The Supreme Court will on March 27 deliver its verdict in a constitutional petition filed by Victoire Umuhoza Ingabire challenging Article 106 of Rwanda’s Criminal Procedure, which she argues violates some provisions of the Constitution. The hearing, held on March 4, brought together Ingabire and her legal team, comprising of three lawyers Bruce Bikorwa, Gatera Gashabana and Félicien Gashema, who asked the court to remove the article. On the opposing side, the State was represented by attorney Speciose Kabibi. The article in question 106, provides that if a court finds reasons to suspect that other people may have been accomplices or co-perpetrators in a crime, it may summon them to provide explanations. If their explanations are deemed insufficient and evidence emerges during trial, the court can order the Prosecution to conduct further investigations based on what has been revealed. The article further states that if, after questioning, the court finds no evidence against those summoned, it continues the trial without further action. ALSO READ: Victoire Ingabire seeks recusal of judges, case postponed Ingabire’s petition argues that this provision contravenes constitutional guarantees, including Articles 29(b) and 61, by undermining the principle of separation of powers and the presumption of innocence. She contends that once a judge summons someone as a potential accomplice, that person is effectively no longer treated as innocent. Her lawyers further argued that Article 106 blurs the line between judicial and prosecutorial functions. According to Bikorwa, the provision violates the principle of fair trial because it allows a judge to assume responsibilities that belong to the Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Service. They maintained that judges already have discretionary powers to seek additional evidence during trial without invoking Article 106, and that other legal provisions are sufficient to ensure accountability without compromising constitutional safeguards. ALSO READ: Five things to know about Victoire Ingabire’s pre-trial hearing Gashema further argued that retaining the article creates institutional confusion and risks establishing a hierarchy where one judicial organ appears to instruct another, rather than operate in complementarity as envisaged by the Constitution. He added that the law already empowers the Minister of Justice to instruct the Prosecutor General to initiate or halt investigations, suggesting that Article 106 overlaps with or diminishes those powers. Ingabire also linked her petition to her own experience, noting that Article 106 was relied upon by the High Court to summon her as a suspected accomplice in a separate case, leading to her 30-day detention. She argued that the court’s decision to order investigations into her conduct amounted to interference in prosecutorial functions. On the other hand, the State defended the constitutionality of the provision, insisting that it strengthens rather than weakens fair trial principles. Me Kabibi argued that Article 106 ensures that all people who may have participated in the commission of a crime are held accountable. She stressed that while the court may identify potential suspects during proceedings, it does not conduct investigations itself but merely orders the legally mandated body to do so. Kabibi added that the prosecution retains the duty to gather evidence that may either incriminate or exonerate a suspect. According to her, removing the article could create gaps in accountability, particularly in cases where evidence pointing to other suspects only emerges during trial. The government maintained that the judiciary and prosecution remain independent institutions, and that the wording of the law does not amount to unconstitutional interference.
