WILDLEX

Biel Rivelent and Oniangue Léon were arrested by rangers for hunting with a war weapon in December 2018. They were brought before the state prosecutor and sent to court for trial.

On July 14, 2018 on their return from a big hunting expedition, Bokibaya Destin and his three mates known as Alain, Jules and Sebastien, all fugitives, were caught by rangers in the Bomassa area with two ivory tusks cut in six pieces and three war weapons type PMAK. The latter used their weapons against rangers in an attempt to escape.

In February 2017, Bossoto Césarine was visited by one known as Dior who is the son of her elder sister living at Mobako camp, who came to deposit a bag at around 8:00 pm that she didn’t know the content.

On May 11, 2014 a joint patrol funded by WWF and organized by the gendarmerie of Sembe. The patrol team went to Lopo village where the inhabitants informed them that Debe Ludovic was in possession of a PMK war weapon that he used to carry big hunting at the border area between Congo and Gabon.

Dissaka Samuel was already prosecuted for similar facts. For four years he was regularly practising big hunting in the forest using the war weapon type PMAK of one known as Samba Cyriaque.

In August 2020, ADJI Thibault a student at the Faculty of Law in Brazzaville purchased a PMAK war weapon from an element of Congolese Armed Forces named NABODEBE Cyrile for the sum of XAF 100,000 (one hundred thousand) to carry a big hunting expedition at Ngbala.

In 2009, the accused were carrying out a hunting expedition during which they killed fully protected species inside the Nouabale-Ndoki national park.

The applicant sought bail pleading exceptional circumstances: his severe medical condition; he was elderly (51 years) and that he was a first-time offender.

This is an appeal case based on arguments that the sentence of imprisonment is excessive when the magistrate could have imposed a fine and that the order for forfeiture was wrong.

The court held that, the fine imposed was the maximum according to section 110 (b) of the Act which provides for penalties. The court held that, there is no explanation why the magistrate imposed the maximum fine for an accused who pleaded guilty and was a first offender.