Court of Cassation (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

The Court of Cassation (French : Cour de cassation) is the main court of last resort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ^[1] It has its seat in the Kinshasa Palace of Justice.

The Court judges final appeals with respect to the "normal" system of justice, excluding cases of administrative justice, which go before the Conseil d'État.

The court consists of 26 justices, organized into legislative and judiciary sections. Judges are nominated by the Judicial Service Council, a separate and independent body composed of judges from the lower courts and public prosecutors. ^[2] The first president of the Court of Cassation also sits on the General Assembly, which makes decisions on matters within the scope of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (French : Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, CSM). ^[3] Per Congolese law, the compulsory retirement age for magistrates on the Court of Cassation is 70 years old.

History

On 18 February 2006, the Democratic Republic of the Congo entered a new constitutional era with the promulgation of the constitution of the Third Republic by President Joseph Kabila. After sixteen years marked by successive transitional regimes, the country was finally governed by a constitution adopted by its people. ^[4] This constitution replaced the Transitional Constitution and brought about substantial changes in the organization and exercise of executive, legislative, and, most notably, judicial power. ^{[5] [4]}

Under the Transitional Constitution, judicial power was exercised through courts and tribunals under the leadership of the Supreme Court of Justice, a body with broader powers than those of other jurisdictions. Historically, however, the Supreme Court did not originate with the Transitional Constitution. ^[4] Its roots extend back to the Belgian law of 16 April 1889 and the Colonial Superior Council, which was based in Brussels. This Council functioned as an appellate and cassation body for decisions issued by Congolese courts and as an advisory institution to the Sovereign King. It was abolished on 2 March 1892 and replaced by the Belgian Court of Cassation, whose jurisdiction was expanded to cover colonial court decisions. ^[4]

At independence, the Fundamental Law of 19 May 1960 maintained colonial legislation until formally repealed and ensured that the Belgian Court of Cassation would continue its functions until the Congo established its own cassation court. This happened in 1964 with the adoption of the Luluabourg Constitution, which created a national Supreme Court of Justice. ^[4] The Constitution of 18 February 2006 must be understood within this broader process of state and judicial reform. Unlike the Transitional Constitution, it established two distinct judicial orders: judicial courts and administrative courts, alongside an autonomous Constitutional Court. A supreme body leads each order — the Court of Cassation for the judicial order and the Council of State for the administrative order. ^[4]

Structure and organization

The Supreme Court of Justice is headquartered in Kinshasa and has authority over the entire national territory. It is made up of a First President, one or more Presidents, and Councillors who serve as judges. The Court is organized into three sections: Judicial, Administrative, and Legislation, and each section is divided into one or more chambers. ^[4]

The Judicial section consists of two chambers: one responsible for private, fiscal, and social law matters, and the other for criminal cases and special procedures. The Administrative section includes a single chamber known as the Chamber for Annulment and Compensation for exceptional damage. Similarly, the Legislative section consists of a single chamber. ^[4]

Apart from the Legislative section, each chamber must deliberate with at least three judges present, and each section, when all its chambers sit jointly, must also include a minimum of three members. When the Supreme Court of Justice sits in plenary session with all sections combined, at least seven members are required. ^[4] All hearings take place with the participation of the public prosecutor's office and the support of the court clerk. Annually, the Court formally and publicly opens the judicial year during a solemn session featuring an address by the First President and a formal statement, known as a mercuriale, delivered by the Prosecutor General of the republic. ^[4]

Judicial

Functioning as a court of first instance on the merits and court of cassation

When sitting with all its chambers combined, the Judicial section adjudicates cases on the merits at first and final instance. Its jurisdiction in this capacity covers offences committed by the president of the republic, vice-presidents, members of the National Assembly and Senate, ministers and vice-ministers, officials of institutions that support democracy, judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and the public prosecutor's office, provincial governors, and members of the Court of Auditors. It also hears appeals against judgments delivered at first instance by the Courts of Appeal. ^[4] In its cassation role, the Judicial section reviews appeals based on breaches of statutory law or customary law against final judgments and decisions issued by courts and tribunals. Such violations include lack of jurisdiction, abuse or excess of power by judicial bodies, incorrect application or interpretation of the law, application of customs contrary to law or public order, and failure to observe essential procedural requirements or formalities prescribed under penalty of nullity. ^[4]

