Annexes

Note: This translation has been prepared by the Registry for internal purposes and has no official
character
ANNEX 1
Complaint with civil-party application filed by Transparency International
France and Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa with the Paris
Tribunal de grande instance, 2 December 2008
Complaint with civil-party application filed by Transparency International
France and Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa with the Paris
Tribunal de grande instance, 2 December 2008
COMPLAINT WITH CIVIL-PARTY APPLICATION
(1) Transparency International France, an association governed by the Law of 1 July
1901, with its registered office located at 2 bis rue de Villiers, 92300 Levallois-Perret, acting
through its President, Mr. Daniel LEBEGUE;
(2) Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa, residing at BP 2415 Libreville, Gabon, a Gabonese national.
Counsel: Mr. William BOURDON
Avocat à la Cour
156 rue de Rivoli, 75001 Paris
Tel: 01 42 60 32 60
Fax: 01 42 60 19 43
Courthouse box No. R 143
Whose offices are chosen as the address for service.
HAVE THE HONOUR OF SETTING FORTH THE FOLLOWING FACTS
I. Factual background
In an ordinary complaint lodged with the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office in March 2007, the
associations Sherpa, Survie and Fédération des congolais de la diaspora set forth the following:
“(1) Over many years, various observers have gathered a certain amount of
information showing that leaders of African States or certain members of their
families had, during or after their terms of office, acquired or procured the acquisition
of immovable property on French territory.
It is also clear that, at about the same time, some of those African leaders
acquired movable assets, that is, they had bank holdings in France, at French banks
and/or foreign banks with operations in France.
(2) It is also certain and indisputable that, in recent years, in the wake of regime
changes, various African States have not hesitated to issue international letters
rogatory or, more generally, to request the assistance of the international community
in repatriating to the treasuries of the States concerned, sometimes with success, the
bank holdings misappropriated by those African leaders who have been removed from
office or lost elections, or who are deceased.
One could cite, inter alia, and simply as an example, the measures taken by the
Nigerian Government with regard to the considerable bank holdings misappropriated
by former President Sani Abacha.
- 2 -
These judicial measures not only targeted misappropriated bank holdings, they
also aimed to identify any immovable property acquired by the African leaders in
question.
It is true that these measures have not always been successful, since the real or
apparent owners of the immovable assets took great care to take certain precautions in
an attempt to conceal the actual ownership of the property and the financial
arrangements.
Nevertheless, following their various investigations and by collating
information gathered by different observers, the undersigned associations have in
recent years been able to prove, or at least to establish with a very high degree of
probability, that African leaders who are still in office and certain members of their
families own immovable property of sometimes considerable value on French
territory, and in Paris in particular.
They have also been able to acquire such proof with regard to immovable
property previously owned by ousted or deceased leaders, the ownership of which was
automatically passed on to their beneficiaries.
(3) Regardless of these leaders’ merits and capabilities, no one can seriously
believe that the immovable property in question, which in some cases is currently
valued at several million euros, could have been acquired solely out of their
remuneration.
This observation holds especially true for the family members of these African
leaders, when they appear to own a number of properties, since in many instances they
have no occupation or their occupation is unknown.
With regard to certain offences, such as money laundering, there is a
presumption under the law that the offence has been committed if a person cannot
provide proof of resources commensurate with his or her lifestyle (see for example
Cass. crim., 30 October 2002, No. 01-83.852).
In parallel, and with regard to the misuse of corporate assets, it has been
recognized that corporate funds withdrawn by a chief executive are necessarily
withdrawn in his own personal interest if there is nothing to show that the funds have
been used in the sole interest of the company (see, for example, Cass. crim.,
11 January 1996, No. 95-81.776).
Such reasoning may be applied, by analogy, to a Head of State, with regard to
the offences of misappropriation of public funds or handling misappropriated public
funds.
It is recalled that the offence of misappropriation of public funds is provided for
and punishable under Article 432-15 of the Penal Code, which states that:
‘The destruction, misappropriation or purloining of a document or
security, of private or public funds, papers, documents or securities
representing such funds, or of any other object entrusted to him, by
reason of his functions or his mission, committed by a person holding
public authority or discharging a public service mission, a public
accountant, a public depositary or any of his subordinates, is punishable
by ten years imprisonment and a fine of €150,000’.
- 3 -
Handling misappropriated public funds, for its part, is punishable under the
combination of Article 432-15 and Article 321-1 of the same Code, which provides:
‘Handling is the act of concealing, possessing or transferring
something, or acting as an intermediary in its transfer, with the
knowledge that it was obtained through a felony or misdemeanour.
Handling is also the act of knowingly benefiting in any manner
from the product of a felony or misdemeanour’.
Attached to this complaint, as required, is the most recent relevant jurisprudence
(document 1).
It is acknowledged, however, that in certain cases some of the Heads of State in
question may have received, non-transparently of course, rather extravagant
remuneration.
Even though it is indisputable that the French courts cannot pass judgment on
the remuneration of these African leaders, it must also be borne in mind 􀁿 for each of
the leaders and their families, whose situations will be examined below — that these
French immovable assets were acquired at about the same time as immovable assets
were acquired locally or in other countries, which, as will be shown, were sometimes
quite considerable in terms of both volume and value.
Finally, and at this point, it is to be noted that there are strong grounds to
believe that some of these African leaders, whose situations will be examined one by
one, are or were the instigators of misappropriations of large amounts of public funds.
These suspicions are not simply the fruit of activist agitation, but are rather, as
regards some of the leaders, corroborated by well-documented reports from, inter alia,
international financial institutions or even creditors of the States in question.
(4) For this reason, we draw the Public Prosecutor’s attention more specifically
to the following facts:
(4.1) As regards Mr. Omar BONGO or members of his family:
􀁿 General observations
There is a large body of documentation concerning the misappropriation of
public funds committed by the BONGO clan.
In particular, we know that an attempt to block Mr. Omar BONGO’s accounts
was made by investigating judge Paul Perraudin in Switzerland on 11 May 1998. An
account opened in the name of one of President Bongo’s advisers, Samuel
Dossou-Aworet, was attached at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Geneva.
The Head of State of Gabon declared that he was the actual beneficiary of the account
at issue, which made it possible to claim presidential immunity in order to stop the
investigating judge’s investigation (see documents listed below):
􀁿 ‘Les comptes d’Omar Bongo’, article in the newspaper Sud-Ouest,
28 August 1998 (document 2);
􀁿 ‘Pas de comptes en Suisse . . .’ La Lettre du Continent, 15 February 2001;
- 4 -
􀁿 articles in Le Monde, 6 August and 2 April 1997 (documents 4 and 5);
􀁿 article in L’Express, 21 January 1999 (document 6).
A United States Senate investigation published in June 2000 also shed light on
Mr. Omar Bongo’s secret accounts at City Bank.
Mr. Omar BONGO is suspected of having diverted US$130 million into bank
holdings in the United States between 1985 and 1997, not to mention City Bank’s
loans to the Bongo family, which total US$50 million.
City Bank is said to have explained ‘that the money came from a budget
allocation, with 8.5 per cent of the Gabonese budget — US$111 million — being
reserved for the President each year’.
The Senate investigators, notably the Democratic Senator from the state of
Michigan, Carl Levin, who sifted through the IMF’s reviews of the Gabonese budget
never found any trace of any ‘presidential allocation’ on that scale (see ‘Vieux comptes
gabonais’, La Lettre du Continent, 11 November 1999 􀁿 document 7).
Mr. Omar BONGO was also seriously implicated in the Elf affair, and it was
only because of his immunity as Head of State that the investigating judges decided
not to interview him, at least as a witness.
Significantly, on 3 July 2002, the 11th Chamber of the Paris Cour d’appel
found that François-Xavier Verschave and his publisher, Les Arènes, were ‘not guilty
of the offence of affronting foreign Heads of State’, even though they had referred to
Omar Bongo as a ‘parrain régional [regional godfather]’ and to his régime as a
‘démocrature prédatrice [predatory democratorship]’.
The Court found that ‘the documents adduced and the testimonies collected
over the course of the proceedings . . . establish not only the importance and topicality
of the subjects raised, but also the thoroughness of the investigations conducted’.
􀁿 The properties owned by Mr. Omar BONGO (or members of his family) in
France, and Paris in particular, include:
􀁿 a townhouse at 18 rue Dosne in Paris (16th arr.): located on a private street
between 157 rue de la Pompe and 25 avenue Bugeaud (see ‘DDV et Sarko chez
Bongo à Paris’, La Lettre du Continent, 14 September 2006 􀁿 document 8), this
townhouse purportedly belongs to his wife, Edith Bongo;
􀁿 several apartments near avenue Foch in Paris, in the name of members of the
Bongo family:
Albert Bongo: 5 rue Laurent Pichat, 75016 Paris;
Arthur Ondimba Bongo: 53 boulevard Lannes, 75016 Paris;
Nesta Bongo Ping: 6 rue Marbeau, 75016 Paris;
Nesta Bongo Ting: 52 avenue Foch, 75016 Paris.
- 5 -
Strong suspicions seriously suggest that this property belongs to the Bongo
family or clan (as required, see extract from the Pages Blanches telephone directory 􀁿
document 9).
It should be noted that Nesta Bongo Ping (the daughter or son born of the
marriage between one of Omar Bongo’s daughters and Jean Ping, the Gabonese
Minister for Foreign Affairs; Nesta Bongo Ping is moreover doing a master’s degree
in management at Paris Dauphine) owns two apartments appearing in his/her name in
the directory mentioned above.
