Ingabire argues that Article 106 violates constitutional guarantees, including Articles 29 (b) and 61, and should be annulled.
The article allows a court, during criminal proceedings, to summon individuals suspected of being accomplices or witnesses to provide explanations. If no incriminating evidence emerges, the trial continues without further summons.
However, if the court deems their explanations inadequate and detects signs of criminal responsibility, it may direct the Prosecution to open an investigation based on matters raised in court.
Ingabire's petition stems from her own experience in a case before the High Court involving Sibomana Sylvain and others.
She was summoned by the trial judge to give explanations, after which the court ordered the Prosecution to investigate her, leading to her arrest.
The Supreme Court first confirmed that Ingabire has standing to bring the challenge, as the application of Article 106 directly affected her and could impact others similarly.
Representatives from the State Attorney General's office opposed admitting the case. They cited a prior Supreme Court ruling in the case of Mutebwa Alphred, which addressed a similar provision (then Article 121) and prompted subsequent amendments.
They argued that evidence against concealed suspects may only surface during trial and that judicial orders for investigation do not predetermine outcomes.
They also invoked the principle of res judicata, asserting that an issue already conclusively decided by a competent court cannot be relitigated.
Ingabire countered that a judicial order to investigate carries immediate legal consequences. She further noted that, despite the earlier ruling, the revised wording of Article 106 retains unconstitutional elements.
Drawing on scholarly opinions from French legal experts, the Supreme Court held that res judicata must be evaluated in light of the substance of the contested provision.
The principle does not bar courts from revisiting or correcting prior approaches, particularly when legislation has been redrafted. The court cited precedents from India's Supreme Court allowing review to verify legislative compliance with earlier judgments.
The court observed that, although the Criminal Procedure Law was amended in response to the prior decision, Article 106 preserves the core mechanism of judicial summons and retains elements now challenged by Ingabire.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court declared the petition admissible and scheduled the merits hearing for March 4, 2026.
As a result, the ongoing trial of former DALFAâ€"Umurinzi party members, led by Sibomana Sylvain before the High Court, will remain paused until the Supreme Court rules on Ingabire's case.
IGIHE