Cassation appeals must be directed against final decisions ruling on the substance of the case and extend to all rulings issued in the same proceedings between the same parties. An illustrative example is the judgment of 21 November 2003 (RC 090/TSR) in Société BUREX v. Christophe Papa Dimitriou, a labor dispute. After being compelled to resign, the employee obtained damages from the Court of First Instance for abusive termination. ^[4] This judgment was later overturned by the Gombe Court of Appeal (decision RTA 2604) on the ground that the conciliation record did not include the employer's position. ^[4] Acting on the instructions of the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor General sought cassation for violation of Article 156(3) of the Code of Judicial Organization and Jurisdiction and Article 202 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the conciliation record was valid since it confirmed the appearance of both parties before the Labor Inspector and therefore quashed the appellate decision. ^[4]

As a court of revision

The Judicial section is competent to examine requests for the revision of criminal convictions that have become final and were issued by lower courts for offences punishable by a term of penal servitude exceeding two months. Applications for revision are subject to substantive and personal admissibility requirements. ^[4]

The substantive conditions relate to the nature of the decision challenged and determine which judgments may be reviewed. The law permits revision only of final criminal convictions having res judicata effect, regardless of the court that rendered the decision or the sentence imposed, where one of the following situations arises: ^[4]

• after a conviction, a subsequent judgment convicts another person for the same facts, and the two decisions are irreconcilable, which thus demonstrates the innocence of one of the convicted persons; ^[4]
• after conviction, a witness heard in the case is prosecuted and convicted for false testimony given against the accused, in which case that witness may no longer testify in any new proceedings; ^[4]
• following a conviction for homicide, serious indications emerge suggesting that the alleged victim is in fact alive; ^[4]
• after conviction, a new fact or previously unknown evidence comes to light that is capable of establishing the innocence of the convicted person. ^[4]

The personal conditions concern those entitled to request revision and are strictly limited by law. They include the Minister of Justice, the convicted person or, in the event of incapacity, their legal representative, and, after the death or judicial declaration of absence of the convicted person, the spouse, descendants, ascendants, customary heirs, and universal legatees. ^[4]

Exclusive jurisdiction and transfers of cases

The Judicial section has sole jurisdiction over proceedings against judges (prises à partie), the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between judges, the transfer of cases from one court to another, and transfers ordered following a second cassation. ^[4]

• Actions against judges (prise à partie): A prise à partie is a legal action enabling a party to seek compensation from a magistrate before the Supreme Court of Justice where that magistrate has committed fraud, embezzlement, or a denial of justice, whether during the investigation or in a judicial decision. ^[4] Such proceedings require prior authorization from the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, upon application by a lawyer admitted to practice before that Court. The president authorizes or rejects the prise à partie after consulting the Prosecutor General of the republic. Once the order authorizing the prise à partie is served, the magistrate concerned must abstain from hearing any case involving the applicant, the applicant's spouse, or their relatives until the matter is resolved or the time limit for bringing proceedings has expired. ^[4]
• Resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction: In accordance with Article 69 of Ordinance-Law No. 82-017 of 31 March 1982 governing procedure before the Supreme Court of Justice, a conflict of jurisdiction arises when two or more courts ruling at last instance all declare themselves competent to hear the same claim between the same parties, which creates a positive conflict. ^[4] A negative conflict exists where the same courts all decline jurisdiction. Applications for settlement may be submitted by any party to the proceedings or by the public prosecutor attached to one of the courts involved. The Supreme Court of Justice designates, with sovereign authority, the court competent to hear the case. ^[4]

The Judicial section has exclusive authority to order the transfer of a case, for reasons of public security or legitimate suspicion, from one Court of Appeal to another, or from a court within the jurisdiction of one Court of Appeal to a court of the same level within another appellate jurisdiction. ^[4]

Administrative

The Administrative section is competent to hear:

