The Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional petition filed by Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, concerning Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which she argued was in contrast with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court delivered its ruling on Friday, March 27, saying Ingabire’s complaint was unfounded.
Ingabire had challenged Article 106, arguing that it infringes on constitutional principles, including the presumption of innocence and the separation of powers. She also linked the provision to her previous detention, claiming it contributed to her imprisonment.
ALSO READ: Victoire Ingabire trial heads to Supreme Court for constitutional interpretation
Key issues examined
In its ruling, the court addressed three main questions to determine whether the article contradicts constitutional provisions.
First, the court examined whether the article violates Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. Judges ruled that summoning an individual to provide explanations in court does not amount to declaring them guilty.
"The fact that a person is summoned because of a connection to a case does not make them a criminal,” the court noted. It added that ordering prosecutors to investigate cases reinforces the presumption of innocence, as it allows for both incriminating and exonerating evidence to be considered.
Secondly, the court assessed whether Article 106 interferes with the responsibilities of the prosecution, as prohibited under Article 61 of the Constitution, which relate to the independence of the prosecution. It concluded that Article 106 does not undermine prosecutorial independence, as it does not dictate how investigations should be conducted.
The court clarified that interference would only arise if the judiciary itself carried out investigations, which is not the case under the contested provision.
Finally, the court considered whether the provision contradicts Articles 143(1) and 146(4) of the Constitution. It found that while institutions may complement each other, this does not amount to interference.
The Justices emphasized that when a court orders the Prosecution to investigate, it is not taking over prosecutorial duties but ensuring that justice is served and that all potential offenders are examined.
Court’s reasoning
According to the Supreme Court ruling, Article 106 allows courts to summon people suspected of involvement in a crime based on information that emerges during trial. If their explanations are insufficient, the court may direct the Prosecution to carry out further investigations.
However, the Prosecution retains full authority over how those investigations are conducted, including the responsibility to gather both incriminating and exonerating evidence.
The court also stressed that this mechanism helps prevent gaps in justice, particularly in situations where new evidence arises during proceedings.
Background to the case
The petition was heard on March 4, with Ingabire represented by a legal team comprising Bruce Bikorwa, Gatera Gashabana, and Félicien Gashema. The State was represented by Speciose Kabibi.
Ingabire’s lawyers argued that Article 106 blurs the line between judicial and prosecutorial functions, potentially undermining the right to a fair trial. They contended that judges already have sufficient powers to request additional evidence without relying on the provision.
They further argued that summoning individuals as potential accomplices compromises the presumption of innocence and creates institutional overlap between the judiciary and prosecution.
On the other hand, the State maintained that the provision strengthens accountability. Kabibi argued that Article 106 ensures that all individuals who may have participated in a crime are identified and investigated, even when such information emerges during trial.
The State side also emphasized that the judiciary does not conduct investigations but merely instructs the appropriate body to act within its mandate.