Mali’s political detentions spark outrage as former justice minister challenges military rule

For a month now, Maître Mountaga Tall has been held in an undisclosed location by State Security. His family, legal counsel, and the International Conference of Bar Associations have repeatedly called for his release or presentation before a judge, demanding respect for the rule of law. When asked if the transitional authorities are receptive to these appeals, Maître Konaté expressed his personal skepticism, yet maintained that these authorities must ultimately heed reason and legal principles. He emphasized that no individual should be deprived of liberty outside the bounds of the law.

Even in the current context, where Mali does not operate as a full rule of law state, Konaté stressed the importance of reminding authorities that a state’s commitment to law is often measured by its treatment of opponents, critics, and legal professionals. He found it unacceptable that a citizen, who is both a politician and a lawyer, has been denied visits from doctors, legal representation, or even the President of the Bar Association. Konaté highlighted the alarming escalation, noting that after a strongly worded statement from the Bar President, the Malian military authorities responded by abducting Tall’s son, a move he deemed intolerable.

Indeed, following Mountaga Tall’s abduction, his son and other political opponents, along with military personnel and religious leaders, suffered similar fates. While military justice is reportedly investigating suspicions of complicity with armed groups in the April 25 attacks, no official link has been established between this inquiry and the abductions. The implicit strategy of the authorities, amplified by their supporters, is to rationalize these actions under the guise of counter-terrorism efforts. This approach, it seems, resonates with a segment of the Malian population. Konaté urged Malians to understand that the fight against terrorism cannot justify legal insecurity. He asserted that a military camp is not a judicial body, and that legitimate detention must be demonstrable, whereas arbitrary actions are concealed. He warned that while it is Mountaga Tall today, many others could face the same arbitrary detention tomorrow, underscoring the critical need to uphold legal frameworks and ensure justice prevails from beginning to end.

Beyond this specific case, the Malian justice system has drawn criticism, notably for sentencing former Prime Minister Moussa Mara to a year in prison for a tweet expressing hope that “day” would follow “night.” This stands in stark contrast to the apparent impunity enjoyed by supporters of the transition, who openly call for lynching pro-democracy activists or burning shops owned by Mauritanians. Konaté firmly believes that Malian justice has become subservient to the transitional authorities. He argued that this judiciary, tasked with maintaining public order and security, appears to have capitulated, giving the impression of being entirely submissive. He stressed that justice must recognize its duty to serve the State, the nation, and its people, not merely a military regime, and that judges must never lose sight of this fundamental principle.

When questioned about whether judges truly have a choice, fearing for their own safety, Konaté pointed out that the law provides judges with the option to recuse themselves. He lamented that, under the pretext of fear, judges are currently allowing themselves to play a detrimental role, not only for themselves but for the very concept of justice. He urged them to recognize that while today is today, justice will ultimately prevail tomorrow.

Following the April 25 attacks, the death of Minister Sadio Camara, and the capture of Kidal, some observers believed the military authorities in Mali were weakened. However, the regime does not appear to be faltering significantly. Konaté countered this, stating emphatically that the power is wavering. He affirmed that terrorism has no place in society, representing a fundamental negation of the social contract, law, and civil peace. Yet, he added, it has become impossible to disregard the responsibility of a regime that seized power through force and maintains it through coercion and terror. The increasing perils faced by the country and its citizens, he argued, cannot be separated from the decisions made by those who have governed for six years.

Konaté, a clear opponent of Mali’s transitional authorities, explained why he has not joined the CFR (Coalition des forces pour la République), the coalition led by Imam Dicko. He characterized the current political landscape as a choice “between the military cap and the skullcap.” The “military cap” represents the seizure of power by force and its authoritarian exercise. Facing this, he said, are the “skullcaps,” reminding us that 2012 is a stark lesson. He referenced the brutal events of 2012, when hands and feet were amputated in northern Mali’s regions.

During the period of occupation by jihadist groups, he clarified, those amputations remain vivid in people’s minds. While he acknowledges the desire for national unity and dialogue to restore national cohesion, he insists on absolute prerequisites. One cannot emerge from a war zone, armed and supplied, and then sit at a table expecting to erase all past events. Konaté declared that just as he vehemently opposes the current military regime, which he considers a violator of all rights and freedoms, he cannot endorse acts of terror or terrorists. He stressed an absolute prerequisite: the events of 2012 must be addressed. The “malefic junction” between the FLA and Jnim must be discussed. He concluded that there must be fundamental prerequisites for adherence to absolute principles and values that, for him, form the bedrock of the Republic, democracy, and justice.

Regarding the narrative pushed by the AES regimes in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, which assert that opposition equals opposition to national sovereignty, alignment with enemies, terrorists, external interference, and media warfare, Konaté, as a Malian, offered a strong rebuttal. He declared that no one can strip him of his identity as a Malian, a patriot, and a committed citizen. He asserted that what truly bothers these regimes, themselves born of illegality and fraud, is being reminded of the law and their own commitments. He concluded that the true anti-patriots are those who impoverish citizens, corrupt freedoms, and dismantle the rule of law.