Home kids Child Abduction: Namurs Julienne Mpemba Opposes

Child Abduction: Namurs Julienne Mpemba Opposes

5
0

During a previous hearing, after defaulting following a faint before being taken away in an ambulance, she had, at the last second, mandated a lawyer to represent her. She did not show up and ended up being convicted in absentia. She was arrested after the sentence was carried out.

In 2011, Julienne Mpemba created an orphanage in Kinshasa. Between 2012 and 2016, her non-profit organization was credited with 291,067 euros, yet the children were welcomed in deplorable conditions. They suffered from malnutrition. According to the public prosecutor’s office, when a child died, they were “replaced” by another.

In November 2015, a dozen children aged two to five arrived in Belgium to be adopted, when in reality, they had been abducted from their families!

Julienne Mpemba denied the charges against her. “I deny everything,” she said. “The children were never taken hostage.”

After an incident at the Belgian embassy, she claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy. “The ambassador told me that I would pay very dearly.”

The defendant declared herself a victim of a plot designed to “extort money” from her.

The defendant was found guilty of adoption fraud, kidnappings, hostage-taking with the aggravating circumstance that they involved minors, scams, abductions, corruption, and human trafficking.

The civil parties requested to declare the opposition inadmissible. The lawyers and the public prosecutor’s office described the defendant’s behavior as “indecent.”

The prosecutor reminded that the family doctor who had issued medical certificates at the defendant’s request had admitted “issuing medical certificates for psychological complaints beyond his competence.” The prosecutor believed that the convicted person had “no legitimate excuse” for not attending the hearing.

The convicted person’s new lawyers requested the court to declare the opposition admissible and once again mentioned “panic attacks,” as well as “alopecia” and the use of medications that, according to them, demonstrate their client’s fragile mental state. The court will rule on April 21.