Ingabire Victoire Returns to Court Over Controversial Article 106

Rwandan opposition figure Victoire Ingabire appeared before the Supreme Court this week as her legal team challenges a controversial provision of Rwanda’s criminal law. The case focuses on Article 106 of the penal code, which her lawyers argue violates constitutional principles and undermines judicial independence.

Ingabire, a long-time government critic and leader of the unregistered political movement DALFA–Umurinzi, is asking the court to strike down the article, saying it conflicts with Rwanda’s Constitution.

At the center of the dispute is a legal power granted to judges under Article 106. The provision allows a judge to order the investigation of a person who has not been formally charged by prosecutors if the judge believes there are indications that the individual may have been involved in a crime.

Ingabire’s lawyers argue that this authority crosses a critical legal boundary. In most judicial systems, they note, the responsibility to investigate and bring charges belongs to prosecutors, not to the court itself. Allowing judges to initiate such actions, they say, risks blurring the separation between investigation and judgment.

What Is Article 106, and Why Is Ingabire Concerned?

Article 106 of Rwanda’s criminal procedure law allows a judge to request an investigation into a person who has not been formally charged by prosecutors if evidence during a trial suggests that the individual may have participated in the alleged offense.

Ingabire’s lawyers argue that the provision risks undermining judicial neutrality by allowing courts to initiate investigations — a role normally reserved for the prosecution.

For Ingabire, the concern is also personal. Her lawyers say Article 106 was the legal basis used by a High Court judge to order an investigation into her during a separate trial involving nine individuals described by authorities as supporters of her political movement, DALFA–Umurinzi.

At the time, Ingabire was not initially a defendant in the case. However, after hearing testimony during the proceedings, the judge invoked Article 106 and directed that she also be investigated. Her defense argues that this sequence raises serious questions about judicial neutrality

A Case Rooted in a Larger Trial

The legal challenge stems from an earlier case involving nine individuals described by authorities as members or supporters of DALFA–Umurinzi, the political platform founded by Ingabire.

Those individuals have spent nearly five years in detention facing charges that include conspiracy against the government. During proceedings in that case last June, a High Court judge invoked Article 106 to order an investigation into Ingabire herself, leading to her arrest.

Her legal team says the decision represented an unusual intervention by the court in prosecutors' work.

Bruce Bikotwa, one of Ingabire’s lawyers, told the Supreme Court that the judge who ordered the investigation also imposed a 15-day deadline for the inquiry, before potentially presiding over the same case. According to the defense, this situation raises concerns about judicial impartiality.

“The principle of separation of powers requires that each institution act independently,” Bikotwa argued.

Defense Questions: Earlier Investigations

Ingabire also told the court that the allegations against her had already been examined several years ago.

She said investigators reviewed similar claims roughly four years earlier and found no evidence of wrongdoing, which led to her release.

The opposition leader denies any involvement in the crimes attributed to the nine accused individuals. She suggested that one of the testimonies linking her to the case may have been influenced by security services.

Government Position

Although the Rwandan government is not formally a party to the case, a state representative was invited to provide explanations during the hearing.

Lawyer Speciose Kabibi, speaking on behalf of the government, defended the judge’s decision to order an investigation. She told the court that when a judge encounters evidence suggesting another person may have participated in a crime, it can be appropriate to request further inquiry.

Kabibi also rejected the claim that the judge improperly directed prosecutors, saying the order only initiated an investigation and did not determine its outcome.

“If the investigation had found no evidence, she would have been released,” Kabibi said.

A Symbolic Legal Test

For many observers, the case carries significance beyond the specific legal question.

Ingabire has long been one of Rwanda’s most prominent opposition voices. Since returning from exile in 2010 to run for president, she has faced repeated legal battles and periods of detention.

Supporters view her current challenge as an effort to test the limits of Rwanda’s judicial independence and constitutional protections. Her lawyers argue that the outcome could influence how courts balance judicial authority and prosecutorial power in future cases.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court announced that it will deliver its ruling on the 27th of this month.

The decision will determine whether Article 106 remains in Rwanda’s criminal code or whether the court finds it incompatible with constitutional guarantees.

For Ingabire and her supporters, the case represents another chapter in a long struggle over political space and legal accountability in Rwanda.