Kamanzi (not real name), a resident of Gasabo District, recently found himself on the wrong side of the law. He was caught walking home past the curfew hour imposed as part of the measures to fight Covid-19. For fear of spending a night in the stadium, he decided to bribe a security officer with Rwf2,000 so that they could let him off. He was arrested and currently, his case is before courts of law and on conviction, he risks a sentence of between five and seven years in prison, as prescribed in the anti-corruption law. There are many such petty cases as seen every year in list of corruption offenders published by the Office of Ombudsman, where some individuals are pursued and sentenced for bribery with value as little as Rwf500. This has ignited debate among legal practitioners and activists, with some saying that the prison sentence should be determined based on the amount of money and circumstances under which the bribery was given. John Mudakikwa is a lawyer and Executive Director of Centre for Rule of Law Rwanda (CERULAR), a non-governmental organization that advocates for equal justice for all. “The principle of proportionality is not respected here. Prescribing the same sentence for someone who has bribed Rwf2,000 and the one who has bribed Rwf10 million is not fair,” he points out. Many of these people with petty bribes are first-time offenders and some do this out of ignorance or lack of options on the table, he says. On the contrary, those who pay large sums of money do so with full knowledge and in most cases with devastating consequences both on the national economy and the country’s moral fabric. “Imagine someone bribed Rwf1,000 because he doesn’t want to spend a night in the stadium for violating Covid-19 guidelines, how can you compare that with someone who pays Rwf10 million to release a convicted criminal from prison?”, he wonders. According to Evode Kayitana, a lecturer of laws at the University of Rwanda, this is among the reasons why Rwanda’s prisons are among the most populated in the world. There should be alternative sentences for convicts of such petty crimes, he says, adding that jailing them is a waste of the taxpayer’s money because while in prison, that person will be fed and fully catered for by government. Similar sentiments are echoed by Mudakikwa. “If people were rehabilitated for say six months and ordered to do community service as an alternative to imprisonment, that would be better than imprisoning them for five years on the cost of the taxpayer,” he adds. He adds that the lenient sentence is among the alternatives that were suggested in the upcoming criminal justice policy that is yet to be approved by the cabinet. Contacted for a comment, Tom Mulisa, a human rights lawyer and lecturer, also said that proportionality should not just apply to corruption but to all infractions. “The punishment should be commensurate to the intended purpose, even if we take examples from other countries, there should be proportionality not only in the anti-corruption law, but also for other offences,” he said citing theft and illegal mining among others. Law punishes crime, not value Other experts however argue that the law is better suited to punish crime by attacking it from its roots. They argue that petty bribery if treated lightly will only incentivize large scale crimes. “The law should punish the crime, not the details, regardless of the amount that you give, the law should be there to detect anyone who has violated it,” says Andrews Kananga, the Executive Director of Legal Aid Forum Rwanda. He gave an example of people who are punished for attempting to commit a crime – even before they have committed it. “How then, could someone be spared just because of a small amount of money that was involved?” he wonders. For Abdul Hamid, a lawyer and activist based in Rwanda, there are other factors considered which can act as mitigating circumstances during the sentencing for a criminal case involving a lower amount. “Though the law does not consider the amount of money involved, the judge considers some elements like pre-meditation, the intent and the offender’s understanding of the crime as mitigating circumstances,” he argues. “But the amount can’t be something to consider, because the law focuses on the crime, not the amount.” Renowned anti-corruption campaigner, Marie-Immaculée Ingabire, the chairperson of Transparency International Rwanda says she was among the people who were consulted in drafting the anti-corruption legislation. Speaking to The New Times, she also affirmed that they created the same sentence for all the convicts so that no room is left for corruption. “Bribery is not a debt for you to consider the amount. It is a habit. If you bribe less (and let off), you will bribe more once if an opportunity presents itself. We wanted to eradicate the habit, hence the amount can’t be a mitigating circumstance,” she said. Meanwhile, Domitille Mukantanganzwa, the chairperson of Rwanda Law Reform Commission, said corruption depends on the standards of living of someone. “The value of Rwf2,000 of a normal citizen might be equal to the value of two million given by a city market owner illegally seeking to obtain a certain tender,” she explains. “In some instances, the one who gave two thousand can spend two days without eating due to the lack of the money, but the ‘big fish’ will move on with their lives as usual,” she adds. Regarding prison congestion, she said that only a small number of petty corruption convicts are in prison, hence that can’t be a pretext of a high prison population. Contacted for a comment, the spokesperson of the judiciary, Harrison Mutabazi, said that his institution’s view is only reflected in the law and hence he couldn’t comment on the law that is already in use.