• Applications for annulment: Sitting at first and final instance, the Administrative section rules on applications for annulment based on violations of the law, brought against acts, regulations, or decisions adopted by central authorities and decentralized bodies subject to their supervision. Such applications may be filed only by persons who can establish that the contested measure causes them personal harm and that it was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements or formalities prescribed under penalty of nullity, or that it resulted from an abuse or excess of authority. ^[4] The Court alone determines which governmental acts are excluded from judicial review and, as a result, does not examine legislative acts. Political acts of government, which are necessary for the functioning of public authority, include ordinances issued by the president of the republic in execution of acts and procedures undertaken by Parliament. In accordance with Article 87(2) of Ordinance No. 82-017 of 31 March 1982 on procedure before the Supreme Court of Justice, such ordinances are not subject to review by the administrative courts. ^[4]
• Appeals against decisions of the Courts of Appeal: has jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions delivered by the administrative sections of the Courts of Appeal in cases involving applications for annulment based on violations of the law directed against acts, regulations, or decisions of administrative, provincial, or local authorities. ^[4]
• Claims for compensation: Where legislation does not designate a competent court to hear claims for compensation arising from exceptional material or moral harm caused by measures taken or ordered by national, provincial, or local authorities, such claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Administrative section. Neither the law nor existing case law provides a precise definition of "exceptional damage". ^[4] Legal scholars have debated whether damage should be considered exceptional because of the severity of its consequences, the unusual nature of the act, or the disproportion between the harm suffered and its cause. ^[4] In practice, where an individual believes that such exceptional harm has been suffered and no other court is competent, an application for compensation may be submitted to the Court. However, the claim is admissible only if the applicant has first sought amicable compensation from the competent authority through a prior complaint specifying an assessment of the damage, and if the application is filed within three months of the decision or the acts of execution that caused the alleged harm. ^[4]

Legislation

The Legislation section serves primarily to provide advisory opinions on proposed laws, regulatory measures, and questions concerning the interpretation of legal provisions. Requests for consultation may be submitted by the authority responsible for adopting the measure or by the body that initiated the consultation. ^[4] Unlike the Judicial and Administrative sections, the Legislation section is not a court in the traditional sense. It does not resolve disputes or issue binding judgments; rather, it produces advisory opinions, which are non-binding and have no enforceable effect. Authorities are neither required to submit matters to the Legislation section nor obliged to follow its recommendations if consulted. In this sense, the section functions as a consultative body that guides legislative and regulatory authorities. ^[4]

For example, Advisory Opinion No. RL 09 of 20 January 2004 illustrates the section's role. This opinion responded to a request from the president of the republic on 23 December 2003, which sought guidance on the interpretation of Articles 76 and 94, paragraph 2, of the Transitional Constitution. Concerning Article 76, the question was whether the president could appoint senior state officials without consulting government members. ^[4] Regarding Article 94, paragraph 2, the issue was to clarify the distinction between civil defense services and national security (intelligence) services, and their respective hierarchies. The Court's plenary assembly concluded that government participation is required for appointments covered by the first and fourth indents of Article 76, while the president retains specific prerogatives for other appointments. Article 94, paragraph 2, was interpreted as assigning civil defense services to the government authority. ^[4]

Full court sessions

The Supreme Court of Justice convenes in plenary, with all its sections when addressing: ^[4]

• appeals challenging the constitutionality of laws and acts with the force of law;
• requests for interpretation of the constitution;
• conflicts of jurisdiction;
• electoral disputes;
• second appeals following annulment involving the same case and parties;
• appeals in cassation requested by the Minister of Justice;
• referrals after annulment in cases of intentional flagrant offenses.

Constitutionality review

In plenary sessions, the Court hears appeals challenging the constitutionality of laws or acts. Such appeals may be brought by the attorney general, either independently or at the request of: ^[4]

• the president of the republic, regarding laws and internal parliamentary regulations;
• the bureau of the National Assembly, for presidential acts with the force of law;
• judicial courts, when a plea of unconstitutionality is raised concerning laws or presidential acts with the force of law.

