Recent events in Kigali and Rubavu have once again brought the debate about "indecent dressing” into the national spotlight.

The discussion is not new, yet, the recurrence of incidents involving women being stopped, denied access to public venues, or confronted over what they are wearing suggests that as a country, we need to examine the distinction between public indecency as a criminal offence and clothing that some members of society may consider inappropriate a little more closely.

That difference really matters.

This is not an argument against culture, decency, or reasonable standards of behaviour in public spaces as many people on social media platforms continue to put it. Every society has values and expectations regarding public conduct. The question is whether those expectations should be enforced through criminal law when the law itself does not clearly define the conduct being prohibited.

What does Article 143 actually prohibit?

Article 143 of Rwanda’s Law Relating to Offences and Penalties in General states that, "Any person who performs an indecent act in public commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than two (2) years.”

However, the law does not define an "indecent act”, nor does it establish a dress code. It does not tell us the permissible length of a skirt, the amount of the body that must be covered, or specific clothing that women or men may not wear.

Yet in practice, "public indecency” has increasingly become associated with women’s clothing.

This creates a significant legal and policy concern. When a criminal provision is broad but its application depends on individual interpretation, whether by a police officer, a venue operator, or even the general public, enforcement risks becoming inconsistent and subjective.

Recent events illustrate this clearly.

In Rubavu, a young woman was reportedly confronted by police because of the length of her skirt. Following public scrutiny, she was released and the officers involved were detained.

A similar concern arose in 2022 with the arrest of Liliane Mugabekazi after attending a concert at BK Arena. Her case sparked national debate about the boundary between public indecency and personal choice in clothing. She was ultimately found not guilty.

Four years later, Rwanda is still debating the same question.

When ambiguity becomes a women’s-rights issue

The lack of legal clarity would be problematic in any context but its consequences are particularly significant when enforcement appears to fall disproportionately on women.

Public discussions around "indecent dressing” overwhelmingly focus on women’s bodies, how much skin is visible, the length of a dress or skirt, or even whether clothing is tight or transparent.

Men, by contrast, are largely absent from both enforcement actions and public scrutiny.

This imbalance matters. It transforms what appears to be a neutral issue of morality into a question of gender equality.

A woman should not have to calculate whether an individual officer, security guard, or venue manager will consider her clothing sufficiently "decent” before entering a public space. Clear law protects not only citizens, but also those tasked with enforcing it.

Why this matters for preventing gender-based violence

There is another dimension that deserves attention.

When society repeatedly links a woman’s appearance with morality or respectability, it can unintentionally reinforce attitudes that complicate efforts to prevent gender-based violence. The same narratives often emerge after incidents of harassment or assault where the focus is placed on what the survivor was wearing or why she was in that place.

These questions shift attention away from the conduct of the perpetrator and toward the woman who experienced harm. Somehow, we tend to forget that clothing does not cause violence, perpetrators do.

Preventing violence requires public narratives, and legal frameworks, that consistently centre accountability on those who commit harm.

A case for legal clarity

In July 2025, the Health Development Initiative (HDI) submitted a position paper to Parliament proposing clarification of Article 143.

The objective was not to weaken standards of public decency, but to distinguish between conduct that genuinely threatens public order and conduct that simply reflects moral disagreement.

We proposed that Article 143 be revised to read, "A person who, in a public place, intentionally exposes sexual organs or intentionally engages in sexual activity in a manner likely to cause serious public disorder commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six (6) months and not more than two (2) years. Mere presence in public spaces, manner of dress, or consensual non-sexual interactions shall not in themselves constitute indecent acts under this Article.”

Our ask was that criminal offences should be defined to ensure clear guidance for both citizens and enforcement institutions.

Refocusing accountability

If the objective is to ensure safe and respectful public spaces, then enforcement priorities should reflect behaviours that actually cause harm.

Sexual harassment, violence, coercion, and exploitation are a direct threat and deserve serious attention.

A woman wearing a short dress should not attract greater scrutiny than a man harassing her because she is wearing it.

An opportunity for constructive reform

This debate should not become a false choice between culture and rights.

Rwanda can protect both. It can promote social values while ensuring that criminal law remains clear, fair, and consistently applied.

For a country that has made significant progress in advancing gender equality, this distinction matters.

Public spaces should be places where women are safe not because they have dressed in a way that avoids judgment, but because their rights are respected regardless of what they wear.

Nasra Bishumba is the Senior Communication Advisor at Health Development Initiative (HDI).