Shema was arrested by the Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) on August 11, 2026. He is facing charges of issuing a cheque without sufficient funds and fraudulently obtaining another person’s property.

His hearing on provisional detention was initially scheduled for the morning of August 26, but the court adjourned it to the afternoon to allow Shema and his lawyer more time to prepare their evidence.

The hearing began at 3 p.m., with prosecutors telling the Nyarugenge Primary Court that the case arose from a contract between Africa Medical Supply, Shema’s company that trades in medical equipment, and ABZL International Trading.

The agreement, signed on January 23, 2024, required Africa Medical Supply to make payment within 60 days, according to the prosecution.

Prosecutors said the company failed to honour the agreement and repeatedly delayed payment to ABZL despite demands for settlement. They said Shema eventually promised to pay after ABZL contacted him by email.

On August 5, 2025, prosecutors said Shema issued ABZL two cheques, one for $400,000 and another for $200,000.

The prosecution told the court that the bank subsequently confirmed that the cheques were not backed by sufficient funds, noting that the Africa Medical Supply account did not contain enough money to cover them.

Prosecutors asked the court to remand Shema in provisional detention for 30 days, arguing that there are reasonable grounds to believe he committed the alleged offences and that he is considered a flight risk if released while investigations continue.

Shema denies charges

Shema denied the allegations and told the court that Africa Medical Supply had entered into a business agreement with ABZL, a UAE-based company that provides financial support services, and that the two companies had worked together previously.

He said previous agreements between Africa Medical Supply and ABZL had been successfully completed, with both sides fulfilling their contractual obligations.

Regarding the agreement at the centre of the case, Shema said his company paid ABZL $400,000 in May 2024 and another $400,000 in December of the same year.

He said ABZL did not receive the second payment because the bank reported a problem with the account designated to receive the funds.

According to Shema, Article 6 of the agreement required ABZL to provide an alternative account if there was a problem with the designated account.

“We asked them to amend the agreement and provide us with another account. We discussed it, and I suggested that while they were resolving the issue, I could give them a cheque, one without a date,” he told the court.

Shema said a dispute subsequently arose among ABZL shareholders, with the parties disagreeing over which account should receive the money.

He alleged that one of the shareholders, who is also the complainant in the case, took the cheque, added details to it and requested that it be paid into a US Bank account in the United States. The shareholder also added August 5, 2025 as the date, he said.

Shema questioned why a cheque intended for payment in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, would later be presented in the United States.

He also rejected the allegation that he knowingly issued a bounced cheque, saying his previous financial record demonstrated that he was a credible businessman.

Shema further argued that his position as FERWAFA president demonstrated the level of trust placed in him and said he would not evade justice if granted provisional release.

“I am a leader who has been entrusted with responsibility, and I have been heading FERWAFA for a year. I have never abused that responsibility for my personal interests, and the charges against me have nothing to do with it,” he said.

He told the court that he owns assets worth about Rwf 5 billion that could be used as security for his release.

Lawyer challenges prosecution’s evidence

Shema’s lawyer challenged the prosecution’s evidence, questioning the timeline surrounding the cheques.

The lawyer said the bank dishonoured the cheques on July 16, 2025, while Shema is alleged to have committed the offence on August 5, 2025.

He also told the court that the cheque had originally been intended for payment in the UAE but was later presented to US Bank on June 25, 2025.

“We believe that one of the reasons I&M Bank rejected the cheques was that the account details had been unlawfully changed,” the lawyer said.

He argued that the dispute was essentially a commercial matter arising from a contractual relationship rather than a criminal case involving Shema in his capacity as head of Africa Medical Supply.

The defence also submitted proof of a $600,000 payment through Bank of Kigali (BK) and a document requesting RIB’s assistance in ensuring that the money reaches the intended account.

Prosecution maintains case

The prosecutor told the court that the case involves two cheques bearing the same number. He said the original cheque did not contain a date, while a copy contained a date that could be either August 5 or August 8, 2025.

The cheques, he said, had been submitted to the court and bore Shema’s signature.

The prosecutor also said RIB had contacted the bank to establish whether the cheques were backed by sufficient funds at the time. The bank reportedly responded that the account held only slightly more than $1,000.

He rejected the argument that offering property as security automatically entitled an accused person to provisional release.

The prosecutor further stressed that issuing a cheque without sufficient funds is a criminal offence separate from a person’s failure to meet a contractual payment obligation.

The prosecution maintained its request for Shema to be detained for 30 days as investigations continue.

Shema, however, questioned the prosecution’s account of the timeline.

“The prosecution should explain how a cheque can be issued in August and yet be declared invalid by the bank in June. I had no agreement with US Bank that would allow me to make the payment. The willingness to pay is there; it could be resolved within an hour,” he said.

Shema also told the court that he has a family and children in school, while his wife is employed, and questioned why prosecutors believed he might flee.

“I do not understand why the prosecutor is concerned that I might flee from justice when I also have other responsibilities entrusted to me by the country,” he added.

He maintained that he should be released because he had demonstrated his willingness to settle the outstanding amount owed to ABZL.

The court is expected to rule on the request for provisional detention.