Angola Constitutional Court: Vandalism Law Provisions Unconstitutional

• Angola's Constitutional Court, in Ruling No. 1056/2025, declared key provisions of the 2024 Vandalism Law (Law No. 13/24) unconstitutional in December 2025.
• The court found that provisions, including Article 4, violated constitutional principles such as proportionality and unlawfully restricted rights to strike and demonstrate.
• The Vandalism Law, promulgated in August 2024, prescribed severe prison terms, up to 15 years, for broadly defined offenses like disrupting public services or documenting security measures.
• Human rights groups and legal experts had criticized the law for its vague offenses and disproportionate penalties, which they argued stifled freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
• Despite a replacement bill being approved in general terms by parliament in May 2026, concerns persist regarding potentially disproportionate penalties that could still restrict fundamental rights.

Legal experts consistently emphasized that the severe and disproportionate penalties within the Vandalism Law actively discouraged civic participation.

Angola's Constitutional Court delivered a significant ruling in December 2025, declaring several provisions of the 2024 Vandalism Law unconstitutional. This decision, documented as Ruling No. 1056/2025, specifically targeted Article 4 and other sections of Law No. 13/24, which had been promulgated by President João Lourenço on August 22, 2024. The law, officially titled "Crimes of Vandalism of Public Goods and Service," had introduced severe penalties for a wide range of offenses.

Among its most contentious clauses, Article 4 stipulated prison terms ranging from five to ten years for individuals found guilty of destroying public property or disrupting the provision of public services. Furthermore, Article 15 imposed even harsher sentences, between ten and fifteen years, for recording or disseminating information related to security measures concerning critical infrastructure such as electricity, communications, water, or sanitation. These broad definitions and disproportionate punishments quickly drew criticism for their potential to stifle public discourse and protest.

The practical implications of this legislation were starkly illustrated by the case of activist Serrote José de Oliveira, widely known as General Nila. He was shot by police and subsequently detained under the Vandalism Law on allegations of disrupting public services. During his detention, General Nila was reportedly denied adequate medical care. Although he was eventually released without formal charges, criminal proceedings and restrictions against him remained in place, highlighting the law's immediate and severe impact on individuals.

The Constitutional Court's landmark decision was rooted in its finding that the Vandalism Law violated several fundamental constitutional principles. These included the principles of proportionality, human dignity, the rule of law, and equality in punishment. Crucially, the court determined that criminalizing the "disruption" of public services, as broadly defined in the law, constituted an unlawful restriction on the constitutionally protected rights to strike and demonstrate.

Prior to the court's intervention, the Angolan authorities had defended Law No. 13/24 as a necessary measure to safeguard public safety and protect public property. However, this justification was met with strong opposition from a coalition of Angolan civil society groups, legal experts, and international human rights organizations. These bodies consistently warned that the law's vague offenses and disproportionate penalties posed a direct threat to the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in Angola.

Human Rights Watch, in particular, asserted that the Angola Vandalism Law's unconstitutional nature stemmed from its direct contravention of rights guaranteed not only by the Angolan Constitution but also by international instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The expansive definition of "vandalism" to include "intentional obstruction or disruption" of public services was seen as particularly problematic, as it could easily encompass actions inherent to legitimate protests and strikes, such as temporary service interruptions.

Legal experts consistently emphasized that the severe and disproportionate penalties within the Vandalism Law actively discouraged civic participation. Bangula Quemba, a lawyer and professor of criminal procedure law at the Catholic University of Luanda, articulated this concern, stating that it was "completely disproportionate to equate property damage with murder in terms of the length of punishment," referring to the lengthy prison sentences mandated by the Vandalism Law. This perspective underscored the perceived imbalance between the offense and its potential punishment.

Professor Quemba further elaborated that, despite its stated intention to protect the integrity of public goods and services, the law effectively prevented critical members of the public from engaging in protests or strikes. This chilling effect arose from the threat of harsh punishments for any property damage or service disruption that might occur, even incidentally, during such public demonstrations. Serra Bango, chairperson of the Association for Justice, Peace and Democracy (AJPD), echoed this sentiment, asserting that the Vandalism Law was specifically designed to deter individuals from exercising their fundamental right to protest.

In response to the Constitutional Court's ruling and widespread criticism, the Angolan parliament moved to address the invalidated legislation. In May 2026, a replacement bill intended to revoke the 2024 law received general approval. However, concerns persist among legal observers that the proposed penalties within this new legislation might still be disproportionate, potentially continuing to restrict the rights to freedom of assembly and expression, despite the judicial declaration that the Angola Vandalism Law unconstitutional.

Lawyers advising clients in Angola, particularly those involved in activism, protests, or public discourse, must be aware that key provisions of the 2024 Vandalism Law (Law No. 13/24) have been declared unconstitutional. This creates a shifting legal landscape for public order offenses, requiring careful assessment of potential criminal liability related to property damage or service disruption during protests, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Source: Reporting based on a joint human rights organization paper