Luanda — Angola’s prosecutors allege a Russian-backed plot to overthrow the government. What the indictment offers instead is a case study in how dissent can be rebranded as subversion.
Angola’s Public Prosecutor has issued an indictment that reads less like a criminal case than a legal instrument and more like a geopolitical thriller. A foreign entity - Africa Corps (formerly the Wagner Group) - is accused of acting on behalf of the Russian state to engineer a coup d’état, manipulate public opinion, infiltrate political parties, and position itself to seize strategic national assets, including the Lobito Corridor, in the event of regime change.
At the core of the case lies a striking premise: political activity, media criticism, and electoral engagement are reframed as instruments of terrorism.
According to the indictment, the group allegedly pursued a dual strategy - destabilizing Angola’s political system while positioning itself to capture key economic assets as bargaining chips, all while “fueling anti-Western sentiment.”
Article 19 frames these actions as “concrete acts of destabilization capable of provoking political alternation,” whether by bringing the opposition party UNITA to power or by forcing leadership change within the ruling MPLA in favor of a “pro-Russia” president. Article 20, signed by prosecutor Lina Ventura, goes further: in the event of regime change, the Russians would allegedly be rewarded with control over the Lobito Corridor, Biocom, and diamond companies.
A third alleged lever of subversion is also introduced: “the creation, production, and mass dissemination of texts, news, opinions, and analyses” across social networks, newspapers, and radio stations - particularly critical outlets.
Information itself is framed as terror.
These are grave accusations. Precisely for that reason, they require proportionate, solid, and verifiable proof against what the indictment describes as the core of a Russian-backed conspiracy to depose President João Lourenço - a group composed of two Russian citizens and two Angolans.
Igor Ratchin Mihailovich and Lev Matveech Lakstanov face eleven charges, including espionage, terrorism, terrorist organization, financing of terrorism, criminal association, corruption, influence peddling, document forgery, and currency-related crimes.
Angolan journalist Amor Carlos Tomé is charged with nine crimes, while Francisco Oliveira “Buka Tanda,” UNITA’s Secretary for Youth Mobilization (JURA), faces five charges, including espionage and terrorism.
The central weakness of the indictment is not the seriousness of its claims, but the fragility of what it demonstrates - and the way political behaviour, discourse, and association are elevated into existential threats to the state.
The prosecution offers a detailed inventory of activities attributed to Africa Politology: meetings, travel, contacts, financial flows, and content production. Taken individually, many of these facts are ambiguous or legally neutral. To bind them into a criminal conspiracy, the case hinges on a decisive element: alleged intent to subvert the state.
This is where the case stands or falls.
Criminal liability in such matters requires proof of specific intent - a conscious will to undermine national security, overthrow institutions, or seize power through unlawful means. While intent is repeatedly asserted in the indictment, its demonstration is deferred to a future trial.
Criminalizing Opposition: The UNITA Narrative
The indictment places particular emphasis on alleged links between Russian operatives and UNITA leadership. Five meetings are cited, involving UNITA figures and intermediaries, including one allegedly attended by party leader Adalberto da Costa Júnior in March 2025.
The prosecution further claims that discussions included allegations of UNITA’s involvement in a plot to attack U.S. President Joe Biden during his visit to Angola.
This allegation warrants scrutiny.
In January 2025, Angolan authorities announced the arrest of an alleged terrorist leader accused of planning attacks during Biden’s visit. Initial public claims spoke of an extraordinary cache of explosives - reportedly up to 60 tons - intended for major attacks on national institutions.
Later court disclosures drastically reduced those claims. The alleged arsenal was ultimately described as six obsolete grenades, reportedly purchased for around 30,000 kwanzas (approximately USD 32) each, from a demining center where they were meant to be destroyed.
The contrast between the initial alarmist narrative and the later material evidence illustrates how rhetorical escalation can outpace factual substance.
During trial proceedings in March 2025, the same alleged militant, João Gabriel Deussinho, portrayed UNITA’s president, Adalberto da Costa Júnior, as the mastermind behind the supposed plot. Yet no senior UNITA figure appears to have been formally interviewed or questioned during the investigative phase.
An attack - or credible attempt - against a sitting U.S. president abroad would have triggered immediate international alerts and official responses. No such reaction occurred. No confirmation was issued by U.S. authorities.
The absence of any institutional response casts serious doubt on the factual basis of these allegations and highlights the transformation of political narratives into criminal claims.
The Russians and the Ruling Party
The indictment also alleges contacts between Russian operatives and senior figures within the ruling MPLA, in particular General Higino Carneiro, a prominent party figure who has announced his bid for the MPLA leadership at next December’s congress. According to prosecutors, Russian actors offered campaign support, funding, and security services to potential presidential candidates, while simultaneously engaging rival political camps.
Yet the indictment never explains how electoral consultancy - however controversial politically - constitutes terrorism or a coup attempt. Nor does it reconcile the contradiction of alleging a single conspiracy while describing parallel engagement with competing political actors.
Since 1992, the MPLA has routinely relied on foreign consultants and financiers for its electoral campaigns, without criminal consequence.
At its core, this case raises a fundamental question about the rule of law in Angola.
Is criminal justice being used to prosecute demonstrable crimes - or to reclassify political dissent, internal party competition, and media criticism as existential threats to the state?
The indictment offers grand narratives and geopolitical intrigue. What it does not yet provide is proportionate, verifiable proof.
The answer will not be found in rhetoric. It will - or will not - emerge at trial.
The case now moves to court. The first adversarial pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 8 January, yet none of the political figures cited throughout the indictment - from the ruling party or the opposition - has been formally notified or summoned to testify.
