In response to a question about recent rumors concerning his health, President Kagame questioned the logic behind the public scrutiny of personal health matters, stating firmly that illness is a natural part of the human condition.
“How do people want to account for someone’s personal health? Is there an exception in this world?” Kagame asked rhetorically. “There’s nobody who lives forever. Whether life is short or long, you have to manage all these issues as human beings.”
The president acknowledged the physical toll of leadership, noting that even his own health challenges may be linked to the pressures of governance.
“Some of my personal health problems might originate from managing you people, the amount of stress,” he said.
He dismissed the notion that leaders are immune to common illnesses or human fragility, saying, “People get COVID, the flu, a cold, or just collapse because of a heart issue. Isn’t that human? What do people want me to account for — that I’m not human?”
Kagame also criticized what he described as malicious political rhetoric that capitalizes on or even celebrates health concerns of public figures.
He called such attitudes “beyond stupidity,” adding, “You can rejoice even when they’re carrying somebody in a coffin, going for burial. You can have that moment of rejoicing and say, we got rid of him, and so on. And by the time he gets into his car, one kilometer, he has followed the other one. I don’t understand the logic, the politics or anything at all”
Kagame urged for more rational public discourse, saying such narratives are not only senseless but also run counter to the values Rwanda has worked hard to uphold since its liberation.
“This is the kind of politics we liberated ourselves from,” he said. “At least, you asked the question. Rest assured, it is me sitting here with you.”
The Liberation Day commemoration honors the end of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi and the beginning of Rwanda’s rebirth under new leadership.
“We reached an agreement in Washington, D.C., but it is not up to Washington to implement it. It’s those who reached the agreement who must actually implement what we agreed,” President Kagame stated during a conversation with the media on Rwanda’s Liberation Day on Friday, July 4.
Expressing his optimism about the deal succeeding, he explained that resolving such complex issues requires Cooperation and flexibility.
“You don’t get 100% of what you want because there are many parties concerned with the problem. Each one may get a piece of what they wanted, another gets a piece of what they wanted, and together, stability comes out of it. So, for me, I think there is a chance that we may get somewhere with that,” the president noted.
The Washington-mediated agreement was signed on June 27 to address tensions in eastern DRC. It focuses on joint security measures to neutralise the FDLR militia, which Rwanda has identified as a persistent threat along its border.
During the interview, the head of state affirmed Rwanda’s commitment to its end of the bargain and insisted that the DRC do the same by eliminating the threat along the border with Rwanda.
“If FDLR is not removed, the problem continues to be there, and Rwanda will always do what it has to do,” Kagame warned.
“You will never find Rwanda at fault when it comes to implementing what we have agreed to do. Never,” he added.
President Kagame highlighted that the deal with President Felix Tshisekedi’s administration rests on three interconnected pillars: political, economic, and security, stressing that focusing solely on one aspect, such as the region’s mineral wealth, oversimplifies the conflict.
He criticised past approaches that reduced the crisis to economic motives, noting, “They talk about minerals as the centre of the whole problem. They should also blame themselves.”
He argued that the Trump administration’s holistic approach, unlike previous efforts, acknowledges the complexity of the conflict, including political issues like the denial of citizenship to Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese and the internal dynamics within the DRC.
The president also pointed to a parallel Qatar-mediated process involving the DRC government and the M23 rebel group, describing it as addressing the “internal matters” of Congo, which he said are often wrongly framed as solely a Rwanda-DRC issue.
“Congo has always tried to make this problem only a problem between Rwanda and DRC, but there is a bigger component that is DRC’s problem,” Kagame said, citing the need to resolve issues like the marginalisation of Kinyarwanda-speaking communities within Congo.
Kagame expressed gratitude to the Trump administration for prioritising the region’s challenges, contrasting their engagement with the indifference of previous Western powers.
“I thank them that they even paid attention to the problem at all,” he said, noting that global focus often centres on conflicts in the Middle East or Ukraine.
Addressing criticisms that the Trump administration’s approach is exploitative, Kagame challenged detractors to reflect on their own inaction.
“You were here all these years, doing nothing except doing the wrong thing,” he said, questioning the effectiveness of past sanctions and UN missions in Congo, which he accused of perpetuating biased narratives.
He specifically criticised the UN’s Group of Experts for focusing blame on Rwanda and M23 while ignoring the FDLR’s role in spreading “genocide ideology” and destabilising the region.
