Unjust or just unfortunate? Examining claims of procedural (in)justice in the pursuit of universal electricity access in Rwanda

Although the literature on procedural justice has expanded exponentially, little attention has been paid to procedural injustices that emerge in financing and funding systems, or to the spatial and temporal limits to theorising on justice, particularly in contexts of electrification. This research presented in this paper sought to understand the ways in which (claims to) procedural injustices manifest in electrification planning and PV rollout in Rwanda. It did so by investigating the perceptions of 25 high-level stakeholders involved in national energy planning and electricity rollout to examine risks, benefits, and opportunities. The paper examines the discourses of centralised electrification as both a right and justification; the regulation of mini-grids and Solar Home Systems under centralised state visions and procedural injustice in planning processes; claims to procedural (in)justice linked to lack of capabilities and skills to deliver the proposed vision for the rollout; and financial exclusion in planning and end-use as barriers to participation in systems of electricity use. The results point to a lack of transparency in decision making and to barriers to participation for small and medium enterprises. They highlight how processes of decision making and planning can prevent access to safe, affordable, reliable, and limit the realisation of aspirations for electricity consumption. The analysis also grapples with questions of temporality in defining the concept of injustice, and the extent to which it is possible to anticipate future potential injustices emerging in processes and outcomes of policy, regulation, and skills development. This paper proposes a framework for tracing procedural injustice in electrification planning.