Mironko had challenged Articles 81, paragraphs one and two, of the amended law, arguing that these provisions violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Rwandan Constitution.

Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court confirmed that paragraph one of Article 81 does not contradict Articles 29 and 152 of the Constitution. However, paragraph two of the same Article was found to violate Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, paragraph two was declared null and void.

The Court ordered that Article 81 be interpreted to include a revised paragraph two, which reads as follows:

During proceedings, the presiding judge shall suspend the hearing and request calm among participants. The court clerk shall record the events. The judge shall inform the accused of the misconduct and request the clerk to read the official record. The accused and their legal counsel, if present or available, shall be asked to comment on the misconduct. Should the accused’s behavior continue to disrupt order, the judge may instruct security officers to remove them. The judge shall then render a judgment, read the ruling aloud, and resume the hearing.

The Court mandated that this ruling be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda.

Background of the Case

Mironko François Xavier was convicted on February 22, 2023, in case RS/INJUST/RCOM00001/2019/SC for contempt of court during proceedings. He received a two‑year prison sentence, with one year and nine months suspended, resulting in a three‑month jail term.

Mironko argued that Article 81 allowed a judge to immediately punish an accused without granting the right to be informed of the charges, defend themselves, or appeal violating his constitutional right to a fair trial.

He further contended that the provision deprived him of the right to appeal the sentence imposed, as the Supreme Court had final authority, with no possibility of judicial review.

Government’s Position

Representing the government, counsel argued that Article 81 was designed to maintain order and respect in the courtroom during proceedings. The law aims to swiftly address acts that disrupt hearings and compromise security.

The government maintained that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and punish contempt cases at both the first and final instance due to the nature of such offenses.

They acknowledged that while an accused person generally has the right to appeal, this right is excluded in cases where the Supreme Court renders a final judgment.

However, the government accepted that procedural safeguards including informing the accused of charges, allowing defense, and legal representation should be reinforced to align with constitutional standards.

Summary of the Court’s Decision

1. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations, to defend themselves, and to be represented by a lawyer.
2. The legislature enacted Article 81 to preserve courtroom security and respect for judicial proceedings.
3. Contempt of court includes acts that disrupt proceedings or disrespect the court.
4. The court where the contempt occurs has jurisdiction to try the offense and restore order.
5. Judges may punish contempt based on what they observe, without undermining the presumption of innocence.
6. Removing a disruptive accused from the courtroom and proceeding in their absence does not violate the right to a public trial if properly announced.
7. The contested provision in Article 81, paragraph two, contradicted constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and was therefore nullified.
8. The voided paragraph has been rewritten to include procedural safeguards including informing the accused, allowing comment or defense, and ensuring fair treatment even in contempt cases.

This landmark ruling reinforces constitutional protections for defendants while upholding the authority and dignity of the courts. It underscores Rwanda’s commitment to delivering justice that is both effective and respectful of human rights.

Court Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional petition filed by businessman Mironko François Xavier seeking the annulment of paragraphs one and two of Article 81 of Law No. 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 governing civil, commercial, labor, and administrative procedures, as amended was partially justified.

The Court found that paragraph one of Article 81 does not violate Articles 29 and 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. However, paragraph two of the same article was found to contravene Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution and was therefore declared null and void.

The Court ordered that Article 81 be completed with a revised paragraph two written as follows:

During that time, the presiding judge shall suspend the hearing and request all present to maintain order. The court clerk shall record the events. The judge shall inform the accused of the alleged misconduct and request the clerk to read aloud the recorded statement. The judge shall ask the accused and their counsel if present or can be immediately reached to comment on the matter. If the accused’s behavior continues to cause disruption, the judge may instruct security officers to remove them from the courtroom. The judge shall then render and read out the ruling and resume the hearing.

The Supreme Court also ordered that this ruling be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda.