Latest / The History of Belgium: A Small Country with a Giant Colonial Legacy — Fexingo History / The 1894 Luluabourg Trial: Congo's First Colonial Court
Transcript
- Lucas: Last episode, we talked about the 1893 Luluabourg Massacre, where the Force Publique wiped out a Bena Lulua village. That massacre didn't happen in a vacuum — it was part of a larger conflict between the Belgians and the Lulua leader Mukamba. And after the massacre, the Belgians did something they hadn't really done before: they put Mukamba on trial. Luna: A trial? In the middle of a colonial war? Lucas: Exactly. It sounds almost absurd when you consider the brutality of the rubber terror, but the Congo Free State was trying to present itself as a 'civilized' power. So in February 1894, they convened a court in Luluabourg — a proper courtroom with a Belgian judge, a prosecutor, and even a defense lawyer — to try Mukamba for rebellion and murder. The whole thing was a show trial, but it also tells us a lot about how colonial law actually worked. Luna: What were the charges exactly? Lucas: Rebellion against the Congo Free State — which was essentially resisting Belgian occupation — and the murder of a Belgian officer named Lieutenant Charles Lemaire. Lemaire had been killed in a skirmish a few months earlier. But the trial wasn't really about justice; it was about legitimizing the colonial takeover. The Belgians wanted to show that they were bringing 'law and order' to the region, even as they were massacring villages. The trial lasted three days, with testimony from African soldiers and chiefs, many of whom had been coerced. Luna: Did Mukamba have any real defense? Lucas: His Belgian-appointed lawyer argued that Mukamba was a sovereign chief who had never signed a treaty with the Free State, so he couldn't be guilty of rebellion. But the court rejected that argument — they claimed that by resisting, Mukamba had acknowledged Free State authority. The verdict was guilty on both counts, and Mukamba was sentenced to death by firing squad. The execution was carried out publicly in Luluabourg, as a warning to other chiefs. But the trial itself was a farce — the whole thing was rigged from the start. Luna: It reminds me of the show trials you see in authoritarian regimes, where the outcome is predetermined but they go through the motions. Lucas: Exactly. And the irony is, the Belgians were simultaneously imposing a brutal extraction system — the rubber terror — while claiming to bring civilization. The trial was part of that propaganda. But it also had long-term consequences. After Mukamba's execution, the Lulua people were suppressed, but the memory of the trial and the massacre fueled resistance for decades. It also set a precedent for how the colonial legal system would be used: as a tool of control, not justice. And this is where the show's listener support comes in — if you've been following these stories about Congo's history, episode by episode, and you find them valuable, consider supporting the show at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It keeps us ad-free and lets us keep digging into these overlooked corners of history. Luna: Yeah, it's a small way to make sure these stories don't get forgotten. Lucas: So back to the trial — one of the most revealing aspects was how the court used African witnesses. The prosecution called several Lulua chiefs who had sided with the Belgians, and they testified against Mukamba. But their testimonies were contradictory, and some witnesses later recanted, saying they were threatened. The defense didn't even call any witnesses, which suggests Mukamba had no real opportunity to defend himself. The whole thing was over in three days, and the sentence was carried out within a week. Luna: What about the broader legal framework? Was there any kind of code or law the court was following? Lucas: Good question. The trial was based on a decree issued in 1891 by King Leopold II, which established 'native courts' to handle cases involving Africans. But the 1891 decree was vague — it gave Belgian officials wide discretion. In Mukamba's case, they applied Belgian criminal law, but with no right of appeal. The judge was also the district commissioner, so there was no separation of powers. It was essentially a rubber stamp. After the trial, the Belgians used this model across the Kasai region, trying chiefs who resisted. But the Lulua Resistance didn't end with Mukamba's death — his son continued the fight, and there were uprisings in 1895 and 1897. Luna: So the trial was more of a show than a real legal proceeding, but it still had real consequences. Lucas: Exactly. And it's a window into how colonialism used law as a weapon. The idea of a 'civilizing mission' was central to Belgian propaganda, but the reality was that law was just another tool of domination. The trial of Mukamba is a perfect example — it had all the trappings of a fair trial, but it was designed to crush opposition and intimidate other chiefs. And it worked, in the short term. But the long-term legacy is that it created a deep distrust of colonial legal institutions, which persisted into the independence era. Luna: It also shows how the Belgians were trying to project an image of legitimacy to the outside world, especially to other European powers. Lucas: That's a key point. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 had required colonial powers to show that they were 'civilizing' Africa. So trials like this were partly for European audiences. Belgian newspapers covered the trial extensively, painting Mukamba as a savage rebel and the trial as a triumph of justice. But the reality was far different. And we can see that in the writings of some Belgian critics at the time, like the journalist Paul Desruelles, who called the trial a 'legalized murder.' So there was opposition even then, though it was muted. Luna: Do we have any records of what Mukamba himself said during the trial? Lucas: We have some court records, but they're filtered through translators and Belgian scribes. Mukamba apparently maintained his innocence and argued that he was defending his people. He said, 'I did not rebel against the State, because I never recognized the State.' That quote is recorded, and it's powerful. But we don't have his full testimony, only fragments. The Belgians controlled the narrative. Still, those fragments give us a glimpse of his defiance. He knew he was going to die, and he refused to beg for mercy. Luna: His refusal to recognize Belgian authority — that's a remarkable statement. It's almost a form of resistance in itself. Lucas: Absolutely. And it echoes the resistance of other leaders like Ngongo Lutete, who we covered earlier. But Mukamba's case is distinct because it was the first time the Belgians tried to use a formal court to dispose of an enemy. It set a template that would be used again and again. After the trial, the Belgians established a network of 'native tribunals' across the Congo, but they were always under European control. The évolués — educated Congolese — later criticized this system as hypocritical, and it became a point of contention in the independence movement. Luna: So the trial had echoes that lasted well into the 20th century. Lucas: Definitely. And it's one of those stories that gets overlooked because it's not a big battle or a famous figure. But it reveals so much about how colonialism operated. The trial of Mukamba is a microcosm of the whole colonial project: the rhetoric of civilization, the reality of violence, and the use of law to legitimize oppression. And it happened in a small town in the Kasai, far from the centers of power. That's why it's worth remembering. Luna: It's a reminder that history isn't just about the big events, but about the smaller moments that shape how power works. Lucas: Exactly. And maybe that's something to think about next time you hear about a 'fair trial' in a colonial context. There's often more to the story.