The Supreme Court will, on March 25, issue its verdict in a petition filed by a local journalist challenging “an unconstitutional” provision that requires journalists to seek permission to cover court proceedings 48 hours before they take place. The journalist in question, Baker Byansi who works for a local FM station, is particularly protesting Article 71 of the law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative court procedures, which prohibits people from taking audio, video recordings and photographs during a court session, unless they are granted special permission by the president of the court. The article obliges those that wish to make such coverage to request in writing for permission from the court president at least forty-eight hours before the hearing. On Tuesday, February 15, a panel of three justices led by Chief Justice Faustin Ntezilyayo heard the case at the court’s seat in Kacyiru where both the petitioner and the plaintiff who is the state, were given a chance to make their submissions. Appearing before court, Byansi told the justices that the article in question contradicts Article 38 of the Constitution that provides for the freedom of press, expression and access to information. He noted that the part of seeking permission to cover court sessions 48 hours before they take place makes it hard for journalists since they are not always in position to know the court schedule within that timeframe. “There is almost no way to know which cases will be taking place in courts, except for major cases that are talked about much in the media. We often get to know about cases by randomly going to court houses and read the schedule published on the very day that the trials take place,” he noted. He further argued that the article gives extreme powers to presidents of courts, since it does not provide the guidelines which they should follow in granting or denying permission to the journalists. In response, the state attorney representing the government of Rwanda in the case challenged Byansi’s petition, saying that though the constitution grants rights and freedoms for press, expression and information access, there are laws that provide guidelines concerning how these should be enjoyed without affecting other people’s rights and freedoms. Here, she noted that the presidents of the courts should examine whether the use of audio and visual gadgets by journalists in a court session will not prejudice the administration of justice, among other critical issues. She cited the 5th paragraph of the very article (71) that is being challenged, which says: “The president of the court decides in writing to grant or reject the application for making audio and video recordings after examining whether the granting of such application cannot adversely affect the interests of the administration of justice, national security, safety of parties and morals.” However, Valery Gakunzi, one of the lawyers representing Byansi argued that if a court hearing is public, that implies that there are no secrets related to national security, safety of parties or morals, among other things that would make the judges stop audio and visual coverage.
