The court case involving former Prime Minister Matata Ponyo, Déogratias Mutombo and Christo Grobler continues to generate interest and headlines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Indeed, this case brings to light accusations of embezzlement, over-invoicing and the establishment of front companies, serious offenses which have repercussions on the country’s economy.
According to recent information, the Attorney General of the Republic has introduced a request to set a date for a hearing before the Constitutional Court. This move aims to prosecute Matata Ponyo and Christo Grobler, but also to include Déogratias Mutombo, former Governor of the Central Bank of Congo, who is newly implicated in the case.
The charges against Matata Ponyo and the other defendants are serious, with embezzlement amounting to tens of millions of US dollars. The alleged offenses include the granting of financial advantages, over-invoicing and the creation of front companies, as well as manipulation of administrative procedures. In addition, Matata Ponyo and Déogratias Mutombo are accused of embezzling funds intended for the construction of an international market in Kinshasa.
The pursuit of this case led to the issuance of a warrant to appear against Matata Ponyo, following his refusal to respond to a previous invitation. However, the former Prime Minister denounces this procedure as cavalier and politically motivated, aimed at discrediting him and keeping him out of the 2023 presidential race. He also points out that the Constitutional Court has already declared itself incompetent to try him, which raises questions about the legitimacy of these prosecutions.
The court case involving Matata Ponyo, Déogratias Mutombo and Christo Grobler therefore continues to make a lot of ink flow in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It highlights the challenges of the fight against corruption and embezzlement, which are major problems in the country. If the accusations are proven, it would highlight the need to punish those responsible and ensure transparency in the management of public finances. The outcome of this case will therefore be followed closely, both judicially and politically