Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire has appealed to the Nyarugenge High Court, requesting the annulment of the Kicukiro Primary Court’s decision that placed her in 30-day provisional detention. Her legal team argues that the case was initially filed in a court that lacked proper jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Dispute at the Center of Appeal
Represented by her lawyer, Me Gatera Gashabana, Ingabire claims that the Kicukiro Primary Court acted outside its legal bounds. Citing the Rwandan Constitution and the Penal Code, Gashabana called on the High Court to declare the lower court’s rulings void.
He emphasized Article 194, which states that when jurisdictional errors are made, all resulting actions must be nullified and the accused released immediately.
Prosecution’s Evidence Questioned
Ingabire told the court that the Prosecution’s case primarily relies on a conversation with journalist Theoneste from Umubavu TV and audio recordings of their phone calls. She challenged the validity and strength of this evidence.
She further argued that the alleged offenses carry a maximum penalty of six months, which, according to her, should not justify a 30-day detention.
Two Charges Under Challenge
Ingabire urged the court to dismiss two charges:
- Spreading false information
- Inciting public unrest
She claimed the prosecution had failed to present convincing arguments for either. Specifically, she noted that she was not formally charged with inciting unrest, and therefore the court should disregard the claim.
Calls for Release Pending Trial
Ingabire requested to be released pending trial, arguing that she poses no flight risk or danger. Her lawyer added that her previous presidential pardon and continued compliance with legal restrictions show her willingness to respect the law.
Gashabana also pointed out that she had peacefully accepted a previous denial to travel abroad, further proving her cooperation.
Prosecution Defends 30-Day Detention
The Prosecution, in its rebuttal, defended the lower court’s decision to detain Ingabire, citing the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. They argued that Article 106 of the Penal Code allows for such pretrial detention when sufficient evidence exists.
They also stressed that if a lower court lacks jurisdiction, the proper course of action is to redirect the case to the correct court—not to dismiss it entirely.
Disputed Charges and Evidence
Ingabire pushed back against several charges, stating:
- The “spreading false information” charge is outdated.
- The “undermining government authority” charge lacks legal justification.
- Audio recordings being used as evidence are unauthenticated and have not been submitted to court.
She also challenged a charge of organizing illegal protests, saying the issue was never considered by the lower court and is time-barred.
Court Verdict Expected August 7
The High Court announced that it would deliver its verdict on August 7, 2025, at 3:00 PM. The hearing lasted over four hours, starting at 9:00 AM and concluding shortly after 1:00 PM.
