A provision of the draft law establishing the general statute governing public service which compelled public servants to take an oath before being allowed to assume their responsibilities has been removed from the bill amending the statute.

The removal was announced by MP Christine Muhongayire, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Affairs during a plenary session of the Chamber of Deputies on Monday, July 27, 2020.

She announced this on Monday, July 27, to the plenary session as parliament continues vote on the bill.

Muhongayire’s committee was assigned to scrutinize the bill.

The provision on taking the oath and how to do it had caused a controversy among parliamentarians during a voting held last month (on Wednesday, June 17, 2020) at Parliament.

It stipulated that a public servant takes an oath before commencing duties.

On the mode of swearing in, the old statute stated that a public servant takes oath while holding the national flag with left hand and raising the right hand with a stretched palm.

A public servant with a disability that not enable him or her to hold the flag, takes the oath while draping the flag around their body.

In case one refuses to take oath under such a provision, they are dismissed, and blacklisted [in the public service] for seven years, lawmakers had heard.

During a session last month, this article on how to take oath was put to the vote two times as the debate continued after the first time.

Overall, the article had passed by 60 votes, but five MPs voted against it, while there were 4 abstentions and five nulls (spoiled votes). 

"We continued to exchange ideas on this article with the representative institution of the government which initiated the bill. They explained to us that they also held more discussions about it in order to improve it. We realised that this article should be removed from [the bill] because of various reasons,” Muhongayire said.

The first reason, she said, is that the application of this article was not observed because those who took oath were ordinary employees, while the staff in official positions did not take oath, yet they presided over the swearing of those employees.

"Another reason is that it was realised that swearing in for public servants had become ceremonial, but was not preventing them from acting contrary to the oath they took. After exchanging ideas, we agreed that this article on taking oath should be removed,” she explained.

MP Jean Pierre Hindura welcomed the amendment in the bill, pointing out that the provision was somehow excluding a section of Rwandans.  

"Having an article that was voted, but discussions are held on it later for a better change because some MPs expressed concerns about it; that is commendable,” he said.

In the previous session, Hindura said that because a person taken on as a public servant is dismissed when they refuse to take oath holding the Rwandan flag, there should be an inclusive way to make the pledge given that Rwanda recognises different faiths.

"We have Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not hold on the flag [to swear in]. Yet, we (the country) recognise their faith. We should adopt the oath by flag or the Bible depending on one’s belief. People should not be excluded from the public service because of their faith,” he said.

MP John Ruku-Rwabyoma said that there are skilled people who want to work for their country but they are inhibited by the swearing in.

"Our society should be inclusive such that no Rwandan is excluded because of their faith. Even a public law can have exceptions,” he said pointing out that it is advisable to accommodate all people. 

But, MP Eugene Barikana had said that "we are governed by the Constitution and a public servant has to swear in compliance with its provision.”

The Minister of Public Service and Labour, Fanfan Rwanyindo said in the previous plenary sitting that Rwanda is a secular state according to the Constitution, insisting on the flag for oath.

"A person who has refused to take oath before commencement of public duties, does not agree with the values of the country nor want to work for the Government, rather the private sector. So, they should be expelled, penalised, blacklisted,” she said.

"The flag and its colours have meanings which correspond to what we believe in as the Government. I do not understand how a person seeks to work for the Government when they do not accept what it upholds. That is not possible,” she said.