In 1993, in his work entitled L’or des dictatures, Mr. Philippe Madelin listed
the Bongo clan’s various properties, including an apartment on avenue Foch and a
property in Nice.
Ten years later, in March 2005, La Lettre du Continent revealed once again the
existence of apartments on avenue Foch (€8 million for 1,000 m2) belonging to
Omar Bongo’s extended family (see ‘Appartements gabonais à vendre avenue Foch’,
La Lettre du Continent, 24 March 2005 􀁿 document 10).
(4.2) As regards Mr. Denis SASSOU NGUESSO and his family:
􀁿 General observations
Mr. Denis SASSOU NGUESSO is the current President of the Republic of
Congo.
Like Mr. Omar BONGO, he has been seriously implicated, by senior World
Bank officials among others, in the misappropriation of public funds.
Paul Wolfowitz, the former President of the World Bank, purportedly lambasted
the Congolese President’s staggering hotel bills.
Indeed, in connection with the ceremony for the 60th anniversary of the
United Nations, Denis Sassou Nguesso allegedly ran up over €140,000 in hotel bills
for a five-minute speech on poverty.
The former President of the World Bank purportedly told a journalist from The
New York Times: ‘It’s an injustice to the developing countries and their people when
we hide problems’.
The World Bank has long been reluctant to pursue negotiations to restructure
Congo’s national debt, owing to the fraudulent practices of its President.
More specifically, Denis Sassou Nguesso is suspected of having
misappropriated a substantial portion of oil rents for his own benefit or that of his
family and clan. These misappropriations purportedly began during his first term in
power, from 1979 to 1992, by negotiating below-market sales of oil in exchange for
payments to him. ‘The World Bank pointed out in 1990 and 1991 that returns on oil
exploitation [in the Congo] were among the world’s lowest’ (see the interview of
Martial Cozette, conducted by the parliamentary fact-finding mission chaired by
Marie-Hélène Aubert, ‘Le rôle des compagnies pétrolières dans la politique
internationale et son impact social et environnemental’, National Assembly report
No. 1859, 1999, p. 228).
- 6 -
With regard to the Congo, the former CEO of Elf, Loïk Le Floch-Prigent,
mentioned ‘phantom oil cargoes [that] are kept off the official books and divvied up
among men in the shadows’ (cited in Nicolas Lambert, Elf, la pompe d’Afrique:
Lecture d’un procès, Tribord, 2005, p. 82).
Mr. Le Floch-Prigent knows what he is talking about, considering that Elf,
followed by Total, supplies the Congolese State with 70 per cent of its oil revenue.
To date, Denis Sassou-Nguesso’s fortune is estimated at over a billion dollars
(see Mr. Xavier Harel’s work ‘Afrique : le pillage à huis clos’, pp. 37-45 􀁿
document 11).
A 2001 report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) condemned the
channelling of Congolese public funds into private accounts other than those of the
Treasury. According to the IMF, there is no trace of US$248 million from the
extraction of crude oil between 1999 and 2002 in Congo’s accounting.
In the 2003 budget, of US$800 million in oil rents, only US$650 million was
accounted for (see Le Monde, 25 March 2004 􀁿 document 12).
According to the observation of a vulture fund, FG Hemisphere, the Congolese
authorities ‘forgot’ to record nearly a billion dollars between 2003 and 2005 (see work
by Mr. Xavier Harel cited above, p. 152).
The Congolese President and his clan also took advantage of additional
benefits — guaranteed loans and pre-financing — as well as various commissions on
oil sales and the provision pour investissements diversifiés (PID) [provision for
diversified investments], a veritable slush fund, which was not accounted for between
1997 and 2002.
In 2005, legal action taken by ‘vulture funds’, which had enabled part of the
Congolese debt to be purchased at a discount, brought to light a system of shell
companies controlled by men close to President Denis Sassou-Nguesso (see article
‘Les millions envolés du Congo’ in La Tribune, 13 December 2005, and ‘Les fonds
vautours multiplient les attaques contre les pays pauvres’ in Les Échos, 14 March
2007).
According to British and American court judgments, these companies
channelled a portion of oil proceeds into bank accounts in tax havens (see the
judgment of the Commercial Court, Royal Courts of Justice, London,
28 November 2005, and the April 2006 decision of a United States federal judge
admitting a complaint filed in May 2005 by Kensington International before the
United States District Court [for the Southern District] of New York 􀁿 documents 13
and 14).
On 28 November 2005, the Commercial Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in
London ordered the Congo to repay debts owed to Kensington International, a vulture
fund based in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands.
It was discovered that at the heart of the scheme was a small Bermuda-based
company, Sphynx Bermuda, which had only US$12,000 in share capital but carried
out about US$472 million worth of business! It would buy oil from the Société
Nationale des Pétroles du Congo (SNPC) [Congo’s State-owned oil company],
frequently at above-market prices, and sell it on the international market.
- 7 -
According to the Royal Courts of Justice in London, there is ‘no connection
between the cash passing through its bank accounts and the sums it should have
received for the oil it sold’ (document 15).
These two companies had the same chief executive: Denis Gokana, an adviser
to Denis Sassou-Nguesso. The President’s son was also involved in the companies.
In April 2006, a United States federal judge then declared admissible a
complaint filed by Kensington International against the French banking group
BNP Paribas and SNPC for money laundering.
BNP Paribas and SNPC had allegedly worked together to knowingly hide oil
proceeds from Congo’s creditors through a ‘complex and unusually structured’
pre-payment system.
Under the direction of Mr. Itoua, between 2001 and 2004 the Congo
State-owned oil company used a dizzying series of complex fictitious transactions and
smokescreen companies to plunder the country’s abundant oil resources. The
supposed intermediaries include one company registered in the British Virgin Islands
with ‘as its sole identifiable place of activity . . . a private residence in Monaco’.
􀁿 The properties owned by Mr. Denis SASSOU NGUESSO in France, and Paris in
particular, include:
􀁿 Villa Suzette, 45 avenue Maurice Berteaux, 78110 Le Vésinet: 700 m2 townhouse
estimated at between €5 million and €10 million. Sumptuous works were carried
out at a cost of over €800,000: ‘solid mahogany library, Aubusson tapestries,
gold-leaf taps and door handles, even for the basement with its six bedrooms for
domestic staff, cameras, bulletproof glass’, tile with ‘white Carrara marble’,
‘bathrooms with gold taps’;
􀁿 19 avenue Rapp, 75007 Paris.
Members of his family also own immovable property in Paris:
􀁿 Wilfrid Nguesso, the President’s nephew, is reported to own an apartment located
at 10 promenade Millénaire, 92400 Courbevoie (see Jean-François Julliard,
‘L’appartement d’un émule africain de Gaymard’, Le Canard Enchaîné,
16 March 2005: a 550 sq m luxury apartment (including a 100 sq m terrace)
estimated at between €2.5 million and €3 million);
􀁿 other apartments in Courbevoie owned by the Nguesso family: Ines Nguesso,
10 promenade Millénaire, and Edna Ambendet Nguesso, 20 rue Clos Lucé (see
Pages Blanches);
􀁿 Maurice Nguesso, the President’s brother and CEO of the oil company
LIKOUALA SA, are reported to own a property at 38 rue Poirier Fourrier in
Argenteuil (see Pages Blanches);
􀁿 Jean François Ndengue, head of the Congolese police, has a property in Meaux.
He was implicated in the ‘Disappeared of the Beach’ case (see book by
Xavier Harel, chapter ‘Les disparus du Beach’).
The associations draw the Public Prosecutor’s attention to a serious effort made
by a group of Congolese citizens to itemize the ill-gotten gains that concern
- 8 -
Congo-Brazzaville. The list of implicated property and individuals can be found on
the following website:
http://congo-biensmalacquis.over-blog.com/ (copy of the website as of 21 March 2007
annexed hereto).
(4.3) On the property in France purportedly owned by other African
leaders
The undersigned associations wish to point out that they have not been able to
assemble sufficient factual elements to have the property discussed below included in
the scope of the forthcoming investigations.
They underscore, however, that it would be particularly inappropriate for those
who have acted with the least transparency also to receive the greatest rewards.
In other words, even though, as matters stand, the property discussed below is
not very precisely itemized and has sometimes only been alluded to in certain news
clippings, it is extremely likely that it exists and is effectively owned by the African
leaders in question.
In these circumstances, it falls to the Public Prosecutor to assess whether, as the
associations believe, despite the limited information concerning this property, it is
nonetheless justified, in light of France’s commitments (as recalled below), to include
the property in the scope of the forthcoming investigations.
(a) As regards Mr. Blaise COMPAORE and his family:
Mr. Blaise COMPAORE is the President of Burkina Faso.
Even though, in comparison with the previous two individuals, there is less
documentation indicating that he misappropriated public funds, the fact remains that
he owns (through his wife, Ms Chantal COMPAORE) an apartment located at 2 rue
Capitaine Olchanski in Paris (16th arr.).
The Public Prosecutor’s attention is also drawn to a few references which
demonstrate the misappropriation of funds, such as L’ère Compaoré : crimes,
politique et gestion du pouvoir, Vincent Ouattara (Klanba, December 2006). The
1-15 March 2007 edition of the bimonthly publication Afrique Éducation contains an
article entitled “Compaoré, chef de l’État ou chef de la mafia”, which discusses,
inter alia, his role alongside Charles TAYLOR, the former Head of State/dictator of
Liberia, who was prosecuted before an international criminal tribunal in The Hague
and whose assets were frozen in Europe under a regulation adopted by the European
Union in 2004.
