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