Abunzi

Overview

The word Abunzi can be translated as ‘those who reconcile’ or ‘those who bring together’ (from verb kunga). In the traditional Rwanda, Abunzi were men known within their communities for personal integrity and were asked to intervene in the event of conflict. Each conflicting party would choose a person considered trustworthy, known as a problem-solver, and who was unlikely to alienate either party. The purpose of this system was to settle disputes and also to reconcile the conflicting parties and restore harmony within the affected community.

As part of efforts to reconstruct Rwanda and nurture a shared national identity, the Government of Rwanda drew on aspects of Rwandan culture and traditional practices to enrich and adapt its development programs to the country’s needs and context. The result is a set of Home Grown Solutions - culturally owned practices translated into sustainable development programs. One of these Home Grown Solutions is the Mediation Committees, also known as Abunzi.

Abunzi can be seen as a hybrid form of justice combining traditional with modern methods of conflict resolution. The reintroduction of the Abunzi system in 2004 was motivated in part by the desire to reduce the backlog of court cases, as well as to decentralise justice and make it more affordable and accessible for citizens seeking to resolve conflict without the cost of going to court. Today Abunzi is fully integrated into Rwanda’s justice system.

This conflict resolution mechanism rooted in Rwandan culture was perceived as more accessible, less threatening and therefore more intimate and human. Those who referred their cases to Abunzi were more comfortable seeking mediation from within their community, which afforded them a better understanding of the issues and process at hand. As the Abunzi system gained more recognition as a successful method to resolve conflict and deliver justice, the importance of providing more structure and formality to their work increased. Consequently, the Abunzi started receiving trainings on mediating domestic conflicts, as well as logistical support from both governmental and non-governmental organisations, to improve the quality of their mediation services. In 2012, 30,768 Abunzi were operating across Rwanda.

Conflict resolution through community participation

Historically, the community, and particularly the family, played a central role in resolving conflicts. Another mechanism for this purpose was Inama y’umuryango (meaning ‘family meetings or gatherings’) in which relatives met to find solutions to family problems. Similar traditions exist elsewhere, such as the dare in Zimbabwe . These traditional mechanisms continue to play important roles in conflict resolution regarding land disputes, civil disputes and, in some instances, criminal cases.

The adoption of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Rwanda emerged from the recognition of a growing crisis in a judiciary where it had become almost impossible to resolve disputes efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. The Government of Rwanda concluded that modern judicial mechanisms of dispute resolution were failing to deliver and so the decision was taken to examine traditional mediation and conciliation approaches as alternatives. Doing so would not only help alleviate the pressure on conventional courts but also align with the policy objective of a more decentralised justice system. In addition, the conflict resolution mechanisms rooted in Rwandan culture were perceived as less threatning, more accessible and therefore more intimate. Those who referred their cases to Abunzi were more comfortable seeking mediation from within their community, which afforded them a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Abunzi was institutionalised in 2004 and has since been facilitated by the Government of Rwanda. As an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, Abunzi can be seen as a hybrid form of justice combinding traditional with modern methods of conflict resolution. The reintroduction of the Abunzi system was motivated in part by the desire to reduce the backlog of court cases, as well as to decentralise justice and make it more affordable and accessible for citizens seeking to resolve conflict without the need to go to court.

You can download a copy of the 2006 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Mediation Committees here.

Establishment of the Mediation Committees

Purpose of the Mediation Committee

In 2004, the Government of Rwanda established the traditional process of Abunzi as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, with the Organic Law no 17/2004 of 20/06/2004, later amended by Organic Law No 31/2006 of 14/08/2006, then amended by the Organic law No 02/2010/0L of 09/06/2010. Established at the cell and sector levels, Abunzi primarily addresse family disputes, such as those relating to land or inheritance. By institutionalising Abunzi, low-level legal issues could be solved at a local level without the need to be heard in conventional courts. Citizens experiencing legal issues are asked to first report to Abunzi cases not exceeding 3,000,000 Rwf (for land and other immovable assets) and 1,000,000 Rwf (for cattle and other movable assets). Cases of these type can only be heard in a convential court if one party decides to appeal the decision made at the sector level by the mediation committee. You can read more on this by downloading a research paper titled 'The Abunzi Mediation in Rwanda: Opportunities for Engaging with Traditional Institutions of Conflict Resolution' by Dr Martha Mutisi here.