(b) As regards Mr. Teodoro OBIANG and his family:
Mr. Teodoro OBIANG is the President of Equatorial Guinea.
According to the 12 April 2006 edition of Le Figaro (see article by
Stéphane Bern, ‘Drapeau rouge et billet vert’, 12 May 2006 􀁿 document 16), he
acquired a townhouse located on avenue Foch. It is evident that
Mr. Teodoro OBIANG took pains not to be named as the apparent owner of the
property, but the verifications to be made in the forthcoming investigations will
undoubtedly establish that he is.
- 9 -
Mr. Teodoro OBIANG has been branded as one of the most corrupt Heads of
State in Africa (see the 15 July 2004 report by Senators Carl Levin and
Norm Coleman entitled “Money laundering and foreign corruption: enforcement and
effectiveness of the Patriot Act”, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 􀁿
document 17. See also the Global Witness report cited above with regard to
Congo-Brazzaville).
According to the most recent ranking by Forbes magazine, his fortune is
estimated at over US$600 million.
(c) As regards Mr. Eduardo DOS SANTOS and his family:
Mr. Eduardo DOS SANTOS is the President of the Republic of Angola.
For years, he has been branded as one of the most corrupt Heads of State in the
world (see the Global Witness report ‘L’histoire accablante du pétrole en Angola’).
Mr. Eduardo Dos Santos has been identified as the owner, undoubtedly in the
same non-transparent circumstances as President Teodoro Obiang, of an absolutely
sumptuous villa in Cap d’Antibes (see La Lettre du Continent of 11 December
2002 􀁿 document 18).
*
* *
In conclusion, the present complaint and the documents attached hereto
demonstrate the following:
(1) the existence in France, and in Paris in particular, of immovable assets of
considerable value which, regardless of the circumstances in which they were
acquired, could not have been financed solely through the remuneration paid to the
leaders of the countries concerned.
(2) Some of these same leaders have been identified as having perpetuated a culture of
bribery and corruption.
(3) As regards third parties who are the legal owners of the properties in question or
those who have benefited from them, that is, those who enjoy their use — be they
members of the families concerned or other individuals — there are very strong
grounds to believe that they have committed the offence of handling
misappropriated public funds, over a period not covered by prescription since the
offence is continuing.
France, through declarations made by its highest representatives, has in recent
years consistently voiced its intention to focus on combating any behaviour that is
likely to impoverish the peoples of Africa, in particular as a result of such
misappropriations of public funds.
Indeed, the consequences of this siphoning of considerable amounts of
money — needed to acquire such immovable assets — reflect the extent to which
public resources have been diminished in Africa.
- 10 -
It should be recalled that:
􀁿 at the G8 summit in Evian (in June 2003), France spearheaded efforts to seek the
repatriation of misappropriated funds to the countries concerned;
􀁿 France was also the first G8 country to ratify the United Nations Convention
against Corruption, the so-called Merida Convention, which establishes the return
of misappropriated property and monies as a fundamental principle of
international law.
Furthermore, Mr. Prosecutor, before our very eyes, normative as well as
customary international law is being formed which, with each passing day, places
every State in the world under an increasingly stringent obligation to do whatever they
can to combat threats to the major economic and political balances, namely, financial
crime, regardless of who benefits from it or how it is carried out.
At the same time, and in response to this increasingly universal concern, there is
no question that the principles which, for many years, have protected incumbent
Heads of State, in respect of either their criminal or civil immunity, have been
gradually been eroding and crumbling.
This movement in treaty and customary international law has, moreover, led a
number of national courts to consider that an incumbent Head of State cannot claim
immunity of any kind with regard to such property (movable or real), if there are
strong grounds to believe that it was acquired through a criminal offence. This is
precisely the situation in the present case.
The undersigned associations recall that, in any event, the family members of
the African leaders concerned cannot claim any form of immunity.
What is more, it appears extremely likely that the offence of laundering
misappropriated public funds has also been committed, this offence having
accompanied, preceded or coincided with the financial flows needed to acquire the
real properties in question (or at least some of them).
As the Public Prosecutor is aware, the offence of laundering misappropriated
public funds applies to the perpetrator of the predicate offence.
Finally, the forthcoming investigations will ascertain whether certain third
parties, who offered their expertise or assistance in arranging the financial flows
needed to acquire property, have committed either the offence of complicity in the
misappropriation of public funds or the offence of laundering misappropriated public
funds.
While it is true that the prescription period for these related offences may have
expired, the undersigned associations are unsure of the dates on which some of the
properties mentioned above were acquired.
By the same token, the lack of transparency which surrounds these offences
could lead to it being considered, during the forthcoming investigations and as regards
these related offences, that the prescription period has not expired as far as the
perpetrators are concerned.
Moreover, the forthcoming investigations alone will ascertain (since the
prescription period has not expired for the offence of handling misappropriated public
- 11 -
funds) whether the prescription period for the predicate offence — misappropriation
of public funds (which was committed in connection with the acquisition of the real
property) — has expired with regard to the perpetrators.
Finally, this court must be aware that even if all or part of the predicate offence
were committed in a foreign country, according to jurisprudence and the law, the
French courts retain jurisdiction over handling offences.
In these circumstances, the undersigned complainants have the honour to file a
complaint before the Public Prosecutor, as matters stand, solely for handling
misappropriated public funds, an offence provided for and punishable under
Articles 432-15 and 321-1 of the Penal Code, and complicity, provided for under
Articles 121-6 and 121-7 of the Penal Code.”
It was decided on 12 November 2007 that no further action would be taken in
relation to this first complaint.
On 9 July 2008, a second complaint alleging the exact same facts was filed by
TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL FRANCE, Béatrice TOUNGAMANI née
MIAKAKELA, Abdoul Aziz MAIGA and Grégory NGBWA MINTSA, and in early
September 2008 it was again decided that no further action would be taken.
A preliminary investigation (the full report of which is annexed hereto) was
initially launched by the Paris Public Prosecutor on 18 May 2007. The investigation
corroborated most of the facts alleged by the complainants. For this reason, we believe
the complete conclusions reached by the police bear repeating:
THE FACTS
On 18 June 2007, Mr. ALDEBERT, Deputy Prosecutor at the Paris Tribunal de
grande instance, Financial Division, addressed an investigation request (soit-transmis)
to the OCRGDF (serious financial crime squad). The request was in response to a
complaint filed with the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office by three associations
(SHERPA, SURVIE and Fédération des Congolais de la Diaspora).
In their application, the associations filed a complaint against person(s)
unknown for handling misappropriated public funds. They mentioned considerable
assets acquired over a number of years by five African Heads of State and their
families. The funds used to acquire these assets in France were allegedly derived from
misappropriations carried out in their own countries. To support their allegations, the
associations provided substantial documentation, primarily news articles, mentioning
some of the immovable properties owned by the Heads of State in question.
The five countries cited in the complaint are Gabon, the Congo, Burkina Faso,
Equatorial Guinea and Angola. For reasons of convenience, it was decided to classify
the acts covered by our investigations into separate sub-files: sub-file A for Gabon,
sub-file B for the Congo, sub-file C for Burkina Faso, sub-file D for Equatorial Guinea
and sub-file E for Angola. An initial partial transmission was made on
27 September 2007.
THE INVESTIGATION
The mission entrusted to the OCRGDF’s criminal asset identification platform
(PIAC) involved the following tasks:
- 12 -
􀁿 identifying the immovable assets in Paris and on national territory belonging to
Omar BONGO, President of Gabon, Denis SASSOU NGUESSO, President of
the Congo, Blaise COMPAORE, President of Burkina Faso, Teodoro OBIANG,
President of Equatorial Guinea, and Eduardo DOS SANTOS, President of Angola;
􀁿 ascertaining the circumstances in which the assets were acquired and identifying
the corresponding financial flows;
􀁿 identifying the family members, third parties and official owners of the
immovable property thus identified who were likely to have benefited from it;
􀁿 checking whether each of these persons enjoys diplomatic immunity.
Our initial investigations make it possible to pinpoint the identities of the
persons named in the file; this personal information is the only way to identify any
movable or immovable assets. The associations’ letter/complaint gives only a
surname, and sometimes a first name, but no date of birth; what is more, the
relationships between the persons are not always specified.
A list of natural persons is drawn up with regard to each country for use in the
investigations (see record No. 1 in each sub-file).
Our inquiries revealed a considerable vehicle collection, in particular in the
names of Wilfrid NGUESSO, the nephew of the President of the Congo, and
Teodoro NGUEMA, the son of the President of Equatorial Guinea.
Teodoro NGUEMA had, inter alia, purchased some fifteen vehicles in France for an
amount estimated at more than €5,700,000. For example, he ordered three BUGATTI
Veyron vehicles from the manufacturer in Alsace for a unit price of more than
€1 million (see record No. 132/2007/D/5 of 6 August 2007).
The financing of certain vehicles appeared unusual, to say the least: in 2006,
Pascaline BONGO, who is believed to be the daughter of the President of Gabon,
purchased a Mercedes vehicle paid for with three cheques drawn on the bank accounts
of Ms Joannie ARTIGA, Mr. François MEYER and the Treasury Office of Gabon in
France (see record No. 132/2007/A/4 of 20 July 2007). Similarly, some of the vehicles
purchased by Teodoro NGUEMA were paid for through transfers from SOMAGUI
FORESTAL (see records No. 132/2007/D/5 of 6 August 2007 and No. 132/2007/D/8
of 26 October 2007). Wilfrid NGUESSO paid the balance of an Aston Martin DB9
vehicle through a transfer made by MATSIP CONSULTING (see record
No. 132/2007/B/28 of 5 November 2007).
