**”Request: Lawyers pleading against attempted coup d’état in Kinshasa”**
The case discussed during the public hearing on Friday June 14 at Ndolo prison took a complex turn. Indeed, the lawyers of the alleged attackers of the failed coup attempt of May 19 in Kinshasa have raised crucial points calling into question the progress of the legal procedure.
At the heart of the debates, the lawyers vigorously argued in favor of the pure and simple annulment of all the reports drawn up during the pre-judicial investigation. They denounced a bias in training, from the military intelligence services to the FARDC General Prosecutor’s Office.
One of the main requests of the lawyers was the provisional release of all the defendants. The latter are also demanding the return of their confiscated property, in particular their phones.
The defense highlighted flagrant violations of the defendants’ rights throughout the proceedings. They pointed out the non-compliance with article 18 of the Constitution, which stipulates that anyone arrested must be informed of the facts with which they are accused immediately and in a language they understand. They highlighted the case of the American Zalman, accusing the OPJ of having acted as interpreter when his English was faulty, thus depriving the defendant of his right to a fair defense.
During the hearing, around ten other defendants requested their provisional release, rejecting the jurisdiction of the military court to judge civilians. Among them, the Canadian Kele Mwela showed the judges the after-effects of the physical torture suffered in detention, demanding medical treatment. The Belgian Jean-Jacques Wondo, a recognized military expert, pleaded for provisional release in order to consult his treating doctor in complete peace and security.
In this sensitive case, the lawyers’ line of defense highlights the flaws in the judicial system and reaffirms the need to respect the fundamental rights of defendants. They advocate for fair and transparent justice, where each individual, whatever the accusation against them, benefits from fair treatment and respect for their fundamental rights.
This case raises crucial questions about the protection of the rights of the defense in a rule of law and highlights the challenges faced by defendants in a judicial system sometimes criticized for its lack of transparency and respect for individual rights.