Investor-State disputes and treaty protection: amicable settlement through RDB under Articles 13 and 16 of the Investment Code, the KIAC-only rule for Government contracts, bringing a claim under Rwanda's six bilateral investment treaties in force, ICSID jurisdiction, finality and enforcement, Rwanda's record in Olyana, Bay View and Goetz, and references to the East African Court of Justice and the COMESA Court

Three layers of protection against the State

An investor in dispute with a Rwandan ministry, agency, District or State-owned enterprise has up to three layers of protection, and the first task is to establish which apply. The domestic layer is open to everyone: the Investment Code's guarantees and dispute route, the administrative-law remedies against public decisions, and the Rwandan courts. The contractual layer exists where the investor has a contract with the State, such as a concession, public-private partnership (PPP), mining agreement or supply contract, which will almost always contain a KIAC arbitration clause. The international layer exists only for investors covered by a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) in force, or by a regional instrument such as the EAC Treaty, and gives access to international arbitration or to a regional court.

The layers interact. A treaty claim may require the investor to waive or discontinue local proceedings; a contract claim at KIAC does not of itself engage the treaty; and the amicable-settlement steps in the Code and in most treaties should be run together so that one negotiation satisfies both. The substantive guarantees of the Investment Code (equal treatment, protection of property, expropriation only with fair compensation, repatriation) and the full table of treaties are set out in Investment guarantees, treaties and reporting; this section concentrates on how disputes are actually brought and resolved.

The Investment Code route: RDB, agreed arbitration, the courts

Article 13 of Law N° 006/2021 of 05/02/2021 on Investment Promotion and Facilitation (the Investment Code) applies to a dispute between an investor and a State organ 'in connection with a registered investment', meaning one covered by a Rwanda Development Board (RDB) investment certificate. The dispute is first settled amicably. Failing settlement, it goes to the arbitration institution or dispute settlement procedure agreed between the parties; where no procedure is provided in a written agreement, it goes to the competent court. RDB's role is set out separately, in Article 16(4): it facilitates 'amicable settlement of disputes that may arise between an investor and a State organ'. (FAQ 77 places that role in Article 13; the correct reference is Article 16.)

In practice the RDB Investor Aftercare team is the channel for problems with land, utilities, permits, tax refunds and other agencies, and many disputes end there. An investor should put the problem to RDB in writing, with the documents, the decision complained of and the remedy sought, so that the amicable phase has a date and a record. Article 13 is not a standing offer to arbitrate: an investor without a written arbitration agreement with the State organ, and without a treaty, ends in the Rwandan courts. Challenges to administrative decisions follow the informal-appeal route and time limits in Article 178 of Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure (Regulatory, tax and public-law disputes).

Registered investors who lose their certificate have a separate, short route: written notice and ten working days to explain before cancellation, and an appeal to the Head of RDB within ten working days, decided within ten working days (Articles 22 to 24 of the Code; RDB registration and the investment certificate).

Contracts with the State: the KIAC-only rule

Government contracting is governed by Ministerial Instructions No 612/08.11 of 16/04/2014 setting up modalities for drafting, negotiating, requesting for opinions, signing and managing contracts, published in the Official Gazette n° 18 of 05/05/2014 and modified in 2015 and 2020 on other points. Article 14 is unchanged: "'Ad-hoc' arbitration is not allowed" and "A Government official shall not be allowed to apply any international arbitration clause except clauses relating to Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC)". Where the counterparty does not accept this, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General 'shall decide or negotiate'. The model clause in Annex I, as quoted in practitioner commentary, provides that disputes not settled amicably or by mediation 'shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with Kigali International Arbitration Center (KIAC) rules', leaving the number of arbitrators (one or three), the seat and the language to be chosen.

Investors in concessions, PPPs under Law Nº14/2016 governing public-private partnerships and large supply contracts should therefore plan on KIAC arbitration and negotiate the open points: three arbitrators for a large contract, a seat (under the 2012 KIAC Rules the Centre fixes the seat where the parties have not), English as the language, and a clear mediation step with a time limit. Without agreement on the seat, Article 32 of Law N° 005/2008 of 14/02/2008 on arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters places an arbitration in Rwanda, where a set-aside application goes to the Commercial High Court within 30 days and its ruling cannot be appealed (Arbitration law and KIAC). KIAC signed a cooperation agreement with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in April 2019.