Substantial immovable assets were identified, in particular in the names of
individuals who were likely to be members of the families of Omar BONGO and
Denis SASSOU NGUESSO:
􀁿 concerning the President of Gabon, a property in his name was discovered at
3 boulevard Frédéric Sterling in Nice (Alpes-Maritimes). The property is not
mentioned in the letter of 10 July 2007 from Mr. François MEYER to the Paris
Public Prosecutor, which provides a summary of Omar BONGO’s assets. The
property comprises two apartments (170 sq m and 100 sq m), three houses
(67 sq m, 215 sq m and 176 sq m) and a swimming pool (see record
No. 132/2007/A/8 of 17 September 2007).
􀁿 concerning the members of the BONGO and SASSOU NGUESSO family, the tax
authorities found a société civile immobilière (non-commercial property
- 13 -
company), SCI De la Baume, whose shareholders include
Edith SASSOU NGUESSO, who is the daughter of Denis SASSOU NGUESSO
and wife of Omar BONGO. On 15 June 2007, the company purchased a
townhouse located at 4 rue de la Baume in the 8th arrondissement of Paris for
€18,875,000 (see record No. 132/2007/B/9 of 17 September 2007).
Lastly, it would appear that the majority of the immovable property owned by
the individuals identified is located in high-end neighbourhoods: the 16th and
7th arrondissements of Paris for Omar BONGO and his wife, the 16th arrondissement
of Paris and Neuilly-sur-Seine (Hauts-de-Seine) for Jeff BONGO, Le Vésinet
(Yvelines) for Denis SASSOU NGUESSO’s brother, Courbevoie (Hauts-de-Seine) for
Wilfrid NGUESSO, and the 16th arrondissement of Paris for Chantal CAMPAORE.
Numerous active bank accounts were identified in the names of natural persons
likely to be members of the families of the Heads of State concerned. A list for each
person is set out in a record. It states the account number, the date on which the
account was opened, the type of account, the exact address of the bank and branch
office, and the address of the account holder.
With regard to the possible immunities enjoyed by the persons appearing in the
file, the Protocol Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter stating
that only incumbent Heads of State enjoy inviolability and absolute immunity from
criminal jurisdiction when abroad. Their family members may enjoy immunity if they
accompany the Head of State on a visit that is official (see record No. 132/2007/7 of
24 October 2007).
In accordance with the express instructions of the issuing judge, these
proceedings are transmitted as they stand.
II. Discussion
(1) Information gathered from the preliminary investigation
The investigations carried out by the investigation units revealed the following:
As regards Mr. Omar BONGO and his entourage:
􀁿 immovable assets comprising thirty-nine (39) properties, of which seventeen (17) are in the
name of Mr. Omar Bongo, most of those properties being located in the 16th arrondissement of
Paris;
􀁿 the identification of seventy (70) bank accounts (BNP, Société Générale, Crédit Lyonnais,
Barclays, etc.), of which eleven (11) are in the name of Mr. Omar Bongo;
􀁿 a vehicle collection comprising at least nine (9) vehicles, estimated at a total of €1,493,443.
As regards Mr. Denis SASSOU NGUESSO and his entourage:
􀁿 immovable assets comprising eighteen (18) properties;
􀁿 the identification of a hundred and twelve 112 bank accounts (BNP, Crédit du Nord, Société
Générale, Crédit Lyonnais, Barclays, etc.);
􀁿 a vehicle collection comprising at least one (1) vehicle, valued at €172,321.
- 14 -
As regards Mr. Teodoro OBIANG and his entourage:
􀁿 immovable assets comprising at least one (1) property in the name of Mr. Teodoro Obiang
(born 5 June 1942);
􀁿 the identification of one (1) bank account with Barclays in the name of Mr. Teodoro Nguema
Obiang (born 24 June 1969);
􀁿 a vehicle collection comprising at least eight (8) vehicles owned by Mr. Teodoro Nguema
Obiang (born 24 June 1969), estimated at a total of €4,213,618.
*
* *
Considering the magnitude of the movable and immovable assets owned by
Mr. Omar BONGO and Mr. Denis SASSOU NGUESSO in France, it is difficult to believe that
they could have acquired such assets solely through their salaries and emoluments. True, they have
held on to power for many years. Even so, it is rather unlikely that they have saved up enough
money to amass assets such as these.
The preliminary investigation also confirmed the presence in France of considerable assets
held by various members of the leaders’ entourages (family and close associates). This revelation is
particularly surprising given that some of them do not hold public office.
The preliminary investigation revealed, moreover, the existence of assets of considerable
value — primarily luxury vehicles — benefitting the OBIANG family.
In any event, given the conditions in which some of the property targeted by the police was
financed, one could reasonably question the lawful provenance of the funds and the property thus
accumulated on French territory.
In particular, as regards the vehicle collection, it has to be recognized that the means by
which certain vehicles were financed are particularly “unusual”, to quote the term used in the
summary report of the police.
For example, a number of the vehicles purchased by Teodoro NGUEMA OBIANG were
paid for by transfers from SOMAGUI FORESTAL, a logging company based in Equatorial Guinea
and run by Teodoro NGUEMA OBIANG.
TRACFIN (the national anti-money laundering unit), which investigated the company,
considers that:
“in the light of all of these elements, both financial and environmental, it can be
considered that the operations set out above could reflect laundering of the proceeds of
the misappropriation of public funds by a person in a position of public authority,
through the acquisition of vehicles of considerable value” (p. 3 of the TRACFIN
memorandum).
This analysis is shared by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office in Miami,
United States, which is tasked with an investigation in the United States concerning
Mr. Teodoro Nguema Obiang, the son of the President of Equatorial Guinea: “The American
investigation into the activities of Mr. Teodoro Nguema Obiang and his associates identified a
- 15 -
number of suspicious transactions originating in or transiting through the French financial system”
(Point 2 of the request for assistance in the investigation of Teodoro Nguema Obiang and his
associates).
Similarly, the preliminary investigation shows that two vehicles purchased by Edith Bongo
and Pascaline Bongo, respectively, were paid for with cheques drawn on accounts opened in the
name of the Treasury of Gabon.
In conclusion, there is evidence of the existence on French territory of substantial movable
and immovable assets acquired in particularly dubious circumstances.
A judicial investigation must be opened to determine the provenance of the funds the abovementioned
persons used to acquire those assets. Furthermore, the full extent of the role played by
various intermediaries in carrying out these operations should also be brought to light.
(2) On the standing of Transparency International France
Transparency International France is a non-profit association that has been duly registered
with the relevant prefecture since 1995.
Its mission is to combat all forms of corruption, in accordance with the association’s purpose
as recalled below:
Article 2 􀁿 Purpose
The mission of Transparency International (France) is to combat and prevent corruption at
the national and international levels, in relations between States, between States and natural or legal
persons, whether public or private, and between such persons themselves.
To that end, its purpose is to:
􀁿 raise awareness of all forms of corruption in order to develop tools and processes to curb and
restrict their expansion and assess their impact;
􀁿 develop and implement programmes of action and reviews in France and countries afflicted by
corruption;
􀁿 educate and train professional technicians, administrators and decision-makers;
􀁿 advise public authorities and natural and legal persons, whether public or private, on subjects
relating to the many facets of corruption;
􀁿 provide support, particularly financial support, to Transparency International and back efforts
to pursue its purpose;
􀁿 assemble documentation on all aspects of corruption;
􀁿 engage the professional, social and political spheres in pursuing greater accountability in
economic and financial affairs;
􀁿 take any action to prevent, deter or combat illegal practices or any form of corruption;
􀁿 provide assistance and support to the victims of illegal practices after examining the cases
submitted to the association;
- 16 -
􀁿 organize events intended to advance individual, collective and professional ethics, particularly
through the use of communications;
􀁿 disseminate information which raises awareness about problems that lead to corruption in
public and business relations.
The Cour de cassation has for many years recognized the admissibility of civil-party
applications filed by associations in instances where the offence in question undermines the
interests that they have a legal or statutory duty to defend. The examples are legion:
􀁿 regarding the admissibility of the application of the association “Aide à tout détresse”, which
provides care for destitute individuals who are unable to safeguard their own interests and
rights: Colmar Cour d’appel, 10 February 1977;
􀁿 regarding the admissibility of the application of the association “Choisir” in rape proceedings,
on the grounds that the purpose of the association, according to its charter, is to ensure respect
for human beings and protect women who are in danger: Paris Cour d’assises, 15 December
1977;
􀁿 regarding an anti-smoking association whose civil-party application relating to tobacco
advertising was found admissible: Cass. crim., 7 February 1984, Bull. crim. No. 41;
Cass. crim., 29 April 1986, Bull. crim. No. 146; Cass. crim., 29 June 1994, Bull. crim.,
No. 260;
􀁿 regarding a French football federation, whose civil-party application was found admissible in
proceedings relating to the corruption of professional sportspersons in the
Valenciennes/Olympique de Marseilles scandal: Cass. crim., 4 February 1997, Bull. crim.
No. 45;
􀁿 regarding the Union fédérale des consommateurs Que Choisir, whose civil-party application
based on Article L. 221-1 of the Consumer Code relating to the requirement of safe services
was found admissible in proceedings for homicide and involuntary injuries following the
collapse of a stand at Furiani stadium: Cass. crim., 24 June 1997, Bull. crim. No. 251;
􀁿 regarding an association that defends beef industry interests in proceedings for the offence of
misleading advertising as to beef origin: Cass. crim., 26 October 1999, Bull. crim., No. 233.
