THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE RWANDAN CONSTITUTION: FROM INDEPENDENCE TO MODERN REFORMS.
The evolution of Rwanda’s constitution reflects the journey
from pre-colonial governance through colonial rule, independence, the tragedy
of genocide, and modern-day reconstruction. Each phase of constitutional reform
has been a response to Rwanda's shifting political, social, and historical
realities. Below is a comprehensive exploration of the key constitutional
milestones in Rwanda’s history. From the Abiru esoteric code to written constitution,
we can say that the Rwandan constitution took a long journey to reach where we
know it as of now.
When Professor Jean-Marie Kamatali talked
about the history of Rwandan constitutional law, in his book INTRODUCTION TO
RWANDAN LAW. He showed that the development of Rwandan constitutional law was
influenced by three key constitutional moments that shaped the present-day
country. The first is the independence of Rwanda, the second is the creation of
one-party system in 1975, and the third includes the 1990 war and the 1994
genocide against Tutsi.[1]
Constitution of Independence (1962)
Rwanda gained independence from Belgium on July 1, 1962,
marking the end of colonial rule. Before independence, the Gitarama Declaration
of 1961 abolished the monarchy, replacing it with a republican form of
government. On November 24, 1962, Rwanda adopted its first constitution.
This constitution symbolized Rwanda’s formal break from
colonial governance. However, political power shifted to the Hutu elite,
creating new socio-political divisions that would later contribute to internal
conflict.
This constitution also showed no desire of having again the monarchy.
This was reflected in article 2, which
stipulated that the regime of the king is abolished and it can’t be restored. It
also added that the King Kigeri V and all his house are removed their rights of
the kingdom.[2]
It is so surprising to found out that the first article of
this constitution mentioned that Rwanda is a republic based on democracy, the records
of history showed that this republic was no where near being democratic.
Article 3 might have been right on focusing on the equality
of the citizens without discriminating based on sex and religion, but it was totally
wrong saying it does the same on race and origin. The republic which used this
constitution proved to do the opposite.[3]
Shockingly again also in article 16 of the same law said that
all the citizens had the same rights to be equal in front of the law without
basing on the race, clan or skin color.[4]
Article 17 and 18 they reflect the ideas of removing the privileges
bases on race or clans, also the right of freedom of speech was recognized.
Paragraph two of article 18 reveals a shocking fact that, the freedom of
expression was limited by the fact that if those rights would jeopardize the
functioning of the state. This shows that the first republic didn’t want to be
held responsible by exposing what didn’t go well.[5]
Different examples can be given to prove more of this idea,
what we should keep in mind is that this constitution showed exactly what those
put it in place had in mind.
As my constitution law lecturer said, a constitution is a
reflection of the country. This constitution reflected what social political situation
at that time.
1978 Constitution
On July 5, 1973, General Juvénal Habyarimana seized power in
a coup, suspending the 1962 Constitution. In 1978, a new constitution was
adopted through a referendum on December 20, 1978.
Key Provisions included One-Party State; The new constitution
made the MRND (National Revolutionary Movement for Development) the only legal
political party. Strong Executive Power; The president was granted significant
executive authority. Suppression of Opposition; Political dissent was
effectively silenced.
The 1978 Constitution entrenched Habyarimana’s control over
the state. The one-party system marginalized political opposition and
reinforced ethnic divisions, which contributed to growing social and political
tensions.
Professor Kamatali showed how the Habyarimana philosophy of
one part[6]
system constitution unfolded. The path leading to and the philosophy behind the
1978 constitution were developed on 5 July 1975, when the president Habyarimana
created the National Revolutionary Movement for Development. The MRND Manifesto
clearly defined the dictatorial vision of the group that took power in 1973. It
said that the movement is popular movement and it required unconditional
adhesion. This means that every one was supposed to be in the party.
It is worth mentioning that the political committee of the
MRND charged in 1977 with drafting the 1978 constitution was animated by the above
philosophy.[7] In
addition the committee initially copied the constitution of Zaire that
dedicated the ruling party as the sole institution of the republic.[8]
Here we have to keep in mind that Habyarimana and Mobutu has a special
relationship so it was obvious that Habyarimana was inspired by him.
1991 Constitution (Multi-Party Reform)
Amid growing pressure from domestic and international actors,
as well as the ongoing civil war with the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF),
Habyarimana’s government introduced a new constitution on June 10, 1991. Key
Provisions included; Return to Multi-Party Democracy: The one-party system was
abolished, and multi-party politics were reintroduced. Separation of Powers;
The constitution established a separation of powers between the executive,
legislature, and judiciary. Human Rights Protections; It recognized fundamental
human rights and civil liberties.