As the Abunzi system gained recognition as a successful method to resolve conflict and deliver justice, the importance of providing more structure and formality to their work increased. Consequently, the Abunzi started receiving trainings on mediating domestic conflicts and support from both governmental and non-governmental organisations to improve the quality of their mediation services. For example, a recent partnership between the Abunzi Secretariat and the International Rescue Committee provides for training on national laws, mediation and conciliation techniques as well as reinforcing a sense of ethics to enhance the quality and accessibility of justice. You can learn more about the work of the International Rescue Committee by downloading a presentation on their Access to Justice project here.

Organisational Structure

The mediation committees that make up the Abunzi operate at a cell level in the first instance (initial cases) and at a sector level in the event of appeal (appeal cases). This abides by the structure established under Article 2 of Law No. 02/2010 of 09/06/2010. Article 4 of the same law states that at both the cell and sector levels, the committee shall be composed of twelve people known for their integrity, who reside respectively in the concerned cell and sector and who are recognised for their ability to reconcile differences. These mediators are elected by the Cell Council and the Sector Council respectively for a renewable term of five years.

The Mediation Committee, at the cell and sector level, is headed by a bureau composed of a President and a Vice-President elected by their peers. Claims made to the Abunzi are received by the Executive Secretary who in turn forwards them to the Mediation Committee. If the Executive Secretary is unable to receive the claim, the request is delivered to the Chairman of the Mediation Committee. The relevant Council (cell or sector level) is then notified.

You can download a copy of the 2010 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Mediation Committees here.

Functioning of the Mediation Committees

In order to initiate a case, one of the parties must first submit a complaint to the Executive Secretary of the cell verbally or in writing so that it can be registered by the Mediation Committee. The applicant must provide a brief outline of the case to inform the proceedings, after which time the Mediation Committee can summon parties and decide on the venue, as well as the date and time for hearing the case.

As outlined in Article 17 of the 2010 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Mediation Committees, the parties agree on three mediators to whom they submit their case. When the parties cannot agree on mediators, each party chooses one mediator, and the two chosen mediators choose the third. Where parties agree on one mediator, that mediator chooses two others from within the Mediation Committee. Parties have no right to refuse a mediator or mediators chosen via this procedure. When the case involves a police officer or a soldier, the nearest commander of the police force or army is required to assist the mediators.

Abunzi must settle the litigation within one month from the day the litigation is registered by the Mediation Committee.

If the summoned party fails to appear at the hearing, a subpoena is issued informing them that the mediators will make a decision on the case at the next hearing, regardless of their presence. If the summoned party fails again to attend on the new date, the plaintiff and the Mediation Committee choose one mediator each and together select a third to examine the case in the summoned party’s absence. However, if the summoned party is considered by the Committee to have offered an acceptable reason for non-attendance, the matter can be postponed to a later date.

In most cases, the mediation hearing is public, unless decided otherwise by mediators. Other members of the Mediation Committee not chosen to settle the matter may participate in the mediation session but do not have the right to make a decision. When settling a case, mediators hear from each of the parties in conflict and from any available witnesses. During those hearings, advocates are allowed to assist the parties but they cannot represent or plead for any party.

In each instance, the mediators are obliged to first strive to conciliate both parties but where this proves impossible, they render a decision in all honesty and in accordance with the laws and local customary practices. When the mediators are successful at conciliating the parties, prosecution does not occur.

After considering the case, the mediators withdraw to make a decision. The mediators' decision is taken by consensus or by the absolute majority of votes in the event that a consensus cannot be reached. Recorded minutes of the proposed settlement are signed by mediators and the concerned parties when the mediation procedure is completed. In all cases, the decision is written, signed on each page and available within ten days from the day of the decision. Mediators who fail to do this may face disciplinary action for not meeting the Standard of Conduct established by Order of the Minister of Justice.

The minutes of a case taken to Abunzi contain the following:

Identification of the parties
A summary of the dispute
Arguments put forward by the involved parties
The mediation decision with which all parties agree
The mediation decision with which one of the parties does not agree, if any
The date and the place where the mediation session took place
Signatures or fingerprints of parties in conflict
The mediators' names as well as their signatures or fingerprints
The reporters name as well as their signature or fingerprints

The mediation minutes are closed with the seal of the Mediation Committee and are kept by the Executive Secretary of the cell, who then submits them to the concerned parties. Any dissenting opinion held by a mediator will also be included in those minutes. The decision taken by the mediators, and agreed upon by all parties, will then serve as a compromise for those parties.

