If we were to take a quick survey of couples in Rwanda today, married or otherwise, starting with our own parents, the likelihood is that we would notice a significant age gap. It is a reality deeply embedded in our social fabric: men are often older, women younger, and relationships shaped by cultural norms, education and life circumstances.

Age gaps are not unusual; they are part of how relationships have historically unfolded in our communities. Yet when it comes to adolescents, our law can treat even small age differences as criminal, leaving little room for the lived realities of young people.

When I look back on my own adolescence, the years between 16 and 19 feel almost indistinguishable. I was the same person, navigating school corridors, friendships and the first hesitant steps into adulthood.

Nothing about me seemed to change in a way that felt dramatic or defining. What felt to me like ordinary youthfulness can, under Rwanda’s law, be recast as defilement. Imagine being 19 years old and facing a prison sentence that could alter your life forever.

Article 14(6) of the law determining offences and penalties in general, as amended in 2023, criminalises child defilement with the intention of protecting children from exploitation. That protection is essential. However, the law does not sufficiently distinguish between coercive abuse and consensual relationships between adolescents who are close in age.

Some of these cases involve mutual consent without violence, manipulation or an abuse of power, yet the law may treat them as though they were predatory acts, leading to life-altering criminal records and long-term incarceration.

As Dr Tite Niyibizi has argued in a law journal article, Rwanda’s justice framework must evolve to reflect social realities rather than impose rigid categories that ignore context.

Research on adolescent relationships in Rwanda shows that girls often prefer older partners, describing them as "wiser” and less likely to create conflict, while boys tend to choose partners of the same age or younger.

Most girls report relationships with partners two years older, with the largest gap noted at five years. Boys, conversely, often describe girlfriends of the same age or slightly younger.

These preferences reflect agency and social context, yet the law can criminalise even consensual interactions between adolescents close in age, disregarding adolescent development and evolving capacities. This also undermines broader efforts to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights by creating fear around seeking information, support and services.

The solution lies in introducing a close-in-age clause. This clause, sometimes called a "Romeo and Juliet law”, exempts consensual relationships between adolescents within a small age gap, typically two or three years, from being treated as criminal offences.

Such a reform would sharpen protections rather than weaken them, ensuring that the law targets genuine exploitation while respecting the dignity and autonomy of adolescents.

South Africa, for instance, introduced a close-in-age defence in 2015, allowing consensual relationships between adolescents where the age gap is no more than two years. By adopting a similar clause, Rwanda would join jurisdictions that recognise the importance of proportionality in criminal justice and the evolving capacities of young people.

The human cost of inaction is grave. A young man imprisoned for consensual intimacy can lose years of education, employment opportunities and social integration. His partner, equally affected by the legal process and stigma, may face shame, isolation and barriers to continuing her studies.

Families are torn apart, communities divided and the justice system burdened with cases that do not reflect genuine exploitation. Meanwhile, resources that should be directed towards prosecuting predators may be diverted to consensual relationships between adolescents, weakening the fight against sexual abuse and potentially leaving vulnerable children less protected.

Rwanda has already shown courage in reforming laws and policies to reflect lived realities. A close-in-age clause would be another step in this journey, ensuring that the justice system protects without unnecessarily punishing, shields without stigmatising and upholds dignity without eroding trust.

Adolescence belongs primarily in classrooms and communities, not courtrooms. A legal framework that recognises the difference between exploitation and consensual relationships between adolescents close in age would not weaken child protection. It would make that protection more focused, proportionate and effective.

The writer is Policy and Advocacy Officer at Health Development Initiative (HDI).