The Institute of Legal Practice and Development (ILPD) has launched Rwanda”s inaugural national research focusing on the mapping and profiling of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service providers. This pivotal study aims to guide policy reforms, improve cooperation among stakeholders, and enhance the execution of the nation”s ADR framework.
Rwanda continues to advocate for the utilization of ADR, with numerous mechanisms established to allow citizens to resolve disputes through these methods instead of traditional litigation. The findings from this research reveal several significant insights about ADR practices in the country.
Mediation as the Primary ADR Mechanism
Mediation has been identified as the most prevalent form of ADR in Rwanda. This process, characterized as voluntary and confidential, involves a neutral third party assisting disputing parties in reaching a mutually agreeable solution. The study indicates that mediation accounts for 39.4 percent of all ADR cases, followed by conciliation at 30.5 percent, negotiation at 26 percent, and arbitration at 4.1 percent. Civil disputes dominate the ADR landscape, making up 70.9 percent of cases, with family-related issues constituting 92.9 percent of these. Other categories include labor disputes at 14.1 percent, commercial matters at 8.6 percent, criminal cases at 3.8 percent, and administrative issues at 6.4 percent. The ADR Centre reports a resolution of 11,317 cases through mediation from 2017 up to October 17.
Distribution and Providers of ADR Services
The comprehensive study encompassed all 30 districts of Rwanda, providing a detailed overview of the ADR ecosystem within the country. It identified various state and non-state actors involved in ADR, along with their areas of specialization and collaboration methods. State actors include Abunzi committees, Access to Justice Bureaus (MAJ), local leaders, labor inspectors, court mediation services, and the Office of the Ombudsman. Additionally, the study recognized 60 NGOs, community-based organizations, seven university legal aid clinics, professional bodies, faith-based organizations, 522 accredited mediators, and 2,720 religious denominations engaged in dispute resolution. Notably, ADR activities are predominantly concentrated in Kigali at 66.1 percent, with the Southern Province following at 16.9 percent, while the Northern Province has the lowest engagement at 3.4 percent.
Importance of the Mapping Research
The Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, Theophile Mbonera, highlighted the critical role of this research in enhancing coordination and collaboration among ADR providers. He stated, “Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms play a vital role in enhancing access to justice and promoting peaceful conflict resolution outside formal courts.” This research offers a comprehensive understanding of ADR service providers, their operational areas, and potential collaborative efforts to improve justice delivery. Mbonera noted that since the implementation of the National ADR Policy in 2022, Rwanda has made remarkable progress, reducing court backlogs significantly and alleviating overcrowding in correctional facilities.
Challenges and Recommendations for ADR
Yves Sezibera, Vice-Rector responsible for Academic and Research Affairs at ILPD, emphasized the study”s goal to identify service providers, accessibility for citizens, and the types of disputes addressed. He pointed to several challenges, including limited availability of ADR mechanisms in rural areas, fragmented legal frameworks, inadequate coordination among providers, and a prevailing litigation mindset among the population. To address these issues, key recommendations include enhancing government funding for ADR initiatives, supporting non-state ADR programs with subsidies, and encouraging private sector engagement through corporate social responsibility. Sezibera also called for establishing a formal referral system among ADR providers to streamline operations and promote collaborative learning.
Standardized training for ADR professionals, specialization in key dispute areas, and ongoing professional development through mentorship were also recommended. Furthermore, the necessity for comprehensive legislation that consolidates mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and restorative justice mechanisms was underscored, including the integration of culturally relevant solutions and the establishment of clear enforcement and accreditation processes.
