Opinion; Subjects: EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-01430 (E) 100326 100326
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 70/2025 concerning Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang
(Equatorial Guinea)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 11 July 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Equatorial Guinea a communication concerning Anacleto
Micha Ndong Nlang. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a
Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
* Miriam Estrada Castillo and Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
General Assembly
Distr.: General
16 February 2026
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
2
GE.26-01430
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang was born on 15 February 1973. He usually resides in
Pérez, Malabo.
5.
Mr. Ndong Nlang is a lawyer, human rights defender, civil society leader and engineer.
He is also an active member of Guinea Ecuatorial También Es Nuestra, a non-governmental
organization (NGO) that defends human rights, the rule of law and democracy. He was
previously an employee and member of the Centre for Development Studies and Initiatives,
through which he provided legal assistance to persons whose rights had been violated and
helped them obtain general and medical support.
6.
Mr. Ndong Nlang led numerous social media campaigns and protests to raise
awareness of cases involving persons said to have been unjustly killed, imprisoned or
persecuted by the Government. In addition, he regularly advocates for the peaceful pursuit
of democracy and has publicly condemned the human rights abuses committed by the
authorities.
(i)
Context
7.
The source reports that the Government has systematically banned the political
opposition from operating. The culmination of this policy was the dissolution of the main
opposition party, Ciudadanos por la Innovación, in 2018. According to the source, it is
common for the Government to crack down on dissent in the run-up to elections.
8.
The source states that there is no effective separation of powers in Equatorial Guinea.
In practice, legislative power is exercised mainly through presidential decrees. The judiciary
is subject to government interference, since the Vice-President openly intervenes in judicial
affairs. The Vice-President has publicly admitted to giving instructions to the public
prosecution service by directly ordering arrests and initiating investigations. Furthermore, the
Bar Association and the Government intimidate and arbitrarily detain lawyers who represent
human rights defenders and dissidents.
9.
According to the information received, critics of the Government face reprisals
including arrests without warrants or placement in incommunicado detention for periods that
exceed the national legal limit of 72 hours. In order to repress dissent, the Government
frequently brings charges of slander and defamation against members of the opposition,
human rights defenders, lawyers and ordinary citizens.
10.
The source reports that the Government suppresses peaceful protests and exercises
strict control over freedom of association by selectively granting legal status to certain
organizations while others grapple with indefinite delays in the registration process, which
severely affects their operations. Furthermore, the Government frequently harasses and
threatens civil society organizations that draw attention to the alleged human rights violations
it has committed.
11.
The source reports that, in 2019, the Centre for Development Studies and Initiatives
was dissolved by the Government, which accused the organization of participating in
“political activities”. Like other civil society organizations, the Centre is operating in exile
owing to the serious risks involved in working in the country.
12.
According to the information received, detainees in Equatorial Guinea are subjected
to inhuman conditions, ill-treatment and torture, which sometimes result in their death in
custody. Prisons are overcrowded, offer unsanitary conditions and lack food and medical
supplies. Detainees often suffer injuries and illnesses caused by beatings and other forms of
torture. Many detainees are denied access to the necessary medical care, leading to deaths
from negligence. In addition, detainees are held incommunicado and subjected to forced
transfers, which limits their access to legal defence services. Political prisoners are often sent
to the maximum security prison in Oveng Azem, which is located in a remote part of the
mainland, further isolating them from their lawyers and families and the outside world. This
isolation increases their vulnerability to abuse, since there is no public scrutiny or oversight.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
3
(ii)
Arrest and detention
13.
According to the source, on 25 September 2022, Mr. Ndong Nlang was handing out
food at the premises of Ciudadanos por la Innovación – the political opposition party that has
been banned by the Government – when six plain-clothed officers forcibly entered the
premises and arrested those present, including Mr. Ndong Nlang. The source reports that the
officers, one of whom was the Chief of the Malabo police force, did not have arrest warrants.
14.
The source reports that, although Mr. Ndong Nlang is not a member of Ciudadanos
por la Innovación, he was accused of belonging to the party and was detained at the central
police station of the Ministry of Security in Malabo. He was held in a narrow cell with no
light, water, bed or bathroom and was unable to fulfil his basic hygiene needs. The authorities
also placed dozens of women from the political opposition party in that same cell, where they
were forced to relieve themselves in a corner.
15.
On 11 October 2022, Mr. Ndong Nlang was transferred to Black Beach prison in
Malabo. Upon arrival, he was stripped of his clothing and physically tortured until he began
to bleed. He was then placed in a dirty cell with no light, water, ventilation or bathroom. He
was reportedly forced to sleep on a bloodstained mattress.