“You will never find them writing anything comprehensively about FDLR. You’ll never find them writing anything comprehensively about how government institutions are connected with FDLR in spreading hate ideology, genocide ideology—things that are being done in broad daylight for everybody to see,” Kagame said. “So you wonder, how can experts not see that?”
President Kagame was also adamant about his stance on Rwanda’s broader journey toward self-reliance.
“We don’t owe our living to anyone,” he declared, emphasising that Rwanda’s progress over the last three decades reflects a commitment to never again be “sheep to be slaughtered.”
Responding to a journalist’s question about the implications of the recently signed agreement if the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) are not eliminated, Kagame delivered a firm message: “Rwanda will always do what it has to do when FDLR is along our border. There is no magic word here to be used by anybody.”
The agreement in question, reached in Washington, D.C., was signed between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on June 27, with the aim of addressing long-standing security concerns in the region.
A central provision of this deal is the elimination of the FDLR, a rebel group that has repeatedly launched attacks on Rwanda from Congolese territory and is known to have collaborated with the DRC government, particularly during its operations against the M23 rebel group.
President Kagame stressed that while the agreement was signed in Washington, its successful implementation lies solely in the hands of the two parties involved.
“We reached an agreement in Washington, D.C. But it is not up to Washington to implement it. It’s those who reached the agreement to actually implement what they agreed.”
He went on to express Rwanda’s commitment to fulfilling its part of the deal: “You will never find Rwanda at fault with implementing what we have agreed to do. You will never.”
However, he issued a clear warning that if the other party acts dishonestly or fails to uphold their commitments, Rwanda will respond accordingly: “But if we decide we are working with plays tricks and takes us back to the problem, then we deal with the problem like we have been dealing with it. There are no two ways about it.”
The President also placed the Rwanda-DRC conflict within a broader regional and internal political context.
He highlighted that in addition to the Washington deal, a parallel negotiation process is underway in Qatar, focusing on the DRC’s internal conflict involving the M23 and issues related to political representation and citizenship.
“There is another deal ongoing that concerns internal groups of Congo. AFC/M23 and the government… that is being discussed and brokered by Qatar.” Kagame noted, recalling his meeting with President Tshisekedi in Doha and underlining that these negotiations are also critical to achieving lasting peace.
For Kagame, the failure to eliminate the FDLR would mean the persistence of the threat Rwanda has long faced.
“If FDR is not dealt with and we have set out the way to deal with it in the agreement, then that means FDLR continues to be there and the problem continues to be there,” he noted.
The Head of State also reiterated that Rwanda would not hesitate to take necessary actions to defend its borders and people.
“We have this obligation and we have laid our case. And out of that, we have agreed to do a number of things to deal with and do it together with others. And we will do that.”
In a post on X shared on July 4 to mark Rwanda’s 31st Liberation Day, commonly known as Kwibohora31, Gen Muhoozi extended warm wishes to the people of Rwanda, recalling the immense sacrifice made by those who stopped the genocide and restored hope to a devastated nation.
“My dear friends in Rwanda, I wish you a happy #Kwibohora31. We remember the heroes who stopped the genocide and restored hope and development,” Muhoozi wrote. “President Paul Kagame and his army carried out a heroic act that the whole world will always remember.”
He also used the occasion to reflect on the shared history and ties between Rwanda and Uganda, calling for lasting peace and deeper cooperation between the two neighbouring countries.
“Rwanda and Uganda are nations bound by history and blood. We desire lasting peace, deep friendship, and strong cooperation between our peoples,” he added.
Gen. Muhoozi, who has long expressed admiration for Kagame, has played a notable role in strengthening ties between Rwanda and Uganda.
Rwanda’s Liberation Day commemorates the victory of the RPA, under the leadership of then-commander Paul Kagame, in stopping the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, which claimed a million lives. It is a day of reflection, celebration, and honouring the resilience of the Rwandan people.
Some camp out overnight to purchase it; others pay steep premiums to add it to their collections. After a decade of relative obscurity, the character has surged into mainstream prominence, becoming a cultural and commercial juggernaut while igniting debate over the evolving aesthetics of a new generation.