Acts declared unconstitutional are automatically annulled. However, the invalidity of one or more provisions does not automatically nullify the entire act; the Court determines the precise scope of annulment. ^[4] The constitutionality review refers to the constitution in force when the text was adopted, meaning a law enacted under a previous constitution cannot be challenged under the current constitution. ^[4]

Constitutional interpretation and jurisdictional conflicts

The Court interprets constitutional provisions to clarify their meaning, define their scope, and resolve ambiguous, obscure, or doubtful points. Its goal is to reveal the intent of the constituent and the intrinsic meaning of the terms. ^[4] The Court may be asked to interpret the constitution at the request of the attorney general, acting on behalf of the president of the republic, the bureau of the National Assembly, the Senate, or any judicial court where an unclear provision must be applied to a dispute. ^[4]

The Supreme Court alone rules on jurisdictional conflicts, with all sections present. A conflict arises when a judicial and an administrative section claim (or deny) competence over the same case involving the same parties. If a section raises an exception of incompetence because the matter falls within the other section's competence, the Supreme Court resolves this separately. ^[4] Once resolved, the section declared competent handles the case, while the other section is divested of authority, and the parties proceed in accordance with the legal procedures. ^[4]

Electoral disputes

The Supreme Court ensures the legality and fairness of presidential, legislative, and referendum elections. It reviews official reports and complaints regarding presidential elections, validates the results, and formally proclaims the outcome. During the 2006–2007 post-electoral period, the Court played a critical role in presidential and legislative elections by issuing numerous rulings. ^[4] Notable examples include RCE. PR. 009 of 23 November (appeal by the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo) and R.E. 006 of the same date (proclamation of the second-round presidential election results on 29 October 2006), along with several rulings confirming or annulling legislative deputies' mandates. ^[4]

New judicial order established by the 2006 constitution

The constitution promulgated on 18 February 2006 was prepared by the Transitional Senate, adopted by the National Assembly, approved by the Congolese people through the referendum of 18–19 December 2005, and enacted by President Joseph Kabila. ^[4] In its explanatory memorandum, the constituent authority briefly outlines the reorganization of the judicial system in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as follows: ^[4]

"For greater efficiency, specialization, and speed in the handling of cases, the Courts and Tribunals have been divided into three judicial orders:

• the courts of the judicial order, placed under the supervision of the Court of Cassation;
• those of the administrative order, headed by the Council of State; and
• the Constitutional Court". ^[4]

Accordingly, the constitution restructures the Congolese judicial system by replacing the Supreme Court of Justice with three distinct jurisdictions. Unlike the Transitional Constitution, which did not differentiate courts by judicial order and placed the Supreme Court at the summit of a unified system, the new constitutional arrangement establishes two distinct judicial orders, each headed by its own supreme body. This transformation necessitated the abolition of the Supreme Court of Justice. ^[4]

Court of Cassation

Jurisdiction

Article 153, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the constitution of the Third Republic defines the powers of the Court of Cassation. The Court has jurisdiction over:

• appeals in cassation against final judgments and rulings issued by civil and military courts and tribunals; ^[4]
• offenses committed by certain high-ranking officials, over which it exercises original and final jurisdiction, including members of Parliament, members of the government other than the prime minister, members and judges of the constitutional court, the court of cassation, the council of state, and the court of auditors, as well as senior judicial officers, provincial authorities, and presidents of provincial assemblies. ^[4]

The prosecution and indictment of government members require an absolute majority vote of the National Assembly, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure, and any indicted government member must resign. The court of cassation also hears second-instance appeals against judgments rendered at first instance by the courts of appeal. ^[4] As the highest court of the judicial order, which includes civil and military courts and tribunals, it has jurisdiction throughout the national territory, although it adjudicates only judicial matters involving private individuals. ^[4]

Relationship with the judiciary of the Supreme Court of Justice

The Court of Cassation shares many characteristics with the former Supreme Court of Justice, particularly its judicial section. It appears to have inherited the powers of that section. However, notable differences exist, as unlike the Judicial section of the Supreme Court, the Court of Cassation does not have criminal jurisdiction over the president of the republic. ^[4] In addition, several categories of officials, such as the prime minister, provincial ministers, and presidents of provincial assemblies, were not mentioned in the Transitional Constitution, while new institutions created by the 2006 constitution, including the Constitutional Court and the Council of State, are expressly covered. Positions linked to the transition, such as vice-presidents and leaders of transitional institutions, no longer exist under the current constitutional framework. ^[4]

