Rwanda supreme court to hear Victoire Ingabire’s challenge to criminal procedure law

By The Inspirer.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a constitutional petition filed by opposition politician Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, challenging Article 106 of Rwanda’s criminal procedure law, which allows courts to order investigations against individuals during ongoing trials.

In a decision issued this week, the Court ruled that Ingabire has legal standing and that her petition raises substantive constitutional questions that warrant full examination. The hearing is scheduled to resume on March 4, 2026.

Ingabire argues that Article 106 violates several provisions of the Constitution, including the right to a fair trial and the separation of powers, and is seeking its annulment. The provision empowers judges to summon individuals suspected of involvement in a crime and, where explanations are deemed insufficient, to instruct the Prosecution to open investigations based on issues raised in court.

The case stems from proceedings before the High Council of the Judiciary involving Sibomana Sylvain and other former members of the opposition party DALFA–Umurinzi. During that trial, Ingabire was summoned to testify, after which the court ordered the Prosecution to investigate her—an investigation that later resulted in her arrest.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that a similar issue had already been settled in an earlier case involving Mutebwa Alphred and invoking the legal principle of res judicata, which bars the rehearing of matters already decided by a competent court.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not automatically apply to laws that have been amended and rewritten. Citing opinions from international legal scholars and comparative jurisprudence, including rulings by the Supreme Court of India, the Court held that revised legal provisions may be challenged again to assess whether lawmakers complied with previous judicial decisions.

The Court found that although Article 106 was amended following an earlier ruling, it retained the core principle allowing judges to trigger investigations during trials, while introducing new elements that can be constitutionally contested.

By admitting the petition, the Supreme Court has effectively suspended proceedings in the High Council of the Judiciary case involving Sibomana Sylvain and other former DALFA–Umurinzi members until a final ruling is issued.

The outcome of the case is expected to have significant implications for criminal procedure and judicial powers in Rwanda, particularly regarding the balance between the courts and the Prosecution in criminal investigations.