Interview: We will assess  govt’s response and decide

It is two weeks now since Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) petitioned government on the state of the economy, governance, transparency, accountability, rule of law and human rights in Malawi. I caught up with one of the leaders of the demonstration Timothy Mtambo to find what next.

—————————————————

Q: On January 13 2015, you held demonstrations and presented a petition to government on several issues. Are you satisfied with the way you carried the demonstration?

A: Despite the heavy rains in Blantyre and Zomba which affected the process in these areas, I am glad to report that the demonstrations were a great success and peaceful in all the designated areas, including Lilongwe, Mzuzu and Karonga. Even in the areas hit by heavy rains, the organisers still managed to deliver the petition to relevant authorities.No single incident of violence was reported, thereby rendering credence to the issue-based demonstrations we championed. Equally important, we saw the triumph of Section 38 of the Constitution which was under threat following a background of DPP government orchestrating “high-level” propaganda and “demonisation” of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of assembly and right to demonstrate which clearly indicates that the right to freedom of expression through demonstration, written or spoken has nothing to do with whether demonstrations are justifiable or not in the eyes of a third party. They really worked very hard to frustrate the process, but we thank God this did not happen.

Q: It is two weeks now since you presented the petition. You also asked government to facilitate the institution of a dialogue platform with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders over the concerns you raised within a period of two weeks. This has not happened. What action are you going to take?

A: All the ultimatums given to government and other relevant parties to act on the issues raised in the petition remain intact including those related to the institution of a dialogue platform with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders (two weeks); those related to Nacgate (three weeks); and all other issues raised in the petition (100 days). As clearly indicated in the petition, at the expiry of these ultimatums, we will have to regroup to assess government’s response and decide the next course of action to ensure that justice and sanity prevails on the issues raised.

Q: You raised several concerns in the petition and gave government 100 days. Is this enough?

A: If you critically look at some of the issues raised in the petition, you will discover that they just require some executive decisions which can be done within days, weeks or within three months. Even those issues which cannot be practically addressed within 100 days, we expect government to demonstrate significant steps to addressing- a thing that can be done within this time frame. So, 100 days, as stipulated in the petition, is enough time for any progressive government to address the issues raised in the petition or demonstrate significant steps to addressing such.

Q: If government does not take action on the what you raised. What will you do after the 100 days?

A: I think it’s premature at this level to start divulging what action we will take if government fails to take action on the issues raised lest we be seen as adopting a pessimistic approach to government’s response to the issues raised in the petition. At this level, all we can say is that we are optimistic that government will address the issues raised in as part of its human rights and constitutional obligation. After 100 days, we will convene as a group to objectively assess and evaluate government’s response to the issues raised in the petition, and the way forward shall be decided then.

Q: We saw some CSOs and Congoma distancing themselves from the demonstrations and there is a perception that there are divisions among CSOs and you are not speaking with one voice.What do you say?

A: Our success in human rights activism should not be assessed based on whether there are divisions or not, but rather whether we are adhering to our calling or not. What if the entire CSOs agree to speak with one voice in defence of an action which has no human rights backing or basis? It’s high time Malawians started assessing CSOs based on the “issues” being advanced rather than concentrating on their unison and personalities involved. Otherwise, we may find ourselves creating a very bad precedence which may be difficult to correct in the future. It’s more about issues not necessarily numbers. It’s just unfortunate that the “war” launched by those in pro-Nacgate camp against us has tended to lean more on attacking some “personalities” within our camp rather than the “issues” being advanced in a case of argumentum ad hominem fallacy. As a human rights defender, it is my considered view that while matters of “moral grounds” or “moral mandate” to comment or act on matters of national interest are important, they do not supersede the tenets or dictates of universally recognised international human rights instruments including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights instruments, instruments which act as the core, basis or guide of any human rights activism. As such, the primary yardstick to judge as to whether someone is adhering to “genuine” activism or not is by measuring their activism against the dictates of human rights for all which are also enshrined in our Republican Constitution. Otherwise, some of us have decided not to be part of a process that discriminates people from participating in a just cause because of their past. Doing so will not only be hypocritical on our part but also outside our mandate.

Q: There is credibility in speaking with one voice. Do you think your petition holds the same integrity?

A: No. credibility is not about speaking with one voice, but the weight of issues you present. If anything, it is the victims of government propaganda that threaten to put the integrity of civil society in the country into disrepute. Up to now, we still take that our issue-based petition holds highest level of integrity.

Q: People were arguing that you went ahead with the demonstrations when the country was in a disaster. Some people say you could have postponed the demonstrations. What is your reaction?

A: We respect diversity in opinion over matters of national interest. We also acknowledge that we are in a crisis (caused by floods) that requires urgent and robust solutions by all stakeholders. We applaud President Mutharika for taking lead in government’s response to the emergency. The fact that government is currently engrossed in addressing the current flood disaster does not necessary mean it has to suspend all, other, operations or governments’ business.