The high number of petitions to amend laws that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of has brought into question the ability of MPs in the lower chamber to vet laws and ensure they abide by the country’s Constitution.

They are accused of not carrying out enough consultations especially with the public while formulating and voting for draft laws.

“Before a law is passed, there must be consultations at all levels to ensure it is beneficial to the public. Laws that are passed without rigorous consultations face all sorts of challenges at the Supreme Court,” Frank Habineza, an MP and president of the Green Party told Rwanda Today.

The latest law to be contested at the Supreme Court was the property tax law, which was deemed invalid and against the constitutional provision on rights to own land by individuals.

The penal code — which was passed last year — has also been contested twice for having articles deemed to be unconstitutional even after it was debated heavily in parliament and unanimously passed.

Defamation and drawing caricatures of politicians was considered a crime under the penal code until last year when the Supreme Court ruled that these articles should be revoked.

Article 133 of the penal code on child defilement is also being revised after a group of lawyers argued that the article undermines the discretion of judges. So far, three constitutional petitions were against provisions of laws were enacted in 2018 by the previous parliament as they were leaving the house.

“The petitions show the legislature has to consult more widely because laws are made in the interest of the public,” said Andrews Kananga an executive director at Legal Aid Forum.

He added that more thorough consultations with the public “prepares them for the law instead of finding themselves with laws they do not understand.”

In April, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a Kigali lawyer Richard Mugisha who wanted decriminalisation of defamation against public officials. Although the Supreme Court retained the clause on defamation of the president, President Paul Kagame took issue with the court’s ruling and the provision was amended.

Jean Pierre Tuyishime, a lawyer in Kigali, termed the supreme court’s ruling baseless.

“There was no legal basis for the Supreme Court to maintain presidential defamation penalties because it had decriminalized defamation of public officials,” said Mr Tuyishime, adding that, “The Supreme Court retaining presidential defamation law while the public and the president did not want it, means we have legal not political issues.”

Another lawyer Edward Murangwa, who in November challenged four articles in the property tax law of 2018, said the executive, legislature and judiciary are doing what they are supposed to do without interfering with each other.

The 2003 Constitution allowed petitions of the law for the first time in the country. It allowed, for example, an individual who could lose a case due to a “bad law” to petition the Supreme Court over it.

The 2018 law determining the jurisdiction of courts allowed anyone dissatisfied with a law to take it to the Supreme Court, which became overwhelmed with cases.

This saw the creation of the Court of Appeal that same year, leaving the Supreme Court to only handle constitutional petitions and cases of injustice from the Ombudsman’s office.

The State Minister in charge of Constitutional and Legal Affairs Evode Uwizeyimana said the laws being challenged are those that deal with human rights issues.

“These laws are controversial as they have to do with the rights of people and affect the day-to-day lives of Rwandans,” he said.