16.
According to the source, Mr. Ndong Nlang was denied visits and access to the outside
world for three months. His communication with his lawyers and family members was also
restricted.
17.
On 19 May 2023, the Criminal Chamber of Malabo Bioko Norte Court of
Investigation No. 3 convicted Mr. Ndong Nlang of “assault on authority” for having defended
himself against the plain-clothed officers during his arrest. He was sentenced to 6 months’
imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 CFA francs (approximately $168). As he had already
been detained for more than six months, he was released on 23 June 2023.
18.
In September 2023, Mr. Ndong Nlang filed a complaint with Malabo Court of
Investigation No. 1. The complaint was made against several high-ranking officials,
including the Vice-President, who is in charge of national defence and State security, for
kidnapping, assault, death threats, armed robbery, physical and psychological torture, cruel
and inhuman treatment, false accusations, unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty and
of communication.
19.
On 22 December 2023, Mr. Ndong Nlang was summoned to the central police station
in Malabo. Once there, police officers asked him to record a video refuting the accusations
he had made in his complaint. After refusing to do so, he was detained for five days without
being charged. He was released on 26 December 2023 and given a handwritten note that
mentioned “provisional release”.
20.
On 17 January 2024, a sergeant responded to the complaint submitted by Mr. Ndong
Nlang by filing a counterclaim for slander.
21.
According to the source, on 26 January 2024, four plain-clothed officers from the
National Gendarmerie violently arrested Mr. Ndong Nlang at his home in Pérez without an
arrest warrant and without informing him of the reason for his arrest or the charges against
him. They slammed his head against a wall and forcibly plunged it in water. He was then
physically assaulted and taken to the La Luna gendarmerie station in Malabo. The source
adds that, once there, he was allowed to receive legal assistance.
22.
On 30 January 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers filed an application for habeas
corpus with Malabo Court of Investigation No. 2 after he had been held in pretrial detention
for 72 hours without being formally charged.
23.
On 7 February 2024, the judge of Court of Investigation No. 3 accepted the sergeant’s
complaint for slander. On 8 February 2024, the judge issued an order prohibiting Mr. Ndong
Nlang from travelling abroad and another for his pretrial detention. The judge also imposed
a mutual restraining order on Mr. Ndong Nlang and the sergeant.
24.
On 23 February 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang was brought before Malabo Court of
Investigation No. 3, where he was informed that he was being held on a charge of defamation.
It was indicated in the pretrial detention order that there was a risk that Mr. Ndong Nlang
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
4
GE.26-01430
would not attend court for his trial and that he might destroy evidence, meaning that the
judicial proceedings could be obstructed if he were not detained. The order also indicated
that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention was necessary to ensure public safety given the possibility
that he and the sergeant would encounter each other in a public space. Furthermore, the order
stated that Mr. Ndong Nlang should be detained because the sergeant had been publicly
humiliated when Mr. Ndong Nlang posted his photograph on social media.
25.
The source reports that Mr. Ndong Nlang subsequently had the opportunity to
challenge his detention with the assistance of his lawyers but was unsuccessful.
26.
On 1 March 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang was transferred to Black Beach prison. This
transfer was in violation of the restraining order of 8 February 2024, since the sergeant who
had accused Mr. Ndong Nlang of defamation worked at that prison.
27.
According to the source, Mr. Ndong Nlang was last seen by his lawyers on 22 March
2024, when he made a statement before Malabo Court of First Instance No. 3.
28.
On 3 April 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers submitted a formal visit request, which
was approved by the Ministry of Justice on 10 April 2024. However, this approval was not
communicated to his lawyers until 24 April 2024. The lack of communication raised
suspicion among Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers that he was no longer in Black Beach prison
and that he might be in danger. On that same day, 24 April 2024, the absence of contact with
their client prompted the lawyers to send a letter to Malabo Court of First Instance No. 3, in
which they requested the Court to order prison officials to bring Mr. Ndong Nlang to the
courthouse for a meeting. However, the judge did not respond to this letter.
29.
On 26 April 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers went to Black Beach prison and asked
the guards and a judge from Malabo Court of First Instance No. 3 about his whereabouts.
The authorities confirmed that he was no longer being held in that prison but refused to
provide further information.
30.
On 9 May 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers sent a letter to the Attorney General
requesting that he intervene to help locate Mr. Ndong Nlang and authorize visits. However,
the Attorney General did not respond to this request. On 11 June 2024, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s
lawyers sent a similar letter to the Ombudsman, which also went unanswered.
31.
