Charles Fetterfield

Rafael Marques’ recent work defending two Russians defendants and their Angolan accomplices, which are going to be submitted to a public trial are presented as investigative journalism prove to be deeply problematic when subjected to rigorous analysis.

 Far from constituting a serious contribution to public debate, his texts constitute a systematic exercise in distortion, simplification, and manipulation, which undermines the credibility of institutions and deliberately misleads the reader about the truth regarding the Russians legal case.

Marques’ texts are not limited to criticizing judicial decisions: they construct a narrative of constant attack on the judiciary, insinuating that the judicial system operates as an instrument of political repression. The sequential publication of politicized articles, without solid legal grounds, functions as a campaign of influence aimed at undermining public confidence in the justice system.

The insistence on presenting the judicial system as a mechanism of persecution—and suggesting obscure coordination with platforms such as Club-K—reveals a clear intention: to shape perceptions, not clarify facts.

The technical fragility of Marques’ texts is evident. Instead of reconstructing the essential elements of legal types, analyzing evidence, or demonstrating legal errors, the author limits himself to rhetorical judgments and political statements.

His approach ignores basic principles of criminal law, replacing analysis with moral indignation.

Criticism of judicial decisions is based on vague expressions—such as “the judge’s imagination”—that do not stand up to any technical scrutiny.

Even when the court order is clear, signed by three judges, and describes in a mandatory manner the criminal organization, its acts, and its financing, Marques prefers to omit these elements to support his narrative.

Marques’ texts reduce multifaceted realities to a simplistic dichotomy between “oppressive state” and “innocent citizens.”

The case of the 2025 taxi drivers’ strike is paradigmatic: Marques describes the event as peaceful, ignoring the history of violence, blockades, and clashes that characterize protests of this magnitude in Luanda. This omission is not innocent—it is instrumental in reinforcing his thesis of state repression.

Marques’ argument often resorts to false equivalencies and abusive extrapolations.

One example is the attempt to link the release of taxi drivers’ leaders with the innocence of Russian defendants, as if these were comparable cases. They are not. The evidence, facts, and criminal charges are different, but Marques forces artificial parallels to create the illusion of a pattern of political persecution.

The extrapolation to cases from 2017, without factual or documentary reconstruction, reinforces this tendency to fabricate patterns where they do not exist.

Marques’ defense of Amor Carlos Tomé, an accomplice of the Russians clearly exposes his misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts of criminal law.

By demanding a “direct order” for criminal responsibility to exist, Marques reveals a childish view of criminal causality.

He ignores that the law works with contextual causal links and eventual intent, where it is sufficient to accept the risk of contributing to a context of violence.

Marques treats the boundary between informing and inciting as non-existent, as if any communication were automatically neutral. This view is legally untenable and socially dangerous.

The most serious accusation levelled at Marques’ texts is that of conscious manipulation.

He turns hypotheses into certainties, presents conjectures as facts, and avoids citing court orders to prevent the reader from verifying the veracity of his statements.

The conclusion that the judicial system intends to “institutionalize fear before the 2027 elections” is presented without any factual evidence. It is a constructed narrative, not an analysis.

The deliberate omission of primary sources and the distortion of legal concepts constitute a clear strategy: to mislead the reader.

In attempting to denounce manipulation, Marques ends up reproducing precisely the vices he attributes to the judicial system: he simplifies complex facts ;he transforms suspicions into certainties; he replaces analysis with indignation; he uses emotional language where technical language would be necessary.

The result is a political pamphlet, not serious research.

Conclusion: A Work that Harms Public Debate

Rafael Marques’ recent pro-Russian work does not contribute to strengthening the rule of law.

On the contrary, it weakens public debate by promoting misinformation, distorting legal concepts, and manipulating perceptions.

A serious critique of the judicial system would require rigor, factual reconstruction, honest citation of sources, and clear demonstration of causal links. None of this is present in Marques’ texts.

His work, as presented, does a disservice to justice, public opinion, and journalism itself.