More recently, the Cour de cassation had occasion to find admissible the civil-party
application of an unaccredited environmental protection association. The Chambre criminelle
found that the association had suffered direct and personal harm through the undermining of the
collective interests which, under its charter, it was intended to defend.
As mentioned above, the purpose of Transparency International France is to combat all
forms of corruption. The misappropriation of public funds and the handling thereof clearly fall
within the scope of corruption. This is moreover the approach taken in the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (Articles 17 and 24).
Therefore, if the legal interests defended by associations are not to be given unjustified
differential treatment, the possibility for Transparency International France to bring legal
proceedings must be recognized. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if an anti-corruption
association were denied something that has been granted to unaccredited environmental protection
associations or anti-smoking associations.
As a final note, Transparency International France satisfies the requirements of Article 5 of
the Law of 1 July 1901 (registration with the prefecture), which all associations must comply with
- 17 -
in order to have the right to take part in court proceedings, hence there are no impediments to the
admissibility of the association’s civil-party application: Cass. crim., 12 April 2005, Appeal
No. 0485.982.
It follows from the foregoing that Transparency International France has suffered direct and
personal harm as a result of the offences alleged in this complaint, with regard to which it is
entitled, under Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to seek redress by filing a civil-party
application with the criminal courts.
(3) On the standing of Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa
First of all, considering the pressure placed on the complainants1, it is important to
emphasize that Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa has demonstrated great bravery in filing the present
civil-party application.
Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa is a Gabonese national. He has provided documentation proving
that, during a period corresponding to all or part of the period relating to the alleged facts, he paid
taxes to the Public Treasury of Gabon (see documents annexed hereto) and is filing the present
civil-party application in that capacity.
The complainant puts forward two grounds for his action.
The first ground: the harm suffered by the body politic of Gabon
Firstly, Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa seeks to file a civil-party application in the name and on
behalf of the State of Gabon with the aim of obtaining redress for the harm suffered by Gabon as a
result of the misconduct committed by Mr. Omar Bongo and the members of his entourage.
􀁿 On the existence of the harm claimed by the complainants:
It has long been recognized that “Articles 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure open
civil-party actions to anyone who has personally suffered material or moral harm resulting from
acts which are the subject of prosecution, without excluding public-law corporations” (Cass. crim.,
7 April 1999, Parc national des Écrins).
In the present case, the State of Gabon suffered harm as a result of the misconduct
committed by Mr. Omar Bongo and members of his entourage. This harm is both direct and
personal.
Direct because it is clear that the ownership on French territory by the leader of Gabon and
members of his entourage of property or funds derived from the misappropriation of public funds
harms the body politic as a whole.
􀁿 From a material perspective, this harm consists of diminished government revenues;
􀁿 from a moral perspective, harm is caused in so far as the facts at issue — since they were in
part carried out by persons performing public functions and in connection with the performance
of those functions — are liable to bring discredit upon the entire body politic: Cass. crim.,
10 March 2007, Bull. crim. No. 64; Cass. crim., 8 February 2006, Appeal No. 05-80.488;
1In this regard, it should be noted that two complainants (Ms Béatrice Tougamani and Mr. Abdoul Aziz Maiga)
decided not to file civil-party applications after receiving threats 􀁿 facts which are the subject of two complaints filed
with the police.
- 18 -
Cass. crim., 14 March 2007, Appeal No. 06-81.010. In these various cases, the Chambre
criminelle found that the body politic had suffered moral harm separate from the public interest
which is safeguarded by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
It has indeed long been recognized that breaches of the duty of probity not only undermine
the public interest, they can also undermine individual interests: “Although the offence of passive
corruption established by Article 177 of the Penal Code was primarily established in the public
interest, it also aims to protect individuals who might . . . suffer direct and personal harm for which
they are entitled to seek redress before the criminal courts” (Cass. crim., 1 December 1992;
Dr. pén. 1993, comm. 126).
Since then, in such cases, the Chambre criminelle has recognized the admissibility of civilparty
applications filed by both natural persons and legal persons, regardless of whether they are
governed by private law, as in the case of a sporting federation (Cass. crim., 4 February 1997:
Juris-Data No. 1997-000569; Bull. crim. 1997, No. 45), or public law, as in the case of a public
housing office (Cass. crim., 21 May 1997: Juris-Data No. 1997-003328; Bull. crim. 1997,
No. 193).
As regards the person of the State, the Chambre criminelle specifically declared admissible
the State’s civil-party action against civil servants who engaged in favouritism and influence
peddling (Cass. crim., 10 March 2004, Bull. crim. No. 64).
􀁿 On the complainants’ ability to file a civil-party application in the name and on behalf of
Gabon
We know that company law recognizes shareholders’ and members’ right to seek, in the
name and on behalf of the company, compensation for any harm caused to the company, which will
be awarded damages as appropriate: this is known as an ut singuli action.
This individual action may be brought by any shareholder or member, regardless of the
number of shares they own or the extent of their ownership interest.
This is an alternative action which presupposes that the corporate executive responsible for
legally representing the company has failed to act (Cass. crim., 12 December 2000, Appeal
No. 97-83.470) and/or is implicated in the proceedings.
In the present case, the claimant is asserting his right to bring an action not, of course, in his
capacity as a shareholder, but rather as a taxpayer. Nonetheless, in each of these situations, the
complainants’ standing arises from the contributions they have made (shares, ownership interests
or mandatory withholdings) to the group whose legal representation they intend to ensure.
What is at issue, moreover, is not the harm caused to a private-law company but rather the
harm caused to a State-society, a legal person governed by public law. Yet in both situations, the
harm has been caused to an organized group that has legal personality.
This reasoning is not at variance with our own positive law, as Article L. 2132-5 of the
General Code of Territorial Communities (CGCT) specifically allows taxpayers registered with a
municipality to bring any action that they believe falls to the municipality and which the
municipality has refused or neglected to take 􀁿 which measure has also been extended to
departmental taxpayers (Article L. 3133-1 of the CGCT) and regional taxpayers
(Article L. 4143-1 of the CGCT) under the Act of 12 April 2000.
The term “action” refers equally to proceedings to obtain payment, actions for rescission
based on inadequate consideration, and civil-party actions: the Chambre criminelle thus found that
- 19 -
Article L. 316-5 of the Municipalities Code (formerly Article L. 2132-5 of the CGCT) does not
distinguish between the various actions the municipality may be entitled to bring and its provisions
do not exclude civil-party actions seeking redress for an offence (Cass. crim., 12 May 1992).
Accordingly, any taxpayer can apply to the administrative court, acting as an administrative
authority in this instance, for the right to file a civil-party application in the place and stead of the
municipality, in order to institute criminal proceedings and obtain redress for any harm the latter
has incurred.
According to the jurisprudence of the Conseil d’état in this respect, authorization is subject
to two conditions: authorization is granted if the action is of sufficient material interest to the
municipality and the municipality has a prospect of success. In civil-party actions, the second
condition is satisfied where the evidence in the case-file leads to the suspicion that a criminal
offence has been committed (CE, 26 March 1999, Ville de Paris, Juris data No. 1999-050213).
These different measures provide a basis for solutions that can be readily applied to the facts
which are the subject of this complaint:
􀁿 Gabon has suffered direct and personal harm as a result of the offences perpetrated on French
territory;
􀁿 the legal representatives of Gabon have neglected to bring legal proceedings, and for good
reason, since the misconduct at issue is specifically attributed to the highest ruling authority of
the State of Gabon;
􀁿 the Public Prosecutor’s Office refused to lend its support to the complainants;
􀁿 since the action brought by Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa is a subsidiary action, it aims to serve
the pecuniary and moral interests of the body politic.
For all of these reasons, it would be deeply unfair to cite a lack of special authorization as
grounds for denying the complainant the right to file a civil-party application aimed at seeking
redress for the harm caused to the complainant’s community.
With this in mind, the reasons given in the judgment of the Colmar Cour d’appel of
10 February 1977, cited above, bear mentioning. After recalling that the criminal courts had in two
situations entertained civil-party actions brought by associations that did not have the legal
authority to do so, the appeal judges decided that:
“by analogy and a fortiori considering the interest at stake, the same should apply to
the complaint filed by ‘Aide à toute détresse’ since, by definition, this group provides
care only for individuals who are completely destitute, incapable of safeguarding their
own rights and interests, and rejected by society, and to whom, as in the present case,
the judicial and administrative authorities refuse to lend their support”.
Accordingly, even though there was no law at that time which allowed an association to
bring a collective civil-party action before the criminal courts, the appeal court nonetheless found
the civil-party application of the association “Aide à toute détresse” admissible. In the absence of
any grounding in written law, this solution is based on grounds of equity. Indeed, since the Public
Prosecutor’s Office refused to lend the victims its support, a finding to the contrary would have had
the effect of depriving them of a judicial remedy and their right to redress. That is precisely the risk
in the present case.
It follows from the foregoing that, as a result of the criminal misconduct committed by
Mr. Omar Bongo and the members of his entourage, Gabon has suffered direct and personal harm
- 20 -
for which, in accordance with Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is entitled to seek
redress by filing a civil-party application before the criminal courts, albeit through the intermediary
of one of its citizens.
The second ground: the harm suffered by Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa himself
Secondly, there is no doubt that Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa himself suffered harm as a
result of the misconduct claimed in this complaint.
