Mali: «Le terrorisme est la négation de la paix, on ne peut plus ignorer la responsabilité du pouvoir»

One month has passed since lawyer Mountaga Tall was abducted and secretly detained by State Security. His family, legal representatives, and the International Conference of Bar Associations have repeatedly called for his release or presentation before a judge, demanding adherence to the rule of law. Do the transitional authorities acknowledge these pleas?

While I remain personally skeptical, these authorities must ultimately heed reason and the law. They need to recognize that no individual should be deprived of their liberty outside of legal parameters. Even if the current context deviates from a true rule of law, it’s crucial to remind these authorities that a state’s commitment to justice is often measured by how it treats its opponents, critics, and legal professionals. It is unacceptable for a citizen, a political figure and an attorney, to be denied visits from doctors, lawyers, or even the head of the bar association. Following a strongly worded statement from the bar association’s president, the Malian military authorities responded by abducting Mountaga Tall’s son. This represents an intolerable escalation.

Indeed, after Mountaga Tall, his son and other political opponents, along with military and religious leaders, have faced similar abductions. Military justice is reportedly investigating allegations of complicity with armed groups in connection with the April 25 attacks. While no official link has been established between this investigation and these detentions, the implicit strategy of the authorities, amplified by their supporters, is to justify these actions as part of the fight against terrorism. Does this approach resonate with a segment of the Malian population?

It is essential to explain to the Malian people that the fight against terrorism cannot legitimize legal uncertainty. A military camp is not a judicial body. Lawful detention is verifiable; arbitrary detention, however, thrives on concealment, and we are currently witnessing a climate of complete arbitrariness. Today, it is Mountaga Tall; tomorrow, it could be countless others. This is precisely why, even amidst counter-terrorism efforts, it is imperative that the legal framework is upheld and that justice remains central from beginning to end.

Beyond this specific case, the Malian judiciary has sentenced former Prime Minister Moussa Mara to a year in prison for a tweet expressing hope that “day” would succeed “night.” Meanwhile, supporters of the transitional government openly call for the lynching of pro-democracy activists or the burning of shops owned by Mauritanians. Is the Malian justice system compromised or subservient to the transitional authorities?

Undoubtedly, this judiciary, which is meant to uphold public order and security, appears to be yielding and currently subservient. The justice system must realize that it serves the State, the nation, and its people, not merely a regime, even a military one. Judges must never lose sight of this fundamental principle.

But do judges have a choice? Are they not also fearful?

The law provides judges with the option to recuse themselves. Beyond fear, judges today are allowing themselves to play a detrimental role, both for themselves and for the very concept of justice. From this perspective, they must simply recognize that while today is today, justice will prevail tomorrow.

Following the April 25 attacks, the death of Minister Sadio Camara, and the capture of Kidal, some believed the military leaders in Mali were weakened. Yet, the government does not seem to be faltering significantly?

It is indeed faltering! Terrorism has no place in society; it represents the very antithesis of the social contract, law, and civil peace. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to overlook the accountability of a government that came to power through force and maintains its grip through force and intimidation. The country’s increasing exposure to grave dangers, and its citizens with it, cannot be separated from the decisions made by those who have governed for six years.

You are an opponent of the Malian transitional authorities, that much is clear, but you have not joined the CFR (Coalition of Forces for the Republic), Imam Dicko’s coalition. Why not?

Simply because today, we find ourselves caught between the military cap and the traditional cap. The military cap represents the seizure of power through force and its authoritarian exercise. Facing them, we have those in traditional caps, and it is crucial to recall that 2012 taught us harsh lessons. In 2012, people in northern Mali had their hands and feet amputated…

During the period of occupation by jihadist groups…

Precisely. Those amputated hands and feet remain vivid in people’s minds. So, while I advocate for national unity and dialogue, and for everyone to come together with the ultimate goal of restoring national cohesion, there are absolute prerequisites for me. One cannot emerge from a battlefield, armed and ready, to simply sit at a table and disregard everything that has transpired. Just as I vehemently oppose this military regime, which violates all rights and freedoms, I cannot truly endorse acts of terror or terrorists. There is an absolute prerequisite: we must address 2012. We must discuss the nefarious alliance between the FLA and Jnim. There must be foundational principles and values that, for me, underpin the Republic, democracy, and justice.

The regimes of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) – in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso – consistently assert that opposing them is tantamount to opposing these three countries’ sovereignty, siding with national enemies, terrorists, external interference, and media warfare. As a Malian, what are your thoughts, and how do you respond to this?

No one can strip me of my identity as a Malian, a patriot, and a committed citizen. What troubles these incumbent regimes, themselves born of illegality and deception, is their inability to tolerate reminders of what the law entails. They cannot bear to be reminded of their own statements and commitments. However, the true anti-patriots are those who starve their citizens, distort freedoms, and dismantle the rule of law.