On 24 July 2024, the public prosecution service requested that Malabo Court of
Investigation No. 3 conduct a series of investigations into the case of Mr. Ndong Nlang and
asked to question him. On 30 July 2024, the judge rejected the service’s request to question
Mr. Ndong Nlang, claiming that he was in Oveng Azem prison and, as a result, was no longer
available for questioning in Malabo.
32.
According to the source, the decision made by the judge on 30 July 2024 was the first
official acknowledgment that Mr. Ndong Nlang had been transferred to the maximum
security prison in Oveng Azem, which is located in a remote area of the mainland. In this
decision, the judge did not offer any information on the status or situation of Mr. Ndong
Nlang.
33.
The source adds that Mr. Ndong Nlang continues to be held in pretrial detention and
that a date for his trial has not been set. The court has not reviewed its decision to keep him
in custody.
34.
The source reports that Mr. Ndong Nlang continues to be held incommunicado and
that his lawyers fear he is being tortured. There has been no update on his whereabouts since
the issuance of the decision of 30 July 2024, and no information on his status or condition
has been received since his lawyers last saw him on 22 March 2024. The source believes that
Mr. Ndong Nlang is still being held in Oveng Azem prison.
(iii)
Legal analysis
35.
The source argues that the case of Mr. Ndong Nlang falls under categories I, II, III
and V of the Working Group.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
5
a.
Category I
Violence at the time of arrest and arrest without a warrant and without charge
36.
The source claims that Mr. Ndong Nlang was violently assaulted during his arrest on
26 January 2024. The persons conducting the arrest did not present an arrest warrant or
identify themselves as officers with the authority to arrest him. Mr. Ndong Nlang was not
committing a crime at the time of his arrest, so the arrest was not made in flagrante delicto.
37.
The source states that Mr. Ndong Nlang was not informed of the charges against him
at the time of his arrest. He did not receive that information until 23 February 2024, almost
one month after his arrest, which exceeds the 36-hour period determined by the Working
Group to be the maximum permissible delay.2
38.
As a result, the source submits that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention violates articles 3
and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant
and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, thus rendering it arbitrary under category I.
Denial of the right to habeas corpus and violation of the general rule against pretrial
detention
39.
The source states that, according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or
detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge and is entitled to trial
within a reasonable time or to release. According to the Human Rights Committee, while the
exact meaning of “promptly” may vary depending on the circumstances, delays should not
exceed a few days, and any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional
and be justified under the circumstances.3
40.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang was brought before Malabo Court of
Investigation No. 3 on 23 February 2024, almost one month after his arrest on 26 January
2024, which means that he was not brought promptly before a court, and that there is no
justification for the delay.
41.
Furthermore, on 8 February 2024, the judge of Court of Investigation No. 3 ordered
the pretrial detention of Mr. Ndong Nlang without conducting an individualized assessment
that involved the consideration of less restrictive measures. According to the source, the
pretrial detention order did not set an end date for the detention and merely indicated that
there was a risk that Mr. Ndong Nlang would not attend court for his trial and that he might
destroy evidence, meaning that the judicial process would be obstructed if he were not
detained. The order also stated that his detention was necessary to ensure public safety given
the possibility that he would encounter the sergeant who had accused him of slander.
However, the court ordered that he be sent to Black Beach prison, the very prison at which
the sergeant worked.
42.
The source also states that it was alleged in the order that Mr. Ndong Nlang had
publicly humiliated the sergeant by posting his photograph on social media and that
Mr. Ndong Nlang should thus be detained. The order did not set out any evidence supporting
these claims or demonstrating that the detention was reasonable and necessary. Less
restrictive measures were not considered. Mr. Ndong Nlang continues to be held in pretrial
detention, and a date for his trial has not been set. The decision to keep him in detention has
not been reviewed.
43.
The source argues that, by acting in contravention of the norm that pretrial detention
should not be the general rule and denying Mr. Ndong Nlang the opportunity to appear
promptly before a judicial authority and challenge his detention, the Government violated
article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 (3) and 9 (3) and (4) of the
Covenant and principles 11 (1), 32 (1), 37 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
2 Opinion No. 30/2017, para. 59.
3 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
6
GE.26-01430
Enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention
44.