The taxpayers of Gabon are the first to lose out as a result of the criminal operations asserted
in this complaint:
􀁿 from a material standpoint, harm was caused by the fact that Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa’s
taxes were used for purposes other than those intended. The misappropriations that were
committed resulted in him being deprived of public spending in the same proportion;
􀁿 from a moral standpoint, harm was caused by the fact that the misconduct undermined
Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa’s legitimate confidence in the integrity of the State apparatus.
Separate from the harm caused to the legal person of the State, the harm suffered by
Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa is also distinct from the public interest. As noted above, it has been
recognized that offences consisting in breaches of the duty of probity are liable to undermine the
interests of individuals who could suffer personal harm for which “they have grounds for obtaining
redress before the criminal courts” (Crim., 1 December 1992).
*
* *
Lastly, it should be recalled that Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set
forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”
(Right to an effective remedy).
Yet there is no doubt that depriving Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa of the right to file a
civil-party application would violate Article 1 of the Protocol of 1952, which provides that every
natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions — bearing in mind
that the notion of “possessions” in European law covers assets of all kinds, regardless of their
formal classification under domestic law.
*
* *
Under these circumstances, the undersigned complainants have the honour to file a
complaint with the Senior Investigating Judge against the following natural persons, having regard
to Article 121-1 of the Penal Code:
- 21 -
As regards Mr. Omar Bongo and his entourage
􀁿 Albert Bernard Bongo, known as Omar Bongo Ondimba, Head of State of Gabon;
􀁿 Edith Lucie Bongo, daughter of Denis Sassou Nguesso and wife of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Pascaline Bongo, daughter of Omar Bongo and chief of staff of the Head of State;
􀁿 Ali Bongo Ondimba, son of Omar Bongo and Minister for Defence of Gabon;
􀁿 Arthur Ondimba Bongo, son of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Omar Denis Junior Bongo Ondimba (born 19 July 1964), son of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Omar Ben Bongo (born 1 February 1978), son of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Jeff Thierry Arsène Jaffar Bongo, son of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Yacine Queenie Bongo, daughter of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Audrey Blanche Bongo Ondimba, daughter of Omar Bongo;
􀁿 Jean Ping, former State Minister, Chairperson of the African Union Commission;
􀁿 Nesta Shatika Bongo Ping, daughter of Jean Ping, granddaughter of Omar Bongo;
As regards Mr. Denis Sassou Nguesso and his entourage
􀁿 Denis Sassou Nguesso (born 1 January 1943), Head of State of Congo-Brazzaville;
􀁿 Antoinette Sassou Nguesso, wife of Denis Sassou Nguesso;
􀁿 Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso (born 14 January 1975), son of Denis Sassou Nguesso
and CEO of Cotrade (subsidiary of the State-owned oil company SNPC);
􀁿 Denis Nguesso (born 8 March 1967), son of Denis Sassou Nguesso;
􀁿 Julienne Sassou Nguesso, daughter of Denis Sassou Nguesso;
􀁿 Maurice Nguesso, older brother to Denis Sassou Nguesso;
􀁿 Wilfrid Nguesso, son of Maurice Nguesso and nephew of Denis Sassou Nguesso;
􀁿 Edgar Serge Ruphin Nguesso, son of the late Eugène Nguesso (brother of Denis
Sassou Nguesso);
􀁿 Jean-François Ndengue, former director of the Congolese police, implicated in the
“Disappeared of the Beach” case;
􀁿 Claudia Carole Ikia Lemboumba (married name Sassou Nguesso), advisor to the Head of
State;
􀁿 Marguerite Ambendet Nguesso;
- 22 -
As regards Mr. Teodoro OBIANG and his entourage
􀁿 Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo (born 5 June 1942), Head of State of Equatorial Guinea;
􀁿 Teodoro Nguema Obiang (born 24 June 1969), son of Teodoro Obiang, Minister for
Agriculture and Forestry and chief executive of the company SOMAGUI FORESTAL;
For handling misappropriated public funds, offences provided for and punishable under
Articles 321-1 and 432-15 of the Penal Code;
The investigating judge should also determine whether the bank accounts identified during
the police investigation were funded through unlawful financial flows characteristic of the offence
of handling misappropriated public funds;
Moreover, a close look should be taken at the role played by various intermediaries, be they
natural or legal persons, which facilitated and/or benefited from the commission of the criminal
acts — with regard to which the present complaint is also filed for complicity in handling
misappropriated public funds, complicity in the misappropriation of public funds, money
laundering, complicity in money laundering, misuse of corporate assets, complicity in misuse of
corporate assets, breach of trust, complicity in breach of trust, and concealment of each of these
offences, offences provided for and punishable under Articles 121-6, 121-7, 321-1 and 432-15 of
the Penal Code (complicity in handling misappropriated public funds), Articles 121-6, 121-7 and
432-15 of the Penal Code (complicity in the misappropriation of public funds), Article 324-1 of the
Penal Code (money laundering), Articles 121-6, 121-7 and 324-1 of the Penal Code (complicity in
money laundering), Article 241-3 of the Commercial Code (misuse of corporate assets),
Article 121-6 and 121-7 of the Penal Code and Article 241-3 of the Commercial Code (complicity
in misuse of corporate assets); Article 314-1 of the Penal Code (breach of trust), Articles 121-6,
121-7 and 314-1 of the Penal Code (complicity in breach of trust) and Article 321-1 of the Penal
Code (concealment);
For all of these reasons, a complaint is also filed against person(s) unknown.
___________
ANNEX 2
Note Verbale No. 158/865 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic
to the Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea,
2 March 2017
Note Verbale No. 158/865 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic
to the Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, 2 March 2017
[Translation]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, Protocol Department,
presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and, with reference
to its Note Verbale No. 069/2017 dated 15 February 2017, has the honour to advise it of the
following:
The Protocol Department wishes to point out that the question of the status of the building
located at 42 avenue Foch in Paris (16th arr.) is at the centre of the dispute which
Equatorial Guinea has brought before the International Court of Justice. In keeping with its
consistent position, France does not consider the building located at 42 avenue Foch in Paris
(16th arr.) as forming part of the premises of the diplomatic mission of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea in France.
In accordance with the Order made by the International Court of Justice on 7 December
2016, and pending the Court’s final decision in the case, France will ensure that the premises
located at 42 avenue Foch receive treatment equivalent to that required by Article 22 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in order to ensure their inviolability.
___________
ANNEX 3
Note Verbale No. 628/12 from the Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic, 19 September 2012
Note Verbale No. 628/12 from the Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic, 19 September 2012
[Translation]
The Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in France presents its compliments to the
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (Protocol Department, Diplomatic Privileges and
Immunities Division) and, with reference to its Note Verbale No. 3345/PRO/PID of 25 July 2012,
has the honour to request a special residence permit for H.E. Ms Mariola BINDANG OBIANG,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in France, and
her family. The notification forms regarding the assumption of her duties and the members of her
family are annexed hereto.
___________
- 2 -
ANNEX 4
Record of failure to appear before the Paris Tribunal de grande instance, 1 March 2012
Record of failure to appear before the Paris Tribunal de grande instance, 1 March 2012
[Translation]
Paris Cour d’appel
Paris Tribunal de grande instance
Chambers of Roger Le Loire
Senior judge in charge of the investigation
RECORD OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
Prosecution No. 0833796017
Investigation No. 2292/10/12
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
1 MARCH 2012
We, Roger LE LOIRE and René GROUMAN, senior judges in charge of the investigation at
the Paris Tribunal de grande instance, sitting in chambers, assisted by Françoise LE MEST, clerk,
Note that Mr. Teodoro NGUEMA OBIANG MANGUE, choosing as his address for
service the offices of Mr. Emmanuel MARSIGNY, 100 rue de l’Université, 75007 PARIS, who
was summoned to appear in chambers today at 2.30 p.m. for questioning at first appearance, has
failed to appear.
Done in chambers,
(Signed) Roger LE LOIRE
(Signed) René GROUMAN
Senior judges in charge of the investigation
(Signed) Clerk.
- 2 -
Paris Cour d’appel
Paris Tribunal de grande instance
CHAMBERS OF MR. ROGER LE LOIRE
SENIOR JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION
RENÉ GROUMAN
JOINTLY ASSIGNED SENIOR JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Prosecution No. 0833796017
Investigation No. 2292/10/1
SUMMONS TO ATTEND A FIRST APPEARANCE
The senior judges in charge of the investigation
to
Mr. Teodoro NGUEMA OBIANG MANGUE
State Minister for Agriculture and Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture
Malabo
Equatorial Guinea
Summons delivered to Mr. MARSIGNY on 24 January 2012
Received in person this 24 January 2012
Paris, 23 January 2012
Dear Sir,
In accordance with Article 80-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, please be informed that
we are considering placing you under judicial examination. To that end, we are summoning you to
attend a first appearance, in an investigation opened:
FOR HAVING IN PARIS AND ON NATIONAL TERRITORY DURING 1997 AND UNTIL NOVEMBER 2008,
IN ANY EVENT FOR A PERIOD NOT COVERED BY PRESCRIPTION, ASSISTED IN MAKING HIDDEN
INVESTMENTS OR IN CONVERTING THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT PROCEEDS OF A FELONY OR
MISDEMEANOUR, IN THIS INSTANCE OFFENCES OF MISUSE OF CORPORATE ASSETS,
MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, THE UNLAWFUL TAKING OF INTEREST AND BREACH OF
TRUST, BY ACQUIRING A NUMBER OF MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS OUT OF THE FUNDS OF
THE FIRMS EDUM, SOCAGE AND SOMAGUI FORESTAL, ACTS CHARACTERIZED AS
LAUNDERING OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OFFENCES, ACTS WHICH ARE DEFINED
AND PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLES 432-12, 432-15, 324-1 AND 314-1 OF THE PENAL CODE AND
ARTICLE 241-3 OF THE COMMERCIAL CODE.
