Mali: the military regime’s accountability amid political detentions and a compromised justice system

The clandestine detention of Maître Mountaga Tall by State Security has now spanned a full month. His family, legal representatives, and the International Conference of Bar Associations have repeatedly called for his release or presentation before a judge, emphasizing the urgent need to uphold legal principles. Do the transitional authorities acknowledge these demands?

Konaté stated his personal skepticism regarding the authorities’ willingness to listen, yet insisted they must adhere to reason and legal statutes. He stressed that no individual should be deprived of liberty outside the bounds of law. Even in the current environment, which he views as lacking a true rule of law, he reminded the authorities that a state’s commitment to legal principles is often measured by how it treats its opponents, critics, and legal professionals. He deemed it unacceptable for a citizen, a political figure and lawyer, to be denied access to doctors, lawyers, or even the President of the Bar Association. The situation escalated further, he noted, when the Malian military authorities responded to a strongly worded communiqué from the Bar President by abducting Tall’s own son, an act he considers intolerable. This is a critical aspect of Sahel breaking news.

Indeed, following Mountaga Tall’s abduction, his son and several other political opponents, military figures, and religious leaders faced the same fate. While military justice is reportedly investigating allegations of complicity with armed groups in the April 25 attacks, no official link has been established between this probe and the abductions. However, the implicit strategy of the authorities, echoed by their supporters, is to rationalize these actions under the guise of counter-terrorism. Does this approach resonate with a segment of the Malian populace?

Konaté emphasized the need to inform these citizens that the fight against terrorism cannot legitimize legal uncertainty. He asserted that a military camp is not a court of law. Legal detention requires proof, whereas arbitrary actions are concealed, and the current context, he argued, is one of complete arbitrariness. He warned that while it is Mountaga Tall today, many others could face similar treatment tomorrow. Therefore, even amidst counter-terrorism efforts, it is paramount to safeguard the legal framework, ensuring justice presides from beginning to end. This is a significant development in Mali politics today.

Beyond this particular case, we observe the Malian justice system sentencing former Prime Minister Moussa Mara to a year in prison for a tweet expressing hope for “day” to succeed “night,” while supporters of the transition openly call for the lynching of pro-democracy activists or the burning of Mauritanian-owned businesses. Does this indicate that Malian justice is subservient to the transitional authorities?

Konaté responded unequivocally that the justice system, which ought to uphold public order and security, appears to be yielding and currently submissive. He urged the judiciary to recognize that its duty is not to serve a particular regime, even a military one, but rather the State, the nation, and its people. Judges, he insisted, must not lose sight of this fundamental principle.

But do judges genuinely have a choice? Are they not themselves living in fear?

Konaté clarified that the law provides judges with the option to recuse themselves. He argued that, under the pretext of fear, judges are currently playing a detrimental role, damaging the very essence of justice. He implored them to understand that while “today is today,” justice will ultimately prevail.

Following the April 25 attacks, the death of Minister Sadio Camara, and the capture of Kidal, some believed the military rulers in Mali were vulnerable. Yet, the government does not appear to be wavering significantly.

Konaté countered that the power is indeed faltering. He reiterated that terrorism has no place in society, representing the very antithesis of the social contract, law, and civil peace. However, he stressed that it has become increasingly difficult to overlook the culpability of a government that seized power through force and maintains it through force and terror. He directly linked the nation’s and its citizens’ growing exposure to dangers with the decisions made by those who have governed for six years.

You are a known opponent of Mali’s transitional authorities, yet you have not joined the Coalition des forces pour la République (CFR), Imam Dicko’s opposition coalition. What are your reasons for this stance?

Konaté explained his position by stating that the current choice is “between the kepi and the chechia,” symbolizing the military’s forceful seizure of power and authoritarian rule versus a different, potentially equally problematic, influence. He emphasized that the events of 2012, when hands and feet were amputated in Mali’s northern regions during the occupation by jihadist groups, remain vivid in people’s minds. He believes that one cannot emerge from a battlefield, armed and supplied, only to gather around a table and disregard past atrocities. Just as he vigorously opposes the military regime for its violations of rights and freedoms, he cannot endorse acts of terror or terrorists. He insisted on absolute prerequisites: a thorough discussion of 2012, and an examination of the “maleficent junction” between the FLA and Jnim. He called for a foundation built upon absolute principles and values essential for the Republic, democracy, and justice. This underscores the complexities of West Africa Sahel challenges.

The regimes of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) – Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso – consistently assert that opposing them equates to opposing national sovereignty, siding with enemies of the nation, terrorists, external interference, and a media war. As a Malian, what is your perspective and response to these claims?

Konaté firmly stated that no one can strip him of his identity as a Malian, a patriot, and an engaged citizen. He argued that these regimes, themselves born of illegality and fraud, are uncomfortable being reminded of legal principles and their own past commitments. He concluded that the true anti-patriots are those who starve their citizens, corrupt fundamental liberties, and dismantle the rule of law.