Who killed Patrice Lumumba? – DW – 06/18/2025
For Juliana Lumumba, he was not just a politician: Patrice Lumumba was her father. That's why she continues to demand the truth about an assassination for which no one has faced justice.
For more than 60 years, Juliana Lumumba has had questions. Who murdered her father? How did the Americans help? What did the United Nations do? Did they stand by idly, even though he was under their protection?
They are uncomfortable questions, political questions. And Juliana will not rest until she has answers.
"You cannot be the child of Patrice Lumumba without this impacting your life" she says.
Her gaze is composed as she looks out of the window of her house in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Lumumba murder case could go to trial
On June 17, the Belgian federal prosecutor's office announced that it has requested that the case in connection with the assassination of Juliana's father be referred to a Brussels criminal court. It follows more than a decade of investigation.
On Congo's independence day in 1960, Patrice Lumumba spoke about the atrocities inflicted on Congolese people under Belgian colonial rule, angering King Baudouin (in white) Image: Belga/IMAGO
The Belgiumstate is partly responsible for the murder. A 2001 parliamentary investigation established that King Baudouin, the then Belgian monarch, knew about the assassination plan but did nothing to stop it.
Juliana's brother François, the plaintiff in a 2011 complaint, accused the Belgian state of war crimes and torture, and of having been part of a conspiracy aimed at the political and physical elimination of his father.
Lumumba fought for the Congo's independence
On June 30, 1960, Patrice Lumumba freed the Congo from Belgian colonial rule and became the country's first prime minister. He promised democracy, prosperity and an end to the exploitation of Congolese minerals by foreign powers. But that never happened.
The West – in particular Belgium and the USA — were not fond of Lumumba's plans to nationalize Congo's raw materials. And certainly not of him cozying up with the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War.
On January 17, 1961, half a year after Lumumba was elected the first prime minister of a free Congo, Congolese separatists took him to the hostile province of Katanga – with Belgian and American blessing.
Lumumba and two of his aides were shot in the forest under the command of Belgian officers. The facts only came to light thanks to investigations by the likes of Belgian sociologist and writer, Ludo De Witte, whose findings were detailed in the 2003 book, "The Assassination of Lumumba."
Patrice Lumumba gives a press conference in Leopoldville in August 1960. He would dead 5 months later. Image: AFP
Another Belgian officer, Gérard Soete, sawed the bodies in pieces and dissolved them in sulfuric acid. Two teeth were all that remained of Lumumba. Soete kept them as a trophy. Juliana learned about this on television, in a 2000 report on a German broadcaster in which Soete himself recounted the details and held the teeth into the camera. This gruesome memory still angers Juliana.
"How would you feel if they told you that your father was not only killed, buried, unburied, cut in pieces but they also took parts of his body?", she asks. "To many, he was the first prime minister of the Congo, a national hero. But for me, he's my father."
Still fighting for the truth
Years later, Juliana wrote a letter to the Belgian king demanding one of the teeth be returned. No one knows where the second one is. Soete had claimed that he had thrown it into the North Sea. He died shortly after, but later his daughter showed the golden tooth to a journalist. Ludo De Witte then sued her and Belgian authorities confiscated the remains.
Lumumba's children at the ceremony in Brussels, receiving the last remains of their father Image: Nicolas Maeterlinck/Belga/AFP
In 2022, then prime minister Alexander de Croo returned the tooth to Lumumba's children at a ceremony in Brussels and apologized – unlike King Philippe, a direct descendant of King Baudouin, who apparently could not utter the word "sorry." He merely expressed his "deepest regrets" for the violence inflicted on the Congolese people under Belgian rule.
But apologies are not enough for Juliana. "It's not a problem of apology. It's a problem of truth. Verité," she says. "I need to know the truth."
Growing up in exile
When her father was murdered, Juliana was just five years old. She learned of it while in exile in Egypt. A few months before Lumumba's assassination, she and her siblings were smuggled out of their house in Congo, where their father was placed under house arrest, and taken to Cairo with fake passports.
Patrice Lumumba knew he was going to die, Juliana says. He also hinted at it in his last letter to his wife.
In Cairo, Lumumba's children grew up with Mohamed Abdel Aziz Ishak, a diplomat and friend of Lumumba. But they couldn't escape their own history.
"We are a political family, says Juliana. "We came to Egypt for political reasons, hosted by President Nasser. Politics is the core of our lives, whether we like it or not."