- 3 -
Pursuant to a judgment of the Cour de cassation (Chambre criminelle) dated
9 November 2010,
You are summoned to appear on 1 March 2012 at 2.30 p.m.
In our chambers at the Paris TRIBUNAL de GRANDE INSTANCE, 5/7 rue des Italiens,
75009 Paris, Chambers No. 303
VERY IMPORTANT
You have the right to be assisted by a lawyer.
You may choose the lawyer who will assist you or request that the Chairman of the Bar
choose a lawyer registered with the Bar for you.
You must inform me of your choice as soon as possible.
(Signed) Roger LE LOIRE
(Signed) René GROUMAN.
Senior judges in charge of the investigation
___________
ANNEX 5
Summons to attend a first appearance, 22 May 2012
Summons to attend a first appearance, 22 May 2012
[Translation]
Paris Cour d’appel
Paris Tribunal de grande instance
Chambers of Mr. Roger Le Loire
Senior Judge in charge of the investigation
(Mr. René Grouman, Jointly assigned Senior
Judge in charge of the investigation)
Prosecution No.: 08 337 9601/ 7
Investigation No.: 2292/10/12
The investigating judge
to
Mr. Teodoro NGUEMA OBIANG MANGUE
State Minister for Agriculture and Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture
MALABO
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
Paris, 22 May 2012
Dear Sir,
In accordance with Article 80-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, please be informed that I
am considering placing you under judicial examination. To that end, I am summoning you to attend
a first appearance, in an investigation opened:
FOR HAVING IN PARIS AND ON NATIONAL TERRITORY, DURING 1997 AND UNTIL OCTOBER 2011, IN
ANY EVENT FOR A PERIOD NOT COVERED BY PRESCRIPTION, ASSISTED IN INVESTING, CONCEALING
OR CONVERTING THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT PROCEEDS OF A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOUR, IN THIS
INSTANCE OFFENCES OF MISUSE OF CORPORATE ASSETS, MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS, THE UNLAWFUL TAKING OF INTEREST AND BREACH OF TRUST, BY ACQUIRING A NUMBER
OF MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS AND PAYING FOR A NUMBER OF SERVICES OUT OF THE
FUNDS OF THE FIRMS EDUM, SOCAGE AND SOMAGUI FORESTAL, ACTS CHARACTERIZED AS
LAUNDERING OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OFFENCES,
ACTS WHICH ARE DEFINED AND PUNISHABLE UNDER ARTICLES 432-12, 432-15, 324-1 AND 314-1
OF THE PENAL CODE AND ARTICLE L 241-3 OF THE COMMERCIAL CODE.
Pursuant to a judgment of the Cour de Cassation (Chambre criminelle) dated
9 November 2010 and the Public Prosecutor’s application to extend the investigation dated
31 January 2012,
You are summoned to appear on 11 July 2012 at 3 p.m.
In my chambers at the Paris TRIBUNAL de GRANDE INSTANCE, 5/7 rue des Italiens
75009 Paris, Chambers No. 303.
VERY IMPORTANT
You have the right to be assisted by a lawyer.
You may choose the lawyer who will assist you or request that the Chairman of the Bar
choose a lawyer registered with the Bar for you.
- 2 -
You must inform me of your choice as soon as possible.
(Signed) Mr. René GROUMAN.
Senior Judge in charge of the investigation
___________
ANNEX 6
Record of failure to appear before the Paris Tribunal de grande instance, 11 July 2012
Record of failure to appear before the Paris Tribunal de grande instance, 11 July 2012
[Translation]
Paris Cour d’appel
Paris Tribunal de grande instance
Chambers of Roger Le Loire
Senior judge in charge of the investigation
RECORD OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
Prosecution No. 0833796017
Investigation No. 2292/10/12
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
11 July 2012
We, Roger LE LOIRE, senior judge in charge of the investigation at the Paris Tribunal de
grande instance, sitting in chambers, assisted by Françoise LE MEST, clerk,
Note that Mr. Teodoro NGUEMA OBIANG MANGUE, who was summoned to appear in
chambers today at 3 p.m. for questioning at first appearance, has failed to appear.
Done in chambers,
(Signed) Senior judge in charge of the investigation
(Signed) Clerk.
___________
ANNEX 7
Letter No. 140831 from the Registrar of the Court to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
French Republic, 25 September 2012
Letter No. 140831 from the Registrar of the Court to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
French Republic, 25 September 2012
[Translation]
I have the honour to inform you that the Republic of Equatorial Guinea has today filed in the
Registry of the Court a document with annexes, entitled “Application instituting proceedings
including a request for provisional measures”.
It is stated on page 18, point VI of the document that “the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with Article 38, paragraph 5, of the
Rules of Court, on the consent of the French Republic, which will certainly be given”.
Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court therefore applies. It provides:
“When the applicant State proposes to found the jurisdiction of the Court upon a
consent thereto yet to be given or manifested by the State against which such
application is made, the application shall be transmitted to that State. It shall not
however be entered in the General List, nor any action be taken in the proceedings,
unless and until the State against which such application is made consents to the
Court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of the case.”
Please find enclosed herewith a duly signed copy of the document and its annexes.
As regards the “Request for provisional measures”, the situation is as follows: as long as
there is no prima facie jurisdiction, but only an invitation to accept jurisdiction, the provisions of
the Rules of Court governing the procedure for registering requests for the indication of provisional
measures are waived in favour of the above-mentioned Article 38, paragraph 5, which provides that
no action shall be taken in the proceedings unless and until the jurisdiction of the Court has been
accepted.
I also have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter dated 22 September
2012 which accompanied the “Application”, from H.E. Mr. Pedro Ela Nguema Buna, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, and a copy of a document dated
19 September 2012 in which H.E. Mr. Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, President of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea, gives full powers to H.E. Ms Mariola Bindang Obiang.
___________
ANNEX 8
Article published in Jeune Afrique, 13 March 2015,
“France – Guinée Equatoriale : porte de sortie en vue pour Teodorin ?”
Available at the following address:
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/226650/politique/france-guin-e-quatoriale-p…-
teodor-n/ (site consulted 21 March 2017).
Article published in Jeune Afrique, 13 March 2015
[Translation]
FRANCE V. EQUATORIAL GUINEA: EXIT IN SIGHT FOR TEODORIN?
Are we heading towards a dignified exit for Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, who is facing
prosecution in France for “ill-gotten gains”? His counsel would like to believe so.
Jean-Charles Tchikaya, counsel for Equatorial Guinea in the thorny “ill-gotten gains” case,
hopes in the coming months to see an end to the two-year feud between France and
Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue (Teodorin), Vice-President and son of the President of
Equatorial Guinea.
Disappointed by the outcome of negotiations between Teodorin’s defence team and the
French judicial authorities — which purportedly called for his client to plead guilty, abandon
attached property and pay a fine of up to €50 million — Mr. Tchikaya intends to rely on the
International Court of Justice to recognize the Vice-President’s diplomatic immunity and thus bring
the proceedings to an end.
A solution made possible by Equatorial Guinea’s ratification, in November 2014 at United
Nations Headquarters in New York, of the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
___________
ANNEX 9
Press release of the spokesperson for the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea,
7 December 2016, Malabo
Press release of the spokesperson for the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea,
7 December 2016, Malabo
(English version from the official website of the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
at http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=9000&lang=en; original text in Spanish
available at http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=9000&lang=es; site consulted
on 24 August 2017)
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE FOLLOWING RULING FROM INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE HAGUE
The Minister for Information, Press and Radio, and Spokesperson for the Government of the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Eugenio Nze Obiang, signed a communique in response to the
ruling passed by the International Court of Justice, in The Hague.
Malabo, 7 December 2016
The Government of Equatorial Guinea has received the decision by the International Court in
The Hague, regarding the complaint lodged by our country against France.
We recall that the process settled in the Court in The Hague, began as a result of the previous
accusation against some African Heads of State and their families, in the case known as
“dishonestly acquired goods”. However, the case finally focussed solely on the person of the
Vice-President of Equatorial Guinea, H. E. Nguema Obiang Mangue. For that reason, the State of
Equatorial Guinea lodged a complaint against France before the International Court of The Hague,
regarding attacks on the immunity of the Vice-President of Equatorial Guinea.
Following the ruling by the International Court in The Hague, the Government of Equatorial
Guinea officially declares that:
The Government of Equatorial Guinea has always considered that the action by the French
court is a unilateral, unjustified action, as a local court cannot seek to exercise extra-national
judicial power over bodies, institutions and persons extraneous to France which fall completely
outside its power and jurisdiction, especially when dealing with a senior representative of a State,
as in this case is the Vice-President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. For that reason, our
Executive entrusted the matter to the International Court of Justice, as an institution created by the
United Nations to solve judicial disputes between different countries.
The Government of Equatorial Guinea is disappointed that the International Court in The
Hague has not given a definitive ruling on the matter, which lacks a solid base and which, however,
shows bad faith.
