Last week I had a quite heated intellectual debate with my colleague and friend Sunny Ntayombya.

Our debate was prompted by the recent demolition of the Nyarutarama, Rwf50 million, hotel because the owners of the investment had alledgedly breached the construction laws.

Mr. Ntayombya a fresh graduate (and a dedicated columnist of The New Times), despite currently practicing within the confines of journalism, used his Bachelors in Law qualification to support his argument saying that probably Gasabo officials were right, since the investor, the S.A Hotel Group didn’t follow the law.

For those who missed the story: An extension of a multi-million investment in Nyarutarama was razed without any prior warning. According to Gasabo officials, "the extension, demolished was not indicating how sewage system would be catered for.”

My submissions to this debate was that despite the fact that all societies have documented laws passed as Penal Codes, Statutes and Decrees, the law that supersedes all these, is the law of logic and that, logic naturally stratifies our societal norms.

For example you don’t have to study law to know that killing is morally wrong, that to steal doesn’t conform to the society you live in, that walking in the nude will cause a stir and that sex with an underage could cost you unpleasant perception from the society.

My argument here is that even in an event were someone has absolutely breached the contract with the law, their is usually a "compromise” or an "agreement” with the issues at hand. 

After all, other than deliberating the evidence, what is this law all about? Agreeing or disagreeing! This is why some people settle out of court. This is why in any civilized court session, there are three submissions including the prosecution, the defence and the judgment.

I also argued that the judgment is usually delivered without any specific parameter. In the British Common Law system an appointed judge makes the ruling. In other systems members of the jury (or adjudicators), made up people from the civil society with no legal background, will vote whether one is or is not guilty.  This makes the whole legal system quite phony.

Now what happens when an investor (who according to records, has the biggest British investments in Rwanda), asks for a few minutes to remove valuables from the structure extension, before it is razed and the plea is ignored?

Did the officials bother getting an explanation from the hotel owner on how he expected to cater for the controversial sewage system or they just acted on the pretext of the law?

Why would the district officials wait until an investment worth all that money reaches the completion stage and they come razing it down? Aren’t these the same questions that really make the whole act quite suspicious?

I read part of the statement issued by a top Rwanda Development Board (RDB) executive official which to me, the statement was just contradictory. It read in part, "No one questions that the letter of the law was violated…”

And it goes on to supplement my argument by saying, "RDB plans to explore the appropriate remedy which strikes a balance between strict code interpretation and productive development so that such incidents should never happen to anyone…”

RDB officials most especially those who deal with managing and rating hospitality facilities have repeatedly said that, there is a deficit of hotel rooms in Rwanda and that the country needs at least 6,000 by 2012. If so, then why not use the some kind of logic when legally interpreting the law?

Though this is a tactical issue, the paramount idea while we debate this issue should be, not to lose sight of the importance of large scale investment that will stratify the Rwandan society, otherwise the country risks getting a slot in the un-doing business rankings.

keziodk@yahoo.com