Originally inspired by a Northern European forest elf, Labubu’s unsettling yet strangely endearing appearance exemplifies what has come to be known as the “funny-ugly” aesthetic. At first glance, many find themselves asking, “What is this odd creature?” A second look often evokes a different reaction: “It’s weirdly adorable.”
The term ” funny-ugly” – a blend of the charming and the offbeat – has gained traction online as a way to describe products that stray from traditional beauty standards but possess an inexplicable allure. Over the past few years, dolls, mascots, and novelty goods that once would have seemed too peculiar for mainstream taste have found enthusiastic audiences, especially among Gen Z consumers. Once niche, this aesthetic is fast becoming a cultural movement.
In 2022, a plush toy modeled after a bronze galloping horse from the Gansu Provincial Museum went viral in China for its awkwardly cocked head and carefree expression. The toy’s appeal lay precisely in its imperfection. The following year, a garish green frog-shaped spoon with bulging eyes and a gaping mouth became an unexpected social media hit, spurring a wave of online sharing, comments, and purchases.
In 2025, among the many snake-themed mascots unveiled for the Year of the Snake, two stood out: Guangzhou’s “Heart-Eyed Snake” and Kunming’s “Baby Snake.”
Online platforms have helped turn this aesthetic into a social phenomenon. The Taobao Ugly Stuff Contest, which invites users to share offbeat or intentionally unattractive designs, has completed four popular editions. On Xiaohongshu, a Chinese platform with combined features of Instagram and Pinterest, also known as RedNote abroad, hashtags like “Ugly Stuff” and “Ugly Stuff Contest” have racked up over 60 million views.
This trend is not unique to China. In the UK, Fuggler has built a fanbase around creepy-cute monster dolls – each featuring mismatched teeth and slightly grotesque expressions. In Japan, a keychain mascot called YUKIO – a slouching, emotionless humanoid figure with droopy eyes – has become a best-seller among young travelers. With more than 200 variations, YUKIO embodies the global appeal of the funny-ugly ethos.
Behind this trend lies a deeper cultural and psychological shift shaped by consumerism and social media dynamics. The embrace of funny-ugly reflects not just changing aesthetic sensibilities, but also evolving attitudes toward identity, self-expression, and emotional release in a high-pressure, hyper-connected world.
For many young people, funny-ugly products are more than collectibles but emotional companions, stress relievers, and conversation starters. Their appeal is magnified by social media, where trends are amplified in real time and communities form around shared, often quirky tastes.
Some critics question whether this embrace of the bizarre signals a retreat from beauty or a drift into “anti-aesthetics.” But such judgments may overlook a fundamental point: aesthetic standards are neither fixed nor universal. In German, the word for aesthetics – Ästhetik – derives from the concept of perception itself. Today’s youth are not rejecting beauty but expanding its definition.
What makes the funny-ugly aesthetic resonate so strongly with Gen Z is its spirit of rebellion and individuality. It challenges the notion that beauty must conform to symmetry, polish, or tradition. Instead, it embraces pluralism, imperfection, and play – qualities that mirror the values of a generation intent on self-definition.
Pop Mart, the Chinese toy company behind Labubu, has tapped into this cultural current with precision. Blending distinctive design with savvy marketing, the company has turned Labubu into a symbol of new-age aesthetics. In 2023, China’s designer toy market surpassed 50 billion yuan ($6.96 billion), with funny-ugly products claiming an ever-growing share.
As cultural tastes continue to diversify, the future of funny-ugly is likely to evolve. Whether Labubu will remain a lasting icon or be overtaken by the next strange-yet-endearing sensation depends on a simple truth: understanding the emotional and cultural language of youth.
During a press briefing held on Thursday, July 3, 2025, Minister Kayikwamba addressed questions surrounding the peace agreement recently signed between Rwanda and the DRC in Washington. The discussion focused particularly on the FDLR and its role in the continued insecurity in eastern DRC.
When asked about her country’s commitment to dismantling the FDLR, Minister Kayikwamba affirmed that the DRC is prepared to act in line with the provisions of the peace deal.
She noted that the issue of the FDLR has been repeatedly raised over the past three decades and insisted that her government is ready to resolve it.
However, she also questioned the extent of the group’s threat, suggesting that its continued mention has served more as a political pretext than a pressing security concern.
She argued that any solution must begin with an honest assessment of how many FDLR members remain and the scale of the threat they actually pose.
Once that is established, she said, the matter can be resolved through various means, and the objective can be declared achieved.
