Ingabire, who is facing six criminal charges, appeared before the court seeking provisional release. Originally from Rubavu District, she identified herself as a mother of three and a politician.
Her lead lawyer, Gatera Gashabana, told the court that while some issues had been addressed, the unresolved matter of legal representation remained.
He also raised concerns that Ingabire currently has no means to communicate with her family abroad. Gashabana argued that denying her the legal counsel of her choice contradicts her rights and could negatively affect her defense.
Despite the objections, Ingabire told the court she was willing to proceed with the hearing, though she emphasized that her right to legal representation had been violated due to the Rwanda Bar Association's refusal to accredit the Kenyan lawyer.
The President of the Rwanda Bar Association, Moïse Nkundabarashi, previously told IGIHE that the request by Kenyan lawyer Osiemo for temporary accreditation was rejected based on the principle of reciprocity.
According to him, Kenya does not allow Rwandan lawyers to practice there, and Rwanda has thus adopted a similar stance.
Ingabire faces charges including forming a criminal gang, inciting unrest, attempting to harm state authority, spreading misinformation or inciting hatred against the government, plotting to commit crimes against the state, and organizing demonstrations. Ingabire denied all allegations, stating that she is a Rwandan politician and mother who has no ill intentions toward Rwanda.
Ingabire argued the case should be dismissed due to alleged judicial interference in prosecutorial matters, in contradiction with the Constitution. Ingabire pointed out that she is being prosecuted in connection to a case dating back four years, which has already been tried by the High Court. She was previously interrogated but not indicted, raising questions about the timing and motivation behind her arrest.
Gashabana explained that under Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts can summon additional parties to a trial if new evidence arises. However, this does not automatically warrant detention, which he argued was the prosecution's unilateral decision.
The prosecution countered by stating that their actions were within the bounds of Article 106 and denied any judicial interference. They emphasized that it is not the court but the prosecution that decides whether an individual should be detained pending trial.
The court ruled that the objections and the prosecution's reasoning will be reviewed together before a final decision is made on Ingabire Victoire's bail status.
IGIHE
