Fatshimetrie recently highlighted an intriguing case concerning the acquisition of a building by the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, Firmin Mvonde, for the considerable sum of 900,000 euros in Brussels. This transaction triggered a cascade of questions and controversies, prompting the Minister of Justice, Constant Mutamba, to request in-depth investigations to elucidate the circumstances of this purchase.
The announcement of this acquisition raised suspicions of illicit enrichment, prompting Constant Mutamba to summon the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGF), the National Cell for the Processing of Financial Information (CENAREF) and the National Intelligence Agency (ANR) to examine more closely the ramifications of this real estate transaction.
However, sources close to the Attorney General’s Office have expressed reservations about the legitimacy of the Minister of Justice to launch an investigation into a high-ranking official such as the Attorney General, suggesting that this competence rather falls under the authority of the Head of State.
In a statement, the Attorney General’s office confirmed the purchase of the building thanks to a loan of 750,000 euros obtained from the EQUITY BCDC bank, with an interest rate of 10% per year, a set-up fee of 1% and a repayment period of 24 months starting last July. The funds were transferred to the seller in Belgium, in accordance with the terms of the contract agreed with the bank.
The question remains, however, how Firmin Mvonde can afford such an acquisition with his monthly income. The Attorney General’s office responded that the origin of the funds is a loan and that the repayment period can be extended if necessary.
For the Attorney General’s team, this media spotlight on the real estate acquisition is more like blackmail orchestrated by opponents of the senior magistrate. They claim that a journalist from Africa Intelligence tried to blackmail the Prosecutor by threatening to disclose confidential information from the bank. Faced with this attempt at intimidation, the Prosecutor’s Office reacted by denouncing the ignorance of banking operations on the part of these detractors.
This case raises crucial questions about transparency and ethics within the judicial institution. It remains to be seen whether the conclusions of the investigations requested by the Minister of Justice will provide evidence as to the legality and legitimacy of this controversial real estate investment.