The Public Affairs Committee (PAC) on Tuesday and Wednesday held its sixth All-Inclusive Stakeholders Conference in Blantyre. Attendees included leaders of political parties, civil society and economists. One of the hot issues at the conference was the role of police ahead of the September 16 2025 General Election. Staff writer EDWIN NYIRONGO spoke to Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation executive director MICHAEL KAIYATSA to share insights on the conference. Excerpts:
How important was this gathering?
It was extremely important as it provided a neutral and inclusive platform where diverse stakeholders, including government representatives engaged in constructive dialogue on pressing national issues, particularly those related to the forthcoming elections.
Were there concerns related to human rights?
Yes, several concerns were raised. These included civil and political rights such as the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, rising political violence and the need to ensure inclusive participation, particularly for the youth, women and persons with disabilities. These are central to achieving a credible, free and democratic electoral process. Additionally, concerns were raised about economic rights, especially in the light of rising inflation, the cost of living crisis and growing economic inequalities that continue to affect the poor majority in the country.
What is your take on complaints against the Malawi Police Service?
Complaints about police bias are longstanding and must be taken seriously. Perceived or actual partiality undermines public confidence in the police and weakens the credibility of the electoral process. In a democracy, the police must uphold the law impartially and professionally, without fear or favour regardless of which political party is in power. Recent instances of political violence, such as attacks on opposition supporters or civil society activists have raised legitimate concerns. In some cases, the police have appeared either unwilling or unable to intervene, which only fuels the perception of selective enforcement of the law. This selective response not only compromises the safety of citizens, but also emboldens perpetrators of political violence. For Malawi to move forward, the police must reaffirm their constitutional role as protectors of all citizens, not as enforcers of political interests.
Should we say police are abused by ruling parties?
There is historical evidence suggesting that successive ruling parties have, at times, used the police to suppress dissent. Notable cases like that of Billy Mayaya who was assaulted during a peaceful demonstration while police looked on. While this may not reflect the stance of the entire police service, it underscores the urgent need for institutional reform and independence. Also, while it is important to acknowledge that not all members of the Malawi Police Service support or engage in such conduct, these incidents highlight systemic weaknesses that allow for political interference. They also demonstrate the urgent need for comprehensive institutional reforms to strengthen the independence, accountability and professionalism of the police. In a democracy, police must serve the people and protect the rights of all citizens, not act as an extension of ruling party interests.
What should be done to ensure that police are neutral?
First, strong internal accountability systems must be in place to hold officers responsible for misconduct, including political bias. Second, independent oversight bodies such as the Independent Complaints Commission must be empowered to investigate and act on police abuses. These provide external checks that reinforce integrity and public trust. Third, officers should be regularly trained to understand their constitutional responsibilities and to treat all citizens equally regardless of political affiliation. Finally, police leadership must lead by example. Neutrality is not just about rules, but also about culture, professionalism and a clear commitment to serve all members of society impartially.
Are there any reasons demonstrations can be stopped?
Yes, but only under very limited and clearly defined circumstances. Authorities may restrict or stop demonstrations if there is a real, immediate, and demonstrable threat to public safety, national security, or the rights and freedoms of others. However, such restrictions must meet strict legal standards. They must be lawful, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the threat posed. This is in line with Malawi’s Constitution as well as international human rights obligations, such as those outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Most importantly, inconvenience, political discomfort, or vague fears of unrest do not justify blanket bans or excessive interference. The priority of the authorities should always be to facilitate peaceful assembly, not suppress it.
What do you make of the IG’s statement that police can stop demonstrations if they believe they can turn violent?
The IG’s statement raises legitimate concerns. While the police have a duty to maintain public order, preemptively stopping demonstrations based on assumptions of potential violence can infringe on constitutional rights.
What is your take on concerns about lack of security during elections?
Security during elections is a major concern. Without adequate security, voters may be intimidated, political actors silenced, and the credibility of the process jeopardised.
Is police justified to claim they are short of numbers and will have to take some from other security institutions?
While resource constraints are a reality, particularly in the lead-up to the polls, any decision to draw personnel from other security institutions, such as the military, must be approached with great caution. These institutions have different mandates and operational cultures, which may not always align with the principles of civilian policing in a democratic context. The goal should be to boost capacity without undermining human rights, creating fear among the public, or militarising the electoral environment.
What is your take on the MEC machines issue?
The ongoing concerns about the use of Smartmatic machines in the 2025 elections require urgent and careful attention. While MEC insists there are no problems with the machines, trust must be built through independent verification, civic education, and timely dissemination of information. Electoral integrity depends not only on the reliability of the technology but also on the confidence that citizens have in the entire process.
