The Supreme Court recently published a list of 51 eminent people who will be the first batch of the country’s accredited mediators since the law on Civil, Labour and Administrative Procedure was gazetted in 2018.

While majority of the accredited mediators are lawyers registered with Rwanda Bar Association, the list also has other eminent people from different professions, including engineers.

Among those on the list include former Chief Justice Sam Rugege.

This particular law gives mandate to registrars and judges to suggest mediation to litigants to avoid more cases ending up in trial.

Besides accredited mediators, court registrars and judges are the two other parties who can play the role of mediation.

This means that besides court registrars and judges, anyone with a dispute may decide to choose the mediation route without necessarily going through the long court processes.  

Below are some of the things you need to know about court-appointed mediation.

1. Different from Abunzi

According to the Spokesman of the Judiciary; Harrison Mutabazi, there is a difference between accredited court mediators and Abunzi, the community mediators we have been used to.  

While both are mediators, the requirements before each begins their duties are different.

"For instance, Abunzi are chosen based on their integrity and will normally have basic training but do not require accreditation by Supreme Court. For court mediators, one must take a mandatory course to prove that they have a particular set of skills first and they can’t practice without accreditation,” he said.

While the Abunzi term in office can expire after a particular period of time, accredited court mediators can work until they choose to retire.

Mutabazi explained that although mediation was initially done by judges, their heavy case logs have been limiting the courts from reaping as was desired.

This, Mutabazi said will be solved by the private professionals who have more hours to dedicate to this work.  

The mediators will deal with civil, commercial, commercial, labour and administrative cases that are already in court.

2. Different from arbitrator

Besides being neutral, the mediator is neither an expert that gives his or her opinion nor is he/she an arbitrator.

It should be noted that mediators and arbitrators are different. In arbitration, the arbitrator hears evidence and makes a decision that declares one a loser and another one a winner; more like a court process.

In mediation, the process is a negotiation with the assistance of a neutral third party.

The parties do not reach a resolution unless all sides agree.

3. Confidentiality

Article 5 of the instructions of the President of the Supreme Court governing mediation indicates that all mediation communications are confidential and cannot be disclosed in any Court proceedings.

However, an exception is made if there is a written consent of both parties involved in the mediation case or if the disclosure is necessary to prevent or minimize immediate danger or injury to a person or to protect the interests of a child.

The communications can also be unsealed if it authorized by an order of Court or by any written law.

4. Inadmissibility as evidence

The information communicated in mediation cannot be used as evidence before the Court unless both parties give consent or if it is in public interest or in the interest of justice administration to disclose such.

5. No final say

The mediator has no competence to decide on how the dispute should be settled.

In case no settlement is reached, or if parties have failed to resolve all the issues in the dispute, the parties may request, verbally or in writing, a mediator’s proposal for a settlement.

However, the parties are not obliged to accept the mediator’s proposal.

If parties have failed to reach a settlement, the mediator brings both parties in a joint session, to collectively look at the progress made even though no settlement has been reached and he or she may advise them to think about the next steps and to search for further information on the pending issues between the parties.