Council of state

Jurisdiction

The administrative judicial order includes all courts responsible for disputes involving public administrative authorities. The council of state occupies the highest position within this order. Traditionally, a council of state performs two distinct functions: it adjudicates disputes involving the administration and provides technical advice to the executive and legislative branches. ^[4] These two functions are exercised by separate and autonomous sections, each with its own jurisdiction and composition. The legislative section acts as a consultative support body for parliament and the government, while the administrative section performs primarily judicial functions and, secondarily, advisory ones, following the Belgian model. ^[4]

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the council of state has jurisdiction to hear:

• at first and final instance, applications alleging violations of the law against regulatory acts and decisions adopted by central administrative authorities; ^[4]
• appeals against rulings delivered by the administrative courts of appeal; ^[4]
• claims for compensation seeking redress for exceptional material or moral damage caused by measures taken or ordered by national, provincial, or local authorities, where no other court has jurisdiction. ^[4]

Relationship with the administrative section of the Supreme Court of Justice

Article 155 of the constitution of 18 February 2006 largely reproduces the substance of Articles 147, 148, and 158 of the Code of Judicial Organization and Jurisdiction (Code de l'organisation et de la compétence judiciaires; COCJ), which governed the powers of the administrative section of the former Supreme Court of Justice. ^[4] However, the constituent authority did not retain the final portion of Article 147 of the COCJ, which extended annulment powers to acts and regulations of decentralized entities placed under the supervision of central authorities. ^[4]

Although the council of state may exercise powers comparable to those of the former administrative section, it differs fundamentally in legal nature. The council of state is an autonomous court heading an entire judicial order, rather than a mere chamber within a single court. ^[4] Within the administrative judicial hierarchy, it represents the third level, following administrative tribunals and administrative courts of appeal. By contrast, the administrative section of the Supreme Court of Justice constituted only the second level, as lower tribunals did not exercise administrative jurisdiction. ^[4]

The designation "council of state" confers significant institutional prestige. Nevertheless, Professor Félix Vunduawe Te Pemako, in his Traité de droit administratif, strongly criticizes this choice of terminology. He argues that the name, borrowed from the French legal system, is inappropriate given its deep historical roots in France. ^[4] The French council of state originated as a body of the royal court that advised the monarch and later, with the French Revolution, evolved into an institution serving the republican state. In the Congolese context, the professor maintains that the term "council of state" is therefore ill-suited and that the institution should instead have been named the High Administrative Court (Haute cour administrative), since its primary function is the adjudication of administrative disputes, unlike the French Council of State, which also plays a substantial advisory role. ^[4]

Composition

2006 and 2008

Year	Name	Position
2006	Benoît Lwamba	First president (2003–2008)
2006	Makunza wu Makunza	President
2006	Mbangama Kabundi	Counselor
2006	Tshibanda Ntoka	Counselor
2006	Tuka Ika	Counselor
2006	Kikunguru Katomanga	Counselor
2006	Nzangi Batutu	Counselor
2006	Lilolo Mangope	Counselor
2006	Tasile Talizo	Advocate general of the republic
2008	Étienne Roger Tinkamanyire Bin Ndigeba	First president
2008	Thomas Pungwe Massua	President
2008	Mpinda Bakandowa	President
2008	Valentin Ngoie Kalenda	Counselor
2008	Henri Fidèle Bomwenga Mbangete	Counselor
2008	Pierre Badinengyi Bilolo	Counselor
2008	Tsasa Mbuzi	Counselor
2008	Théodore Tuka Ika	President
2008	Yowa Mabinda Kapinga	Counselor
2008	Bemwizi Kienga	Counselor
2008	Malikidogo Musubao	Counselor
2008	Jérôme Kitoko Kimpele	Counselor
2008	Simon Dieudonné Bombolu Bombongo	Counselor
2008	Terkasa Lufungula	Counselor
2008	Albert Lukamba Muganza	Counselor
2008	Remy Abdala Mbokamiba	Counselor
2008	Martin Bikoma Bahinga	Counselor
2008	Évariste-Prince Funga Molima Mwata	Counselor
2008	Maniragaba Nsekerebanzi	Counselor