The children also entered politics. Juliana held various ministerial posts, and her brother François is the leader of the Congolese National Movement, the party his father founded.
In 2022, Patrice Lumumba was finally laid to rest in a ceremony in Kinshasa Image: Samy Ntumba Shambuyi/AP Photo/picture alliance
Juliana says that she always knew that her father's assassination was political, even when she was still a child in Cairo. The news of Lumumba's death in 1961 spread quickly in the city.
"They set fire to the library of the American university and looted the Belgian embassy," she recalls. "People in the streets shouted 'Lumumba, Lumumba.'"
Guilt, accountability and colonial continuities
It wasn't until 1994, when Congo's Mobutu dictatorship was on the verge of collapse, that Juliana returned to her homeland after years in exile. This had been her father's wish.
"He told us, no matter what happens, you have to come back home. So, when it was safe for us again, we came back home, where we belong," she says.
Today, Juliana is less active in Congolese politics. She doesn't want to talk about the current situation, the conflict between the Congolese army and the rebel militia M23, or the ongoing exploitation of natural resources by the Western nations, China, Rwanda, and other foreign powers.
Juliana Lumumba, the daughter of Patrice Lumumba, in her home in Kinshasa Image: privat
Nor does she want to speak about the potential trial in Brussels of the last living suspect who might have been complicit in her father's killing, 92-year-old Etienne Davignon.
A former top Belgian diplomat, businessman and former vice-president of the European Commission, Davignon is the last of 10 Belgians who were accused of involvement in the murder in the 2011 lawsuit filed by the Lumumba children.
With little progress in over six decades, Juliana is losing hope that someone will finally face justice for her father's death.
"No one has been held accountable. No Belgian, no European, no Congolese. No white, no Black. Everybody agrees that there was an assassination. There is a crime. But nobody has done it," she says.
On July 2, 2025, Patrice Lumumba would have been 100 years old.
Edited by Stuart Braun
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
Ted Cruz Refuses to Denounce Israel for 'Spying' on Americans: 'Every One of Our Friends Spy on Us'
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz refused to say whether he believes it is OK for Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency, to "spy" on Americans, including the U.S. president. Clips from a Tucker Carlson interview with Cruz have gone viral. In one, Carlson asks the right-wing senator if it's OK with him that Israel spies on Americans domestically, including President Donald Trump and past presidents. "One of the things about being a conservative is that you're not naive and utopian," Cruz responded. "You don't think humans are all—part of the reason socialism doesn't work is the mantra 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs' doesn't work. As a conservative, I assume people act in their rational self-interest." "So it's conservative to pay people to spy on you?" Tucker asked pointedly, referencing the billions in military aid the U.S. sends to Israel, the largest cumulative recipient of American foreign assistance. In 1999, the two countries signed an agreement committing the U.S. to provide at least $2.7 billion in annual military aid for a decade. That amount was increased to $3 billion in 2009, and again to a minimum of $3.8 billion in 2019. In 2024, U.S. military aid to Israel surged to a record $17.9 billion. "It's conservative to recognize that human beings act in their own self-interest and every one of our friends spies on us," Cruz responded. Carlson asked Cruz, who had earlier stated that his guiding principle is whether something serves America's interest, whether it was in the U.S.' interest for Israel to spy on the nation and its president. "It's in America's interest to be closely allied to Israel because we get huge benefits from it," Cruz stated, without elaborating on what those benefits are. "It takes place, as you know, including on the president of the United States and several presidents, and I just want to know if that's OK and why is it OK? Wouldn't an American lawmaker say to a client state, 'you're not allowed to spy on us. I'm sorry, I know why you want to, I'm not mad at you, but you're not allowed to. And I don't care for it. I don't want to be spied on by you.' It's kind of weird not to say that but you don't seem able to say that," Carlson continued. Cruz also acknowledged that Mossad does not share all of its intelligence with the United States, just as the U.S. doesn't share all of its intelligence with Israel, but emphasized, "We share a lot." He also revealed that the two nations spy on each other, adding that he assumes "all of our allies spy on us," though he offered no evidence to support the claim. Originally published on Latin Times


Int'l Business Times
3 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Putin T-shirts, Robots And The Taliban -- But Few Westerners At Russia's Davos
