Angolan billionaire contests an application to freeze approximately £580 million of her assets

Angolan billionaire Isabel dos Santos is challenging an application to freeze around £580 million ($736 million) of her assets, asserting that she is a target of Angola’s “campaign of oppression.” Dos Santos, Africa’s first female billionaire and daughter of former President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, has long faced corruption allegations in Angola, which she dismisses as part of a prolonged political vendetta, resulting in the freezing or seizure of her assets in Angola and Portugal.

The legal dispute revolves around loans from Angolan telecoms operator Unitel to Dutch firm Unitel International Holdings (UIH) in 2012 and 2013, during dos Santos’ tenure as a Unitel director. Dos Santos claims that Unitel is complicit in Angola’s unlawful seizure of UIH’s assets, leading to the outstanding debt.

Dos Santos accuses Unitel of contributing to UIH’s inability to repay the loans, framing the case as part of a broader political struggle. Unitel rejects dos Santos’ narrative, asserting that she is trying to transform the legal proceedings into “another battle in a PR war against her father’s successor,” Joao Lourenco.

The ongoing legal clash sheds light on dos Santos’ wealth accumulation, described by Unitel as a “classic tale of kleptocracy (and) corruption.” The telecoms company seeks a global freezing order to prevent dos Santos from moving her assets out of its reach.

In court, dos Santos’ lawyer, Richard Hill, claims that Unitel’s application is part of a “politically motivated campaign by the Angolan state.” He questions the legitimacy of the Angolan freezing order, alleging that it was obtained with “fabricated evidence, which included a forged copy of her passport featuring the signature of Bruce Lee.”

These legal proceedings unfold amid broader geopolitical dynamics, with dos Santos portraying herself as a victim of political persecution. The hearing of Unitel’s freezing order application is expected to conclude on Thursday, and a ruling will follow at a later date, providing further clarity to this high-stakes legal battle.