On 2nd anniversary of arrest for treason

Honourable Folks, what would make APM, a law scholar to boot, and six ministers—who together make up 35 percent of the Cabinet—commemorate publicly their incarceration two years ago for treason?

The question becomes pertinent in light of the fact that the arrest came after a duly instituted commission of enquiry indicated there were efforts to thwart the constitutionally stipulated ascendancy of Vice President Joyce Banda to the high office of President following the sudden death of former president Bingu wa Mutharika on April 5, 2012.

Given such circumstances, any government would arrest the suspects and let the courts independently determine whether they are guilty or not. That’s what is meant by upholding the rule of law, isn’t it? I’d also like to believe that’s what the APM administration would do if any person, including prominent leaders on either side of the political divide, became treason suspects.

It’s a fact that APM and the others got off the hook not because the courts passed a not-guilty verdict but because their case was discontinued days after APM became Head of State in line with section 91(2) of the Constitution which rendered him immune to prosecution.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, who was now part of the Executive Arm of government headed by APM himself, felt it was awkward to continue with the case only for the others. They were all serving in senior positions in APM’s government and a guilty verdict for them would’ve affected the credibility of the president himself.

There’s no denying that some, if not all, of the suspects believe they were wrongly accused. In August 2014, some of them reacted to the discontinuance of their case by writing the Attorney General, threatening to sue if they were not compensated for “false imprisonment, defamation and malicious prosecution.”

Their demand was rescinded after APM reportedly told them suing the DPP-led government was like biting the finger that was feeding them.

Still, neither the discontinuance of their treason case nor their reaction to it passes for anything. It’s only the courts—not a president or any other authority in the Executive and Legislative arms of government—that have the mandate to declare a suspect guilty or not guilty.

All this may be obvious APM. So, why the commemoration?

It may be a DPP attempt to make us see its leaders in the context of courageous Malawians who took risks for the sake of our freedom. APM’s own account of the treason saga which I read on Facebook on Wednesday alludes to that.

He pieces together his suffering at the hands of Joyce Banda’s government (cold nights in a mosquito infested police cell hounded by an assassin) with the “mysterious” death of his brother, Bingu, and the sacrifices made by Chilembwe 100 years ago and other compatriots later.

It’s a spin that elevates APM and the eight others who were arrested with him by the JB administration to level of martyrs who suffered or died for Malawi. APM says in his account he won’t throw back the Molotov cocktail at his tormentors now that he is in government. Instead, he has forgiven them and his focus is on developing this country.

Do Malawians believe him? In a country where opinion surveys to gauge popularity of personalities or policies are rarely conducted, it’s hard to tell. Suffice it to say JB herself appears to feel insecure if her long stay abroad is anything to go by. It also appears many of the comments on the commemoration as published by newspapers, radio and social media are uncomplimentary.

But more worrisome perhaps is the impact of the spin on government’s duty to uphold the rule of law. By creating an impression that the treason case was political, APM and his government have cut, “scooped and polished” a weapon that can be used against them.

They are saying if it pleases politicians in government, a totally innocent person can be picked up, thrown into a police cell and accused of such a serious crime as treason, right?

Anyway, if without bothering to prove their innocence they can accuse the former government of using treason to get at them, what stops other treason suspects in future from using the same line of thinking against the APM administration?