Carvalho of Renamo incites violence and public instability with impunity in Nampula

Paulo Vilanculo"

The recent attacks in Nampula once again expose the fragility of political coexistence within the Mozambican opposition and raise concerns about the escalation of partisan violence at a time when the country is facing a crisis and widespread social discontent. Television reports indicate skirmishes that resulted in serious injuries to at least fifteen Renamo supporters, allegedly struck with machetes following exacerbated internal tensions after statements by the party's provincial delegate, Nelson de Carvalho. According to sources, Nelson de Carvalho's statements are described as inflammatory and polarizing, triggering an atmosphere of hostility between internal factions within the party.

The result of Nelson de Carvalho's statements, which quickly escalated from political debate into gratuitous violence, affecting activists and supporters who, until then, shared the same mobilization space in Nampula, left citizens injured after statements considered inflammatory by Nelson de Carvalho. This necessitates a firm stance from the entities responsible for upholding legality. Police authorities, while confirming the existence of disturbances, have remained silent regarding the direct responsibility of party leaders, referring to ongoing investigations. Institutional silence at this moment would be a form of complicity. This position, however, could be criticized, suggesting that the State is acting complacently in the face of clear signs of incitement to public disorder.

Ironically, when Venâncio Bila Mondlane mobilized citizens to contest the recent election results, he was quickly summoned by the Attorney General's Office, in a swift action that treated the peaceful protest as a potential threat to public order. In the recent case of Nampula, however, where statements by the Renamo provincial delegate, Nelson de Carvalho, preceded skirmishes that left at least fifteen supporters injured by machetes, the institutional response has been slow and silent. Ultimately, both episodes reveal a worrying pattern in Mozambique: challenges to power seem to receive more repression than overt political violence, in a scenario that threatens democracy and accentuates the vulnerability of the opposition. While Mondlane was associated with inciting disorder by calling for protests, Carvalho, whose words were linked to actual physical assaults, has not yet faced similar accountability. However, the Nampula case may not reflect incapacity, but rather denotes a deliberate structural position of the institutions of power that should be the guarantors of a safe and democratic political environment.

The way the Mozambican state reacts to different episodes of political tension raises further doubts about the impartiality of its institutions. This disparity reinforces the perception of judicial selectivity, fuels suspicions of the political instrumentalization of justice, and weakens public trust in institutions. The difference in treatment reinforces the public perception that Mozambican justice operates under political rather than legal criteria. This contrast suggests a justice system that acts rigorously when the target is a voice critical of the state, but hesitates when instability arises within the opposition. This lack of impartiality erodes trust in institutions and fuels the idea that the law is applied differently depending on the political weight, partisan convenience, or ideological alignment of the person targeted. Thus, justice functions selectively as a mechanism of social discipline, and not as a neutral instrument for the defense of public order.

The defense of the rule of law demands immediate, firm, and visible action. The consequences of Carvalho's statements were objective, serious, and measurable. In this context, the Public Prosecutor's Office must open a transparent investigation, hear the provincial delegate, collect testimonies from the victims, and determine whether incitement to violence or encouragement of public disorder constitutes crimes foreseen and punishable under Mozambican law. This is not merely about ascertaining internal responsibilities within Renamo, but about ensuring that no speech resulting in physical violence, public instability, or partisan intimidation goes unpunished. The Attorney General's Office and the Public Prosecutor's Office are called upon to act with the same promptness and rigor demonstrated in other recent political cases. The Attorney General's Office, which acted swiftly in the case of the post-election demonstrations involving Venâncio Mondlane, needs to demonstrate the same institutional consistency, lest it reinforce perceptions of bias and judicial selectivity. The call is for justice to rise up, to fulfill its duty, and to treat this case with the seriousness it deserves, not only to safeguard the integrity of the victims, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that no political leader is above the law.

2025/12/3