Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, leader of the unregistered DALFA-Umurinzi political group, appeared before the Kicukiro Primary Court on 15 July 2025, where she is facing six criminal charges.
The court session, which focused on her bail application, lasted over five hours and involved detailed arguments from both the Prosecution and the defense.
Here a full account of what transpired during the hearing, based solely on court exchanges and official records.
The Charges and the Background
The Prosecution has charged Ingabire with:
- Forming or being part of a criminal group
- Inciting unrest among the population
- Conspiring to harm or overthrow the current government
- Disseminating false or propagandistic information abroad to tarnish Rwanda’s image
- Spreading rumors
- Organizing or calling for illegal demonstrations
These charges are linked to a group of nine people arrested in 2021, allegedly members of DALFA-Umurinzi, who reportedly attended training on how to resist dictatorship through nonviolent means. The Prosecution claims that Ingabire, as the party’s president, was the ideological leader behind the sessions.
She was arrested in June 2025, after the High Council of the Judiciary instructed the Prosecution to investigate her involvement, based on new testimony from one of the defendants in the related case.
A Witness and Audio Recordings
The central evidence introduced by the Prosecution came from Boniface Nzabandora, described as the main witness. According to court testimony, Nzabandora initially took part in the 2021 training sessions but later distanced himself from them after hearing conversations he found troubling.
Nzabandora allegedly began secretly recording the meetings. The Prosecution told the court that these audio files now form the basis of the case against Ingabire.
In the Prosecution’s view, Ingabire’s role in the events of 2021 — whether as organizer, influencer, or party head — makes her criminally liable under several articles of the Penal Code.
Defense: Charges Previously Dismissed, Now Recycled
Ingabire and her lawyer, Me Gatera Gashabana, strongly contested the charges and the process.
Gashabana reminded the court that the same allegations had been brought up four years ago, and Ingabire was questioned by the Prosecution at the time. According to him, the case was closed with no charges filed.
“It has now been three years since Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza was questioned over these same charges,” he said. “The case file was forwarded to the Prosecution, and they found no reason to prosecute her.”
In her own words, Ingabire said: “I am a mother, a Rwandan, and a politician. I would never wish any harm on this country.”
She told the court that the charges were only revived due to “pressure from the High Council of the Judiciary on the Prosecution.”
She added: “I was already questioned in connection with the other nine people. At the time, the Prosecution decided not to include me in the file. For me to be brought before court four years later is the result of judicial interference.”
Dispute Over Legal Representation
Ingabire also raised a procedural objection regarding her legal representation, saying her rights were violated when her chosen lawyer from Kenya was denied temporary practice permission in Rwanda.
“I have agreed to appear in court,” she said, “but my right to be defended by a lawyer of my choice has been violated.”
Her Kenyan lawyer, Me Osiemo Emely, had applied for temporary authorization from the Rwanda Bar Association, but the request was denied.
Bar Association President Moïse Nkundabarashi later told media that the rejection was based on the principle of reciprocity.
“She asked for a temporary license to defend Ingabire,” Nkundabarashi said. “However, Kenya does not allow Rwandan lawyers to practice there. Based on that, Rwanda cannot permit Kenyan lawyers to practice here either.”
Challenge to Article 106
The defense also challenged the use of Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows courts to order investigations or summon additional suspects if new evidence arises during trial.
Gashabana argued that while the court may have ordered an investigation, it did not order detention, and that the Prosecution exceeded its authority by arresting Ingabire.
He claimed that the use of Article 106 in this case contradicted the Constitution, specifically Articles 3, 29, and 145.
“If examined closely,” he said, “Article 106 is not aligned with the Constitution. The court did not instruct that she be arrested. It only requested further investigation.”
Prosecution’s Response
The Prosecution maintained that Article 106 remains valid law and said no other law has overridden it.
A prosecutor told the court that the correct procedure, if the defense believed the law was unconstitutional, was to file an appeal to the Supreme Court—which had not been done.
“The court ordered the investigation, not the arrest,” the prosecutor said. “The Prosecution made its own determination about detention. There was no interference.”
He added that the defense objections were unfounded because the Prosecution has sole authority to decide whether someone should be detained or not once an investigation is underway.
Defense Questions Main Witness
Ingabire also addressed the credibility of Nzabandora, saying he had once lived in her home and worked as a close aide. She said she let him go after discovering that security services had recruited him to monitor and report on her.
Her lawyer echoed that: “He left under bad terms,” Gashabana told the court. “He is not a credible witness. He is likely acting out of bitterness.”
Time Limits and Statutory Expiry
The defense argued that some of the alleged offenses—such as planning protests—are time-barred under Rwandan law, which states such offenses expire one year after commission. In this case, Ingabire is being charged four years later.
“She is now being accused of organizing demonstrations that allegedly occurred four years ago,” Gashabana said. “Even if she had committed them—which she denies—the charges are no longer valid under the statute of limitations.”
Ruling Set for July 18
The bail hearing concluded with the judge stating that all objections and requests will be reviewed, alongside the Prosecution’s justification for detention. A decision will be delivered this Friday July 18, 2025.
The court emphasized that both sides will have the opportunity to present full arguments and defense materials if the case proceeds to a full trial.