In response, Minister Nduhungirehe emphasized that Rwanda would welcome any sincere efforts to dismantle the FDLR.
He pointed out that if the DRC now considers the FDLR merely an old pretext, Rwanda is equally prepared to lift Kinshasa’s pretext (defensive measures), on the condition that the FDLR is genuinely and permanently neutralized.
He underscored that with political will, anything is possible, and reiterated Rwanda’s readiness to respond in kind once the security threat posed by the FDLR is eliminated.
The exchange came in the wake of the peace agreement signed between Rwanda and the DRC on June 27, 2025, aimed at addressing the ongoing insecurity in eastern Congo.
The deal includes commitments to respect national sovereignty, end hostilities, disarm non-state armed groups, support the reintegration of combatants, facilitate the return of refugees, and promote regional economic cooperation.
A key component of the agreement is a joint framework for dismantling the FDLR, whose continued presence has long been a source of tension between the two countries.
These are the words of Gen (Rtd) James Kabarebe, describing how the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) overcame the odds to liberate Rwanda. As of today, 31 years have passed since that historic victory.
All warfare requires strategy, but military conflict especially demands innovative and adaptive tactics. When the RPA launched the liberation war in 1990, it had spent years regrouping and preparing. Many of the men who started the war had served in the Ugandan military in various roles.
Maj Gen Fred Rwigyema led the first attack on October 1, 1990. He was a seasoned commander who had played a key role in Uganda’s liberation war, serving as deputy to Gen Elly Tumwine, who was injured early in the conflict. Rwigyema took over from there.
However, the liberation of Rwanda did not begin as expected. On October 2, just one day after the war began, Maj Gen Rwigyema was killed. Other senior commanders, including Maj Chris Bunyenyezi and Maj Peter Bayingana, were also killed shortly after. Bayingana was ambushed on the road from Kagitumba to Gabiro, and Bunyenyezi was killed on the way from Nyagatare.
Initially, the RPA used conventional warfare, which is characterized by open, face-to-face engagements where opposing forces establish clear frontlines. This form of fighting dates back centuries and was historically done with spears and swords. Later, it evolved with the use of firearms and heavy artillery, tanks, and airplanes.
In both World Wars, tanks and aircraft became dominant in conventional warfare. Each side would dig trenches, set up defensive lines, and battle for control of enemy positions. But this method has major drawbacks: it’s costly, predictable, and results in heavy casualties due to the mass concentration of troops in single locations.
This conventional approach was what the RPA relied on in the early days of the war. But everything changed when Maj Gen Paul Kagame returned from military training in the United States and took over the command of a demoralized and scattered army.
When Kagame arrived in Kagitumba, many soldiers were already seeking ways to retreat back to Uganda. Even Gen (Rtd) Fred Ibingira admitted that he was preparing to return to Uganda, as the battle seemed lost.
Kagame, referred to as “Afande PC,” immediately called for a regrouping of the troops. In meetings with senior commanders, he urged them to reconsider retreating, arguing that going back was not an option. Their only goal should be to liberate Rwanda and stop the ongoing massacres against the Tutsi.
At that moment, the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) were celebrating, believing they had defeated the RPA completely. But Kagame introduced a new battle strategy: shifting from conventional to mobile and guerrilla warfare.
The first operation under this new tactic was the attack on Gatuna in early November, led by Col (Rtd) Twahirwa Ludovic, known as Dodo. It was a highly organized assault that greatly boosted morale among the troops, especially those who were just entering the battle and had not witnessed the chaos of the early days.
On the same day that Gatuna was captured, it was officially announced that Fred Rwigyema had died, news that brought sorrow but also renewed determination among the fighters.
The combined tactics of mobile warfare and guerrilla warfare turned the tide of the liberation struggle. RPA troops relocated from Mutara to the Virunga mountains, from where they launched operations and conducted training.
Guerrilla warfare involves small, highly mobile units launching surprise attacks on enemy positions and then retreating. Even three soldiers could wreak havoc, creating the illusion of a much larger force. This method is ideal for ambushes, sabotage (e.g., destroying bridges), and psychological warfare, creating confusion and disorientation among enemy ranks.
Although sabotage is common in guerrilla tactics, the RPA avoided destroying key infrastructure since rebuilding would be a priority after liberation.