Russia's flagship economic forum kicked off Wednesday with stalls selling Vladimir Putin-themed merchandise and humanoid robots, but Westerners were few and far between -- despite warming ties between Moscow and Washington under Donald Trump. Once dubbed "Russia's Davos", the annual Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) is designed to attract foreign investment and is the biggest showcase of Russian technology and business. Some 20,000 guests from 140 countries are set to take part in the forum over the next four days, both online and in person, according to the Kremlin. But for the fourth year running high-profile European and American representatives have been absent amid Moscow's offensive on Ukraine, a stark contrast to before the conflict, when some Western leaders would attend. Among the states sending high-level government figures this year are the likes of China, Vietnam, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Central African Republic and Burkina Faso. Taliban officials were also spotted at the expo, amid Russia's push to normalise ties with the militant Islamist group. Russian officials said some Western executives will attend. "American business representatives, but I can't say at what level," Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters at a briefing Tuesday. According to the official programme, not a particularly high one. A panel on Thursday, titled simply "Russia-USA", will feature the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, some private investors, the founder of a microphone manufacturer and head of a crypto project. But in one high-profile win for Putin, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto skipped an invitation to the G7 in Canada, choosing instead to meet Putin and attend SPIEF. Among the events on the first day of the forum were panels focused on artificial intelligence and investment in the Global South. Russia has channelled its economic interests away from the West and towards emerging markets in Asia and Africa due to sanctions over the Ukraine conflict. One stand handed out T-shirts featuring quotes from Vladimir Putin and other government officials. One from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov read: "Why the hell did I come here?" Technology was also on display. A humanoid robot flaunting a Dior handbag was seen walking around the exhibits. The forum comes amid intense speculation in Russia about the prospect of sanctions relief and the return of Western firms that left the country after Moscow launched its offensive on Ukraine in February 2022. Hundreds of companies sold off, abandoned or gave away their Russian operations -- ranging from McDonald's and Nike to Ford and Goldman Sachs. Putin has at times blasted them for departing, warned they will not be allowed to return and said Russia is better off without them. He has also introduced punitive counter-sanctions, restricting the ability of firms from so-called "unfriendly" countries from accessing their profits and imposing huge exit fees and taxes on any wishing to leave. Trump's return to the White House and opening of diplomacy with Russia led to a frenzy of headlines in Russian media about whether he would ease US sanctions. Russia's top economic negotiator, Kirill Dmitriev, said Wednesday that the United States may "in the next couple of months" announce joint projects with Russia in the Arctic, without elaborating. "The very important process of improving relations between American society and American companies towards Russia is currently underway," he was quoted as saying by state media. Once a fixture of Europe's business calendar, SPIEF was where Western leaders, CEOs and major investors gathered to seal deals on entering and expanding their footprint in Russia. Then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended in 2013, as did Mark Rutte, the Netherlands' prime minister and now the Secretary General of NATO -- the man marshalling the military alliance's response to Putin's Ukraine offensive. Its prestige started to dip after 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine and was hit with the first tranche of Western sanctions. But even as recently as 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron and Japan's then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sat on stage alongside Putin. Hundreds of Western companies sold-off, abandoned or gave away their Russian operations AFP Taliban officials were also spotted at the expo AFP Russia has channelled its economic interests away from the West and towards Asia and Africa AFP


DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Israel's Iran attack sparks legal debate – DW – 06/18/2025
Israel says it struck Iran in self-defense, fearing a nuclear threat. But international law covering self-defense by states is very strict — fueling heated debate about the legality of Israel's initial attack. When it comes to discussing whether Israel's initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional. Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It's a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim. But Israel has been threatened by Iran for years and Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, the other side argues. That poses an existential threat, they insist. But which side does international law — unswayed by emotion — come down on? Iranian leaders have been threatening Israel for years but in legal terms, the question must be whether they were making a nuclear bomb they would fire at Tel Aviv, experts say Image: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images How do analysts view legality of Israeli strikes? Senior Israeli politicians described their country's attack on Iran on June 13 as a "preemptive, precise" attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, arguing it was self-defense because they feared a future nuclear attack by Iran. Under international law, there are very specific rules about self-defense, for example Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, and it's more likely this was what's known as a "preventive" attack. "My impression is that the majority of legal analysts see [Israel's attack] as a case of 'prohibited self-defense'," Matthias Goldmann, a law professor and international law expert at EBS University Wiesbaden, told DW. "Because the requirements for self-defense are rather strict. They require an imminent attack that cannot be fended off in any other way. If you apply that requirement, you come to the conclusion that there was no attack imminent from Iran." The timing alone makes that clear, Goldmann and others argue. On June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement saying that Iran was not fully cooperating with