The Office of the Ombudsman has handled up to 6,080 petitions related to court rulings from October 2012 through June 2017, according to official figures.

By the end of 2016/17 judicial year, only 279 cases—out of 366,560 that had been decided by the courts—were found to have irregularities by the Ombudsman’s office and consequently referred to the Supreme Court for retrial.

Some 200 cases have been reviewed by the Inspectorate of Courts; 142 have been cleared by the inspectorate as deserving of review and out of those 57 have been reheard with 44 being found to have been unjustly decided.

The Ombudsman receives thousands of petitions but many are rejected because they don’t fulfill conditions, Chief Justice Sam Rugege told The New Times in a recent interview.

The Constitution allows for application for review of final court verdict to help address injustice even after delivery of court rulings at the highest level – the Supreme Court.

The Office of the Ombudsman can request the Supreme Court to review judgement of any court if it concludes that the petitioner has legitimate grounds to contest such a ruling.

But not all petitions warrant such reviews, according to Virginie Nyiranzeyimana, the director for court judgements review unit at the Office of the Ombudsman.

"Some petitions are simply baseless.The law provides that the review of a final decision due to injustice can be applied when there is an unquestionable evidence of corruption, favouritism or nepotism that were relied upon in the judgement and that were unknown to the losing party during the course of the proceedings,” Nyiranzeyimana said.

"Upon the request by a citizen or moral person who lost the case and think that there had been injustice in handing down the decision, the Office of the Ombudsman looks into the matter and, once its satisfied with the merits of the case, it applies for review of the judgement by sending a letter and a report on the issue and evidence of such injustice to the Chief Justice.”

Nyiranzeyimana said that, subsequently, the Chief Justice, after receiving the views of the Inspectorate of Courts, decides on the re-adjudication, sets the date of hearing and determines the bench.

Application for review of a final court decision due to injustice has been productive, according to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Although the process is long, Nyiranzeyimana said, it offers redress in a sustainable manner, and fosters healthy collaboration and complementarity between the Supreme Court and the Office of the Ombudsman.

Meanwhile, the number of requests to review court decisions has been declining over time thanks to improved public awareness, she said.

"The Office of the Ombudsman has scaled up efforts to sensitise the public on the circumstances under which a case can be presented for review,” she said.

Previously, Nyiranzeyimana said, all petitions would be reviewed but following the introduction of thorough preliminary screening, cases that lack sufficient ground for review are not considered.

The Office of the Ombudsman was established in 2003 with a mandate to prevent and fight injustice, corruption and related offences in public and private institutions.

editorial@newtimes.co.rw