I did not initially want to add my voice to the debate over calls for the release of Lin Yunhua, as many environmental groups had already spoken strongly on the matter, raising concerns about the possible withdrawal of the corruption case against him.
However, after reading the Human Rights Consultative Committee’s (HRCC) call, I feel compelled to share my views. My question is: As human rights advocates, are we really doing the right thing by calling for Lin’s release?
My concern is not about denying anyone their rights. Human rights must apply to everyone, including those accused of serious crimes. But rights advocacy must also recognise the rights and interests of the wider society. One question is: What exactly are our interests as advocates in the Lin case, considering the seriousness of the allegations surrounding him?
Lin was arrested, as reported, following a multi-agency operation targeting the Lin-Zhang syndicate, described as an international network involved in the poaching and trafficking of ivory, rhino horns and pangolin scales, as well as money-laundering. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for wildlife trafficking, illegal possession of wildlife specimens and money-laundering.
Then came serious corruption allegations against him, emerging from a Nation investigation published on October 28 2024. The investigation alleged that Lin bribed the then officer-in-charge of Maula Prison and built him a house in exchange for preferential treatment, better accommodation and unauthorised escapes. Of course, these remain allegations that must be tested through due legal process.
With these allegations being so serious, one may wonder: How can rights advocates campaign for his release instead of pushing for the law to take its course?
This also brings me to an attempt by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to discontinue the proceedings, which the court rejected. These are certainly matters worth examining and raising concerns about in this case.
I have never been a fan of discontinuing criminal cases, especially those involving corruption, organised crime and public resources. I also strongly oppose political or other influence in deciding who should face prosecution.
I equally have reservations about presidential pardons, where serious questions remain unanswered. Our prisons hold many inmates who, in my view, deserve presidential mercy more than individuals facing such grave wildlife and corruption allegations as Lin.
As advocates, I think we may be missing something. Human rights advocacy must not become advocacy for individuals in criminal cases at the expense of the wider public interest. Our responsibility is not only to defend the rights of the person before us, but also to protect the interests of wider society, taxpayers, wildlife and the nation as a whole. We must therefore strike a careful balance between defending human rights and ensuring accountability, justice and the protection of the public interest.
We cannot ignore the fact that Malawi has lost a great deal through corruption, wildlife trafficking and the abuse of public institutions. We cannot afford to send a message that powerful or wealthy individuals can escape accountability simply because advocates mobilise around their rights and freedom. Human rights must be defended, but accountability and the public interest must never be sacrificed.
Yes, I agree that Lin must receive a fair trial and that the prosecution must meet all the required legal standards. Any selective or unequal application of the law must also be challenged. But if there is a case properly before the courts, let the courts do their work and let the law take its course.
Calling for the immediate release or discontinuation of such a case, in my view, is misplaced and risks undermining public confidence in Malawi’s fight against corruption and wildlife crime.
We must defend human rights, but let us also defend the interests of our nation. We must demand due process, but never demand immunity from accountability. Above all, we must never allow advocacy to become a shield against justice.
