Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison on his arrest obstruction charges stemming from a martial law attempt, live footage showed last Friday. Under South Korean law, the deadline to file an appeal is one week, meaning the appeal had to be submitted by Jan. 23.
After several of their key arguments were rejected in the ruling, Yoon’s side held a press conference earlier on Monday, announcing that an appeal was formally filed with the Seoul Central District Court at 4 p.m.
Meanwhile, the special prosecutor, who has yet to receive the full written verdict, said he plans to review the ruling and decide whether to file an appeal. The team of Cho Eun-suk, an independent counsel who led investigations into Yoon’s insurrection and other charges, demanded a 10-year prison term for Yoon. However, as the prosecution previously expressed regret that the sentence was only half of what was sought, observers widely expect an appeal to be filed.
The first-instance sentencing for Yoon’s insurrection charges was scheduled for Feb. 19. The special counsel sought a death penalty for Yoon on the charges.
The emergency martial law was declared by Yoon on the night of Dec. 3, 2024, but it was revoked hours later by the National Assembly.
The constitutional court upheld a motion to impeach Yoon in April last year, officially removing him from office.
The ousted leader was indicted under detention last January as a suspected ringleader of the insurrection, becoming the first sitting president to be arrested and indicted.
The criminal division of the Seoul Central District Court in charge of Yoon’s obstruction of justice case handed down the prison sentence to Yoon for abusing the presidential security service to hinder the anti-corruption agency from executing its arrest warrant in January 2025.
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) was once thwarted in its attempt to arrest Yoon as the presidential security service formed human shields and bus blockades to prevent investigators from entering the presidential residence.
The team of Cho Eun-suk, an independent counsel who led investigations into Yoon’s insurrection and other charges, demanded a 10-year prison term for Yoon.
The court said Yoon privatized the presidential security service for personal safety and private interests by blocking the law enforcement agencies’ lawful execution of an arrest warrant and attempting to destroy evidence, pointing out that despite the very bad nature of his crime, he consistently offered unconvincing excuses and showed no remorse.
The court stressed that severe punishment was necessary, considering the need to restore the rule of law damaged by Yoon’s crime, but it noted that the fact that he was a first-time offender with no criminal record was considered a favorable factor.
The sentencing, which was broadcast live, was Yoon’s first verdict coming from his botched martial law bid.
The first-instance sentencing for Yoon’s insurrection charges was scheduled for Feb. 19. The special counsel sought a death penalty for Yoon on the charges.
The emergency martial law was declared by Yoon on the night of Dec. 3 in 2024, but it was revoked hours later by the National Assembly.
The constitutional court upheld a motion to impeach Yoon last April, officially removing him from office.
The ousted leader was indicted under detention last January as a suspected ringleader of the insurrection, becoming the first sitting president to be arrested and indicted.
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 DALFA–Umurinzi party members, led by Sibomana Sylvain before the High Court, will remain paused until the Supreme Court rules on Ingabire’s case.
“I was held for six months. Every day was a nightmare,” Mwiza, now living with disabilities caused by the abuse, testified during a protest by Congolese refugees in Rwanda, organised to condemn a recent anti-Tutsi slur by Major General Sylvain Ekenge, the suspended FARDC spokesperson.
“I was raped by over 100 soldiers. Everyone, including elders, their children, and even their guards, assaulted me, all to ‘experience what a Tutsi woman is like.’ I contracted HIV and sustained disabilities. I am now on medication.”
Ekenge’s remarks, widely condemned as incitement against Tutsis, included warnings against marrying Tutsi women, reflecting entrenched anti-Tutsi sentiment within the DRC military. Refugees in Rwanda expressed outrage at the comments, staging demonstrations demanding accountability and protection for Congolese Tutsis.
Mwiza’s ordeal began six months before fleeing to Rwanda, when FDLR soldiers abducted her and her niece from Shangi and took them to Kirolirwe in Masisi territory. While Mwiza survived, her niece was killed.
“They did whatever they wanted, denying me water, denying me care. Sometimes they told me to call Kagame [President Paul Kagame] to rescue me, but all I could do was pray. Everyone struck me, even children, because they were ordered to.”
Her escape came through the unexpected aid of a local soldier who recognised her plight. “He said my blood would not be accounted for. He helped me leave Kirolirwe secretly and guided me to Bishoga,” Mwiza recounted. From there, she moved cautiously to Nyamitabo, where M23 forces were stationed. She finally reached the Nkamira temporary camp in Rwanda, traumatised but alive.
In Rwanda, she joined the Mvura Nkuvure rehabilitation programme, which has helped her begin to rebuild her life despite deep psychological and physical scars. Her husband and father were killed, but her children have since been reunited with her.
“I survived because of God and those who helped me. But no one should endure what I went through,” she said.