The source submits that there is no valid legal basis for enforced disappearance and
incommunicado detention. These practices are inherently arbitrary, as they place the
individual outside the protection of the law and deprive them of legal safeguards.4 Article 6
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the Covenant guarantee that
everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. The source
recalls that the Working Group has determined that incommunicado detention lasting more
than 15 days is arbitrary.5
45.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang was subjected to enforced disappearance
and has been held incommunicado since 22 March 2024, the date on which he was last seen
by his lawyers. Despite repeated requests from his lawyers and family members, officials
have refused to provide information on his status and have prevented any form of
communication with him. They also refused to disclose Mr. Ndong Nlang’s whereabouts
between 22 March and 30 July 2024. The source states that, for all these reasons, Mr. Ndong
Nlang’s detention violates article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 16
of the Covenant and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Accordingly, the source
claims that the detention of Mr. Ndong Nlang is arbitrary under category I.
b.
Category II
46.
The source argues that deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category II when it
results from a violation of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. These include
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. This right covers
political discourse, commentary on public affairs and discussion of human rights.6
47.
The source recalls that the Working Group has previously determined that freedom of
expression includes the right to publicly criticize and evaluate a government without fear of
interference or punishment.7 This right enables political opposition groups and human rights
activists to protest, criticize and expose illegal government practices.8 Additionally, it has
been determined that, although slander and defamation laws are legitimate and can be used
to protect reputations, the violation of these laws should not be punished through
disproportionate measures such as detention.9
48.
The source alleges that the Government severely punishes criticism against it through
the systematic use of defamation and slander laws to restrict and silence dissent, which has
created a climate of self-censorship. The source recalls that the Working Group has
determined that violations of these laws should not be punished with the disproportionate
measure of detention. In this context, the source argues that the detention of Mr. Ndong Nlang
is a direct consequence of the exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Mr. Ndong Nlang criticized officials in a peaceful manner by filing a complaint against
security agents, in which he accused them of subjecting him to kidnapping, torture and other
crimes during a previous detention. As a result, he was arrested for the alleged crime of
slander. According to the source, the restriction of his fundamental freedoms does not qualify
as one of the exceptional cases provided for by the Covenant, which establishes that such
restrictions may be imposed to protect national security, public order, public health or morals
or the rights and freedoms of others. Instead, the main purpose of his detention is to protect
officials from legal liability and criticism, thereby silencing dissent.
4 Ibid., para. 17.
5 See opinion No. 50/1993.
6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11.
7 Opinion No. 24/2019, para. 40.
8 Opinion No. 22/2013, para. 11.
9 Opinion No. 35/2008, para. 36.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
7
49.
The source states that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention was the result of the exercise of
his fundamental rights to freedom of expression and opinion, in violation of article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, which
renders his deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category II.
c.
Category III
50.
The source argues that the Government violated several norms of international human
rights law relating to the right to a fair trial and that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention is thus
arbitrary under category III.
Violence at the time of arrest, arrest without a warrant and arrest without charge
51.
The source reaffirms that officers did not present an arrest warrant at the time of
Mr. Ndong Nlang’s arrest and that he was not informed of the charges against him until he
had been detained for one month. As a result, his lawyers were unable to appeal his detention.
52.
The source argues that the Government violated articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and principles 2, 4 and
10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment. It states that the detention of Mr. Ndong Nlang is arbitrary under category
III.
Denial of the right to habeas corpus and violation of the general rule against pretrial
detention
53.
The source states that Mr. Ndong Nlang was brought before a judge one month after
his arrest and has been held in pretrial detention since then. This pretrial detention has not
been reviewed, and less restrictive measures have not been considered.
54.
By depriving Mr. Ndong Nlang of his right to appear promptly before a judicial
authority and his right to challenge his detention and by acting in contravention of the general
rule against pretrial detention, the Government has violated article 8 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 (3) and 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant and
principles 11 (1), 32 (1), 37 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, thereby rendering his arrest and detention
arbitrary under category III.
Enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention
55.
The source recalls that article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article
16 of the Covenant and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment protect detainees
against enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention.
56.
The source argues that Mr. Ndong Nlang has been subjected to enforced
disappearance and has been held incommunicado since 22 March 2024, the date on which he
was last seen by his lawyers. The authorities did not disclose his whereabouts until 30 July
2024, when they acknowledged that he had been transferred to Oveng Azem prison. Since
then, despite repeated requests from his lawyers and family members, no further information
on his status or condition has been provided. This has prevented Mr. Ndong Nlang from
obtaining access to legal assistance, so he has been unable to appeal his detention or prepare
his defence. Furthermore, this situation has put Mr. Ndong Nlang at risk of abuse and
ill-treatment.
57.
