Hearings in the INSS case begin amid restrictions on the press

Hearings began yesterday at the Central Office for Combating Corruption (GCCC) as part of the process involving the Director-General, Joaquim Siúta, the Director of Administration and Finance, Jaime Custório Nhavene, the Head of the Procurement Management Unit (UGEA), José Francisco Chidengo, and the businessman Aboobacar Sumaila, owner of RAM TV.

According to the source present at the opening session, the defendants' lawyers requested that the court allow them to await trial in freedom, invoking the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic. As of the time of publication, no judicial decision on the request had yet been made.

What has most marked this process, however, is not only the merits of the case, but the way the judicial system has managed media access. Similar to what has been recurrent in Mozambique in high-profile corruption cases, the press was prevented from covering the hearings, despite the case having been widely publicized by the media itself and the defendants being, until proven otherwise, only accused—not tried or convicted.

In democratic societies, the separation of powers—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—is traditionally complemented by the role of the press, considered the "fourth estate." It is the journalistic task of observing, reporting on, and disseminating information about the performance of the other branches of government, based on verifiable facts, functioning as a mechanism of social control and public scrutiny.

In the case of the judiciary, this role translates into the principle of publicity of procedural acts, a corollary of the right to a fair and transparent trial. Judicial secrecy is a legitimate exception in phases where the investigation could be compromised—but it is hardly justifiable when the case is already in the public domain and when only coercive measures or preliminary hearings are at stake, such as the decision on provisional release.

The systematic ban on coverage in courtrooms, especially in corruption cases involving public figures, raises serious questions:

 - It limits the public's right to information about how state resources are managed and how justice is applied to those in power.

- It weakens trust in institutions by fostering the perception that the justice system operates in an opaque and selective manner.

- It undermines the watchdog function of the press, transforming the "fourth estate" into a merely tolerated—and not recognized—power.

Mozambique has witnessed, in recent years, a succession of high-profile corruption cases in which the focus has been more on the process of capturing the defendants—with widely disseminated images—than on the trial itself, often held away from the eyes of the public and the press.

This asymmetry is revealing: the media coverage of the arrest often serves the purpose of demonstrating institutional strength; while the scrutiny of the trial—where guilt and sentences are actually decided—tends to be reserved. The result is a lack of transparency that harms both the defendants (who lose the opportunity to have their defense publicly scrutinized) and society (which cannot assess whether justice has, in fact, been served).

The hearings continue in the coming days, with the expectation that the GCCC will rule on the request for release on bail submitted by the defense. While justice is decided behind closed doors, it is society that waits—and it is democracy that silently loses.