The High Court in Nyanza has acquitted Anatole Muhizi and co-accused lawyer, Emile Katisiga, in a case that drew national attention following allegations of fraud and forgery tied to the controversial sale of a mortgaged house formerly owned by an employee of the National Bank of Rwanda (BNR).
Muhizi came to the limelight after he raised his complaints directly to President Paul Kagame during a citizen outreach visit in Nyamasheke District in 2022. He accused BNR and Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority of collusion that resulted in the loss of a house he claimed to have rightfully purchased.
The latest court’s decision, delivered on July 24, overturned a 2023 ruling by Muhanga Intermediate Court that had convicted the two men on multiple charges, including obtaining personal gain through fraud, improper use of official documents, and misleading the judiciary.
ALSO READ: Man who ‘lied’ about BNR house dispute arrested
Background of the case
Following Muhizi’s public complaint, President Kagame instructed then-Minister of Local Government Jean Marie Vianney Gatabazi and Deputy Inspector General of Police Felix Namuhoranye to look into the matter.
However, investigations led by Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) and the National Public Prosecution Authority (NPPA) painted a different picture.
ALSO READ: More suspects in custody over BNR house saga, case goes to prosecution
Muhizi was accused of defying multiple court orders, using forged documents, and dishonestly acquiring a house that had been auctioned by BNR after its original owner, Jean Léon Rutagengwa, defaulted on a Rwf 31 million loan.
Evidence later showed that Rutagengwa had sold the same house to two different people, first to Patrick Benerugaba, then to Muhizi, despite it being under a mortgage.
Before raising his complaints to the President, Muhizi filed several lawsuits against BNR, the Land Center, and even a court bailiff, but lost all of them.
According to Ombudsman Madeleine Nirere, her office was familiar with the case and confirmed that Muhizi had exhausted all judicial avenues unsuccessfully.
Meanwhile, Rutagengwa’s wife, Alphonsine Nibigira, entered the legal fray by contesting the sale of the house, claiming she was not consulted. Her claims were also dismissed in court.
Further investigations found that the house had fallen into hands of informal lenders, with Muhizi allegedly attempting to recover a failed loan by claiming ownership.
Both Muhizi and Katisiga were charged with multiple offenses, including the use of forged documents and misleading the judiciary. While Muhizi was arrested and detained, Katisiga was prosecuted without being taken into custody.
In November 2023, both were convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, a decision they later appealed before the High Court.
Why did the High Court acquit them?
In its ruling, the High Court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence to convict the two men. The judgment referenced legal precedent, including the landmark Supreme Court case RPAA 0034/10/CS, which held that no one should be convicted without evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In reviewing the charges, the High Court noted that the National Identification Agency (NIDA), based on data available in its system at the time, had legally issued the controversial document, a certificate stating that Nibigira was single. Therefore, it could not be considered fraudulent.
The court also rejected the prosecution’s claim that Muhizi requested the document with malicious intent, simply because it was processed using his phone number. The judges said there was no indication that Muhizi stood to gain personally from the certificate or that it was used dishonestly.
As for Katisiga, the court found that he acted in his professional capacity as a lawyer and could not be held criminally liable for presenting documents that were officially issued and related to a client he was representing. The judges stressed that lawyers enjoy immunity when advocating for clients in court, unless proven otherwise.
The court also referenced a series of similar legal precedents to highlight the importance of clear intent in cases involving allegations of forgery. It found no evidence that either Muhizi or Katisiga had acted with fraudulent intent or that any harm had been proven as a result of their actions.
Citing Article 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court ordered the immediate release of Muhizi, stating that there was no longer any legal basis to detain them. The ruling added that any doubts in a criminal case must favour the accused, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.