The 1991 constitution was more an amendment of the 1978
constitution than the entirely new document. The most important amendment is article 7,
which ended the one-party system of the MRND. The new article provided that;
political parties fulfilling the legal requirements can concur to the
expression of suffrage. They shall exercise their activities freely, provided
that they respect democratic principles and do not infringe upon the republican form of government,
national integrity, and the security of the state.[9]
While the 1991 Constitution officially restored multi-party
democracy, the political environment remained unstable. Ethnic tensions and
civil conflict persisted, eventually leading to the assassination of President
Habyarimana in April 1994 and the onset of the Rwandan Genocide.
Post-Genocide Transitional Period (1994–2003)
Following the 1994 Genocide, the Rwandan Patriotic Front
(RPF) led by Paul Kagame assumed control of the country. Rwanda’s governance
during this period was guided by the principles of the Arusha Peace Accords
(1993), but no formal constitution was adopted until 2003.
The Arusha Accords[10],
officially the Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda
and the Rwandan Patriotic Front, also known as the Arusha Peace Agreement or
Arusha negotiations, were a set of five accords (or protocols) signed in
Arusha, Tanzania on 4 August 1993, by the government of Rwanda and the rebel
Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), under mediation, to end a three-year Rwandan
Civil War. Primarily organized by the Organisation of African Unity and the
heads of state in the African Great Lakes region, the talks began on 12 July
1992, and ended on 4 August 1993, when the accords were finally signed.
The Arusha Accords[11]
were a peace agreement signed on August 4, 1993, in Arusha, Tanzania, between
the Rwandan government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) to end the Rwandan
Civil War. The agreement, mediated by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)
and other regional leaders, aimed to establish a Broad-Based Transitional
Government (BBTG) that included the RPF and five political parties. Key
provisions included power-sharing in government, integration of the RPF into
the national army, refugee repatriation, and the rule of law. The Arusha
Accords played a critical role in shaping the foundations of Rwanda's
post-genocide constitution. While the Accords themselves were not fully
implemented due to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, the principles they established
had a profound influence on Rwanda’s later governance and constitutional
framework. Here's how the Arusha Accords contributed to the development of
Rwanda's modern constitution.
It had impact on the 2003 Constitution that reflected the emphasis
on human rights. It contains a Bill of Rights guaranteeing equality, dignity,
and the protection of fundamental human rights. The constitution also created
institutions like the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Commission for
Human Rights to ensure accountability and transparency in governance. This
commitment to human rights and the rule of law echoes the provisions of the
Arusha Accords.
Key Developments included; Transitional Institutions; New
institutions were created to foster stability and reconciliation. Reconciliation
and Unity; A focus on rebuilding Rwandan society, justice, and reconciliation
was prioritized. Gacaca Courts; Community courts (Gacaca) were established to
address crimes related to the genocide. This transitional period was critical
in laying the groundwork for a formal constitution. Efforts centered on
national unity, the promotion of a single Rwandan identity, and the eradication
of ethnic divisions.
2003 Constitution (Post-Genocide Constitution)
Rwanda’s Constitution has been made and remade, and it seems
that it is still in the process of transition. The post-genocide Constitution
of 2003 has been hailed as one of those constitutions that was participative
and involved many groups, and until recently it has undergone more than four
amendments. The Rwandan constitution-making process took place against a
backdrop of genocide, and this meant that the process and the substance would
be part of the national reconciliation process.[12]
On May 26, 2003, Rwanda adopted a new constitution following
a nationwide referendum. The
post-Genocide constitution and its amendments reflected the idea of recognizing
the 1994 genocide against Tutsi, and promotes national unity.
Key Provisions included; Ban on Ethnic Divisionism; Ethnic
labels (Hutu, Tutsi, Twa) were banned from public discourse. Multi-Party
Democracy; Political pluralism was guaranteed, but activities deemed divisive
were prohibited. Decentralization of Power; Local governance and
community-based decision-making were emphasized. Human Rights Protections; The
constitution enshrined fundamental human rights. Gender Equality; At least 30%
of decision-making positions were reserved for women.
The 2003 Constitution established the framework for modern
Rwanda. It sought to prevent a recurrence of genocide by outlawing ethnic
categorization and promoting national unity. It is considered a model of
post-genocide reconciliation, though some critics argue that its constraints on
political dissent limit democratic freedoms.
2015 Constitutional Amendment
A petition in 2015 called for an amendment to the 2003
Constitution to allow President Paul Kagame to remain in power. A referendum on
December 18, 2015, approved the changes.
