On the fifth anniversary of the fatal shooting of Inocêncio de Matos, on his way to participate in a protest, in Luanda, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa Vongai Chikwanda said:
“Five years on, the relatives of Inocêncio de Matos are still awaiting justice. He did not commit any crime or pose a risk to authorities or a third party when he was shot dead. He was killed for simply attempting to exercise his right to freedom of assembly, as defined in the Angolan constitution and other regional and international instruments to which Angola is a state party.
Five years on, the relatives of Inocêncio de Matos are still awaiting justice. He did not commit any crime or pose a risk to authorities or a third party when he was shot dead.
Vongai Chikwanda, Deputy Regional Director, Amnesty International East and Southern Africa Regional Office
“His case is not isolated, it paints a picture of the long running impunity in Angola, where security forces act as if they are above the law.
Angolan authorities must ensure justice for Inocêncio by immediately revealing publicly the outcome of the investigations into his killing, anyone found culpable must be brought to account in a fair trial.
Vongai Chikwanda
“Angolan authorities must ensure justice for Inocêncio by immediately revealing publicly the outcome of the investigations into his killing, anyone found culpable must be brought to account in a fair trial.”
Background
On 11 November 2020, almost three years after João Lourenço, the president of Angola, had promised holding municipal elections, Inocêncio de Matos and others left their neighborhoods to gather at the Largo 1º de Maio, in Luanda, to protest for the elections. Hours before the protest, security forces blocked the main avenues leading to the Largo 1º de Maio to repress the protest. During attempts to circumvent the blockage, security forces fired live ammunitions and Inocêncio de Matos was fatally shot. The Services for Criminal Investigations (SIC) initiated an investigation into the killing. So far, only the victim’s witnesses have been heard. However, five years later, the outcome of the investigation is yet to be made public.