Editor,I wish to respond to the story, "Huye Court overturns two-year sentence against museums boss”, (The New Times, October 1).When my eyes first saw this story it struck me as one of those the French call "faits divers” – something interesting, but not necessarily that important.However, as I read through it more, various questions arose in my mind.Before I begin, let me confess right off that I know one of the protagonists. But that is neither here nor there as far as my questions, of a general legal and policy nature, are concerned.First, do we have an anti-hacking statute in the Rwandan criminal code? How does it apply in this case? Does it, for instance, encompass a situation in which the head of an institution (perhaps suspecting the misuse of the institution’s equipment and/or other assets) undertakes an investigation to determine the veracity of those suspicions?Of course no one should have the power to arbitrarily investigate or direct the investigations of colleagues without demonstrable cause. But then how can a manager of a state institution (or any organisation for that matter) be fully accountable for the prudent and lawful use of its assets if they do not have the power to oversee the manner in which subordinate managers and staff use those assets?Responsibility without concomitant authority is setting up people to fail in their duties, and perhaps even be legally culpable for acts they could not do anything about, lacking the authority to do so.Second, on what grounds was the first judgment made to jail and fine the Director General? Was he personally culpable, or did he in fact institute the entry into the subordinate manager’s computer as an integral part of his legitimate oversight responsibilities?If it is the latter, on what grounds then did the first court decide he was personally liable, rather than the institution? And is this what the law provides for, or did the judge make an error of law?Third, on what grounds did the court of appeal reverse the first judgment? Did it find that the judge in the first court justified his decision on bad law, on shaky facts, or on both?This case cuts across many IT and labour/employment law areas where the law has yet to be settled or where there is insufficient jurisprudence to guide managers on how they should behave and act in certain circumstances.There is need for someone to clearly explain the grounds on which both the first and appeal judgments were made. This would provide managers and workers as well as policy and law-makers some guidance and indications of gaps in the law that the National Law Reform Commission could review and make appropriate recommendations on.Mwene Kalinda, Kigali