The mediators' decision is carried out voluntarily, but in the event that one party refuses to comply with the decision, it will be enforced through a request to the President of the Primary Court.

You can download a copy of the 2010 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Mediation Committees here.

Appealing Decisions of Mediation Committees

Either party can appeal the mediators' decision at the sector or cell level within a period of one month from the day the written decision was handed down. Once received by the mediation committee at the sector level, mediators will only examine aspects of the case deemed objectionable by the appealing party. There are no filing fees associated with the appeal process.

If a party is not satisfied with the decision taken at the sector level, the party may refer the matter to the Primary Court within a month of notification of the sector level decision. However, filing an action before a Primary Court will require payment of filing fees. As with all appeal cases, minutes from the mediation session will be provided to the Primary Court, which is obliged to consider only those aspects of the earlier decision to which one of the parties objects.

Any member of the Mediation Committee may be suspended for a maximum of a month in the event of exhibiting bias or other misconduct. The decision to suspend one of its members must be taken by two thirds of the Committee. The affected mediator has an opportunity to challenge the suspension. In the event that the Electoral College finds the concerned mediator unable to further fulfil their duties then the mediator will be dismissed.

For more information on the appeal process, you can download a copy of the 2010 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Compeatence and Functioning of Mediation Committees here.

Legal Competence of Mediation Committees

The jurisdiction of the Mediation Committees is determined by Articles 8 and 9 of the 2010 Organic Law on the Mediation Committee which outlines jurisdiction in civil matters as follows:

Disputes over land and other immovable assets whose value does not exceed 3,000,000 Rwf or US $4,762
Dispute over cattle and other movable assets whose value does not exceed 1,000,000 Rwf or US $1,587
Disputes relating to alleged breaches of contract where the case in question does not exceed the value of 1,000,000 Rwf, or US $1,587, with the exception of central government, insurance and commercial contractual obligations
Employment disputes between individuals where the value is less than 100,000 Rwf or US $159
Family disputes other than those related to civil status
Successions when the matter at issue does not exceed 3,000,000 Rwf or US $4,762

With respect to criminal matters, Article 9 allows for Mediation Committees to preside over cases involving “the removal or displacement of land terminals and plots, any form of devastation of crops by animals and destruction of crops when the value of crops ravaged or destroyed do not exceed three million Rwandan francs (3,000,000 Rwf), or US $4,762 theft of crops when the value of crops does not exceed three million Rwandan francs (3,000,000 Rwf) and larceny (theft) when the value of the stolen object does not exceed three million Rwandan francs (3,000,000 Rwf).

Civil and low-level criminal cases can only be heard by the Mediation Committees when both parties reside within their jurisdiction (Article 10). In the event that either the defendant or the plaintiff resides outside the committee’s jurisdiction, then the case will be brought before the competent authorities. The Mediation Committees do not have jurisdiction over cases involving the state and its entities or public or private associations and companies endowed with legal status.

For more information on the jurisdiction of Abunzi, download a copy of the 2010 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Mediation Committees here.

Performance and Evaluation

Before examining the performance and evaluation of the Abunzi system, this section looks at the countrywide mapping of mediators per district and province for 2012 and the categories of those who bring their cases to Abunzi courts.

Abunzi Mapping Countrywide:

Source: Ministry of Justice (MINIJUST), Secretariat in charge of coordinating activities of Mediation Committees, Countrywide Mapping of Abunzi, 2012.

The different social categories of respondents who called upon by Mediation Committees are presented in the following table.

Experience with mediation committees per social category:

Source: Rwanda Governance Board, Survey on the Performance of Mediation Committees, Kigali, February 2012, p. 34.

The breakdown in this table shows the diversity represented in cases heard before mediators, including those from vulnerable groups such as widow(er)s, child-headed households, persons living with disability etc... This form of conflict resolution, which is free, speedy and easily accessible, is beneficial to marginalised groups who may otherwise find formal court proceedings costly and intimidating.

The graph below, taken from the “Survey on the Performance of Mediation Committees”, shows that land inheritance, at 47%, constitutes the most common claims, while disputes relating to moving land boundaries constitute 39% of cases. This reflects how widespread these conflicts are within the community and the necessity for a system that allows them to be settled out of court.

