Jean-Paul Ibambe, a Rwandan human rights lawyer, has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to repeal an article in the country’s law on prevention and punishment of cybercrimes, which criminalises the publication of rumors.

The article in question (Article 39) states: "Any person who, knowingly and through a computer or a computer system, publishes rumours that may incite fear, insurrection or violence amongst the population or that may make a person lose their credibility, commits an offence.”

Ibambe argues that the article is unconstitutional as it aligns closely with the criminalization of defamation which was repealed by the Supreme Court in 2019 after Richard Mugisha, a Rwandan lawyer challenged some specific provisions in the country’s law.

ALSO READ: Journalists laud Supreme Court landmark ruling on defamation

At the time, in response to Mugisha's petition, a four judge-bench repealed the penal law's 233rd and 154th articles which criminalised the humiliation of national leaders and persons in charge of public service.

The judges argued that the articles are in contravention of the freedoms of expression and press as granted by the constitution.

Ibambe’s petition, filed in March, argues that the criminalization of statements that may damage a person's credibility in the cyber law is a hallmark of criminal defamation.

The lawyer said that his challenge is grounded in several fundamental legal instruments, precedents, and comparative jurisprudence.

He referenced several landmark cases to bolster his argument.

"I am referring to the (Richard) Mugisha case vs. Government of Rwanda. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 233 of the law on offenses and penalties in general, which criminalized the humiliation of national leaders and public officials, was unconstitutional as it hampered freedom of expression,” he said.

"The court emphasised that such provisions impede the public's right to critically examine and disseminate information about public figures,” he added.

ALSO READ: Defamation: Kagame takes issue with special legal protection granted to the President

The petition awaits the Supreme Court hearing schedule. It is understood that the court has communicated to the government to present its response to the case.

Ibambe argues that defamation should be dealt with as a civil case, since criminalising it restricts constitutional rights to freedom of expression, press, and access to information. He pointed out that Article 39 has been used to prosecute and imprison journalists, stifling free speech in Rwanda.

"Through my research and cases in which I have represented journalists and content creators, it has become evident that Article 39 contains elements of criminal defamation,” he said.

"Defamation should never be addressed criminally as it restricts constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. Rwanda has already taken a stand on this matter, and defamation cases should be handled in civil or administrative courts,” he added.

Ibambe also highlighted that Rwanda has received recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva to review legal instruments that hinder free speech. The Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review advised Rwanda to align its laws with international standards on freedom of expression.