A KIAC award against a public body is an enforcement order in Rwanda under Article 241 of Law No 22/2018. Article 183 of that Law requires a final court decision against a public body to be paid within six months of notification; it speaks of judicial decisions, so whether the same period governs an award has not been settled, and a creditor should plan on at least six months (Enforcing judgments and foreign judgments). Where the investor also holds treaty protection, the contract claim and a treaty claim can coexist, but the treaty's waiver and fork-in-the-road terms must be checked before KIAC proceedings start.

Treaty claims: who is covered and what the treaties require

UNCTAD records six Rwandan BITs in force: with Germany (in force 28 February 1969), the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union (1 August 1985), the United States (1 January 2012), the Republic of Korea (16 February 2013), the United Arab Emirates (17 January 2020) and Singapore (16 October 2020). Treaties signed with South Africa, Mauritius, Morocco, Türkiye, Djibouti, Qatar, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a second BLEU treaty (2007) are not recorded as in force. The AfCFTA Investment Protocol (2023) and the COMESA Investment Agreement (2007) are not in force. UNCTAD also lists, among treaties with investment provisions in force, a 1963 trade and investment agreement with Switzerland and the 1982 Community Investment Code of the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL); whether either gives an investor a usable dispute route should be checked in the text before relying on it. (FAQ 76 predates the UAE and Singapore treaties and gives signature dates for the US and Korean treaties.)

Each treaty sets its own conditions. The Korea-Rwanda BIT is a representative modern text: the parties consult for six months; the investor serves a 90-day notice of intent before submitting a claim; it chooses between ICSID, the ICSID Additional Facility and UNCITRAL arbitration; the claim must be brought within three years; and the investor must waive the right to pursue the same measure in other proceedings. The other treaties should be read in full before any step is taken, because consultation periods, limitation, the definition of 'investor' and 'investment', and any requirement to use local courts first differ between texts, and the 1967 German and 1983 BLEU treaties are much older texts.

Coverage depends on nationality at the relevant time. A group from a state without a BIT in force with Rwanda, such as the United Kingdom, France, China, India or Kenya, has no treaty claim unless its Rwandan investment is held through a company of a treaty state, and tribunals examine both the substance of that company and the timing of any restructuring. Rwanda's double taxation agreements give no investment protection. Structuring for protection must be done before a dispute is foreseeable (Investment guarantees, treaties and reporting).

ICSID: jurisdiction, exclusivity and finality

Rwanda signed the ICSID Convention on 21 April 1978, ratified it on 15 October 1979, and has been bound since 14 November 1979. ICSID's jurisdiction extends to 'any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State … and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre', and once given, consent cannot be withdrawn unilaterally (Article 25(1)). A BIT offer of ICSID arbitration, accepted by the investor's request for arbitration, supplies that written consent.

ICSID arbitration is exclusive: consent is 'deemed consent to such arbitration to the exclusion of any other remedy', unless otherwise stated, and a State may require exhaustion of local remedies as a condition of consent (Article 26). The investor's home state may not give diplomatic protection or bring an international claim while the dispute is before ICSID, unless the respondent State fails to comply with the award (Article 27(1)). The award 'shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention' (Article 53(1)), namely interpretation, revision and annulment by an ad hoc committee, not review by Rwandan or any other national courts.

Investment treaty claims are expensive and slow, and the costs risk is real. In the Bay View case the unsuccessful claimants were ordered to pay Rwanda's costs of more than GBP 1.3 million and USD 0.36 million. A claimant should budget for advances on costs, which ICSID calls from both parties: the Goetz proceeding was suspended for non-payment of advances from 4 March to 20 May 2025.

Enforcing a treaty award against Rwanda

Each Contracting State 'shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State' (Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention). An ICSID award against Rwanda can therefore be enforced in any of the Convention's Contracting States without a review of its merits, and in Rwanda it is treated as a final judgment of a Rwandan court. Article 55 preserves each state's law on immunity from execution, so enforcement against State assets abroad depends on the law of the place where the assets are, and assets used for sovereign or diplomatic purposes are usually protected.

An award under the UNCITRAL Rules or the ICSID Additional Facility is not an ICSID Convention award. It is enforced under the New York Convention, to which Rwanda acceded on 31 October 2008 (in force 29 January 2009), and in Rwanda under Articles 50 and 51 of Law N° 005/2008 (Foreign arbitration and enforcing awards). Within Rwanda, an ICSID award is treated as a final judgment, so the six-month payment rule for court decisions against the Government in Article 183 of Law No 22/2018, with a shortfall paid in the first six months of the next fiscal year, is the relevant benchmark; for other awards the application of Article 183 has not been decided.