The source argues that, by subjecting Mr. Ndong Nlang to enforced disappearance
and holding him incommunicado for longer than is permitted under international law, the
Government has violated his right to a fair trial, in contravention of article 6 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 16 of the Covenant and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. His detention is arbitrary under category III.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
8
GE.26-01430
Denial of legal assistance
58.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers have been unable to communicate
with him since 22 March 2024 and that the authorities have refused to provide any
information on his status. The authorities did not confirm that he was in Oveng Azem prison
until 30 July 2024. Since then, no information has been received. Without access to legal
assistance, Mr. Ndong Nlang is unable to challenge his detention, prepare his defence or
report possible abuse or ill-treatment.
59.
The source states that, by denying Mr. Ndong Nlang access to his lawyers, the
Government has violated article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, principles 15, 17 and 18 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on
Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring
Proceedings Before a Court, thereby rendering his detention arbitrary under category III.
d.
Category V
60.
The source recalls that the Working Group has previously determined that deprivation
of liberty constitutes a violation of international law when it results from discrimination based
on political opinion or an individual’s status as a human rights defender.10 It has also stated
that, in accordance with category V, the imposition of charges intended to repress dissenting
political opinions may in itself constitute arbitrary detention under national law.
61.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s status as a human rights defender and his
dissident political views are key elements in his case. It adds that the authorities
disproportionately attacked him in retaliation for a legal complaint he filed against State
officials for kidnapping and torture and that they detained him in order to make him retract
his statements. Furthermore, the source argues that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s case exemplifies the
systematic, large-scale repression faced by human rights defenders, government critics and
political dissidents in Equatorial Guinea. For example, in 2018, the Government banned the
political party Ciudadanos por la Innovación, which was one of the last opposition parties
still operating legally in the country. In 2022, the Government brutally shut down its activities
through mass arrests and an excessive use of force, reflecting a broader pattern of
discrimination based on political opinion. Mr. Ndong Nlang has never been a member of
Ciudadanos por la Innovación but was violently arrested, detained and tortured simply for
offering food to the party’s members.
62.
The source also notes that, in 2019, the Government dissolved the Centre for
Development Studies and Initiatives, a long-standing NGO that promoted human rights and
the strengthening of independent local civil society, after accusing it of conducting “political
activities”.
63.
In the months leading up to the presidential elections of November 2022, the
Government stepped up its persecution of dissidents and opposition figures by arresting them
without warrants and holding them without charge for long periods.
64.
The source argues that the case of Mr. Ndong Nlang clearly fits this pattern. The
systematic persecution of political activists, human rights defenders and NGOs demonstrates
that Mr. Ndong Nlang has been subjected to discrimination because of his political opinion
and his status as a human rights defender.
65.
The source maintains that, by detaining Mr. Ndong Nlang for his political opinion and
his work as a human rights defender, the Government has violated articles 2 and 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, thereby
rendering his detention arbitrary under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
66.
On 11 July 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested
10 See opinion No. 33/2015.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
9
the Government to provide, by 9 September 2025, detailed information on the situation of
Mr. Ndong Nlang, clarifying the legal and factual grounds for his detention and explaining
how it is compatible with the Government’s obligations under international human rights law
and, in particular, the treaties ratified by the State.
67.
The Working Group regrets that the Government has not submitted a response or
requested an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of
work.
2.
Discussion
68.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
69.
In determining whether Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention is arbitrary, the Working Group
has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If
the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.11 In the present case, the Government has
chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
(a)
Category I
70.
The Working Group notes that the source’s arguments concern the most recent arrest
and imprisonment of Mr. Ndong Nlang, which occurred in 2024. The source submits that
Mr. Ndong Nlang was violently assaulted during his arrest on 26 January 2024. The persons
conducting the arrest did not present an arrest warrant or identify themselves as officers with
the authority to arrest him. In addition, the source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang was not
committing a crime at the time of his arrest, so the arrest was not made in flagrante delicto.
The Government has chosen not to challenge these allegations.
71.
The source claims that Mr. Ndong Nlang was not informed of the charges against him
at the time of his arrest and did not receive that information until 23 February 2024, almost
one month after his arrest.
72.
Detained persons have the right to be promptly informed of the charges against them.
This is inherent in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the
Covenant and principles 2 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. These provisions also require that the
procedures for carrying out legally authorized deprivation of liberty should be established by
law and that States Parties should ensure compliance with them, including by specifying
when an arrest warrant is required.12
73.
Moreover, the Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of
liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest.
The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.
This is typically done through an arrest warrant or a court order (or equivalent document).13
The reasons for arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only
the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual specifics to indicate the substance
of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.14
74.
The Working Group notes that, according to the source’s unrefuted arguments, in
January 2024, four plain-clothed officers from the National Gendarmerie violently arrested
Mr. Ndong Nlang at his home without an arrest warrant and without informing him of the
reasons for his arrest or the charges against him. Given the organized nature of the raid, it
appears to have been planned in advance. It is thus unclear why the officers did not have an
arrest warrant. In these circumstances, the Working Group considers that the arrest violated
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23.
