This text examines the espionage charges within Case File 3846/25-CE, the same case in which Judge António Negrão uncritically validated the terrorism theory already dismissed by the Public Prosecutor. If the claim of terrorism was absurd, the accusation of espionage is nothing short of a parody.
According to the official narrative, two Russian citizens -- Igor Ratchin Mihailovic and Lev Matveevich Lakshtanov -- allegedly travelled to Angola to set up a clandestine espionage operation, assisted by Angolan journalist Amor Carlos Tomé and UNITA youth leader Francisco Oliveira "Buka Tanda."
In the prosecution's theory, these four individuals belonged to an "international network" linked to a chain of shadowy organisations: Africa Org, Africa Politology, Angola Politology, ultimately culminating in a fantastical structure called "Ciência Política de Angola."
The prosecution never defined what these organisations do, how they operate, who finances them, or even in which countries they actually exist.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Yet the judicial ruling elevates this fiction to evidence.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 -- "Evidence" That Proves Nothing
The ruling is so detached from legal reality that it treats Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the indictment as "proof" of espionage -- even though these sections establish no facts whatsoever.
For clarity, Article 1 states:
"It results from the instruction that, after the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin in August 2023, the African assets of the Wagner Group were taken over by Africa Org, a paramilitary structure present on the continent, which through Africa Politology and Angola Politology carried out the project called 'Ciência Política de Angola,' led by the defendant Igor Rotchin Mihailovich using codename 1524, with defendants Lev Lakshtanov, Oliveira Francisco and Amor Carlos Tomé as salaried members, denominated counterparts, based in national territory."
Article 2 continues by describing the supposed operational model of the new Africa Corps, successor to the Wagner Group, presenting it as a mechanism for obtaining natural resource concessions -- gold, diamonds, timber -- in exchange for security services, allegedly enabling state capture and circumventing sanctions.
Article 3 vaguely alleges that Russians conduct aggressive information warfare, large-scale website cloning, cyberespionage, online radicalisation and recruitment of dissatisfied individuals to influence political actors focused on Africa.
These three articles contain no factual evidence, no demonstrated actions, no operational chain, no acts of espionage by any of the defendants. They amount to general geopolitical commentary recycled as courtroom allegation.
A Logical Contradiction at the Heart of the Case
Because the prosecution explicitly positions Russia's Ministry of Defence -- which directs the Africa Corps -- as the foreign power supposedly fomenting terrorism, espionage, and coups in Angola, the state is essentially accusing Moscow of running a destabilisation campaign inside Angola.
Yet the Angolan government has taken no diplomatic or security action that would reflect such a belief.
A serious government facing a genuine foreign-backed coup attempt would:
- expel diplomats of the offending state;
- recall its ambassador;
- suspend military cooperation;
- activate counterintelligence protocols.
Angola has done none of this.
On the contrary, President João Lourenço keeps a Russian general inside the Presidential Palace, General I. Krasov, serving as his principal military adviser -- appointed directly by the Russian Ministry of Defence, the same ministry accused in the indictment of directing the Africa Corps, supposedly behind the alleged coup and espionage attempts.
This contradiction destroys the credibility of the accusation.
If Russia were truly conspiring against the Angolan state, the first act of national security would be removing and expelling General Krasov.
The fact that he remains at the centre of presidential power is proof that the accusation is designed for domestic political manipulation, not international confrontation.
Espionage Requires Elements That Do Not Exist in This Case
For espionage to exist, basic components are required:
- Acquisition of sensitive or classified information
- Illicit obtaining of strategic data
- Transmission of such data to a foreign power
- Structure, method, purpose -- political, military or economic
- Demonstrable intent to harm state security
None of these elements exist in the case file.
There is no:
- classified information seized;
- evidence of illicit access to state systems;
- communication with foreign intelligence services;
- attempted infiltration of institutions;
- transmission of state secrets;
- operational planning or methodology.
Not a single act that satisfies Article 317 of the Angolan Penal Code.
Yet Judge Negrão managed to distort the very definition of espionage by declaring in his ruling that: "the law does not require that the object be a state secret."
This is false.
Article 317 explicitly requires protected state information obtained for the benefit of a foreign entity.
Negrão simply rewrites the law.
Under his interpretation, any information -- however trivial -- could be labelled espionage. If a defendant writes "I'm going to the supermarket" and another replies "buy rice," the court could interpret this as coded information harmful to national security. This elasticity is not law -- it is judicial improvisation.
The Judge Who Turns Allegations Into Proof
The most dangerous aspect of Negrão's ruling is that he treats accusations as evidence. He does not distinguish between:
- allegation and fact;
- suspicion and proof;
- narrative and demonstration.
He rejects the defence's objections as "vague" while his own ruling is labyrinthine, riddled with errors in grammar, syntax, punctuation, and logical structure. Sentences begin in one place, wander into another, cross-cite articles mid-paragraph, and conclude in an unrelated point without transition.
Instead of scrutinising the prosecution, Negrão amplifies it.
And this is critical: the judge of guarantees exists precisely to protect citizens from abuses in the investigative phase. Negrão did the opposite -- he legitimised the abuses.
The trial has not even begun, but the political, moral, and narrative condemnation has already been written by the court.
Why the Accusation Exists: Internal Consumption, Not State Security
There are moments when state incoherence becomes so transparent that it needs no further commentary. This is one of them.
Either:
- the accusation is false,
or
- the government is undertaking a suicidal manoeuvre by maintaining Russian military advisers within the presidential perimeter.
Given Angola's behaviour, the first option is the only logical conclusion.
The espionage accusation is not intended for Moscow, which the government continues to work with normally.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The accusation is intended for internal political control:
- to intimidate dissenting journalists,
- criminalise political opponents,
- justify the extension of surveillance powers,
- reinforce a climate of fear ahead of the 2027 elections.
The state is manufacturing an internal "enemy" to rationalise repression.
A Judicial Fiction With Real-World Consequences
Judge Negrão's ruling functions as a warning: in the current Angolan environment, any citizen can be transformed overnight into an "agent of a foreign power," regardless of evidence.
This is not a neutral judicial mistake -- it is an instrument of governance.
By blurring the line between dissent and espionage, the state installs a system in which:
- criticism becomes conspiracy,
- journalism becomes subversion,
- political opposition becomes high treason.
The danger is not theoretical -- it is systemic.
Conclusion: A Case Built on Nothing, Serving Everything
The espionage charge in Case 3846/25-CE is a legal fiction constructed to legitimise political persecution. The "international network" is imaginary. The operational model is speculative. The evidence is absent. The logic contradicts itself. And the state's foreign policy behaviour reveals that it does not believe its own accusation.
The accusation exists solely because it is useful.
Useful to intimidate.
Useful to silence.
Useful to criminalise dissent.
Useful to manufacture fear before elections.
The case teaches one clear lesson:
When the state begins to invent espionage, the problem is not national security -- it is the security of those in power.
