The Court of appeal has refused the request of pastor Paul Mukendi, who wished to be authorized, under the supervision of two people, to continue its work with members of the Central evangelical Word of Life.
At the end of a trial of 17 days, the one who is called “apostle” of the city of Quebec”, was sentenced in February 2020, to a term of imprisonment of eight years.
A sentence pronounced by the judge Jean-François Émond, after Mukendi had been found guilty by twelve of his peers, to multiple offences of a sexual nature, threats to cause death or bodily harm and assault.
In the days following the pronouncement of the sentence, the man of the Church has asked the Court of appeal to consider the verdict and Mukendi was able to resume his freedom.
However, a series of conditions have been imposed, one of which is “do not seek, accept or keep a job or volunteer work that would place them in a relationship of trust or authority vis-à-vis persons under the age of 16 years, unless under the supervision of a person that the Court considers appropriate”.
Wanting to take advantage of this condition, the Pastor has submitted to the Court by two people who, according to him, could “satisfy the requirements of the Court”, namely Cedric Mbanda Malayi, assistant pastor of the evangelical Church “Word of life” and Marie-Eve Lepage, press officer of the Church.
“The Court must feel satisfied that the designated persons are fully able to assume the responsibility which is theirs”, recalled the training of judges in its decision.
“At this stage, the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. The facts revealed in the first instance suggest a disturbing connection between the offences with which he was found guilty, and some of the religious beliefs embodied in the church”, pointed out the magistrates.
In addition, they pointed out that the alleged offences had been committed between 2006 and 2016, “the period during which Mr. Malayi and Ms. Lepage were aware of and attended the accused”.
They also added that these two persons were in a status subordinate to that of the appellant and that it seemed “doubtful” that it had “the independence and objectivity necessary to effectively discharge the responsibility of overseeing” Mukendi.