13 Opinions No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59; No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; No. 30/2018,
para. 39; and No. 18/2023, para. 93.
14 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
10
GE.26-01430
article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, in accordance with the Working Group’s jurisprudence on the requirements of those
articles.
75.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang was brought before Malabo Court of
Investigation No. 3 on 23 February 2024, almost one month after his arrest on 26 January
2024, which means that he was not brought promptly before a court, and that there is no
justification for the delay.
76.
The Working Group notes that, according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone
arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge and is
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. Furthermore, according to the Human
Rights Committee, while the exact meaning of “promptly” may vary depending on the
circumstances, delays should not exceed a few days, and any delay longer than 48 hours must
remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.
77.
Consequently, it is clear that Mr. Ndong Nlang was detained for approximately one
month before being brought before a judge. In view of the lack of response from the
Government, the Working Group considers that a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant
has been established.
78.
Furthermore, on 8 February 2024, the judge of Court of Investigation No. 3 ordered
the pretrial detention of Mr. Ndong Nlang without conducting an individualized assessment
that involved the consideration of less restrictive measures. According to the source, the
pretrial detention order did not set an end date for the detention and merely indicated that
there was a risk that Mr. Ndong Nlang would not attend court for his trial and that he might
destroy evidence, meaning that the judicial process would be obstructed if he were not
detained. The order also stated that his detention was necessary to ensure public safety given
the possibility that he would encounter the sergeant who had accused him of slander.
However, the court ordered that he be sent to Black Beach prison, the very prison at which
the sergeant worked.
79.
The source also indicates that the order did not set out any evidence supporting these
claims or demonstrating that the detention was reasonable and necessary. Less restrictive
measures were not considered. Mr. Ndong Nlang continues to be held incommunicado in
pretrial detention, allegedly in the Oveng Azem prison, and a date for his trial has not been
set. The decision to keep him in detention has not been reviewed.
80.
The Working Group is alarmed to note that Mr. Ndong Nlang has been held in pretrial
detention for almost two years, in violation of international norms and standards.
81.
The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
pretrial detention should be the exception rather than the rule and should be ordered for the
shortest possible time. Pretrial detention must be based strictly on an individualized
determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight,
tampering with evidence or the recurrence of the offence. In determining whether the
conditions governing pretrial detention have been met, the Working Group examines whether
the national courts have taken into account the particular circumstances of the person
concerned but does not check whether there are risks that would make pretrial detention
necessary.15
82.
The Working Group notes that, according to the source’s allegations, the Government
does not explain what circumstances specifically relevant to Mr. Ndong Nlang justify having
kept him in pretrial detention since his arrest on 26 January 2024. On this basis, and in view
of the reported contradictions in the action taken by the Government, which the Government
has not refuted, the Working Group concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 (3)
of the Covenant.
83.
Consequently, the Working Group considers Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention to be in
violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of
the Covenant, and to be arbitrary under category I.
15 Opinion No. 15/2022, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
11
84.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang was subjected to enforced disappearance
between 22 March and 30 July 2024 and is being held incommunicado. The Government has
not demonstrated the contrary. As the Working Group has argued, holding persons so that
they have no access to the outside world, in particular to their family members and lawyers,
violates their right under article 9 (4) of the Covenant to challenge the lawfulness of detention
before a court.16 Judicial oversight of deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of
personal liberty,17 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.18
85.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Ndong Nlang was subjected to enforced
disappearance and has been held incommunicado since 22 March 2024, the date on which he
was last seen by his lawyers. Despite repeated requests from his lawyers and family members,
officials have refused to provide information on his status and have prevented any form of
communication with him, thereby depriving him of legal protection. They also refused to
disclose Mr. Ndong Nlang’s whereabouts between 22 March and 30 July 2024. Owing to the
above, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention violates article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, articles 9, 14 and 16 of the Covenant and principles 15, 16 (1) and 19 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
86.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Working Group finds that the detention of
Mr. Ndong Nlang is arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
87.
The source alleges that the Government severely punishes criticism against it through
the systematic use of defamation and slander laws to restrict and silence dissent, which has
created a climate of self-censorship. In this context, the source argues that the detention of
Mr. Ndong Nlang is a direct consequence of the exercise of his right to freedom of opinion
and expression. Mr. Ndong Nlang criticized officials in a peaceful manner by filing a
complaint against security agents, in which he accused them of subjecting him to kidnapping,
torture and other crimes during a previous detention. As a result, he was arrested for the
alleged crime of slander. According to the source, the restriction of his fundamental freedoms
does not qualify as one of the exceptional cases provided for by the Covenant, which
establishes that such restrictions may be imposed to protect national security, public order,
public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.19
88.