Mwiza’s story is part of a decades-long pattern of violence targeting Kinyarwanda-speaking Tutsis in the DRC. After the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, the DRC harboured elements of the Interahamwe and forces loyal to former President Juvenal Habyarimana, cultivating anti-Tutsi ideology. Some of these individuals formed armed groups that evolved into the FDLR.
The FDLR continues to terrorise Congolese citizens, often with tacit DRC government support. Incidents include home burnings, kidnappings, killings, and sexual violence.
In October 2023 alone, nearly 300 homes in Nturo village were destroyed, with residents accused of supporting M23. Social media footage has repeatedly shown Congolese civilians attacking Tutsi neighbours, in some cases committing acts of extreme cruelty, including cannibalism.
Rwanda now hosts over 120,000 Congolese refugees, many fleeing decades of violence and displacement. Mwiza urges the international community to intervene to end decades of hatred and persecution of Congolese Tutsis.
The verdict in Karasira’s case was delivered on September 30, 2025. The court ruled that he was guilty of one of the several charges he faced.
Karasira had originally been charged with multiple offenses, including denying and justifying the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, inciting public division, and spreading false information. Prosecutors said the alleged offenses were committed through his YouTube channel at various times.
He was also accused of money laundering and failing to explain the source of his wealth, including cash seized from him and funds held in his bank and mobile money accounts.
The prosecution had asked the court to convict Karasira on all charges and sentence him to 30 years in prison.
During the trial, Karasira apologized to those who were hurt by his comments on YouTube, saying he never intended to spread hatred or deny the country’s tragic history.
Regarding the seized funds, prosecutors argued that the money came from individuals and groups opposed to the Rwandan government, who were supporting his public statements.
Karasira, however, said the money included severance pay from his former employer, the University of Rwanda, where he once worked, as well as donations from well-wishers. He added that he had no dependents and thus had been saving his income.
After reviewing arguments from both sides, the court sentenced Karasira to five years in prison and ordered the release of his seized property.
Karasira was arrested in May 2021 and has been detained at Nyarugenge Prison since then. Having already served four years, he now has less than one year left to complete his sentence — about eight months remaining until his expected release on May 30, 2026.
The Paris court handed him five-year sentence, but cleared him of other charges, including passive corruption and illegal campaign financing.
Sarkozy, who maintains that the case is politically motivated, was accused of accepting millions of euros from Gaddafi in exchange for helping improve Libya’s international image.
While the court found insufficient evidence to link Sarkozy directly to illegal campaign financing, Judge Nathalie Gavarino stated that Sarkozy allowed aides to reach out to Libyan officials for financial support.
The investigation, which began in 2013, was based on allegations from Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, and Lebanese businessman Ziad Takieddine, who claimed to have proof of the funding. Takieddine alleged that the €50 million payments continued even after Sarkozy became president.
Sarkozy’s wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, was charged with hiding evidence related to the case and committing fraud, charges she denies. Since losing re-election in 2012, Sarkozy has faced multiple legal battles, including a 2024 ruling for overspending in his 2012 re-election campaign.
The former president, who was sentenced to one year in prison for bribing a judge in 2021, is expected to be sentenced in this case later today.
Speaking on September 1, 2025, at the opening of the 2025/26 judicial year, Mukantaganzwa noted that courts handled more than 109,000 cases out of over 182,000.
During the year, 106,254 new cases were filed, adding to 76,273 unresolved from the previous year, bringing the total workload to 182,527.
Of the new cases, 63,457 (60%) were registered in Primary Courts, while 42,797 (40%) went to Intermediate Courts, the Commercial Court, and High Courts. Substantive cases accounted for 85% (90,044), while bail hearings made up 15% (16,210).
Courts managed to conclude 109,192 cases, including 92,880 substantive cases and 16,312 bail-related hearings. On average, each judge resolved 26 cases per month.
Mukantaganzwa highlighted that when mediation and plea bargaining are included, a total of 124,204 cases were resolved in 2024/25.
Despite this achievement, 58,323 cases were left unresolved by year’s end, with nearly half (26,862) pending for more than six months and therefore considered backlog.
Mukantaganzwa pointed to public perceptions as a key driver of persistent backlogs: “Many citizens believe disputes can only be settled through full trials that produce winners and losers. Others refuse to accept court rulings and push cases through every stage of appeal, which extends delays.”
According to judiciary reports, backlogged cases stood at 44,799 in 2023/24 (59% of the total), showing a 10% reduction over the past two years. Mediation and plea bargaining have also grown, with 15,012 cases settled this way in 2024/25, representing 14% of new filings.
Justice Minister Dr. Emmanuel Ugirashebuja emphasized Rwanda’s commitment to alternative dispute resolution.
Cases handled through court-based mediation rose from just 243 in 2021 to more than 3,000 in 2024/25. Since 2022, over 7,000 cases have been resolved through mediation.
