Ingabire had argued that Article 106, which allows a court to summon individuals as accomplices or accessories during criminal proceedings, violated the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.
She contended that the provision contributed to her imprisonment and should be annulled.
In its ruling, the Court addressed three key issues, focusing on whether Article 106 infringes on constitutional rights. The Court emphasized that summoning an individual as an accomplice does not equate to a presumption of guilt.
The provision allows for the prosecution to summon individuals linked to the case for questioning, but it does not make them guilty unless there is sufficient evidence. If no such evidence is found, the court continues the trial without further involvement from the summoned individuals.
The Court also clarified that the prosecution must present irrefutable evidence to justify the summoning. It asserted that the judicial process ensures the defendant’s rights and guarantees that they are treated as innocent until proven guilty.
Regarding concerns of judicial overreach, the Court highlighted that the judiciary and prosecution may cooperate but must not interfere with each other’s roles.
The Supreme Court dismissed Ingabire’s claim, affirming that Article 106 aligns with the Constitution and does not violate any fundamental rights.
Leave a Reply