Enabler-In-Chief Mirrors One In Angola

Author: James Carnell

Is the Angolan justice dispensing impartial justice in the case of Isabel Dos Santos and Sindika Dokolo?

At the beginning of the Isabel dos Santos and Sindika Dokolo case, the Angolan justice had requested a civil seizure. In December 2019, the Luanda Provincial Court ordered a seizure against Isabel dos Santos and SINDIKA DOKOLO.

Yet, the Angolan State justice did not even summon Isabel dos Santos or Sindika Dokolo, her husband. Generally, in the case of a civil seizure, the Court has to notify the Defendant formally, through his attorney.

It was instead by a widely disseminated statement in the media that the Angolan State made the decision of the Luanda Provincial Court public.

The question is: why so much media coverage and involvement in the civil seizure of Isabel Dos Santos? What is the point of such a highly publicised and advertised procedure, when the Defendant has not even been formally notified? Is it to humiliate the Defendant or manipulate public opinion and try to steer justice in a particular direction?

In spite of these breaches of procedure, Isabel Dos Santos requested to be duly notified through her attorney, who was duly mandated to that effect. He acted within the legal deadline of 8 days and objected to the seizure in question. Her lawyer filed a documentary falsification incident as well as a review appeal.

The objection to the seizure and the review appeal of the daughter of the former Angolan President were rejected by the Judge in charge of the case. He claimed that the 8-day deadline to file an objection started from the moment the press briefing from the General Prosecutor of Angola (PGR) had been disseminated publicly. He also argued that the Defendant had spoken publicly about the existence of the Court decision. This interpretation of the law by the Judge does not comply with a thorough analysis of the case. At the risk of suggesting that the justice system is being controlled and biased.

This is even more obvious seeing that a Judge considers a person to be informed of a Court decision on the ground that the Defendant spoke publicly, by stating that she was aware of a Court ruling, even without any knowledge of the content of said ruling. When it comes to legal matters, a client needs to be informed officially, either via their lawyer or by being summoned by a letter sent to their home address.

Independent justice system

Having confronted the Judge with the illegality and the absurdity of his decision, and with documentary proof of the date of the objection request to the seizure and to appeal to the Court’s decision for the said seizure, yet these arguments were ignored. It therefore seems like the rights of the defence are simply not guaranteed. Angola is working to give its economy a new impetus, but it also needs to make sure that its justice system respects human rights.

Sindika Dokolo succeeded in being summoned thanks to his own efforts, since the Court did nothing to summon him in the first place. Isabel Dos Santos’ husband objected to the seizure order, arguing that it was based on forged documents, in addition to the argument of falsehood already put forward by Isabel dos Santos.

The same Judge as in the case of the seizure illegally declared that the objection was filed beyond the legal deadline. This time, it was argued that Sindika Dokolo reportedly stated during a radio program that he was aware that a seizure order had been decreed in Angola. Yet, he did not have any knowledge of its content, and there was no evidence of any knowledge of the decision itself. Exactly like what happened to Isabel dos Santos.

This treatment of the case of Isabel Dos Santos and Sindika Dokolo raises concerns on the independence of the justice system in Angola. The country has a duty to provide access to a fair justice and guarantee the rights of the defence.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or management of EconoTimes