In all justice systems the world over, the accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the competent courts. This suspicion notion, however, presupposes all the criminal suspects to be with average literacy and legal representation at trial. This is not the case in practical terms though. Recently, I attended court sessions in a number of intermediate courts in Kigali. To my bewilderment, experienced state prosecutors were grilling several criminal suspects, many of whom were illiterate and semi-illiterate without defence lawyers.That is a random sample from Kigali, the capital city. The readers can guess the situation from courts in the countryside, in a state with a population of over 80 per cent illiterate population without tangible incomes.   Of course, no criminal suspect is negligent to the point of not needing a credible attorney. Even professional lawyers with affluent post-graduate credentials in the field, usually sacrifice good amount money for private practitioners to battle it out with state attorneys/ prosecutors.The simple logic is that, once the battle-hardened legal minds for both sides substantiate on the merits and demerits of cases at hand, the presiding judge/panel take prudent impartial rulings and natural justice prevails. So, why does the Bar Association of lawyers not come in and help these pitiful, ignorant and penniless suspects in trouble?  It is understandable private practitioners charge their clients fees for a living, but as rights’ advocates, they are under moral and ethical obligations to defend vulnerable litigants at law. However, this can only happen if the bureau of the Bar gives stern rules to members on helping the poor in criminal cases. Unless there are clear parameters, such rules will not be adhered to. Moreover, an advocate may be brought to prominence by a mere pro bono case. Yes, sometimes cases start ordinarily but later attract huge public attention putting the defending lawyer at the media limelight and attracting  affluent  clients to his/her chambers.Besides this private attorneys’ fraternity, other rights organizations help the vulnerable litigants. These include Haguruka Association, International Justice Mission and FACT but they focus on areas like females, widows and minority litigants. And yes, at times we have members of the bar making periodical trips upcountry to see how they can render these pro bono services, but it remains minimal.I am convinced that if the Rwanda Bar Association reviews their approach on the issue and bridge any communication challenges between the bureau, members and the beneficiaries, there will be tremendous improvement.Fortunately, today there is a good number of private lawyers registered at the bar unlike in the past seven years where shortage compelled the few defence attorneys to juggle between courtrooms, which led some to lose cases because of lack of concentration. Precisely, what I am saying is that despite the enormous post-genocide challenges in the justice sector, there has been a huge progress, especially in as far as human resource is concerned.The most encouraging aspect is that unlike in other countries in the region where court proceeding are conducted in foreign languages, here it is in our mother tongue,  meaning that the suspect can follow the proceeding against him in the language that he or she understands.Moreover, justice is administered in a more transparent and accountable manner.On top of that, government acknowledges the fact that aid to the vulnerable accused is paramount. My humble appeal is that paying due attention to this lacuna will strengthen the rule of law which is undoubtedly a major pillar of a democratic and free society. All that said, I still support the stance by the government to introduce different mechanisms to minimise the number of conflicts that end up before the courts of law, and these, especially the mediation committees (Abunzi), should be fully embraced.