courtroom audio and video recording authorization.
Explore more