Current

Name	Position
Jérôme Kitoko Kimpele	First president of the Supreme Court of Justice
Flory Kabange Numbi	Attorney general of the republic
Thomas Pungwe Massua	President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Charles Theodore Tuka Ika Bazungula	President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Valentin Ngoie Kalenda	President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Simon Dieudonné Bombolu Bombongo	President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Martin Bikoma Bahinga	President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Évariste-Prince Funga Molima Mwata	President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Safari Kasongo	First advocate general of the republic
Médard Katuala Kaba Kashala	First advocate general of the republic
Tasile Talizo	First advocate general of the republic
Munoko Vunda Muana Vunda	First advocate general of the republic
Maduda Muanda Madiela	First advocate general of the republic
Kyabilua Mavinga	First advocate general of the republic
Mupier Ndiriata	First advocate general of the republic
Emile Tshishimbi Ndiyi	First advocate general of the republic
Victor Mumba Mukomo	First advocate general of the republic
Emmanuel Minga Nyamakwey	First advocate general of the republic
Ikobia Bin Mashimo	First advocate general of the republic
Kikoka Toni Gaetoni	First advocate general of the republic
Henri Fidèle Bomwenga Mbangete	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Marie-Louise Ndala Musuamba	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Jean Ubulu Pungu	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Charles Bushiri Imani Mwata	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Bruno Numbi Bavinga	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Hubert Kalonda Saidi	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Hyppolite Masani Matshi	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Cleophas Mikobi Kalaam	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Dominique Ntambwe Wa Kaniki	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Pierre Mokuba Bekna Ondo	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Joseph Tsimba Khonde	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Dieudonné Ibanda Dudu	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Richard Mulamba Muamba	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Placide Kazadi Wa Lumbule	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Jean-Désiré MWANGLWA MUSALI	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Léon Mathe Kyalire	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Noël Kilomba Ngozi Mala	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Dieudonné MUkengule Muderhwa	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Marthe Odio Nonde	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Denis Kikongo Mukuli	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Mwanga Mulindya	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Bénoît Kapamvule Mpanda	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Mukendi Musanga	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Kibamba Moket	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Yemomima Atiba	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Alphonsine Cheusi	Counselor at the Supreme Court of Justice
Mokola Pikpa	Advocate general of the republic
Bernard Mikobi Minga	Advocate general of the republic
Iluta Ikombe Yamama	Advocate general of the republic
Mulumba Nkelenda	Advocate general of the republic
Paul Chihindamuko Luburhanwa	Advocate general of the republic
Pierre Essabe Kamulete	Advocate general of the republic
Tela Ziele	Advocate general of the republic
Laurent Kintiba Mputu	Advocate general of the republic
Nyadu Shabandu	Advocate general of the republic
Thomas Shakira Mwene Mujinya	Advocate general of the republic
Francois-Xavier Bilolo Bakole	Advocate general of the republic
Sumbul Mfumwashi	Advocate general of the republic
Michel Tulibaki Lusolo	Advocate general of the republic
Musaka Sala	Advocate general (female) of the republic
Jeanne Mobele Bomana	Advocate general (female) of the republic
Mukishi Kalambayi Tshikuku	Advocate general of the republic
Delphine Banza Sengalenge	Advocate general (female) of the republic

See also

• Constitutional Court of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

References

1. Zongwe, Dunia Prince; Butedi, François; Mavungu, Clément Phebe. "The Legal System of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Overview and Research". Nyulawglobal.org. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
2. Garcia, COL L. Bortoluzzi (13 September 2020). "Congo (DRC) Country Profile – Government/Politics - PKSOI" . Retrieved 8 June 2022.
3. Liwanga, Roger-Claude (October 2012). "Judicial Independence in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Myth or Reality?". Journal of African Law. 56 (2): 194–214. doi: 10.1017/S0021855312000034 . ISSN   0021-8553. S2CID   144557400.
4. Muruhuka, Cedric Kadusi (2007). "De l'évolution des compétences de la cour suprême de justice: de la Constitution de la transition à la constitution de la troisième République" [On the evolution of the powers of the Supreme Court of Justice: from the Transitional Constitution to the Constitution of the Third Republic] (in French). Lingwala, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo: Protestant University in the Congo . Retrieved 21 January 2026.
5. "Journal officiel de la République démocratique du Congo: Constitution de la transition" [Official Journal of the Democratic Republic of Congo: Transitional Constitution](PDF). Leganet.cd (in French). Journal officiel de la République démocratique du Congo. 5 April 2003. Retrieved 21 January 2026.