Several years ago, while I was still an undergraduate student, I witnessed a moment that changed how I think about justice. A friend went to collect his impounded car after a minor accident. Before leaving the traffic-police centre, he accidentally hit another vehicle. He expected another fine and another legal case. ALSO READ: For mediation to persist, the adversarial culture has to die Instead, a police officer asked a simple question: could the parties first try to resolve the matter themselves? They agreed, and within 30 minutes, the dispute was settled. ALSO READ: Artificial Intelligence in mediation: Opportunities and challenges Looking back, I consider that officer a hero. He prevented another case from entering the backlog and reminded me that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) does not always begin in a courtroom or mediation centre. Sometimes, it begins with one trusted person asking, “Can we first try to resolve this?” ALSO READ: Digital pre-trial mediation: A practical solution to Rwanda’s case backlog But this is not always the case. In our society, we constantly hear words like; “Ndakugezayo.” I will take you to court. “Ndakwumvisha.” I will teach you a lesson. “Uzambona.” You will see what I am capable of. ALSO READ: Judiciary boasts of 600 mediators to push for ADR These expressions have gradually become part of how many Rwandans respond to disputes. Whether the disagreement concerns land, family property, unpaid money, a commercial transaction or a conflict between neighbours, the immediate reaction is increasingly adversarial. Going to court is treated not merely as a means of obtaining justice, but sometimes as a way of defeating, embarrassing or exhausting the other person. This mentality has contributed to an unnecessary culture of litigation and increased pressure on Rwanda’s justice system. The scale of the challenge is significant. By June 2024, Rwanda had 76,273 pending cases, including 44,779 backlog cases, while 89,426 new cases were filed during the judicial year. Although backlog reportedly fell to 49 per cent in 2025, partly due to increased mediation, the problem remains substantial. Legal practitioners, scholars and justice-sector officials have long highlighted these challenges and consistently advocated for greater use of Alternative Dispute Resolution, keeping the need for reform firmly in the public conversation. On the other hand, Rwanda has already existing culture of resolving disputes amicably. The increasingly adversarial approach to disputes sits uncomfortably with another, equally familiar, Rwandan reality, we also constantly hear words like: “Let us resolve this before it goes too far.” “Let us not unnecessarily wash our dirty laundry in public.” “We will still need one another.” “You are family.” “You are even my neighbour.” These expressions reflect a profoundly Rwandan understanding of justice. A dispute was not always viewed as a contest in which one party had to emerge victorious and the other humiliated. It was understood as a disruption of relationships that had to be repaired. Rwandan communities historically placed great value on dialogue, mediation, reconciliation and restoration. The purpose was not to deny wrongdoing, excuse harmful conduct or prevent an injured person from obtaining justice. It was to resolve conflict while preserving, wherever possible, the social relationships upon which families and communities depended. This tradition remains relevant today. Neighbours will still live beside one another after a judgment is delivered. Relatives will continue meeting at family gatherings. Businesspeople may need to trade with each other again. Parents in conflict will remain connected through their children. A court judgment may determine who is legally right, but it cannot always restore trust, heal resentment or rebuild a damaged relationship. This does not mean that courts are unnecessary. Serious criminal conduct, violence, abuse and disputes involving fundamental rights require effective legal protection and, where appropriate, judicial intervention. Parties must never be pressured into mediation where there is intimidation, a severe imbalance of power or a risk of further harm. The writer is a legal researcher and incoming LL.M candidate at Harvard Law School.
