The Supreme Court on Monday, May 5, began hearing a case filed by Kigali-based lawyer Jean-Paul Ibambe, who is challenging the constitutionality of Rwanda’s cybercrime law. The case is being presided over by a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Domitilla Mukantaganzwa. In his petition, Ibambe argues that Article 39 of the law infringes on the freedom of speech and expression. The article in particular criminalises the act of knowingly publishing, through a computer or computer system, rumours that could incite fear, insurrection, or violence among the population, or damage an individual’s reputation. ALSO READ: Lawyer petitions Supreme Court over articles in cybercrime law Under the law, a person convicted of the offence faces a prison term of three to five years and a fine of one to three million Rwandan francs. Ibambe contends that the provision stands in direct contrast with Article 38 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the right to access information. According to him, applying criminal penalties to online offences undermines such rights. He further argues that the article also contradicts both domestic and international legal precedents. He cited a landmark 2019 ruling in which the judiciary decriminalised humiliation of public officials and the defamation of religious rituals. The particular ruling followed a successful constitutional petition filed by another lawyer, Richard Mugisha. ALSO READ: Journalists laud Supreme Court landmark ruling on defamation Ibambe calls upon the court to adopt a consistent approach when it comes to cyberspace too. He argues that criminal charges for online offences can lead to fear among users and deter them from expressing themselves and giving their ideas online. State attorneys’ response Responding to Ibambe’s claims, state attorneys, represented by Prosper Habumuremyi, said Article 39 of the cyber law does not deprive people of their freedoms of speech and expression, but rather call for caution when a person is using cyberspace. This, according to the state attorneys, is aimed at ensuring protection of youth and children, the right of every citizen to honour and dignity, protection of personal and family privacy, as well as maintaining public order. ALSO READ: New lawyers urged to prioritize alternative dispute resolution He also argued that though Ibambe presented precedents of countries that have decriminalised such cybercrimes, there are many others that criminalise it including Canada, Singapore and Belgium. The court will give its verdict on June 6.
