By Léon ENGULU III, Philosopher
The trial of Constant Mutamba, former Minister of Justice, accused of embezzlement in the Kisangani prison project, is making headlines and attracting the attention of all observers. After a media storm orchestrated by his political opponents, portraying him as the perfect scapegoat, and the spectacular lifting of his parliamentary immunity through a show-of-hands vote in violation of the National Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, the hearings have brought to light the glaring absence of serious charges against the defendant.
A case unraveling hearing after hearing
The recusal of a panel of the Court of Cassation deemed biased had already marked a first procedural victory for the defense. But it was the August 6, 2025 testimony of witnesses that truly emptied the Prosecutor’s quiver before the High Court. At the close of the evidentiary phase, only one fact stands undisputed: the former minister’s firm intent to build a prison in Kisangani— a project validated in the Council of Ministers, in the presence of Félix Tshisekedi and Prime Minister Judith Suminwa.
Contrary to the initial media narrative, the hearings revealed that the contested USD 19 million never left the escrow bank account, immediately undermining the embezzlement theory. Zion Construction SARL, the awarded contractor, was fully compliant with the Single Window for Business Creation (GUCE). The site for the future prison had been inspected and approved by Kisangani authorities. According to the Director General of the DGCMP, 90% of procedural requirements were met. The project received tacit approval due to the Prime Minister’s failure to respond within the legal 10-day deadline—equivalent to a green light under ARMP rules.
Given this, why pursue such a fragile case, where it appears not a single public franc found its way into the former minister’s pocket?
Insufficiency of evidence — a fundamental principle
In criminal law, insufficiency of evidence is grounds for a full dismissal of charges. The Congolese Code of Criminal Procedure, like international jurisprudence, requires guilt to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. When incriminating elements are nonexistent or contradicted by material evidence, prosecution becomes legally unfounded.
This standard is equally upheld internationally. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, acquitted Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé in 2019, holding that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the alleged acts. Similarly, in the Jean-Pierre Bemba case, the ICC overturned an 18-year sentence on appeal, finding that the prosecution had not demonstrated the accused’s effective responsibility for the crimes charged. In both instances, the judges stressed that the absence of direct material evidence cannot be replaced by speculation or tenuous inference.
Applied to the Mutamba case, this doctrine underscores that a trial where the material element of the crime—here, the actual misappropriation of funds—is absent, should logically lead to acquittal.
The specter of the Kamerhe trial
Public memory is still marked by the expedited trial of Vital Kamerhe, sentenced to 20 years of hard labor before being acquitted on appeal. In his case, funds had indeed vanished, some companies were fictitious, and worksites barely started. In the Mutamba trial, the situation is the opposite: the money remains intact, procedures were followed, and the project is real.
This disparity in treatment raises questions: Why such judicial zeal against Constant Mutamba in the absence of tangible evidence? Why do the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance refuse to appear, when their testimonies could shed light on the case? And why invoke a “reason of state” that neither the Constitution nor the Congolese Code of Criminal Procedure recognizes?
A test for Congolese justice
Beyond the individual fate of Constant Mutamba, this case tests the independence of the judiciary in the DRC. If a reform-minded minister can be imprisoned on the basis of such weak accusations, what protection remains against the political instrumentalization of the courts?
The evidentiary hearings will resume on August 13, followed by closing arguments. The Court of Cassation now holds both the opportunity and the responsibility to deliver a verdict that will either restore or destroy the credibility of judicial institutions. Ultimately, it is not only Constant Mutamba who stands trial. It is the Congolese rule of law itself that today sits in the dock.
Léon ENGULU III Philosopher