However, the Government of Equatorial Guinea is satisfied because, in the ruling given by
the International Court of Justice in The Hague this 7th December 2016, there is clear recognition
of the diplomatic nature of the building located at 42, Avenida Foch, in Paris, and as such,
recognition that the property does not constitute “dishonestly acquired goods”. The Equatoguinean
State has reiterated its claim to ownership of this property, which was the property of the
Equatoguinean State, but the French party refused to recognise this, refusing to yield on this point.
The recognition that the State of Equatorial Guinea is the legitimate owner of the building,
with all the objects it contains, is thus recognition that it is not “dishonestly acquired goods”, and it
is also evidently proof of the judicial farce that French justice is unilaterally trying to serve up.
- 2 -
On demonstrating that the building is not “dishonestly acquired goods”, the French party
should have finally withdrawn the accusation against the Vice-President of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea, as it was unsupported by the basis of the main accusation, and thus recognise
unambiguously the immunity of H.E. Nguema Obiang Mangue. To not act in this way would
confirm the attempt to implement a destabilisation plan by the Government of France against the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
In any case, the Government and the People of Equatorial Guinea, as a free, independent,
sovereign State, will pursue its fight until the end, in defence of its legitimate interests and its
honour, using to that end the resources of International Justice and Diplomacy between States that
respect International Law, and advocated by the United Nations.
(Signed) His Excellency Eugenio NZE OBIANG
Spokesperson for the Government of the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea
Equatorial Guinea Press and Information Office.
___________
ANNEX 10
Press release of the Representation of Equatorial Guinea in The Hague, 8 December 201[6]
Press release of the Representation of Equatorial Guinea in The Hague, 8 December 201[6]
(English version from the official website of the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
at http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=9002&lang=en; original text in Spanish
available at http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=9002&lang=es)
EQUATORIAL GUINEA WINS FIRST BATTLE AGAINST FRANCE IN THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
On the afternoon of 7th December, a press conference by the judicial leaders was called,
after the International Court of Justice in The Hague presented its conclusions following the
complaint lodged by Equatorial Guinea against France.
Our country was represented by a Commission made up of the Deputy Minister for Justice,
Worship and Penitentiary Institutions, Juan Olo Mba Nseng, and the accredited Equatorial Guinea
Plenipotentiary Extraordinary Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union, Carmelo Nvono-
Ncá, together with the State lawyers, Francisco Evuy Nguema and Francisco Moro Mba, who have
been dealing with the case for several years.
Strangely, the lawyers from the French party did not appear at this press conference, and
their representatives left with their heads down. The acting President based his speech on various
articles of the Convention against trans-national organised crime and the optional signing protocol
for the Vienna Convention regarding diplomatic relations, and not only spoke of the noble motives
why the Republic of Equatorial Guinea began this process, but finally, together with all these
attorneys, imposed on France the following measures:
The International Court, through a unanimous decision by its members, calls on France to
take all the necessary measures to guarantee security, respect and adequate treatment of everything
relating to the diplomatic headquarters at 42, Avenida Foch, in Paris.
The French nations is also urged to abstain from practices of confiscation of goods and other
objects belonging to Equatorial Guinea.
Likewise, the International Court rejects the petition brought by the French State to remove
this case from the general list.
For the first time, an African country has brought a great European and world power before
International Justice. This ruling by the highest body of International Justice has shown that neither
the geographical size, nor the small population, nor the fact of being African, should stop the fight
against harmful intentions against our countries.
Text: Deogracias Ekomo Ndong Asue (Presidential Press)
Source: Equatorial Guinea Representation in The Hague
Equatorial Guinea Press and Information Office
___________
ANNEX 11
Press release of the Equatorial Guinea Press and Information Office, 9 December 2016
Press release of the Equatorial Guinea Press and Information Office, 9 December 2016
(English version from the official website of the Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
at http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=9005&lang=en; original text in Spanish
available at http://www.guineaecuatorialpress.com/noticia.php?id=9005&lang=es)
EQUATORIAL GUINEA WINS FIRST ROUND AGAINST FRANCE
Following the presentation by the International Court of Justice in The Hague of their
conclusions on 7 December, the media have viewed the ruling from various angles, but even the
most strident opponents of Equatorial Guinea have had to recognise the overwhelming rulings by
the Court in favour of the Equatoguinean complaint.
The decision adopted by the International Court which mentions the Diplomatic Mission is
the one most clearly reflecting the justice of the demand by Equatorial Guinea. The verdict is clear
that the building in Foch Avenue in Paris is part of the Equatorial Guinea Diplomatic Mission, and
must be respected as such.
“France is obliged, pending a final decision, to take all the necessary measures
within their power to ensure that the Equatorial Guinea Diplomatic Mission building
at No. 42 Foch Avenue, in Paris, receives the treatment outlined in article 22 of the
Vienna Convention, guaranteeing its inviolability.”
Furthermore, the French nation is also urged to abstain from practices of confiscation of
goods and other objects belonging to Equatorial Guinea.
In addition, The Hague Court rejected the claim by France to shelve the case due to the lack
of legal competence of the Court to rule on this litigation, as it considers to be within its
jurisdiction, in virtue of article I of the Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention, to hear the
case.
As published in “La Cuarta Columna” and expressed through other media outlets,
“Equatorial Guinea has won the first round against France”.
Institutional Web Page General Directorate (DPGWIGE)
Equatorial Guinea Press and Information Office
___________
ANNEX 12
Letter from the President of Equatorial Guinea to the French President,
19 January 2017
Letter from the President of Equatorial Guinea to the French President,
19 January 2017
[Translation]
In the spirit of strengthening our political relations, I wish to advise you of the protracted
judicial proceedings instituted by the French association “Transparency International” against the
Vice-President of the Republic, in charge of Defence and State Security, which, in our view, are
procedurally flawed and currently damaging the excellent relations of friendship and co-operation
that our countries have long maintained.
Indeed, the proceedings in this dispute have failed to take into consideration the international
conventions governing diplomatic relations to which our two countries are parties, not to mention
the bilateral conventions concluded between the French Republic and the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea.
The situation I am bringing to your attention has been ongoing for several years now, and I
have always wished to discuss it with you personally since, as we see it, while respecting the
independence of the French judges, Your Excellency, as guarantor of the interests of your
Government, has the ability to mediate between the French courts and the Government of
Equatorial Guinea in order to avoid pointless confrontation.
In a similar vein, I agree with Your Excellency that this dispute could be resolved
diplomatically, if we relied on the Agreement on the protection of investments signed by our
Governments. For this reason, I am sending to Your Excellency Mr. Miguel OYONO NDONG
MIFUMU, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Equatorial Guinea, accredited to your
Government, with a petition for Your Excellency to mediate in this case. This would lead us to
suspend the proceedings instituted before the International Court of Justice, while safeguarding
judicial independence.
I take this occasion to renew my wishes of happiness and prosperity in 2017, and please
accept, Mr. President and dear friend, the assurances of my highest consideration.
___________
- 2 -
Note seeking a diplomatic resolution of the dispute
Regarding the seat of the diplomatic mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
In response to the Order issued by the International Court of Justice on 7 December 2016,
whereby France was unanimously ordered to ensure the inviolability of the building at 42 avenue
Foch, it might be appropriate for France to notify the Embassy that it has taken note of the Order
and that the address is now regarded by both States as being that of the seat of the mission of the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea in France.
The Republic of Equatorial Guinea will then inform the International Court of Justice that it
is therefore no longer necessary to rule on that aspect of the dispute to which the two States have
found a permanent solution.
Regarding the situation of the Vice-President of Equatorial Guinea
The Agreement on the mutual protection of investments dated 3 March 1982, by which both
States are bound, provides for inter-State disputes concerning its interpretation and application to
be resolved by diplomatic means.
Since Equatorial Guinea has consistently maintained that the assets attached by the French
courts were all acquired lawfully and do not represent the proceeds of misappropriated public funds
or of an offence of any kind, consideration must be given to the question of their protection by
France under the aforementioned Agreement.
That being the case, in the context of diplomatic discussions between the two States provided
for under Article 11 of the said Agreement, and before any decision by the French courts on the
substance of the dispute, the two States could agree to consider that the assets lawfully acquired in
France meet the definition of “investments” within the meaning of Article 1 of the same Agreement
and that, consequently, France has a duty to protect them.
Thus, a permanent solution to the dispute between the two States having been found, it will
only remain for the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to end the proceedings pending before the
International Court of Justice.
___________
ANNEX 13
Letter from the President of the French Republic to the
President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, 16 February 2017
Letter from the President of the French Republic to the
President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, 16 February 2017
[Translation]
Thank you for your letter, which I read with interest.
I share your view of the quality of the bilateral relationship that unites our countries and
which is not altered by the dispute to which you referred. As I mentioned at the recent
Africa-France summit in Bamako, I am committed to dialogue and co-operation between our
countries, particularly with regard to regional security.
As regards the facts mentioned in your letter, they are the subject of court decisions in
France and judicial proceedings are ongoing.
As the guarantor of judicial independence, I cannot challenge these decisions or influence
the proceedings. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the offer to settle the matter through
the channels proposed by the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, which from a legal standpoint would
subvert this independence.
Your country has, moreover, decided to bring the dispute before the International Court of
Justice and request provisional measures.
In this regard, I can assure you that France will comply with the Order of 7 December 2016
of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings
and that, pending the Court’s final decision, it will ensure that the premises at 42 avenue Foch in
Paris receive treatment equivalent to that required by Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, in order to ensure their inviolability.
In any event, I would like to assure you that I am committed to working with you to build a
forward-looking partnership between our countries.
___________