In a landmark decision on December 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of Rwanda addressed a significant legal challenge surrounding the issuance of search warrants, ultimately affirming the constitutionality of the existing process.
The applicant, Edward Murangwa, had sought a declaration that the provisions empowering the National Public Prosecution Authority to issue search warrants were anti-constitutional, arguing for a system aligned with certain common law jurisdictions, where an investigating magistrate or a judge holds this authority.
The petitioner contended that empowering the Executive branch, specifically the Prosecution, with the authority to issue search warrants could potentially infringe fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy. Drawing inspiration from legal practices in Belgium, France, and Cameroon, the petitioner advocated for a shift towards a system where an investigating judge or a court authorizes search warrants.
The core of the petitioner's claim revolved around the alleged infringement of constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy and due process.
After thorough consideration of arguments from both the petitioner and the State, the Supreme Court summarized the legal issue as whether the issuance of search warrants by the Prosecution rather than a judge contravenes the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that under Rwandan law, the Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) is empowered to conduct searches, including those authorized by search warrants issued by the Prosecution, as outlined in Article 55 of the 2019 Law on Criminal Procedure.
The Court acknowledged the existence of reasonable grounds or probable cause as prerequisites for obtaining a search warrant, ensuring that the issuance of such warrants is justified and legally sound.
The Court stressed that while certain jurisdictions adopt a system involving judges or courts, the Rwandan legislator has designated the Prosecution as the organ responsible for authorizing searches and issuing search warrants, asserting that this choice aligns with the country's legal framework, resources, and justice system structure.
The Supreme Court underscored the paramount importance of respecting citizens' fundamental rights, emphasizing that the key concern is not who issues the search warrant but ensuring a professional and lawful search process.
The Court noted that judicial precedents from various countries demonstrate that the issuer of the search warrant does not guarantee absolute protection of individual rights during implementation.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The Supreme Court appreciated the 2019 Law on Criminal Procedure for defining clear contours and safeguards for searches, including specific provisions such as conducting searches within specified hours, in the presence of the suspect or household members, and involving representatives of local authorities and professional associations.
The Supreme Court ruling particularly highlighted that the law provides stringent measures for conducting strip-searches, entrusting such procedures exclusively to medical doctors.
Addressing exemptions to the search warrant requirement, the Supreme Court acknowledged circumstances where obtaining a warrant might not be feasible, such when the suspect is caught red-handed or is presumed to have been caught red-handed or when there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime is ongoing or is imminent. The law requires a subsequent report justifying the search conducted without a warrant.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that the Rwandan legal system's practice of search warrant issuance does not contravene the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. The decision of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of a well-defined legal framework and efficient safeguards to protect citizens' fundamental rights during search processes, irrespective of the issuing authority.
The writer is a legal expert based in Kigali.