Former FAR soldiers have testified that they often felt disoriented, unsure of where to focus their defenses or what the RPA’s next move would be.
Mobile warfare, while similar to guerrilla tactics, focuses more on identifying and targeting enemy weaknesses. It involves cutting off supply routes, surrounding the enemy, and defeating them decisively. It is faster-paced and relies heavily on intelligence and coordination among units.
Historically, mobile warfare was used effectively by Germany during the Blitzkrieg campaigns between 1939 and 1941, allowing rapid conquests of Poland, France, and Soviet territory. During the Korean War (1950–1953), Chinese forces used night raids and rapid movements to overwhelm their enemies. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israeli forces also applied mobile warfare tactics to defeat neighboring Arab armies swiftly.
The primary goal of mobile warfare is to win quickly, using strong internal coordination and real-time intelligence about enemy movements and vulnerabilities.
Thanks to the adaptation of these tactics, the RPA managed to withstand greater firepower, outmaneuver a better-equipped enemy, and ultimately liberate the country—proving that strategy, courage, and adaptability can overcome overwhelming odds.
The bill, a cornerstone of Trump’s second-term agenda, cleared the House 218-214, with two Republicans, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, joining a united Democratic front in opposition. Earlier in the week, the Senate narrowly approved the measure, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.
At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a mammoth rewrite of U.S. economic and social priorities. It combines $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, deep reductions in Medicaid and food assistance, a record $350 billion for immigration enforcement and border wall construction, and ambitious spending on military modernisation, including $25 billion for a new missile shield called the Golden Dome.
But with a projected price tag of $3.3 trillion added to the national deficit over the next decade, the bill has set off alarm bells among fiscal watchdogs and drawn sharp criticism from Democrats, who call it a “reverse Robin Hood” policy.
{{A tax revolution, but at what cost?
}}
At the heart of the bill is a permanent extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which were set to expire later this year. It introduces new deductions on tips, overtime, and auto loans; expands the child tax credit slightly from $2,000 to $2,200; and eliminates taxes on Social Security benefits for many older Americans. Businesses also gain immediate write-offs for research and equipment costs.
But according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will give the wealthiest Americans an average annual tax cut of $12,000, while the poorest may lose $1,600 a year due to cutbacks in federal aid.
“This is not a middle-class tax cut. It’s a windfall for the rich funded by taking food and health care from the vulnerable,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Republicans insist the tax reforms are essential to avoid what they call an “automatic tax hike” come December and argue the changes will unleash unprecedented economic growth.
{{Safety net restructured
}}
To offset some of the cost, the bill imposes sweeping new restrictions on Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), including 80-hour monthly work requirements for most adult recipients up to age 65 and new $35 co-pays for Medicaid services. Parents with children aged 14 and above would also be required to meet the work thresholds.
The CBO estimates that 11.8 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, and another 3 million could lose access to SNAP. States will also begin sharing the cost of SNAP by 2028 if their payment error rates exceed 6%, a provision softened after a push from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
{{Border wall, mass deportation plans receive major boost
}}
Fulfilling a signature Trump promise, the bill allocates $350 billion for immigration enforcement. That includes funding for 100,000 migrant detention beds, the hiring of 10,000 ICE agents with $10,000 signing bonuses, and infrastructure for the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history, aiming to remove 1 million undocumented immigrants per year.
Immigrants applying for asylum protections will now face additional processing fees.
{{Military, space, and symbolic add-ons
}}
Beyond domestic and economic policy, the bill delivers a massive windfall to the Pentagon: billions for shipbuilding, munitions systems, and the new missile defence program. It also includes $1 billion in Defence Department border spending, $40 million for Trump’s long-touted “National Garden of American Heroes,” and billions for space exploration, including the Artemis moon mission and future Mars landings.
The bill also introduces “Trump Accounts,” a new federal savings plan for children, seeded with a $1,000 Treasury deposit.
The bill also includes several controversial provisions. It ends federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year and rolls back clean energy tax credits, including those for electric vehicles, which will now expire on September 30. It imposes a new 1% tax on remittances and university endowments, eliminates the $200 tax on gun silencers and certain rifles, and expands compensation for individuals affected by nuclear testing.
{{A new fiscal frontier or a mirage?
}}
The bill raises the U.S. debt ceiling by $5 trillion to cover past and new spending. However, Republican senators argue that since many tax cuts were already “current policy,” their extension should not count as new spending — a controversial accounting method that, they say, turns a $3.3 trillion deficit increase into a $500 billion reduction.
