Over the past 32 years, Rwanda has built institutions centred on its people. Courts have become more accessible, banking services have reached communities, and government services have gone digital. Today, however, these achievements are intersecting with a new reality: the smartphone.
ALSO READ: The missing middle: Rwanda's next access to justice conversation
Across the country, a familiar story is emerging. A person's phone is secured during a criminal investigation and retained as evidence. Days become weeks. Businesses pause. Customers receive no response. School fees go unpaid. Loan repayments are delayed. These hardships are rarely the result of institutional intent. Rather, they reflect the challenge of applying procedures developed for physical evidence to a society whose economic and social life is increasingly digital.
A procedural question
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Rwanda's criminal justice system was designed at a time when evidence was largely physical. Today, a single smartphone may contain a person's bank account, business records, work, education, and essential means of communication.
ALSO READ: The compliance paradox in the East African Community
When such a device is retained, two legitimate public interests arise simultaneously. Investigative authorities have a legal duty to preserve evidence and combat crimes such as fraud and cybercrime. At the same time, the owner of the device continues to run a business, support a family, meet financial obligations, and earn a living.
The challenge, therefore, is not one of institutional intent but of procedural clarity and public understanding.
As digital technologies become central to everyday life, citizens benefit from clear, accessible, and predictable procedures governing how long digital devices may be retained, the scope of forensic examination, and the safeguards available to minimise unnecessary disruption while investigations proceed.
Learning from experience
Rwanda is not alone in facing this challenge. Across the East African Community (EAC) and beyond, legal systems have begun adapting their procedures to the realities of digital evidence. Some jurisdictions require judicial oversight for extended retention of devices. Others rely on forensic imaging, allowing investigators to extract relevant data while returning the physical device. Some also provide practical arrangements that minimise disruption where this does not compromise investigations.
Rwanda has consistently demonstrated its ability to innovate and adapt. From Gacaca and Abunzi to digital public services, the country's progress has been marked by practical institutional evolution. The governance of digital evidence may be the next step in that journey.
Why this matters
Access to justice is not only about reaching the courtroom. It is also about ensuring that legal processes do not unnecessarily interrupt livelihoods.
For many Rwandans, a smartphone is more than a communication device. It is a bank, an office, a marketplace, and often the primary source of income. At the same time, effective criminal investigations remain essential to protecting society from fraud, cybercrime, and other offences.
The objective, therefore, is not to choose between justice and livelihoods, but to ensure that both are protected through fair and transparent procedures.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
A reflection
As Rwanda marks 32 years of rebuilding and transformation, it is worth reflecting on how our legal procedures continue to evolve alongside our digital society.
Clear and publicly understood procedures for handling digital evidence would strengthen public confidence, provide greater predictability for citizens, and support investigators in carrying out their duties with legal certainty.
This is not a call for predetermined reform. It is simply an observation that, as our economy and daily lives become increasingly digital, procedural clarity benefits everyone.
The writer is a legal systems analyst specializing in regional integration, access to justice, and public international law.
