The chief lawyer of the collective of lawyers of Senator Matata Ponyo, Me Raphaël Nyabirungu, recently reacted to the summons sent to his client by the Attorney General at the Constitutional Court. During a press briefing, he strongly contested the legality of this warrant to appear.
According to Me Raphaël Nyabirungu, the Constitution provides for three hypotheses that may concern Matata Ponyo: either he is prosecuted as prime minister, or as a former prime minister, or as a senator. In the present case, the General Prosecutor’s Office wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over Matata Ponyo, which would involve proceedings under the Constitutional Court. However, this requires a decision to prosecute voted by a majority of two thirds of the members of parliament, which was not done in this specific case.
The warrant to appear was challenged by Matata Ponyo’s lawyer, saying it is null and void. According to him, the Constitution does not provide for the case of a former prime minister prosecuted for the offenses mentioned. Moreover, being a senator, the natural judge of Matata Ponyo would be the Court of Cassation, which has already declared itself incompetent in a similar case.
Me Raphaël Nyabirungu also points out that the Bukanga Lonzo case, which concerns Matata Ponyo, is over and cannot be revived by a summons. He asserts that this mandate violates the Constitution and the established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, and is therefore null and void.
This reaction from Matata Ponyo’s lawyer highlights the growing tensions in the field of justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It raises questions about the legality of the actions taken by the General Prosecutor’s Office and highlights the challenges facing justice in the country.
It is essential to follow the evolution of this case to understand the impact on the Congolese political scene and the perception of the rule of law in the country