it. But Israel has not presented any evidence as to why they believed a nuclear threat from Iran was so close and US intelligence suggests Iran was possibly three years away from a bomb. There have been years of threatening rhetoric between Iran and Israel but it's deemed highly unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel later this month. "Look back at the Cold War," Goldmann suggested. "Both sides had nuclear weapons and relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction — where you don't use your nuclear weapon because you know the counterstrike would be fatal. That's why the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons in itself cannot be considered an imminent attack." Israel itself already has an unspecified number of nuclear weapons but never signed the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and does not allow international inspections. In defense of Israel In a text for the website Just Security, Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany agree an attack in self-defense would have been illegal. But, they say, the attack on Iran should actually be seen as part of the larger conflict. "That changes the legal arguments because the attack would have happened in a differently defined context," they say. In another opinion published this week on the US military academy West Point's website, Articles of War , Michael Schmitt, an American professor of public law, argues that the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat means the concept of self-defense could be interpreted more liberally. But Schmitt admits this is a "tough case" because there were still other options than force. Another of the preconditions to attacking in self-defense is that a country must have exhausted all other options — and Schmitt notes nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing at the time of the attack. There's another reason why most legal experts believe Israel's attack was illegal, says Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the UK's University of Reading. Ultimately the law on this is built to be restrictive, he says. "It's about minimizing the need to resort to force. It's not about creating loopholes that any state that likes to bomb others can exploit," he told DW. Laws of combat "All is not fair in war, once the fighting starts," says Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Boston's Tufts University. "There is a carefully calibrated legal framework which applies equally to both sides." Parties cannot target civilians or civilian objects, Dannenbaum told DW. "Objects only become military objectives when, by their nature, purpose, location, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action." The Israeli Ministry of Defense and the headquarters of the Israeli Defense forces is in central Tel Aviv and surrounding civilian buildings were damaged in recent Iranian attacks Image: Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images For example, this relates to Israeli targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists in their homes: Many lawyers explained that simply working on a weapons program doesn't make you a combatant. Meanwhile, Iran's bombing has also killed civilians in Tel Aviv. "Even when targeting military objectives, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm," Dannenbaum explains, "and must not attack if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage." It's hard to say if cases like this will ever be argued in court though. Goldmann, Dannenbaum and Milanovic say there's potential for related cases to eventually be heard at the International Court of Justice or perhaps at the European Court of Human Rights. The International Court of Justice was established after World War II to regulate disputes between states Image: LEX VAN LIESHOUT/ANP/AFP via Getty Images "But most of these types of issues on use of force don't end up in court," Milanovic said. "They get resolved in other ways. They're too political, or too large." Usually international diplomacy ends up resolving the issue, he noted. Degrading international law For many legal experts, one of the most worrying aspects is what appears to be implicit state support for Israel's most-likely-illegal definition of self-defense. For example, while not referring specifically to the June 13 attack on Iran, statements by Germany's government have all contained some form of the phrase, "Israel has the right to defend itself." "Of course, Israel does have a right to defend itself — but that right is limited by international law," Milanovic argues. The rules on self-defense are strict for a reason, he and Goldmann explain. If you start expanding their definition — for instance, saying you have the right to attack another state because they attacked you several years ago, or might attack you a few years from now — the rules are eroded, along with the whole system of international law. Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany doesn't have all the facts so can't say with any certainty whether the Israeli attack was legal or not Image: Hannes P Albert/dpa/picture alliance In the past, the international community has spoken out, for example, amid the controversy surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on claims that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction," Goldmann noted. "The legal argument Russia made [for invading Ukraine] is also actually very similar to this Israeli argument," Milanovic pointed out. "If you read [Vladimir] Putin's speech on the eve of the 2022 invasion, it basically said that at some point in the future Ukraine and NATO are going to attack us and that's why we're doing this. But that's really not about self-defense," he concludes. "That's about, say, you don't like somebody, you think they're a threat and therefore you think you have the right to go to war with them. Which is simply not what international law says." Edited by: Jess Smee