The arrest and charging of human rights defender Sylvester Namiwa has ignited a heated national debate, with civil society organizations, politicians, youth groups and human rights defenders expressing contrasting views over whether the State is upholding the rule of law or suppressing dissent.
Namiwa, Executive Director of the Centre for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives (CDEDI), was arrested last week and has since been charged with treason and publication of false news.
His case follows public sentiments he made in an interview with Luntha Television concerning the presidency. He has since been remanded to Maula Prison pending bail application and committal of proceedings before the High Court.
However, since his arrest, various organizations have issued statements reflecting differing interpretations of the case, exposing growing divisions within Malawi’s civic space.
In a statement signed by its chairperson Benedicto Kondowe and National Coordinator Baxton Nkhoma, the National Advocacy Platform (NAP), said while police have a constitutional mandate to investigate crime, the handling of the matter must fully respect constitutional safeguards, judicial independence and due process.
The coalition argued that Namiwa is entitled to the presumption of innocence and has called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the case and consider discontinuing the prosecution in the interests of justice.
It also said the allegations raised by Namiwa should instead be independently investigated to establish the truth.
NAP joined the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC), political parties including the UTM Party, United Democratic Front (UDF), and Peoples Development Party (PDP) as well as other civil society groupings in calling for Namiwa’s release, citing constitutional safeguards of liberty and due process.
MHRC, in a statement signed by its chairperson Chikondi Chijozi-Jere said based on the facts available to the Commission, Namiwa’s arrest bears every mark of an unlawful deprivation of liberty and an attempt to punish lawful expression, which the Commission said “cannot be allowed to stand.”
On the other hand, in a joint statement, the three political parties echoed concerns that the treason charges rest principally on statement made by Namiwa without identifying any concrete act of violence, armed insurrection, recruitment, conspiracy or either specific unlawful operation to overthrow the lawfully constituted Government.
“This raises a fundamental question: when does political speech become treason? A political prediction may be wrong. An opinion may be provocative, a statement may be unpopular, but none of these without more, should automatically be transferred into treason,” stated the statement signed by Presidents of the three parties.
Before the formal charges were laid, the Mzuzu Youth Caucus had already condemned what it described as intimidation of Namiwa, arguing that summoning him for questioning amounted to an attack on accountability and democracy.
The youth grouping through its chairperson Gomezgani Nkhoma linked the police action to Namiwa’s anti-corruption advocacy and accused the government of attempting to silence whistle-blowers.
It further demanded an end to what it called harassment of the activist while urging authorities to restore the independence of public accountability institutions.
However, not all organizations share that position.The Viphya Human Rights Defenders Network (VHRDN) through its chairperson Mervin Nxumayo urged Malawians to allow police to complete their investigations without political interference.
While calling on law enforcement authorities to act professionally and clearly communicate the charges facing Namiwa, the network also criticized some civil society organizations for making public allegations without sufficient evidence, warning that such conduct risks damaging the credibility of the broader civil society sector.
VHRDN further argued that some of Namiwa’s public remarks were likely to create confusion and potentially disturb public peace, saying they should have been made with greater caution.
Youth for Action Campaign has echoed similar sentiments, calling for the respect of the rule of law, criticizing political parties that condemned the arrest, and urging them to refrain from politicizing judicial proceedings and to allow the courts to determine the matter independently and impartially.
“YAC recognizes that every person enjoys the constitutional right to freedom of expression and that every person accused of an offence shall be presumed innocent and shall be entitled to a fair trial.
However, these rights do not exempt any individual from lawful investigation or prosecution,” stated the statement signed by Jackson Caesar Msiska, YAC Executive Director.