He said the government aims to reduce backlog to 30% and expand mediation and plea deals to cover at least 30% of cases.
“Citizens must embrace a culture of amicable dispute resolution, which delivers faster, less costly justice and avoids overburdening the courts,” he said.
At the same time, 25 other defendants, including journalists and Rwanda Correctional Service (RCS) employees, have been released on bail.
The case involves 28 individuals in total, including three RDF officers, two RCS staff, and several civilians, including sports journalists and APR FC supporters.
The disputed tickets are linked to APR FC’s trip to Egypt in September 2024 to play against Pyramids FC in the CAF Champions League, as well as other trips involving RCS officers.
During a hearing on August 18, the prosecution requested 30 days’ provisional detention for the defendants, while the accused asked to be tried without detention.
Today, the military tribunal ruled that the three RDF officers—Major Vincent Murigande, Captain Peninah Umurungi, and Captain Peninah Mutoni—should remain in remand, citing sufficient grounds to justify continued detention.
Meanwhile, the court granted provisional release to the other 25 defendants, including RCS officers CSP Hillary Sengabo and CSP Olive Mukantabana, journalists Reagan ‘Rugaju’ Ndayishimiye and Ricard Ishimwe, and former journalist Mucyo ‘Antha’ Biganiro, citing insufficient grounds to continue holding them in custody.
The trial in substance had initially been suspended when the High Court summoned Victoire Ingabire —who was not originally part of the case—to provide clarification in court.
Her summons was based on Article 106 of the Rwandan law on offenses and penalties in general, which allows additional investigation when initial explanations are deemed insufficient. After her court appearance, the judges found her statement lacking and instructed the Prosecution to launch a more thorough investigation.
Ingabire, a self-proclaimed opposition politician, is facing six charges. These include harm to the current government, spreading false information or propaganda intended to turn foreign nations against Rwanda, creating or joining a criminal group, and plotting illegal activities such as demonstrations and subversion.
When she appeared before the Kicukiro Primary Court seeking bail, she denied all charges. However, the court remanded her for 30 days, citing serious grounds for suspecting her involvement in the alleged crimes.
While that case was underway, the High Court trial involving the other nine defendants—former Dalfa Umurinzi party members and journalist Nsengimana—was put on hold, pending a decision on whether Ingabire would be formally added to the case.
Ingabire was expected to appear for the first time as a co-defendant on July 23, 2025. However, the court has postponed the proceedings to September 1, 2025, due to the judicial recess now beginning.
The nine co-accused had already entered their pleas. The prosecution was due to present its final submissions, after which the defendants would respond before the court concluded the trial for deliberation.
Once the trial resumes, Ingabire will be allowed to present her defense and submit any exculpatory evidence. After her statement, the prosecution will submit its final recommendation, which will be addressed by all defendants before the judges begin deliberations.
According to the ruling, the court found reasonable suspicion that Ingabire may have committed six serious offenses, including the creation of a criminal gang, inciting public disorder, spreading false information intended to undermine the government, and conspiracy to harm state authority and organizing protests.
The prosecution argued that the suspect’s continued liberty would pose a risk to public order and the integrity of the investigation, adding that the gravity of the alleged offenses and existing preliminary evidence justified her remand.
Ingabire, through her lawyer Gatera Gashabana, contested the charges and requested release on bail, arguing that she posed no flight risk and was willing to comply with judicial proceedings. However, the court ruled that her release could result in the destruction of evidence, interference with ongoing investigations, or an attempt to flee.
The court cited testimony from a former combatant of the RUD-Urunana militia who alleged that Ingabire’s former political party, FDU-Inkingi, had provided support to the group ahead of its 2019 attack in Musanze. It further noted that the formation of her new party, DALFA-Umurinzi, may have been intended to mask her involvement.
Additionally, the court referenced intercepted audio recordings between Ingabire and Cassien Ntamuhanga, a convicted fugitive, in which they allegedly discussed organizing public protests.
Although Ingabire described the exchanges as hypothetical ideas, the court determined they constituted credible grounds for the charge of incitement to civil unrest.
In regard to the charge of disseminating rumors, the prosecution presented material evidence that the court deemed sufficient to sustain the allegation at this stage.
The court also found Ingabire’s statements about celebrations of a self-declared “Ingabire Day” concerning, particularly as she failed to provide context or justification. The bench held that such behavior, combined with her political activities, could threaten public order if left unchecked during the investigation.
Concluding its ruling, the court found that the legal conditions for pre-trial detention had been met, citing risks of obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and the potential for absconding.
Ingabire was reminded of her right to appeal the decision within five working days.
She was arrested on June 19, 2025, by the Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB), following a formal request from the National Public Prosecution Authority.
Ingabire will remain in custody at Nyarugenge Prison, commonly known as Mageragere, as investigations proceed.
