Imagine borrowing Rwf40 million to import tomatoes from Tanzania. You hire a truck, expecting to sell the consignment, repay the loan and earn a profit. Instead, investigators suspect an offence connected with the importation. You are arrested, and the truck and tomatoes are seized.
Five days pass. The tomatoes rot. The truck owner demands payment of accumulated hire charges. You are subsequently released, but the loan remains outstanding. Your freedom returns, but your working capital does not.
This hypothetical scenario raises an important question for Rwanda’s criminal justice system: when investigative measures cause financial loss, what remedy can the affected person pursue, and who explains that remedy?
Investigators need powers to seize goods and preserve evidence. However, exercising those powers carries responsibilities towards the property placed under their control.
Rwanda’s criminal procedure legislation recognises this. Article 58 of Law Nº 027/2019, as amended by Law Nº 058/2023, requires investigators and prosecutors to handle seized objects carefully, record their identifying details and photograph them. Where an object is perishable or likely to depreciate, it permits immediate measures, including returning it or entrusting it to an appropriate custodian. The action must be recorded, and a copy of the record must be provided to the owner.
The practical implication is clear: perishable goods require urgent decisions. Tomatoes cannot wait indefinitely for an investigation to conclude. Preserving evidence must therefore be considered alongside preventing the avoidable destruction of economic value.
Nevertheless, release alone does not establish that an arrest or seizure was unlawful. Nor does it necessarily mean that an investigation has ended. A compensation claim must address the conduct that allegedly caused the loss.
The crucial questions include whether the goods were properly stored, whether deterioration was foreseeable, whether timely protective measures were available and whether an unjustified delay caused preventable damage.
Rwanda’s civil liability framework provides a basis for seeking damages for harm attributable to fault, including negligence. A claimant must substantiate the wrongful conduct, the loss and the connection between them. The appropriate defendant and procedure must be carefully identified, particularly where public authorities are involved.
Evidence therefore matters. Purchase invoices, loan records, import documents, seizure statements, photographs, correspondence requesting preservation and the truck-hire agreement can help establish what happened and quantify the loss. The loan principal should not simply be added to the value of the destroyed tomatoes: compensation must avoid counting the same loss twice.
The truck owner’s position also deserves attention. Whether the trader owes continuing hire charges depends on the agreement and the circumstances. Recovering those charges from an authority would require a separate justification linking them to actionable conduct.
Beyond these legal questions lies an information gap worth examining. Are people whose property is seized clearly told how to request urgent preservation, obtain records, challenge continued retention or seek compensation? We should examine actual practice before assuming that everyone receives such guidance or that no one does.
A practical improvement would be a simple written notice accompanying seizure documents. In accessible language, it could explain how to request preservation, use complaint channels, access legal assistance and pursue possible avenues for compensation. Decisions concerning perishable goods should also be prompt and documented.
Such measures would support investigators by clarifying responsibilities and protecting the integrity of their work. They would help traders understand that seeking lawful redress is a legitimate part of justice.
For someone returning home to rotten stock, an outstanding loan and mounting transport charges, release is only the beginning of recovery. A justice system earns public confidence when it both investigates suspected wrongdoing and provides an effective response to avoidable harm caused during that process.
The writer is a legal systems analyst specialising in regional integration, access to justice and public international law.