The Working Group recalls that article 19 (1) of the Covenant establishes that all
forms of opinion are protected, including those of a political, scientific, historical, moral or
religious nature. The Working Group also recalls that article 19 (2) of the Covenant provides
that everyone is to have the right to freedom of expression; this right includes the freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and covers
political discourse, commentary on public affairs, discussion of human rights and
journalism.20 The right to freedom of expression protects the holding and expression of
opinions, including those that are critical of, or not in line with, government policy. However,
pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the right to freedom of expression may be restricted
in cases provided for by law and where necessary for the protection of national security or
public order. It has not been proven that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s statements constituted
incitement to violence and, accordingly, that his detention was necessary and proportionate
to the legitimate aim of protecting national security or public order.21
89.
Consequently, the Working Group considers that, in the light of the information
provided by the Government and the source, it can be concluded that the arrest and detention
of Mr. Ndong Nlang were the result of the exercise of his rights and thus represent a violation
of article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The detention was therefore arbitrary under category II.
16 See opinions No. 45/2017, No. 87/2020 and No. 40/2024.
17 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, para. 3.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17; and opinion No. 5/2020,
para. 74.
19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 21 and 29.
20 Ibid., para. 11.
21 Opinions No. 79/2017, para. 55; and No. 8/2019, para. 55.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
12
GE.26-01430
(c)
Category III
90.
The Working Group has found the detention of Mr. Ndong Nlang to be arbitrary under
category II. In the light of this, he should not stand trial for having exercised his fundamental
rights. However, because Mr. Ndong Nlang is being prosecuted, and in view of the claims
made by the source, the Working Group will consider whether the key components of a trial
have been respected in the course of the criminal proceedings faced by Mr. Ndong Nlang.
91.
The source argues that, by denying Mr. Ndong Nlang access to legal assistance, the
Government violated several norms of international human rights law relating to the right to
a fair trial and that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s detention is thus arbitrary under category III.
92.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang was denied visits and access to the outside
world for three months after his arrest. His communication with his lawyers and family
members was restricted. Furthermore, Mr. Ndong Nlang’s lawyers have been unable to
communicate with him since 22 March 2024, and the authorities have refused to provide any
information on his status. The authorities did not confirm that he was in Oveng Azem prison
until 30 July 2024. Since then, no further information has been received. Without access to
legal assistance, Mr. Ndong Nlang is unable to challenge his detention, prepare his defence
or report possible abuse or ill-treatment.
93.
The Working Group has established above that Mr. Ndong Nlang was subjected to
enforced disappearance, which substantially undermined and compromised his capacity to
defend himself in any subsequent judicial proceedings.22 The Working Group recalls that
access to legal assistance is guaranteed under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, principles 15,
17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment and principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty
to Bring Proceedings Before a Court. The right to legal assistance is also essential to preserve
the right to a fair trial, since it safeguards the principle of equality of arms provided for in
articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b)
and (d) of the Covenant.
94.
The Working Group noted that, according to the source’s uncontested statements,
Mr. Ndong Nlang’s access to his lawyers was restricted during his detention, which
constitutes a violation of article 14 of the Covenant and the other instruments.
95.
The Working Group is also concerned about the repeated acts of violence faced by
Mr. Ndong Nlang according to the source’s unrefuted claims. During his previous detention,
Mr. Ndong Nlang was allegedly subjected to serious acts of violence, including beatings. His
most recent arrest was also marked by serious acts of violence, as the source claims that
government officials slammed his head against a wall and forcibly plunged it in water, which
has not been refuted by the Government.
96.
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prohibited, inter alia, under
article 7 of the Covenant. The Working Group has consistently concluded in its opinions that
the inability of a person who is subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment or
punishment to prepare an adequate defence for a trial that respects the equality of both parties
before the judicial proceedings amounts to a violation of the right to a fair trial.23 In the
Working Group’s view, the torture or ill-treatment of detainees not only is a grave violation
of human rights, but also a serious threat to the fundamental principles of a fair trial, as it can
compromise the ability to defend oneself, especially in the light of the right not to be
compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt.24 The Working Group reiterates that
the prohibition of torture is non-derogable because of its status as a jus cogens norm and that
it encompasses the obligation to investigate alleged violations promptly and bring
perpetrators to justice, as well as the prohibition of the use of evidence obtained under torture
in legal proceedings.25
22 Opinion No. 40/2024, para. 161.
23 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42.
