Blogger Delfina Silvano’s fight against colonial-era incitement laws in Angola

In an encouraging ruling, the Tribunal da Relação de Benguela (Court of Appeal) in Angola dismissed the ‘rebellion’ case against citizen journalist and blogger Delfina Silvano – known online as Finúria – in April 2025, bringing an end to a legal battle that had lasted three years. The charge of ‘Rebellion’, under Article 329 of the Angolan Penal Code, is rooted in provisions similar to sedition laws in other countries. Silvano’s case demonstrates how such colonial-era provisions provide a legal basis for governments in the region to systematically suppress dissent.

In 2022, Delfina was charged with incitement to rebellion, for criticising the incumbent president and state authorities on social media. The prosecution was largely based on a video she posted on her personal social media account, in which she condemned arbitrary detention, police brutality against activists and journalists, and the impunity enjoyed by the officers responsible. In the same video, Silvano also criticised President João Lourenço and questioned his legitimacy in relation to broken political promises.

Silvano was summoned twice to appear before the Serviço de Investigação Criminal (SIC), the principal criminal investigation body in Angola. If convicted, she could have faced up to 12 years in prison.

Following the successful outcome of Delfina’s case, we spoke with her lawyer, Domingos Chipilica Eduardo, about the proceedings and their broader significance in the Angolan context.

The Legal Case

In Delfina’s case, following the charge of ‘rebellion’, Mr Chipilica Eduardo submitted a request for a contradictory instruction hearing – a procedural safeguard in Angola’s legal system that allows the defence to challenge the charges before the case proceeds to trial. This aimed to ensure that she was not charged or penalised without due process.

As part of this strategy, Mr Chipilica Eduardo told us that they called key witnesses and declarants, including the procedural investigator and the Delegate of the State Intelligence and Security Service, to provide testimony under judicial scrutiny.

They also requested a judicial inspection and an evidentiary examination at the defendant’s home, aiming to contest the prosecution’s version of events and demonstrate the absence of criminal conduct. This was crucial since the crime of rebellion, by legal definition, involves the existence of a criminal organisation. The evidence gathered during this phase helped undermine the credibility of the charges and ultimately led the court to dismiss the case.

Mr Chipilica Eduardo explained that the case did not come without significant professional challenges. He described how the Intelligence and State Security Services, the Criminal Investigation Service, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office had to act in coordination to pursue charges as serious as rebellion. “They knew that such a charge couldn’t be legitimately applied to an individual simply expressing their views on social media,” he said. “But they pursued it nonetheless.” This misuse of legal mechanisms, and coordination of powerful state actors, he noted, was one of the most difficult aspects of the case.

Legal Collaboration

Mr Chipilica Eduardo attended a Media Defence litigation surgery in Nairobi in 2024, and has since been part of our global network of press freedom lawyers. Following the litigation surgery, he brought Silvano’s case to our attention and sought strategic input.

Mr Chipilica Eduardo requested that Media Defence provide an expert legal opinion on comparative law relating to the crimes of rebellion and sedition. He noted that the opinion played a key role in shaping the court’s reasoning, helping to establish that Silvano’s actions were a legitimate exercise of her right to freedom of expression, as protected under Article 40 of Angola’s Constitution.

“This opinion helped the court understand the case, particularly in recognising freedom of expression as a fundamental right,” Mr Chipilica Eduardo stated.

The opinion emphasized that sedition laws – including the clauses invoked in Silvano’s case – fundamentally violate international human rights standards. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information of all kinds – this protection extends even to “offensive” opinions. However, sedition laws frequently target speech that is fully protected under Article 19, as in this case.

The UN Human Rights Committee has also laid out that unrestricted expression is especially important in public debates involving public and political figures. The mere fact that speech may insult a public figure is insufficient to justify penalization. Criticism of institutions – including the government, military or justice system – must not be criminalized. Criminal prosecution for speech has a “chilling effect,” deterring journalists from covering critical topics. Human rights law globally regards this effect as a significant infringement on freedom of expression.

Challenging repressive criminal laws

The retention of sedition laws in Angola after it became independent in 1975 has given subsequent governments a legal instrument to stifle dissent despite the Constitution explicitly protecting freedom of expression. Civil societies in Africa have long been advocating for the repeal of draconian criminal provisions such as incitement, defamation and sedition. Silvano’s case is an example of Media Defence’s ongoing effort – carried out in close collaboration with national lawyers such as Mr Chipilica Eduardo – to challenge such repressive provisions. Through third-party interventions and legal expert opinions filed before national and international courts, Media Defence aims to foster legal systems that adhere to international standards and safeguard freedom of expression.

Positive Development against an Authoritarian Backdrop

Fifty years after independence, the authoritarian characteristics of Angola’s political system remain, and are reflected in the press freedom environment. The dismissal of Silvano’s case was an unexpected but positive outcome considering the existing legal constraints and safety concerns for those expressing dissent.

Journalists – particularly citizen journalists and independent journalists and outlets – face surveillance, violence, break-ins, equipment seizures, legal harassment, and arbitrary detention. Those who defend them are increasingly subject to similar threats and intimidation.

While Mr Chipilca Eduardo told us that he fortunately received no direct threats for defending Silvano, the possibility of receiving them remained a very real fear. Defending freedom of expression, he tells us, “means always being cautious about one’s personal safety including places frequented, and people interacted with, due to police surveillance”.

Beyond sedition laws, other legal tools are used to silence public interest journalism. Defamation remains a criminal offence while media laws regulating broadcasting activities and social communication substantially restrict press freedom. Journalists and media workers in Angola are prone to self-censorship given the potential grave consequences, including disproportionately lengthy custodial sentences, as in Silvano’s case.

In addition, the Angolan media landscape continues to be characterised by the dominance of state-owned outlets. Considering this lopsided ownership of conventional media houses in the hands of state-affiliated parties, social media and independent websites have become a major vehicle for public interest reporting and commentary in Angola.

Early in 2017, the Angolan government passed a press law to tighten state control on digital content, granting itself the power to suspend online content that fails to comply with their standard of ‘public interest journalism’.

Although the inauguration of President João Lourenço in September 2017 ended four decades of rule by the dos Santos family, it did not signal a meaningful shift in press freedom.

For instance, the National Security Bill passed in 2024 further exacerbated the risks to independent press by granting excessive state control over media and civil society organisations. The bill has been widely criticised by human rights organisations for containing provisions contrary to national, regional, and international human rights law.

For example, Article 36 allows security forces to shut down radio broadcasts and disrupt telecommunications under vaguely defined “exceptional circumstances,” without a court order. It also permits warrantless inspections and surveillance of public places and security equipment.

Journalists, bloggers and activists face an increasingly parlous work environment as measures to shrink civil society multiply. In this context the successful outcome of Silvano’s case is a welcome development for press freedom and the safety of journalists and bloggers in Southern Africa.

Thanks to the work of lawyers like Mr Chipilica Eduardo, despite risks to personal safety, legal precedents that can change the media environment can be set. The decision in this case could represent a guardrail for freedom of expression in Angola. It lays the groundwork for further improvement in the practice of journalism. Mr Chipilica Eduardo accentuated the significance of this case and is hopeful that it will act as a “deterrence for future abuse and prevent the authorities from misusing the judiciary as a political apparatus.”

Media Defence continues to support freedom of speech in Angola and beyond through emergency defence, strategic litigation and collaborating with our network of press freedom lawyers.