A Rwandan lawyer has moved to court seeking repeal of provisions
of the new penal code that criminalise “insulting the president” as
well as cartoons and drawings that humiliate public officials.
Richard
Mugisha, a seasoned lawyer, on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that
the penal code, published in October, was unconstitutional and
contravened international charters that protect freedom of expression.
“Such
provisions undermine the spirit of the country’s constitution and serve
to undermine to work of journalists in holding government authorities
accountable,” Mr Mugisha told the court.
The penal
code, though, had been hailed for decriminalising defamation but proved
controversial with media fraternity saying it aimed to clamp down on
free speech.
Mr Mugisha wants article 233 repealed —
the article prohibits writings or cartoons that humiliate Members of
Parliament, ministers, other government authorities and security
agencies.
An individual who draws such a cartoon risks imprisonment of up to two years, and a fine of up to Rwf1 million (about $1100).
He also wants article 236 revoked. The clause states that any
person who insults the President of the Republic will be liable to up to
seven years in jail and a fine up to Rwf7 million ($7,800).
The
Trust Law Chambers co-founder, further argued that since the
constitution guaranteed equal protection, government officials were no
exception.
“The laws should protect every Rwandan
regardless of what job they do. These articles will censor media from
using text, drawings of videos of officials yet it is part of their
work,” he challenged.
“Freedom of press and freedom of
expression are guaranteed by the constitution. It is my prayer that the
court reviews these articles in the penal code because they conflict
with the supreme law.”
Adultery
Mr
Mugisha also petitioned the court to invalidate articles that
criminalise adultery and family desertion, saying that it interfered
with family affairs.
“Criminalising these acts only
serves to break families even more apart than protect them as the
constitution calls, and that’s why we appeal that they be revised,” he
added.
State Attorney Specioze Kabibi, however, told the court that Mr Mugisha’s remarks were unsubstantiated as there was no proof that the media had been muzzled by the punishment guidelines.
“Mr
Mugisha is neither a practicing journalist nor an individual that has
been directly affected by those provisions in the penal code. The fact
that he is a lawyer does not make it special; he should have gone
through the bar association to make a petition,” Ms Kabibi disputed.
Chief
Justice Sam Rujeje, who presided over the case, said that the petition
will be reviewed and arguments taken into consideration adding that the
outcome could set a precedent.
He will rule on the matter on January 11, 2019.
No comments :
Post a Comment