Social activist Osvaldo Caholo has been imprisoned for almost six months for comments he made during a live social media broadcast at an anti-government protest in Luanda on 12 July 2025. Under Criminal Case No. 3807/25, the Angolan Public Prosecutor has charged him with rebellion, public instigation to crime and public apology of crime -- accusations that rest entirely on spoken words, not actions, organisation or demonstrable criminal capacity.
The indictment cites statements allegedly made by the defendant on social media in a context of evident emotional agitation and broader social unrest. However, expressing indignation, even in harsh terms, does not constitute acts that could be considered crimes against state security.
Regarding the crime of rebellion, as defined in Article 329 of the Angolan Penal Code, the prosecution claims that the defendant incited the population to participate in a 'wave of protests, rebellion and persecution of generals and commissioners'.
However, the legal definition of rebellion requires more than heated rhetoric. It demands a concrete beginning of material execution -- a minimally organised structure, operational acts, or demonstrable intent to overthrow state authority.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
None of this has been alleged, let alone proven.
The prosecution has merely transcribed fragments of social media videos without providing evidence that these words were accompanied by preparatory acts, organised mobilisation or any real attempt to subvert the constitutional order. What emerges is simply a political outburst typical of moments of frustration but devoid of operational capacity.
The indictment also alleges that Caholo threatened state officials and the President of the Republic, João Lourenço.
It is important to distinguish between legally relevant threats and hyperbolic expressions made in emotional distress.
The phrase 'If you give me a gun and I am next to João Lourenço, I will shoot him in the head' is not a plan of action. It is a conditional statement dependent on hypothetical factors that do not exist, revealing anger, not criminal intent.
Caholo does not possess any weapons, nor does he belong to any military or paramilitary group. There is also no evidence that he has attempted to acquire the means to fulfil such a threat. The absence of any real capacity to execute the supposed threat negates the intent required for criminal liability.
Article 293 of the Penal Code punishes those who publicly incite others to commit a specific crime.
This requires clear and objective incitement directed towards a specific unlawful act capable of producing immediate criminal behaviour by third parties.
The indictment demonstrates none of these factors.
There is no evidence that Caholo's statements led anyone to act, nor that they triggered demonstrations, violence, or attempts to commit crimes. The widespread circulation of social media videos does not constitute effective instigation. In the informal, hyperbolic and expressive digital environment, his words must be interpreted in context, not as operational orders.
Article 294 criminalises the public praise, exaltation or reward of someone who has committed a crime where such praise might lead others to imitate that crime.
However, the prosecution does not identify which criminal act Caholo allegedly glorified, who committed that crime, or how his words could inspire imitation.
Simply put, the factual elements of the crime are absent.
The prosecution alleges aggravating circumstances: a trivial motive, a promise and discrimination based on political conviction.
None of this stand:
· No trivial motive: Caholo's statements, however intemperate, addressed political and social conditions, not trivialities.
· No promise: he did not offer any benefit in exchange for committing crimes.
· No political discrimination: Criticism of public officials is a form of legitimate political speech and cannot be reclassified as discrimination.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Preventive detention is unwarranted and disproportionate. It must be justified by concrete risks, such as flight, tampering with evidence, or continued criminal activity. None of these apply here.
Caholo has been identified, has a fixed place of residence, and there is no indication that he intends to flee or obstruct the legal process. The alleged acts concern a single moment of emotional outburst, not ongoing criminal conduct. As the most severe pre-trial measure, preventive detention should only be used when absolutely necessary and sparingly. That is not the case here.
Conclusion: the charges lack legal and factual foundation.
The facts presented by the prosecution do not satisfy the legal requirements for the crimes alleged.
The statements attributed to Caholo must be interpreted in their emotional and social context. There is no intent, organisation, capacity or evidence of execution.
Preventive detention is therefore excessive, unjustified and disproportionate.
Osvaldo Caholo should be released immediately.
