Introduction
Rwandan authorities have been linked to serious human rights and international humanitarian law violations beyond their borders through support for the M23 armed group in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Evidence indicates that Rwanda has provided military, logistical, and other forms of assistance to M23, a group responsible for widespread abuses against civilians, including killings, forced displacement, and recruitment of child soldiers.
Association
On 19th June 2025, Rwandan authorities rearrested opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, head of the unregistered political party Development and Liberty for All (DALFA–Umurinzi), in connection with an ongoing trial targeting members of her party. According to the Rwanda Investigation Bureau, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered her arrest on allegations of forming a criminal group and planning activities intended to incite public disorder. As previously documented on the Monitor, Ingabire, a long-time critic of the government, previously spent nearly eight years in prison following her 2012 conviction on charges of conspiring to undermine the state and denying the 1994 genocide, charges widely viewed as politically motivated after she attempted to run in the 2010 presidential election. Although she received a presidential pardon in 2018, her latest arrest underscores the continued suppression of opposition voices and the shrinking political space in Rwanda.
Expression
On 5th June 2025, Rwanda’s Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 39 of the 2018 Cybercrime Law, rejecting a challenge brought by lawyer Jean Paul Ibambe. The petitioner had argued that the provision, which criminalises the publication of rumours through digital platforms, is vague and open to misuse, allowing authorities to target dissenting voices and journalists. He contended that penalising speech-related offences with imprisonment contradicts constitutional guarantees of freedom of thought, opinion, and the press, and breaches international obligations under the ICCPR and the African Charter. The state defended the law as a necessary safeguard against harmful and destabilising misinformation in the digital era, asserting that it protects public order and individual dignity. In its decision, the Court ruled that the article constitutes a reasonable limitation on free expression, finding its intent and proportionality consistent with constitutional standards. While the Court reaffirmed the law’s legitimacy, it urged vigilance to prevent its abuse.