In Mali, a month has passed since Mountaga Tall, a prominent lawyer, former minister, and staunch advocate for democracy, was unlawfully seized by State Security and held incommunicado. His son has since endured the same fate, alongside other pro-democracy activists, military personnel, and religious leaders. These alarming abductions began in the wake of significant attacks on April 25, carried out by jihadists from Jnim and separatists from the FLA. Mamadou Ismaïla Konaté, a distinguished lawyer, former Malian Minister of Justice, and vocal opponent of the military authorities who have governed for six years without elections, recently shared his insights. He addressed the plight of Mountaga Tall, the concerning trend of instrumentalizing counter-terrorism efforts, and the perceived subservience of the Malian judiciary. Konaté reaffirmed his firm stance against jihadist terrorism, underscored the transitional regime’s accountability, and clarified his reasons for not aligning with the Coalition des forces pour la République (CFR), the opposition coalition led by Imam Dicko.
It has now been exactly one month since Maître Mountaga Tall was abducted and held in an undisclosed location 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 respect for due process, yet without success. Do you believe the Transitional Authorities are listening to these appeals?
Maître Konaté: 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 frameworks. Even if the current environment doesn’t fully resemble a state governed by law, it’s crucial to remind these authorities that the rule of law is significantly gauged by how it treats its political opponents, critics, and legal professionals. It is unacceptable that a citizen, a politician but primarily a lawyer, has not been visited by medical personnel, let alone by legal counsel or the head of the Bar Association. Following a strongly worded statement from the Bar Association’s president himself, the Malian military authorities responded by abducting Mountaga Tall’s son. This represents an intolerable escalation.
Indeed, after Mountaga Tall, his own son and other political opponents, as well as military and religious leaders, have suffered the same fate. Military Justice is reportedly investigating suspicions of complicity with armed groups during the April 25 attacks. No official link has been established between this investigation and these abductions, but the implicit strategy of the authorities, amplified by their supporters, is to justify these actions through 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 battle against terrorism cannot ever justify legal insecurity. A military camp is not a judicial body. Lawful detention must be demonstrable; arbitrary detention, by its nature, is concealed, and we are witnessing a context 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 both the starting point and the ultimate arbiter.
Beyond this specific case, we observe that Malian justice has sentenced former Prime Minister Moussa Mara to a year in prison for a tweet—in which he expressed hope that “day” would succeed “night”—while supporters of the Transition openly call for the lynching of pro-democracy activists or the burning of shops owned by Mauritanians. Is Malian justice subservient to the Transitional Authorities?
Undoubtedly, this judiciary, which is tasked with preserving public order and security, currently gives the impression of yielding and being largely submissive. This justice system must recognize that its purpose is not to serve a particular regime, even if it is military. It serves the State, the nation, and its people. Judges must not lose sight of this fundamental principle.
But do judges truly have a choice? Are they not themselves living in fear?
The law provides judges with the option to recuse themselves. Beyond any consideration of fear, judges today are allowing themselves to play a role that is detrimental to themselves and to the very concept of justice. From this perspective, they should simply understand that today is today, but tomorrow, justice will prevail.
Following the April 25 attacks, the death of Minister Sadio Camara, and the fall of Kidal, some believed the military authorities in Mali were weakened. Yet, the government doesn’t seem to be faltering significantly?
It is faltering! Clearly, terrorism has no place in society; it represents the very negation of the social contract, of law, and of civil peace. However, it has become difficult to ignore the accountability of a government that came to power through force and maintains its grip through force and terror. The increasing exposure of the country and its citizens to growing dangers cannot be separated from the decisions made by those who have governed for six years.
You are an opponent of Mali’s transitional authorities, as we understand, but you have not joined the CFR (Coalition des forces pour la République), Imam Dicko’s coalition. Why not?
For the simple reason that, today, we find ourselves caught between “the military cap” and “the chechia.” The military cap signifies the seizure of power by force and its authoritarian exercise. Facing this, we have the “chechias,” and it is crucial to recall that 2012 is a stark reminder of their past actions. In 2012, we witnessed hands and feet being amputated in Mali’s northern regions.
During the period of occupation by jihadist groups…
Exactly. Those amputations of hands and feet are still vivid in people’s minds. So, while I acknowledge the importance of national unity and dialogue, and the ultimate goal of restoring national cohesion, for me, there are absolute prerequisites. One cannot emerge from a battlefield, armed and ready, to simply sit at a table and wipe the slate clean of all that has transpired. Just as I vehemently oppose this military regime, which violates all rights and freedoms, in the same way, I cannot genuinely endorse acts of terror or terrorists. There is an absolute prerequisite: we must address 2012. We must discuss that malevolent alliance between the FLA and Jnim. Today, there must be fundamental conditions for adhering to absolute principles and values that, for me, form the bedrock of the Republic, democracy, and justice.
The AES regimes in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso consistently assert that opposing them is tantamount to opposing the sovereignty of these three nations, aligning with national enemies, terrorists, foreign interference, and media warfare. As a Malian, what are your thoughts, and how do you respond?
No one can strip me of my identity as a Malian, a patriot, and a committed citizen. What truly troubles these incumbent regimes, themselves born of illegality and deception, is their inability to tolerate being reminded of what the law entails. They cannot bear to be reminded of their own statements and commitments. But the true anti-patriots are those who starve their citizens, corrupt liberties, and dismantle the rule of law.