24 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 78; No. 26/2019, para. 104; and No. 56/2019, para. 88.
25 Opinion No. 66/2022, para. 99.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
13
97.
Given the irrefutable nature of the source’s allegations of violent ill-treatment, the
Working Group considers that Mr. Ndong Nlang was subjected to violations that undermined
his right to a fair trial under article 14 of the Covenant. This situation has been compounded
by the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to investigate these allegations of torture and
ill-treatment.
98.
In this case, the Working Group concludes that the violations of Mr. Ndong Nlang’s
rights are of such gravity as to render the deprivation of liberty arbitrary, in violation of
articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) of the
Covenant, and fall under category III.
(d)
Category V
99.
Taking into account the analysis under category II, the Working Group stresses that,
where detention is the result of the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong
presumption that it also constitutes a violation of international law on grounds of
discrimination based on political or other views.26 In this context, the Working Group refers
to the source’s allegations under category II, which have not been refuted by the Government.
100.
The source alleges that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s status as a human rights defender and his
dissident political views are key elements in his case. It adds that the authorities
disproportionately attacked him in retaliation for a legal complaint he filed against State
officials for kidnapping and torture and that they detained him in order to make him retract
his statements. Furthermore, the source argues that Mr. Ndong Nlang’s case exemplifies the
systematic, large-scale repression faced by human rights defenders, government critics and
political dissidents in Equatorial Guinea.
101.
In the months leading up to the presidential elections of November 2022, the
Government stepped up its persecution of dissidents and opposition figures by arresting them
without warrants and holding them without charge for long periods. The source argues that
the case of Mr. Ndong Nlang clearly fits this pattern. The systematic persecution of political
activists, human rights defenders and NGOs demonstrates that Mr. Ndong Nlang has been
subjected to discrimination because of his political opinion and his status as a human rights
defender.
102.
The Working Group takes into account a number of non-cumulative factors in order
to determine whether a deprivation of liberty is discriminatory in nature. These factors
include: (a) whether the deprivation of liberty is part of a pattern of persecution of the
detained person; (b) whether other persons with similarly distinguishing characteristics have
also been persecuted; or (c) whether the context suggests that the authorities have detained
the person on discriminatory grounds or to prevent him or her from exercising his or her
human rights.27 The Working Group has included human rights defenders as a protected
group that is entitled to equal protection of the law under article 26 of the Covenant.28
103.
On the basis of the information before it, the Working Group considers that Mr. Ndong
Nlang was persecuted because of his political activities, which included his calls for reform.
The Working Group notes that, according to the source’s uncontested statements, Mr. Ndong
Nlang was arrested on multiple occasions, and many other individuals who are said to share
his political views were also arrested in similar circumstances. The Working Group has
already concluded that, when detention has resulted from the active exercise of civil and
political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of
international law based on grounds of discrimination.29
104.
Accordingly, the Working Group finds that Mr. Ndong Nlang was deprived of his
liberty on discriminatory grounds owing to his political opinions and status as a human rights
defender, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. His detention is arbitrary under category V.
26 See opinions No. 59/2019 and No. 7/2024.
27 Opinion No. 58/2023, para. 73.
28 A/HRC/36/37, paras. 46–49.
29 Opinions No. 75/2022, para. 91; and No. 61/2024, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
14
GE.26-01430
(e)
Concluding remarks
105.
Having taken note of the source’s complaints that Mr. Ndong Nlang has been held in
unsanitary conditions and that he has not been heard from since July 2024, the Working
Group reminds the Government that it must comply with its obligations under article 10 of
the Covenant, which establishes that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and with
principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment and rules 43 (3), 58 and 59 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). The
Working Group notes that prompt and regular access to family members, independent
medical personnel and lawyers is an essential and necessary safeguard to protect against
arbitrary detention and prevent torture.30
3.
Disposition
106.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang, being in contravention of
articles 6, 8, 9 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14
and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I, II, III and V.
107.
The Working Group requests the Government of Equatorial Guinea to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Ndong Nlang without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
108.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Ndong Nlang immediately and accord
him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
109.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Ndong Nlang and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of his rights.
110.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
111.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Ndong Nlang has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Ndong
Nlang;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Ndong
Nlang’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Equatorial Guinea with its international obligations in
line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
30 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), paras. 34 and 58. See also opinions
No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74 and 75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/70
GE.26-01430
15
112.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
113.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
114.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.31
[Adopted on 13 November 2025]
31 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.