During the hearing, Ingabire presented grounds on which she is seeking the annulment of the decision by the Kicukiro Primary Court, requesting to be prosecuted while not in detention.
The Prosecution, however, argued that there are substantial reasons justifying her continued detention, as previously determined by the lower court.
Ingabire is charged with creating a criminal group, inciting public disorder, endangering the existing government, disseminating false information or propaganda intended to discredit the Rwandan government abroad, spreading rumours, conspiring to commit offences against the state, and organising illegal demonstrations.
The appeal hearing began with Ingabire expressing concerns about her legal representation. Although she is represented by Me Gatera Gashabana, she told the court that she had initially requested legal assistance from a lawyer based in Kenya. However, the lawyer was unable to obtain authorisation to practice in Rwanda, and thus, her current representation was not entirely of her choosing.
Ingabire, dressed in prison uniform and wearing her natural hair, appeared alongside her lawyer to challenge a procedural matter. They objected to the late submission of the Prosecution's response to their appeal, which was filed in the electronic case management system at 21:06 on the eve of the hearing. They argued that this denied them sufficient time to review and respond to the submission.
Me Gashabana cited Articles 75 and 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertain to the timely notification of provisional detention decisions and the deadlines for appeals. He argued that the Prosecution should have filed its response at least five days in advance and asked the court to disregard the late filing.
The Prosecution countered by citing Article 184 of the same law, which governs the submission of responses in appellate matters. It argued that the provision does not specify a mandatory deadline and that its actions were consistent with legal procedure. The court indicated it would examine the objection and render a decision in due course.
Grounds presented by Ingabire Victoire
1. Jurisdictional irregularity
Ingabire's primary argument was that her arrest was ordered contrary to the Constitution. She contended that the basis for her detention, Article 106, was applied in violation of constitutional provisions, as the court, not the Prosecution, ordered her investigation.
Ingabire and her counsel claimed they had petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify Article 106 for being unconstitutional and had requested that the Kicukiro court suspend proceedings pending the Supreme Court's ruling. Nevertheless, the lower court proceeded and ordered her 30-day detention.
The Prosecution responded that the lower court was not barred from ruling, noting that the defence did not formally raise the constitutional matter during the initial proceedings and that the case was already heard and closed by the time the constitutional challenge was submitted on July 17, 2025.
2. Expiry of certain charges
Ingabire argued that some charges, such as spreading rumours and conspiracy to protest, are time-barred. She stated that the rumour-related offence, which carries a maximum sentence of six months, is classified as minor and should have expired after one year. She referenced an October 12, 2021, interview with a journalist as the basis for the charge.
Similarly, she said the alleged conspiracy to protest dates back to 2021, and the three-year limitation period had already passed. Her lawyer also contested the trial court's comment suggesting that she might still harbour intentions to commit such acts, arguing that this was speculative and lacked evidentiary basis.
In response, the Prosecution argued that the statute of limitations begins from the date of the last action related to the offence. Since the content allegedly remains available online (e.g., on YouTube), the offences have not expired.
3. Lack of substantiation for certain charges
Ingabire submitted that some charges, namely, inciting unrest and threatening state security, were brought without the Prosecution presenting any substantive evidence. She said that testimony from Gaston Munyabugingo, a fugitive with pending charges, lacked credibility and should not be relied upon.
She also contested the legality and relevance of certain audio recordings cited by the Prosecution, alleging they were either obtained unlawfully or did not involve her.
The Prosecution responded that it had presented serious grounds for each charge and that testimony from individuals involved in the alleged crimes is admissible under the law. It argued that recordings obtained for the purpose of exposing threats to national security are permissible, citing Article 20 of the Penal Code.
4. No direct involvement in alleged activities
Ingabire denied any role in forming or joining a criminal group. She claimed she did not attend any of the so-called coup-planning workshops and that the presence of her friends or members of her unregistered political party, DALFA-Umurinzi, does not implicate her.
The Prosecution, however, maintained that there is a clear connection between her and the participants, including testimony from a former employee who claimed he was recruited by Ingabire to attend what he believed were English classes but turned out to be strategy meetings aimed at overthrowing the government.
5. Insufficient grounds for the conspiracy charge
Regarding the charge of conspiring to commit crimes against the government, Ingabire stated that the only evidence cited was an exchange of messages with Sylvain Sibomana, in which she was referred to as 'Mukecuru.'
The Prosecution noted that it would present more evidence during the trial and reiterated that the lower court had already found sufficient grounds to support the charge.
6. Illegally obtained evidence
Ingabire challenged the admissibility of certain recordings, arguing that they were obtained in violation of the law. However, the Prosecution countered that Ingabire had not denied the authenticity of the recordings nor explained precisely how their acquisition violated legal procedures. It accused the defence of attempting to shift the focus to the substance of the trial prematurely, while the current hearing only concerns pre-trial detention.
7. Low risk of flight
Ingabire argued that she poses no flight risk. She cited her compliance with court appearances following her presidential pardon and her respect for a travel ban, even after her request to visit family abroad was denied. She described herself as a principled political actor committed to peaceful engagement.
The Prosecution questioned whether any reliable standard exists by which a suspect can prove they will not flee. It asserted that due to the seriousness of the charges, which carry sentences exceeding five years, Ingabire should remain in custody.
8. Potential to obstruct the investigation
Finally, the Prosecution argued that releasing Ingabire could compromise the ongoing investigation. She had acknowledged that 26 individuals attended the alleged workshops, of whom only a few had been arrested. The Prosecution argued that if she were truly cooperative, she would identify the remaining participants, including those still at large.
The Prosecution stated: 'If she were at liberty, she could interfere with the investigation. We believe continued detention is essential to ensure the integrity of the inquiry.'
After hearing arguments from both parties, the presiding judge announced that the decision on Ingabire's appeal against her provisional detention would be delivered on August 7 2025, at 3:00 p.m.
IGIHE