Categories of claims presented to Mediation Committees:

The Rwanda Governance Board (RGB) conducted an investigation into public perceptions of some of the benefits of Abunzi in comparison to ordinary courts. Those surveyed highlighted the following positive attributes:

The reduction of time spent to settle cases (86.7%),
Reduction of economic costs of cases (84.2%),
The ability to mitigate conflicts between litigants (80.1%).

Other advantages mentioned are the participation of citizens in the mediation process (67.3%) and freedom to choose a judge by the plaintiff and defendant (56.7%).

A participant in a group discussion in Karongi District stated:

"Cases examined by mediators used to be taken to ordinary courts. A case could take two years or more and people were impoverished due to travelling to Rusizi [in former Cyangugu prefecture] to have our cases examined there. We would spend all the little money we had. Sometimes we used to sell our cattle or pieces of land to get money to spend in courts. We have no words to express our excitement about Abunzi. This is a justice of proximity and free of charge".

A participant in a group discussion held in Musanze District said:

"Mediation Committees constitute both a closer and a cheaper form of justice. We pay nothing in terms of time, transport, or court fees. It's justice close to home”.

A participant in a group discussion in Kicukiro District spoke about the benefit of mitigating conflict at the community level:

"Unlike ordinary courts whose decisions specify the winner and the loser who, in most cases, keep living in an antagonistic relationship, Abunzi strive to help litigants to resume former normal relationships or at least mitigate the magnitude of their dispute".

The cost relative to ordinary courts is widely considered as key advantage of Abunzi, and the following tables outline the comparison in detail.

The total number of cases settled by Mediation Committees examined stands at 683. Direct and indirect expenses stand at 14,138,000 Rwf, or US $22,441. The unit cost for each case settled by Mediation Committee is estimated at 20,700 Rwf or around US $32 (as of February 2013).

The total number of cases settled by primary courts examined stands at 967 (580 civil cases and 387 criminal cases); both direct and indirect expenses are estimated at 271,474,164 Rwf (US $430,911). The unit cost for each case settled by primary courts is therefore estimated at 280,738 Rwf (or US $446). The opportunity cost of the 683 cases settled by mediators, in the ten selected districts, amount to 177,606,320 Rwf (US $281,915).

Side by side comparison between the Abunzi system and the judicial court system:

The tables and graph above show the significant cost difference between cases decided in primary courts compared with Abunzi. They demonstrate both that Abunzi not only offers more affordable justice for citizens and a more efficient and economical means of delivering justice for taxpayers.

In addition to the cost efficiency as presented above, the system of Abunzi was also evaluated in terms of integrity of its mediators. According to RGB, the majority of people interviewed perceived Abunzi mediators as trustworthy individuals who were respectful of all parties, not likely to accept bribes, and capable of remaining impartial during proceedings. The graph below presents these findings with the following figures:

However, some of those who lost their cases, questioned the integrity of the mediators.

Furthermore, some participants say that they observed "irregularities" leading them to suspect mediators' integrity. These perceptions were highlighted in the responses from individuals who were not satisfied with the Mediation Committee’s final decisions.

The main reasons for dissatisfaction with mediators were ‘perceived nepotism’ or partiality on the part of their mediators (72.5%), the impression that mediators received bribes from the opposing parties (13.3%), but also the non-enforceability of the mediation decision (7.3%).

However, at an institutional level, a higher number of respondents (79.2%) expressed more trust in mediators as they believed that it is harder to corrupt an entire committee; in comparison to the 75.3% figure representing the trust in mediators at the individual level.

On the question of citizen’s experience on integrity regarding corruption practices, the study conducted by the RGB showed that this indicator ranked high.

The overall performance of Abunzi Mediation Committees in Rwanda is considered high, standing at 77.2%. The highest indicator is the one related to mediators' integrity (81.5%) followed by public satisfaction with mediators' capacity (76%) and public confidence in Mediation Committees (75.9%). Effectiveness of services rendered by Mediation Committees scored the lowest (75.4%). Focus groups demonstrated a high degree of confidence in the process, particularly in terms of mediating litigants and contributing to justice and conflict resolution at the community level. The survey uncovered concerns regarding the effectiveness of services rendered by these committees, and this could be attributed to the challenges faced in terms of logistical support, and the need for reinforcement of capacity building initiatives from partnering governmental and non-governmental institutions.

