Rwanda Case Law

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

RLR - V.2 -2020

Court

Supreme Court

Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, by mandating a life sentence for child defilement followed by cohabitation and prohibiting consideration of mitigating circumstances, violates the right to due process and judicial independence as guaranteed by articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution. The provision is therefore unconstitutional and without effect.

Source excerpt

• Due process
• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Fair trial
• Mitigating circumstances

Read case analysis

Re. KABASINGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC

Article 133, paragraph five of Law No. 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is inconsistent with Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution of Rwanda because it deprives the accused of the right to a fair trial and undermines judicial independence by removing judicial discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Fair trial rights
• Mitigating circumstances
• Proportionality of punishment

Read case analysis

Re. KABASINGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC

The Supreme Court held that Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, violates Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution. The provision deprives judges of the discretion necessary to ensure individualized and proportionate sentencing, undermines the right to a fair trial, and infringes on judicial independence. Therefore, the impugned provision is unconstitutional and void.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Fair trial
• Mitigating circumstances
• Life imprisonment
• Due process

Read case analysis

Re. KABASINGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC

The Supreme Court held that Article 133(5) of Law Nº 68/2018, which imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of reduction for mitigating circumstances in cases of defilement followed by cohabitation, is unconstitutional. The provision violates the right to fair trial and judicial independence as guaranteed by Articles 29 and 151 of the Constitution, because it denies judges the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances and to impose proportionate sentences based on the facts of each case.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory sentencing
• Judicial independence
• Right to fair trial
• Mitigating circumstances
• Proportionality of sentences

Read case analysis

Re. KABASINGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00003/2019/SC

The Supreme Court held that a mandatory life sentence for child defilement followed by cohabitation was unconstitutional for denying due process and judicial independence.

• Due process
• Judicial independence
• Mandatory sentencing
• Sentencing discretion
• Child defilement
• Mitigating circumstances

Read case analysis