(The Suspects. Photo by BBC News)
Two Russians were convicted of terrorism and spying by a court in Angola’s capital, Luanda.
Political strategist Igor Ratchin was sentenced to 11 years in prison, while translator Lev Lakshtanov received eight years. They’d denied the charges.
They were arrested last August on charges of inciting anti-government protests, operating a disinformation campaign, and seeking to influence with next year’s presidential election.
Two Russian nationals, Ratchin and Lakshtanov, whose lawyers had previously sought their extradition to Russia under bilateral cooperation agreements, saw their case proceed in an Angolan court, though it remains unclear whether that extradition request was approved.
According to the indictment reviewed online, authorities alleged that the two men were involved in a political influence operation tied to Africa Politology, described by Angolan authorities as a Russian political network that emerged from the now-defunct Wagner mercenary group.
Prosecutors further alleged that the group sought to spread anti-Western narratives, build political contacts and shape politics in Angola ahead of next year’s presidential election.
The defendants, for their part, denied any ties to Wagner or the Russian state, insisting they were merely working on plans to establish a Russian cultural centre in Luanda.
Wagner-linked political operatives have reportedly been active across Africa for over a decade, particularly in the Central African Republic, Mali and Madagascar.
Two Angolans, sports journalist Amor Carlos Tomé and political activist Francisco Oliveira, also stood trial on similar charges over their alleged involvement in the operation, both of which they denied.
Tomé received a two-year suspended sentence, while Oliveira was acquitted. Prosecutors appealed the judgement immediately after it was delivered, past 23:00 local time on Tuesday, and Tomé is expected to remain in custody pending the outcome.
The BBC said it had reached out to the Russian embassy in Angola for comment but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Elizeu Nguiniti, the lawyer representing the two Russians, told the BBC he would not comment on the ruling, though he had earlier told the court he disagreed with the verdict, which found his clients guilty on four of 11 charges criminal association, espionage, terrorism and illegal retention of foreign currency while noting that he accepted the court’s decision nonetheless.
Citing Angola’s privately owned Novo Jornal, the report noted that the Russians had told the court during earlier hearings that they held private meetings with political figures from both the ruling MPLA and the opposition Unita, but denied that these meetings were linked to any illegal activity.
The court reportedly rejected a defence request to call some of these politicians as witnesses, ruling their testimony unnecessary to establishing the facts of the case.
Prosecutors alleged that the defendants played a role in organising deadly unrest in Angola in 2025, claiming they paid local journalists and experts more than $24,000 to spread pro-Russian and anti-government content intended to provoke political change.
They also pointed to publications linked to the operation, along with notes and photographs tied to the 2025 protests found on the defendants’ devices, as well as alleged contact with senior Angolan political figures. Many Angolan activists, however, strongly dispute the prosecution’s argument that the protests were not organic.
Novo Jornal had earlier reported that Lakshtanov told the court he had lived and worked in Angola for nearly four decades and that his long academic career was incompatible with involvement in terrorist organisations, while Ratchin had described himself as a businessman who came to Angola to establish a cultural centre, maintaining that payments he made to various individuals were compensation for services rendered.
He reportedly said he was surprised by his arrest in August 2025 and the charges that followed.
The trial, which began in March, was marked by controversy early on.
During one of the initial hearings, the prosecutor declined to read the indictment aloud in court, arguing that the defendants were already aware of the accusations and that a formal reading was unnecessary a position the defence disagreed with, insisting that since the trial was public.
Attendees including journalists should be able to hear and understand the allegations.
The prosecutor nonetheless maintained that reading the indictment was optional and declined to do so.
The indictment itself drew criticism even before the trial began, with the defence consistently challenging its contents as relying on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
The reports noted that it had previously identified a number of misspellings and apparent factual errors in the document, but had received no clarification from the prosecution on these.