The Supreme Court rules that even if it had maintained the law, the state would need to be vigilant when applying it
In a closely watched ruling with implications for digital freedoms and freedom of speech in Rwanda, the Supreme Court has rejected a constitutional challenge filed against Article 39 of Law Nº 60/2018 of 22/8/2018 on the Prevention and Punishment of Cyber Crimes.
The Supreme Court in ruling issued June 5 declared that it is compatible with the country’s Constitution, particularly with provisions on freedom of expression and access to information.
The petitioner, Me Jean Paul Ibambe, a prominent Rwandan lawyer, had filed the case arguing that Article 39 unreasonably curtails citizens’ freedom to express opinions, especially in digital spaces, and that it risks being used to suppress dissent and journalism under the guise of fighting misinformation.
The Supreme Court decision comes after oral hearings were held a month earlier, on May 5, 2025, where the petitioner was represented by fellow attorneys Me Gakunzi Valery and Me Mukashema Marie Louise.
At the heart of the case is Article 39 of the cybercrime law, which criminalizes the publication of rumours through computers or computer systems.
The article states: “Any person who, knowingly and through a computer or a computer system, publishes rumours that may incite fear, insurrection or violence amongst the population or that may make a person lose their credibility, commits an offence. Upon conviction, he/she is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than three (3) years and not more than five (5) years and a fine of not less than one million Rwandan francs (FRW 1,000,000) and not more than three million Rwandan francs (FRW 3,000,000).”
Petitioner’s Argument: The Law Is Too Vague and Punitive
Me Ibambe argued that the law is overbroad and dangerously vague, allowing too much room for interpretation. According to his submission, terms like “rumours,” “fear,” or “loss of credibility” are subjective and can easily be misused to target journalists, whistleblowers, critics, or ordinary citizens expressing opinions online.
“I acknowledge that freedom of expression is not unlimited and must be exercised responsibly,” said Me Ibambe during oral arguments. “But penal sanctions for what could be civil wrongs—such as damaging someone’s reputation—are disproportionate and have a chilling effect on free speech.”
He contended that the article conflicts with Article 38 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of thought, opinion, expression, the press, and access to information, and places an obligation on the State to protect these rights.
Furthermore, Me Ibambe made reference to international legal standards such as: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Rwanda ratified; and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, both of which emphasize that restrictions on freedom of expression must be clearly defined, necessary, and proportionate in a democratic society.
He also highlighted the 2019 legislative reforms in Rwanda, which saw the partial decriminalization of defamation and the repeal of several press-related criminal laws, arguing that these reforms signaled a national commitment to align with international best practices.
“What we are asking is not the legalisation of impunity in speech, but the adoption of civil remedies—such as compensation, apology, and retraction—instead of criminal penalties that can silence voices through fear of arrest and prosecution,” he added.
Me Ibambe noted that several countries—including Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and the UK—have repealed or struck down similar provisions for being unconstitutional or incompatible with modern democratic standards.
Government’s Defense: The Law Is About Responsibility in the Digital Age
The government, represented by Prosper Habumuremyi, pushed back on these claims, asserting that Article 39 is not meant to stifle expression, but to safeguard the public from harm caused by malicious and misleading content in the digital age.
“The law targets the intentional spread of rumours with the potential to cause social instability or unjust harm to an individual’s dignity and credibility,” said Habumuremyi.
He added that freedom of speech, though guaranteed by the Constitution, is not absolute, and must be balanced with the public interest, national security, and the rights of others, particularly in a world where digital platforms can rapidly amplify falsehoods.
In rebutting Me Ibambe’s references to foreign jurisdictions, the State highlighted that many democracies—including Canada, Singapore, and Belgium—continue to treat certain forms of online misinformation and defamation as criminal offenses due to their societal risks.
“Digital speech travels faster and reaches wider than traditional forms. That scale of influence must be accompanied by a scale of responsibility,” Habumuremyi told the Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: Constitutionality Affirmed
After weighing both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Article 39 is not unconstitutional and that its provisions fall within reasonable and justified limitations on freedom of expression.
The Court reasoned that the intent and language of the law are not overly broad when interpreted within the context of its enforcement, and that it targets specific harms, such as inciting violence or unjustly harming others, which are not protected forms of speech.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that: the penalties prescribed are proportional given the potential harm; the intent requirement—that the act must be done knowingly—acts as a safeguard against arbitrary enforcement; and that the provision serves a legitimate purpose in preserving public order and individual dignity in the era of digital communication.
The Court, however, encouraged continued vigilance in the application of such laws to ensure they are not misused or stretched beyond their original intent.
Implications: A Delicate Balance Between Speech and Harm
The ruling is likely to stir ongoing debate among legal scholars, journalists, and civil society organizations about how Rwanda balances speech rights with regulation, particularly online.
As Me Ibambe noted after the ruling, “This is not the end of the conversation. The responsibility now falls on courts, prosecutors, and society at large to ensure that such provisions are used wisely—and never as a tool for repression.”
Me Ibambe Jean Paul has been a go-to lawyer for journalists in trouble with the law
