Angolan court considers the sentence of “Zena” dos Santos and Walter Filipe da Silva unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court (CC) of Angola has declared unconstitutional the decision condemning José Filomeno dos Santos “Zena”, the son of the former President of Angola, and Walter Filipe da Silva, the former governor of the central bank, for violating the principles of the rule of law and being controversial.

According to the Angolan Constitutional Court, the principles of a fair and legitimate trial and the right to defense were also violated.

According to the plenary session of the TC judges, in the order dated April 3, 2024, promulgated this Thursday, the seizure of the assets of the respondents violated constitutional principles, but it was stated that the appeal is valid and the files should be uploaded to the appropriate authority “so that the proven facts can be excluded unconstitutionality.”

The TC’s position is a response to the extraordinary appeal of unconstitutionality sent to this body by Walter Filipe da Silva, Jorge Guadens Pontes Sebastian, José Filomeno dos Santos “Zenu” and António Samalia Bule Manuel, convicted by the Supreme Court in 2020 of crimes such as embezzlement , fraud and peddling of influence, carrying penalties of five to eight years in prison in the famous “500 Million” case.

The applicants understand that the Supreme Court’s decision did not respect the principle of legality because it “left a gap in previous issues important for the discovery of material truth”, such as “devaluing” the answers given by then Angolan President José Eduardo. dos Santos, who died in July 2022 in Spain.

The appellants’ complaints include violations of the principles of legality, access to the law and effective judicial protection, broad protection, presumption of innocence, fair and equitable process, the duty to state reasons for judicial decisions and the adversarial system.

According to the plenary session of the TC, the Supreme Court “ignored” the letter contained in the case, signed by the applicant José Eduardo dos Santos, in which he authorizes Walter Filipe da Silva, former governor of the National Bank of Angola (BNA), to move sums of money.

They claim that the trial was conducted without assessing the letter of José Eduardo dos Santos, which is considered “necessary to establish the material truth,” thereby calling into question the respect of constitutional guarantees, the right to a defense and the principle of adversarial law.

Given the content of the replies, the Constitutional Court points out, the Supreme Court invalidated the response letter from José Eduardo dos Santos, since it considered that neither the requirements for authenticating the applicant’s signature nor even the legal sending procedure had been complied with.

“Taking into account the foregoing, the court understands that, since the response letter of the former President of the Republic was not accepted for consideration in the circumstances in which it was issued, the decision that is the subject of this appeal violated the principles of the presumption of innocence and the adversarial process, as well as the law defense,” the 22-page decision states.

The Angolan Constitution also concludes that the right to a fair and legal trial has been violated in light of the provisions of the Angolan Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human Rights and People.

The Plenary also decided to exclude from the specific criminal base the offense of fraud due to fraud, as argued by the applicants, “because the elements of this type were not collected”, in which case the TC concludes that the alleged violation of the principle of permanence of charge.

Regarding the complaint of violation of the right to a fair trial, the judges consider that constitutional inconsistencies were found in some of the procedures taken during the trial, such as the inadmissibility of relevant documentary evidence (a letter from the former President of the Republic), concluding that this right was violated.