Creation of the Abunzi Secretariat

An Abunzi Secretariat has been set up and established partnerships with governmental and non-governmental (national and international) institutions to address mediators’ needs and improve the quality of their services through capacity building initiatives. For example, the Ministry of Justice holds training sessions for the Abunzi in different provinces to keep them updated on the different laws and regulations applicable to the cases they handle.

To coordinate activities and provide support to the Mediation Committees, a secretariat was established in the Ministry of Justice in 2010.

The mission and responsibilities of the Abunzi Secretariat are as follows:

Provide advice to the Ministry of Justice on strategies and decisions to increase the efficiency of Mediation Committees
Ensure monitoring and evaluate activities of Mediation Committees
Organise training for mediators and initiate other activities to build capacity
Cooperate with local authorities in order to ensure the effective functioning of Mediation Committees
Prepare quarterly and annual activity reports on the Mediation Committees
Analyse the reports of the Mediation Committees and make recommendations to improve their efficiency
Provide Mediation Committees with equipment and all materials needed to perform their duties

The Secretariat is made up of the following positions:

Coordinator
Deputy Coordinator
Administrative and Financial Officer
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Logistics Officer
Representative at the provincial level and at the level of the City of Kigali

For more information on the Abunzi Secretariat, download a copy of the 2010 Abunzi Organic Law on the Organisation, Competence and Functioning of Mediation Committees here.

Best Practices

The Rwanda Governance Board study also asked participants to highlight some of the best practices from Mediation Committees. They are as follows:

- Pre-hearing counselling: Before cases are heard, mediators call on both plaintiff and defendant to emphasise the importance of social cohesion and conflict-resolution through community mediation. In some instances, both parties opted to withdraw the case at this point, and come instead to a mutual agreement. In other cases, litigants were more inclined to accept, rather than appeal, the mediation decision as a result of the counselling.
- Reduced social distance between parties and mediators: Since mediators are members of the same community from which disputants come, the latter feel less intimidated and more comfortable expressing themselves during those sessions, whether they be public or in camera.
- Integrity over legal literacy: The majority of participants insisted that the question of integrity, which determined the selection of mediators, conferred more ‘trust and confidence’ in the committees and fostered an environment in which justice prevailed.
- Parties' freedom to choose mediators: This was another factor highlighted by participants who felt that the freedom to choose mediators helped ensure equal treatment during mediation and reduced the likelihood of corruption.
- Win-Win approach: During mediation, Abunzi avoid referring to either party as "winner" or "loser" as these words could create resentment and further contribute to the atmosphere of conflict. The goal of these mediations is to find lasting solutions through reconciliation, hence the avoidance of such words.

Download the full study here: Rwanda Governance Board, Survey on the Performance of Mediation Committees, Kigali, February 2012

Challenges

This Rwanda Governance Board, Survey on the Performance of Mediation Committees also allowed researchers to identify the major challenges Abunzi face when performing their duties.

Some of the challenges are:

Inadequate legal knowledge: While most mediators acknowledged that they received training session on laws, they expressed a desire to receive additional training on a more regular basis to enhance their knowledge of relevant laws.

Insufficient mediation skills: Mediators also expressed a desire to receive additional training in professional mediation techniques in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of their work.

Lack of permanent offices: In some areas, mediation committees do not always have workspace reserved for them and must share space with the staff from cells and/or sectors offices; this can sometimes result in the loss or mix-up of case files.

Incentives: A number of mediators complained that the incentive promised to them and their families in the form of “mutuelle de santé” (health insurance) was not always forthcoming.

Transportation for field visits: According to a study conducted by RCN Justice & Démocratie in 2009, mediators complained about not always being able to afford transportation to perform site visits when reviewing cases. While each chairperson at the appeal level received a bicycle, it has been recognised that field visits for all mediators has been very difficult in some cases. This can result in delays in the mediation process. In some instances, members of the Mediation Committee other than those selected for the case in question, have been required to participate in field visits.

Communication facilities: To perform their duties, mediators have to communicate among themselves or with other institutions, but they are not given a communication allowance. This proves problematic at times and can lead to financial stress for some when they are obliged to use their own money to contact litigants, institutions, etc.

Featured Statistics:

Overview

Featured Statistics

Home Grown Solutions

Featured Video

Resources

Search form

Abunzi

Overview

Featured Statistics

Home Grown Solutions

Featured Video

Resources

Related Institutions

Login