Key Provisions included; Article 101 Amendment: Kagame was
allowed to serve an additional seven-year term (2017–2024) under a special
transitional provision. Term Limits: After 2024, the constitution limits
presidents to two five-year terms.
While supporters argued that this amendment reflected the
will of the Rwandan people, critics viewed it as a consolidation of Kagame’s
power. Kagame won the 2017 presidential election with over 98% of the vote,
raising concerns about democratic backsliding.
In the case DEMOCRATIC GREEN PARTY OF RWANDA v. GOVERNMENT OF
RWANDA, Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS (Rugege, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Mukanyundo,
Hatangimbabazi, Munyangeri N., Hitiyaremye, Gakwaya, Karimunda M., Nyirandabaruta,
J.) October 8, 2015].[13]
The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, filed a petition in the Supreme Court
stating that there are people who write letters to the Parliament requesting
that article 101 of the Constitution be amended so that the President of the Republic
can run for elections of being the President without limitation as to the
number of terms.
In its petition, GREEN
PARTY prayed for an order that article 101 of the Constitution should not be
amended. The hearing was scheduled for 8 July 2015. On that day, the case was
not heard because GREEN PARTY had no legal counsel. GREEN PARTY requested the
hearing to be postponed for six months so that it could find legal counsel but the
Supreme Court found all this period not necessary and the hearing was adjourned
to 29 July 2015.
Meanwhile, on 23 July
2015, on behalf of GREEN PARTY, Counsel Mukamusoni Antoinette filed additional
court submissions on the claim that was filed by that political party. On 24
July 2015, the Center for Human Rights Law Firm Ltd wrote to the Supreme Court
requesting the Court to allow it appear in the case as “ Amicus curiae” to
support the claim filed by GREEN PARTY for the court to decide that the
amendment of article 101 of the Constitution concerning presidential terms is
not permissible.
On 29 July 2015, the
case was reopened with GREEN PARTY represented by its president, Habineza
Frank, assisted by Counsel Mukamusoni Antoinette while the Republic of Rwanda
was represented by State Attorneys Rubango Epimaque, Mbonera Theophile and Malala
Aimable. On that day, the court first considered the request of Center for
Human Rights Law Firm Ltd to be “amicus curiae” in this case but after its
analysis, the court rejected the request. The hearing continued with the
preliminary objection submitted by the state, regarding the jurisdiction of the
Court. On 9 September 2015, the Court delivered a ruling dismissing the
objection and ruled that that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case that
was filed by GREEN PARTY.
The hearing in substance continued on 23 September 2015,
GREEN PARTY represented by its president Habineza Frank, assisted by Counsel
Mukamusoni Antoinette while the State was represented by State Attorneys:
Rubango Epimaque and Mbonera Theophile. GREEN PARTY argued that the
Constitution does not allow the amendment of article 101 relating to the term
of the President of the Republic. The state attorneys on the other hand
submitted that the Republic of Rwanda should not have been sued in this case regarding
article 101 of the Constitution. They argued that there is no prohibition
against its amendment.
Looking into the LEGAL ISSUES EXAMINED BY THE COURT; the court
examined whether the Government of Rwanda should not be sued in this case. State
Attorney, Mbonera Theophile, argued that the petition filed by GREEN PARTY in
the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Articles of the Constitution,
did not explain why the State was made party to the case. He argued that the
interpretation of the Constitution in general goes through the procedure
provided for in article 96 and that its interpretation does not require the
State to be party to the proceedings.
State Attorney, Rubango Epimaque, submitted that in other
cases relating to the interpretation of the laws which are contrary to the
Constitution, the State intervenes in them without being made a defendant in
them. He concluded requesting the Court to give clear guidance as to whether
the State should be sued in such cases or if it should be summoned to appear
and give explanations if deemed necessary.
Frank Habineza, the President of Green Party, explained that
the party he leads opted to file a petition against the Government of Rwanda
after noting that the requests of amendment of article 101 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Rwanda were initiated by some senior officials of the
government, among others Ministers and some of the Members of Parliament and
Senators. He went on to say that the government failed to condemn such acts of
its officials but rather opted to remain silent.
Mukamusoni Antoinette, the counsel for GREEN PARTY argued
that the reason for initiating the application against the State was due to the
fact that whenever the State determines that any act is prejudicial, it stops
it. However, in this case, people were allowed to come from different parts of
the country, to deliver petitions to the Parliament, passing by the Police
without being stopped. This, she argued, was the reason for filing the action against
the State as it failed to prevent whatever acts that aimed at amending the
Constitution.
