The Supreme Court has begun hearing a constitutional challenge filed by Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who contests Article 106 of Nº 027/2019 of 19/09/2019, of the Law Relating to the Criminal Procedure. Ingabire argues that the article violates several provisions of Rwanda’s Constitution, including Articles 29(2), 61, 142 (paragraphs 1 and 4), and 145 (paragraph 4). The hearing, which began on Wednesday, November 12, centres on ex-convict Ingabire’s request to have the article repealed, claiming it undermines the independence of the judiciary and interferes with the prosecution’s functions. Article 106 stipulates that if a court suspects that other people may have participated in a criminal offence or are accomplices to the accused, they may be summoned to provide explanations. If, after questioning, the court finds evidence suggesting their involvement, it may order the Prosecution to open an investigation based on revelations made during the substantive trial. ALSO READ: Court rejects Victoire Ingabire’s request for recusal of judges Ingabire’s complaint stems from a High Court case involving a one Sylvain Sibomana and others, in which she was summoned under this provision. The summons by the judge and subsequent questioning led to her arrest and later she was remanded, a decision later upheld on appeal. She now argues that her detention resulted from the unconstitutional application of Article 106. She said that this provision interferes with the functioning of the prosecution and undermines the rights of the accused. Ingabire maintains that she has a direct interest, as Article 106 was the legal basis for her arrest and detention. She further argued that even though the provision had been discussed in a previous case, it remains unconstitutional in its current form. ALSO READ: Why Victoire Ingabire’s pre-trial detention hearing was postponed Meanwhile, a representative of the Office of the Attorney General urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the issue had already been adjudicated. The state attorney cited the legal principle of ‘res judicata’, meaning that a matter already decided by a competent court cannot be retried between the same parties on the same issue. However, Ingabire’s lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, countered that argument, saying that the state attorney's claims were unfounded. In the earlier case, only a paragraph of the article was examined, not the entire provision. He said that their petition seeks a comprehensive review of all the constitutional inconsistencies within Article 106. The Supreme Court concluded the hearing and is expected to deliver its decision on January 16, 2026.