Democrats and independent economists have called this “budgetary sleight of hand.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget labeled it “an accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush.”
{{Holiday signing
}}
House Speaker Mike Johnson hailed the bill as a sweeping effort to reverse what he called the “disaster of the Biden-Harris regime.”
“Everything was broken — we tried to fix it all, in one big, beautiful bill,” he said after the vote.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the measure as “the largest middle-class tax cut in American history” and a “commonsense agenda that nearly 80 million Americans voted for.”
President Trump is expected to sign the bill at a high-profile ceremony at the White House on Friday at 5 p.m. ET, coinciding with Independence Day celebrations, symbolising, as the administration put it, “the beginning of America’s Golden Age.”
According to the group, the DRC representatives showed little commitment to signing a ceasefire agreement, which was a key expectation during the negotiations.
Speaking at a press briefing on July 3, 2025, Benjamin Mbonimpa, head of the AFC/M23 delegation in Doha, said that every time they arrived in Qatar, they anticipated the signing of a ceasefire pact. However, the Kinshasa government repeatedly rejected the agreement.
“Kinshasa has chosen to portray Rwanda as its enemy, yet the issues between Rwanda and the DRC are strictly state-level matters. Our concern is with the Congolese government. We engage directly with the government because only through dialogue can this conflict be resolved and peace restored, but unfortunately, not all officials seem to understand this,” Mbonimpa explained.
He further stated that while peace talks were ongoing, the DRC government was simultaneously planning military offensives against territories controlled by M23. He pointed to the presence of foreign mercenaries in Kisangani, including Colombians and Americans, preparing attacks.
Mbonimpa also accused the DRC government of supporting militias such as Wazalendo and Mai-Mai by providing them with drones and heavy weaponry to regain control over captured areas.
Mbonimpa noted a striking difference in how delegations approached the talks, saying while M23 consistently presented official documents authorising their participation, DRC representatives never showed any credentials.
“We found it difficult to negotiate with people who came without any official mandate or letter of appointment. We would present our authorisation to the mediator, but the DRC representatives came without any proof of government backing. They behaved more like informal participants than official negotiators,” he said.
According to AFC/M23, the first and most critical step in the talks was supposed to be signing a ceasefire agreement. However, the DRC government repeatedly refused to commit to this.
Despite rejecting the ceasefire in talks, the DRC government has often publicly accused M23 of rejecting peace efforts.
M23 maintains that since 2022, it has declared ceasefires unilaterally on five occasions, while the DRC government has not taken similar steps.
Ebang Engonga, 55, is the former head of the General Directorate of Insurance and Reinsurance (DGAR) and a nephew of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. He is also the son of Baltasar Engonga Edjo, the current president of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC).
He dominated headlines late last year over a sex scandal involving over 400 women in the Central African country.
His trial, unfolding in the capital Malabo, centers on charges of embezzlement, illicit enrichment, and abuse of office during his tenure between 2015 and 2020.
Prosecutors allege that Ebang Engonga orchestrated a sophisticated scheme to divert state funds for personal use. The indictment seeks eight years for embezzlement, four years and five months for illicit enrichment, and six years and one day for abuse of office.
In addition to prison time, the prosecution is requesting a fine of more than 910 million CFA francs (approx. $1.5 million) and a ban from holding public office for the duration of the sentence.
The case, dubbed the “Treasury Trial,” involves six other former DGAR officials facing similar charges. Among them are Carmelo Julio Matogo Ndong, Ireneo Mangue Monsuy Afana, and Florentina Iganga Iñandji.
The legal proceedings have been further inflamed by the scandalous revelations about Ebang Engonga’s personal life. In late 2024, authorities recovered explicit videos from Ebang Engonga’s electronic devices during the investigation.
The recordings, some filmed in his government office and involving women reportedly linked to government officials, sparked a public firestorm and added to growing calls for accountability within the ruling elite.
The defence has rejected the charges as unfounded and politically charged, calling into question the credibility of the evidence, including the financial audit and video materials presented by the prosecution. Ebang Engonga’s legal team maintains that the proceedings are intended to sideline him from public life.
The trial, which began Monday, is expected to conclude by the end of the week, with a verdict likely in the coming days.