The view of the court was that The Green Party argued that
amending Article 101 of Rwanda's Constitution to allow a President to serve
beyond two terms is unconstitutional and undemocratic. Article 101 explicitly
limits a President to two seven-year terms, stating that "under no circumstances"
can this be exceeded. The Green Party contended that allowing an amendment
would violate democratic principles and undermine national security.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument,
emphasizing that Article 193 of the Constitution provides a clear process for
amendments, including changes to the term and number of terms a President can
serve. Amendments require a supermajority vote in Parliament and, for key
issues like presidential terms, a national referendum. Importantly, Article 193
prohibits only changes to the procedure for constitutional amendments, not the
content of specific articles like Article 101.
The Court noted that democracies worldwide permit
constitutional amendments, including those affecting presidential terms. The
Court cited the African Charter on Democracy, which allows constitutional
amendments as long as they are based on national consensus and democratic
principles. The Court dismissed the Green Party’s claim that holding a
referendum to amend Article 101 was undemocratic. Instead, it ruled that
allowing citizens to decide through a referendum reflects democratic values, as
it gives the people sovereign power to shape their governance.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that amending Article 101 of
the Constitution to allow a President to seek additional terms is lawful if
done through the procedures in Article 193. It also found that such an
amendment would not contradict democratic principles as long as it reflects the
people's will.
In the decision of the court, The Supreme Court dismissed the
Democratic Green Party's petition, ruling that Rwanda's Constitution allows the
amendment of Article 101 on presidential term limits if done through the
procedures in Article 193. The Party was also held responsible for the court
costs.
The 2023 changes
Friday 2 June 2023 - The Plenary Sitting of the Senate
adopted the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda after considering the report
of the Conference of Chairpersons on the analysis of the draft revisions of the
Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda initiated by the President of the
Republic, submitted to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies.[14]
The key changes[15]
are the eight articles were amended in substance, 12 modified in style while
156 articles remain unmodified, leaving the Constitution of the Republic of
Rwanda with 176 articles in total. Among the key amendments in the Constitution
of Rwanda include:
Article 66 related to the commencement of office for Members
of Parliament: The first sitting shall be convened within 30 days instead of 15
days to provide enough time for the preparations of the swearing-in ceremony.
Article 75: A 4th
paragraph was added, describing the composition of the Chamber of Deputies and
the election of its members which shall be synchronized with the election of
the President of the Republic.
Article 79 related to the Dissolution of the Chamber of
Deputies for election purposes: The 2nd paragraph indicating the period of the
election of Members of the Chamber of Deputies was removed since its provision
was added in the newly formed 4th paragraph in article 75 that synchronizes
both the parliamentary and presidential elections.
The President of the Republic requested the amendment of
provisions of the Constitution relating to the election of Deputies. The
proposed amendment provides for the syschnronisation of both the parliamentary
and presidential elections for efficiency in the organisation of both
elections. More specifically, the proposed sycnhronisation is expected to save
both the time and the budget spent on the elections.
The amendments were prompted by a request from the President
of the Republic to revise provisions related to the election of Deputies. The
primary goal of these changes is to align parliamentary and presidential
elections, thereby improving the efficiency of the electoral process.
Synchronizing these elections is expected to reduce both the time and financial
resources required for their organization.
Conclusion
Rwanda’s constitutional history reflects a journey from
monarchy and colonial rule to a modern republic built on unity and
reconciliation. There different years that marked the changes in the constitution
from amending to drafting a new constitution, 1962, 1973, 1978, 1991, 2003,
2015and 2023. The 2003 Constitution and its subsequent amendments have shaped
Rwanda’s development, emphasizing national identity, gender equality, and
reconciliation. Our constitution reflects our choices as Rwandans it is a reflection
of who we are and the type of our choices like how we are governed. The journey
of our constitution recorded a piece of our history in it.
[2] https://www.rlrc.gov.rw/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=90625&token=4dcc8991060f322fdebf7fc23a392ce4af0eba03
[3] IDEM
[4]
IDEM
[5]
IDEM
[6] Professor
Jean-Marie Kamatali, book INTRODUCTION TO RWANDAN LAW Page 78
[7]
IDEM
[8]
IDEM
[9] Professor
Jean-Marie Kamatali, book INTRODUCTION TO RWANDAN LAW Page 81, 82
[11]
IDEM
[14] https://www.gov.rw/blog-detail/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-changes-in-constitution-of-rwanda
[15]
IDEM
Comments
Post a Comment