Last week, Kigali International Financial Centre (KIFC) marked five years since its creation, in 2020. Over this period, Rwanda made significant legal and regulatory reforms, including in tax, to position itself as an international financial hub and a preferred holding jurisdiction. These reforms strengthened the country’s competitiveness as a destination for foreign direct investment and as a financial centre.

ALSO READ: Kigali International Financial Centre’s five years of positioning Rwanda as major financial hub

However, tax dispute resolution appears to have been under‑weighted in that reform agenda.

As the economy grows and Rwanda continues to attract foreign investments, transactions are becoming more sophisticated, giving rise to complex and often unprecedented tax issues. This trend will only intensify as investors seek to leverage the structuring options offered under KIFC and develop increasingly intricate legal and tax arrangements. The architecture for resolving tax disputes must therefore evolve in tandem. This is because today’s tax controversies frequently require a level of specialised expertise that our generalist commercial courts, however diligent and which hear and adjudicate cases in Kinyarwanda, are not designed to provide consistently.

Cross‑border structures, transfer pricing and indirect tax issues are not merely questions of statute; they intersect with accounting standards, economics, and international best practices and guidelines. In such a technical setting, uneven adjudication can create uncertainty about outcomes, increase the cost of capital, and deter otherwise viable investment.

Real-time risks are seen as international investors conduct market due diligence. The same question is asked to professional advisors in almost every presentation: What happens if the tax administration takes an aggressive position – will we get a competent and predictable judgment? Today, the honest answer is too often, ‘hmmm...one cannot be certain’. This is felt acutely when a judgment with a surprising outcome must be explained to an investor. That uncertainty risks costing Rwanda deals, if it is not already happening.

Investors do not demand zero tax; they demand predictability. When a ruling appears detached from the economic substance of a transaction or from established international norms, such as OECD and UN model commentaries and relevant domestic provisions, the perceived country risk rises sharply.

This is not a critique of Rwanda’s judiciary, whose contribution to building the rule of law has been substantial, but a recognition of the growing sophistication of modern tax law and the country’s economic ambitions. Where the subject matter becomes highly technical, adjudication benefits from concentrated expertise and a consistent interpretative framework.

Establishing a specialised tax tribunal would address these needs directly and strengthen Rwanda’s tax infrastructure, improve the coherence of tax jurisprudence, and reinforce the country’s investment proposition. Structured as an independent, quasi‑judicial body within the broader judicial system, it could be staffed by a panel of tax lawyers, accountants, economists, and former revenue officials appointed through a transparent, merit‑based process. It would hear all tax disputes at first instance after the administrative appeal has concluded, and an amicable settlement has failed. Its decisions would be appealable, but only on points of law, to the Commercial High Court, with further appeal to the Court of Appeal and, in exceptional circumstances, to the Supreme Court.

By focusing exclusively on tax matters, the tribunal would develop coherent jurisprudence over time, reduce interpretative divergence, and support predictable, expertise‑based outcomes for both taxpayers and the tax administration.

To support Rwanda’s international ambitions, the tribunal should be capable of conducting proceedings and rendering its judgments in English. This is not a mere linguistic preference but a practical step to ensure clarity and predictability for cross‑border investors, advisers, and capital providers who plan, contract, and price risk using English‑language documentation and standards. Authoritative English decisions would improve legal certainty, facilitate comparability with international best practice, and align with investor needs as it increases their confidence in the country.

Rwanda’s competitive context must also be kept in view. Peer African jurisdictions that Rwanda is competing with for international capital, such as South Africa, Mauritius, and Kenya, have specialised tax tribunals, signalling how important these are in light of international capital movements.

Rwanda has demonstrated the benefits of specialisation through creating commercial courts and Kigali International Arbitration Centre. Extending that logic to taxation would reinforce our commitment to investors by improving quality at first instance, narrowing issues on appeal, and accelerating resolution, boosting investor confidence. The result would be fewer surprises for all parties, a more credible dispute framework, and a more attractive environment for long‑horizon investment. Consistent, expert tax dispute adjudication reduces the perceived risk premium attached to tax outcomes. In turn, this supports capital formation, lowers the cost of doing business, and aligns revenue collection with sustainable economic growth.

By institutionalising expertise in tax dispute resolution and communicating its results clearly to the international market, Rwanda would send a powerful signal: complex tax matters will be handled by specialists, on a stable legal footing, with outcomes that can be anticipated and planned for.

Rwanda has a track record of building the institutions needed to compete globally. Specialised tax tribunals are the next step in that journey, bolstering predictability and certainty, and sharpening Rwanda’s competitive edge, helping KIFC and Rwanda Development Board consolidate recent gains while positioning the country for the next decade of investment‑led growth.

The writer is a tax and corporate commercial lawyer.