The Supreme Court on June 19, dismissed a petition filed by Rwanda Insurers’ Association (ASSAR) in which it was requesting to order the Minister in charge of labour to introduce a minimum wage. The Court decided that the petition did not meet the requirement of the article 80 of Law No. 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts. The Court was pronouncing itself on the objection raised by the Ministry of Public Service and Labour, which was the respondent in the lawsuit as ground for inadmissibility of the petition filed by ASSAR. ASSAR’s public interest litigation was filed on May 19. Minimum wage is the lowest amount of remuneration that an employer is required to pay wage earners for the work performed during a given period, which cannot be reduced by collective agreement or individual contract, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO). Article 80 of the abovementioned law provides, among other things, that the applicant must demonstrate in his/her submission the public legitimate interest pursued, the legal basis for its action. He/she must annex to his/her submissions a study report made by experts demonstrating the seriousness of the issue, its resolution attempts in cooperation with the institutions of the State that failed and the eventual consequences of the non-resolution. In the previous hearing, two lawyers representing ASSAR in the case, Emmanuel Butare and Claudine Umugwaneza, argued that lack of minimum wage has existed for years and that the absence of the ministerial order determining it has created a legal vacuum whereby compensations for accident damages have no legal basis. The insurance companies faulted government for not setting a minimum wage as prescribed by the law, underscoring that the issue is disadvantageous to the public interest of residents in Rwanda in general and Rwandans in particular They cited a 2016 decision by the Supreme Court in which a judge set Rwf3,000 as the amount of money to be generally considered the daily compensation for a victim of an accident, which had no rationale. The 2016 Supreme Court ruling involved a case in which an accident victim was seeking compensation from an insurance firm. The Respondent, MIFOTRA, had contended that this claim had not ground reasons thus inadmissible on the conditions that there was no thorough study conducted by experts to substantiate relevance of the lack of minimum wage and the mechanisms initiated by ASSAR to handle it through the public service are ineffective. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the Association does not clearly indicate the consequences resulting from this issue. Senior State Attorney Speciose Kabibi, who represented the government (MIFOTRA) in the case, said that she does not see a problem that was caused by absence of the minimum wage, or how it was adversely affecting the interest of the public. She was basing her assertion on the fact that the Supreme Court had moved to determine the minimum amount to compensate a victim, and that is used pending the minimum wage determined by the Ministerial order. In the same court proceeding, two lecturers Leonard Sebucensha, and Jean-Baptiste Serugo of the University of Rwanda’s School of Law, which appeared in the case as amicus curiae— a ‘friend of the court’— said that government should not be pressured by insurers to set minimum wage which they said is an important thing that concerns all Rwandans.
