On August 4, 2025, Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire filed an appeal at the Nyarugenge High Court requesting it to nullify the Kicukiro Primary Court’s ruling, arguing that the case was initially filed in an improper jurisdiction.

Her lawyer, Me Gatera Gashabana, asked the High Court to annul all decisions made by the Kicukiro Primary Court. He invoked provisions from the Constitution and the Penal Code to demonstrate that the Kicukiro Primary Court should not have handled her case.

She stated: “Those are the errors the court ignored, yet it ordered Madame Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire to be held for 30 days on remand. We pointed to Article 194, which states that when such errors occur, all actions taken become void and the accused should be released immediately.”

Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire told the court that the prosecution’s case is mainly based on a conversation she had with journalist Theoneste from Umubavu TV, and on audio recordings of phone calls with the same journalist.

She argued that the offenses she is charged with carry penalties of no more than six months, so she believes she should not be detained for 30 days on remand.

Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire requested the Nyarugenge High Court to disregard two charges against her: spreading false information and inciting public unrest.

She explained that the prosecution has not presented strong enough reasons for these charges, so they should not be pursued.

The court considered the charge of inciting public unrest, but since she was not formally accused of it, she believes it should be dropped.

In summary, she asked that the charges related to conspiracy or inciting public unrest be dismissed. She reminded the prosecution that an appeal is not the place to introduce new strong reasons for pretrial detention.

Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire requested the Nyarugenge High Court to release her so she could stand trial while out of detention. Her lawyer, Me Gatera Gashabana, supported her request, explaining that the Kicukiro Primary Court had rejected her bail application without proper legal justification.

Me Gashabana argued that the lower court ordered her detention as a preventive measure against possible criminal conduct, which he said contradicts what the law prescribes.

The Prosecution had earlier expressed concerns that if she was not detained, she might interfere with the investigation, which is why they requested the 30-day provisional detention. However, Me Gashabana argued there was no new development in the investigation to justify her continued detention.

The lawyer also told the High Court that since Ingabire was granted a presidential pardon, she has conducted herself appropriately, as expected. He added that at one point, she requested permission to travel to Europe to visit her family but was denied and accepted the decision peacefully.

The Prosecution was then given time to present their rebuttal.

Article 106 of the Penal Code grants the Prosecution the right to pursue charges and request pretrial detention for up to 30 days or allow the accused to be tried while not in custody. However, it does not give the Prosecution authority to instruct the court decisions remain at the discretion of the judge.

On the issue of pretrial detention, the Prosecution argued that the law allows them to continue their investigation while the suspect is held. They also said that if a lower court finds it lacks jurisdiction or that the judge lacks authority to preside over the matter, the case should be redirected appropriately not dismissed outright.

The Prosecution maintained that there was no valid reason to stop the proceedings. They clarified that they were not yet prosecuting the six charges against Ingabire Umuhoza Victoire, but rather seeking the 30-day remand based on substantial evidence already obtained.

Ingabire reiterated her objection to the charge of spreading false information, arguing that the claim was outdated. As for the charge of inciting public unrest, she said the Prosecution failed to present any supporting arguments in the lower court.

Regarding the charge of undermining the government, Ingabire said no justification had been given. On the charge of spreading false or propaganda-like information to discredit the Rwandan government internationally, she challenged the Prosecution's reliance on unauthenticated voice recordings, which she said had not even been submitted into the court system.

She further argued that the charge of organizing protests had not been considered by the court and that, in any case, it was time-barred and should not be pursued.

After hearing both sides, the court announced that the verdict would be delivered on August 7, 2025, at 3:00 PM. The hearing lasted over four hours, beginning at 9:00 AM and concluding shortly after 1:00 PM.