Political risk insurance is a complement to treaty rights, not a substitute. Rwanda is a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), whose cover for expropriation, transfer restriction and breach of contract can be obtained before the investment is made.

Rwanda's record before ICSID

Three ICSID cases against Rwanda are on record. Olyana Holdings v Rwanda (ARB/10/10), a contract-based claim, was discontinued on 7 January 2011. In Bay View Group LLC and The Spalena Company LLC v Rwanda (ARB/18/21), brought under the United States BIT, the award of 30 March 2022 dismissed Bay View's claims because it had made 'no material investment' and dismissed Spalena's claims on the merits, and ordered the claimants to pay Rwanda's costs of GBP 1,312,233.10 and USD 361,783.72, plus interest.

Alain Francois V. Goetz and Aldabra Limited v Rwanda (ARB/24/48) concerns a gold refinery and is brought by a Belgian national and an Emirati company under the 1983 BLEU and 2017 UAE treaties. ICSID's case page records: registration on 1 November 2024; suspension for non-payment of advances on 4 March 2025 and resumption on 20 May 2025; constitution of the tribunal on 20 August 2025; the President's resignation and a further suspension on 15 September 2025; reconstitution under a new President on 6 January 2026; and suspension at Rwanda's request until 26 May 2026 under ICSID Arbitration Rule 54(2), ordered on 26 February 2026. At 10 October 2026 the case was listed as pending with no later entry. Minerals-sector investors should follow it closely (Sanctions, due diligence and reforms).

The record carries two lessons. Rwanda defends treaty claims vigorously with international counsel and has recovered costs; and tribunals examine whether the claimant actually made an investment in Rwanda, so the documentary trail (capital inflows, share registers, RDB certificates, licences) matters as much in a treaty case as in a tax audit.

Regional courts: the EACJ and the COMESA Court

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ), seated in Arusha, hears references by legal and natural persons resident in an EAC Partner State challenging the legality of an Act, regulation, directive, decision or action of a Partner State as contrary to the EAC Treaty. The reference must be brought 'within two months' of the act, or of the day it came to the complainant's knowledge (Article 30 of the EAC Treaty), a short limit that should be treated as strict. The EACJ also has jurisdiction over disputes 'arising from an arbitration clause contained in a commercial contract' that confers jurisdiction on it (Article 32(c)). A protocol extending the EACJ's jurisdiction was signed on 31 January 2019, but its entry into force could not be verified for this guide. The EAC Common Market Protocol protects cross-border investments of EAC investors, permitting expropriation only for a public purpose, without discrimination, by due process and against prompt, reasonable and effective compensation (Article 29).

The COMESA Court of Justice, based in Lusaka, hears references by residents of COMESA member states challenging acts of a member state, after local remedies have been exhausted, and has jurisdiction under arbitration clauses that confer it; new Rules of Procedure were adopted in 2025. A regional reference tests the State's act against the regional treaty; it is not a substitute for a damages claim under a BIT, but a finding that a Partner State breached the Treaty can carry weight in negotiation. For an EAC or COMESA investor, which falls outside the Investment Code's definition of 'foreign investor' and usually has no BIT, these courts are the main international forum.

From grievance to treaty arbitration: a typical sequence

1. Record the measureObtain the written decision, its date of notification and the reasons; preserve evidence of the investment (capital inflows, registers, certificates, licences).
2. Domestic steps in parallelWrite to RDB under Article 16(4) of the Code and make any informal administrative appeal within its time limit, taking care that court proceedings do not trigger a treaty waiver or fork-in-the-road clause.
3. Notice of disputeServe a written notice of dispute on the Government under the treaty, starting the consultation period (six months under the Korea BIT).
4. Negotiate and diariseUse the consultation period for settlement talks; diarise the limitation period (three years under the Korea BIT) from the trigger date the treaty specifies.
5. Notice of intentWhere the treaty requires it, serve the notice of intent (90 days before submission under the Korea BIT) identifying the claims and the relief.
6. Submit the claimFile the request for arbitration with ICSID or start UNCITRAL proceedings, with the waiver required by the treaty; budget for advances on costs.
7. Award and enforcementAn ICSID award is binding and enforceable as a final judgment in every Contracting State; within Rwanda it is treated as a final judgment, so allow for the six-month payment period of Article 183 of Law No 22/2018.