Case VM7, the prelude to the error of Mozambican judicial idolatry

Paulo Vilanculo"

Mondlane was summoned to answer for five crimes related to post-election demonstrations, including incitement to collective disobedience and instigation of terrorism. When the defendant is one of the best-known figures in the political opposition, when the country still bears the wounds of an electoral crisis, and when society is deeply divided over the legitimacy of power, the court ceases to be seen merely as a legal institution. It becomes a mirror of democracy itself. The trial, by its nature and the political context in which it takes place, will transform the court into one of the main battlegrounds for the credibility of state institutions.When a political opponent is brought to court, are we witnessing a normal act of justice or a moment in which justice itself needs to prove its independence?What kind of justice do we want for a democratic republic? What formal guarantees of independence are sufficient to produce a public perception of independence?THEDid Mozambicans believe that this process was conducted according to the law or by the political climate of the time? "After this trial, will Mozambicans have more or less faith in the Justice system of the Republic?"

Questioning justice doesn't mean destroying it. There are moments in the life of a Republic when a legal process ceases to be just a legal process.Mondlane will face charges before the Supreme Court related to the events that marked the post-election protests.Mondlane was summoned to answer for five crimes related to the post-election protests, including publicly advocating crime, inciting collective disobedience, and instigating or inciting terrorism.This is a process that, due to the nature of the accusations and the political weight of the defendant, can hardly be treated by society as a common judicial process. The problem is not in a politician being held criminally responsible when there is evidence or proof of crimes. The problem lies in using criminal law as a substitute for political competition. A political opponent cannot be transformed into a criminal simply because they are a nuisance to those in power.The trial of Venâncio Mondlane by the Supreme Court, heralded as one of the most politically significant legal proceedings in recent years, places Mozambique before a question that transcends the figure of the accused himself. The trial of Venâncio Mondlane by the Supreme Court forces Mozambique to look beyond the defendant and ask who, ultimately, is also being judged. Venâncio Mondlane became a central figure in the political protests following the 2024 elections, and the Public Prosecutor's Office attributes responsibility for the protests and their consequences to his actions and statements. Mondlane rejects the basis of the accusations and claims that his protests were linked to his rejection of the election results.

Judicial idolatry produces a culture in which citizens are encouraged to believe that the justice system cannot err, that magistrates cannot be questioned, and that a sentence must be accepted simply because it came from a court. Judicial idolatry is, therefore, as dangerous as the demonization of justice. If one sector of society believes that every trial against an opponent is political persecution, there is a risk of destroying the authority of the courts. But if another sector believes that everything that comes out of a court is necessarily just simply because it comes from a court, there is the opposite risk: transforming justice into a kind of institutional religion, where citizens can no longer ask who judged, how they judged, what evidence was presented, and whether the rights of defense were fully respected. This reality becomes particularly sensitive because the constitutional design of the judicial system does not completely eliminate the presence of political actors in the institutional architecture. The composition of the Superior Council of the Judiciary includes members appointed by the President of the Republic and members elected by the Assembly of the Republic, alongside magistrates elected by their peers. Furthermore, certain appointments to the higher courts involve the President of the Republic and the Assembly of the Republic. This does not, in itself, mean that judges receive political orders or that judicial decisions are determined by the Government. To make such a claim without evidence would be to substitute accusation for analysis.

The institutional architecture foresees the participation of the President of the Republic and the Assembly of the Republic in the composition/ratification of certain bodies and judicial appointments. Although the Mozambican Judiciary formally possesses constitutional guarantees of independence, idolizing Justice means believing that the mere presence of a judge, a court, and a sentence is sufficient to transform a decision into absolute truth. Therefore, the strongest argument is not to assert that "judges are appointed by the Government," but to question whether the institutional design is sufficiently shielded against the perception of political influence. The law must be sufficiently independent to judge both those in power and those who challenge it. Therefore, the Mondlane case constitutes an opportunity for the Mozambican Judiciary to demonstrate that it is not an instrument of political persecution, but also that it is not subject to street pressure or the popularity of the accused. Justice should not be governmental, partisan, oppositionist, or popular; it should simply be Justice.The real test will be demonstrating that he can judge him without anyone being able to say, with reasonable justification, that the decision was determined by his political position. It is necessary to create conditions so that he can verify this independence. This is the error of judicial idolatry: transforming the judicial institution into a kind of entity above suspicion, incapable of error, of being influenced, or of being questioned.

When a legal process involves an opposition figure, any suspicion of political manipulation can have far greater consequences than the process itself, and this can affect collective trust in institutions. It can fuel the perception that courts are used to resolve conflicts that politics has failed to resolve through dialogue. No opponent should be turned into a criminal simply because they represent a political threat to power.Being in the opposition is not proof of guilt.If there is sufficient evidence, that evidence should be presented and evaluated judicially. But, if the accusations are not sufficiently substantiated, there must also be institutional courage to acquit. Justice should not seek to please the Government. There is a greater risk than the conviction or acquittal of Mondlane itself. It is the risk that society will come to believe that the court is a political weapon. When this perception takes hold, Justice loses one of its main sources of authority: trust, and it loses social legitimacy. The legally demonstrable truth must be sought. A possible conviction of Mondlane should not be celebrated as a victory of the Government over the opposition. That is why a sentence in a process of this nature needs to speak louder than partisan speeches. A conviction does not automatically transform a politician into an enemy of the State. Perhaps the greatest judgment will not be the one that takes place inside the court. But rather, it will be made by the citizens; it will be made by the press; it will be made by the universities; it will be made by jurists and by history.

Respecting the courts does not mean turning judges into infallible entities. Justice, like any public institution, must be respected, but also monitored by society, the press, academia, and citizens themselves. A sentence does not become just simply because it was pronounced within a court of law.Respecting Justice is nothe canit meansrTo believe that everything that happens within a court is automatically just. But between legal independence and the social perception of independence there is a distance that cannot be ignored. It is not enough to tell the citizen that the Justice system is independent.Perhaps it is not only Venâncio Mondlane who is in the dock. The credibility of the Mozambican justice system will also be at stake. The trial is taking place in the Supreme Court due to Mondlane's status as a member of the Council of State, which grants him special jurisdiction. But it is also a test of the credibility of Mozambican institutions. For too long, in many societies, the idea has been created that questioning a judicial decision is equivalent to attacking the justice system. This is a dangerous confusion. The trial of Venâncio Mondlane could therefore become a historic opportunity. The real danger for Mozambique would be to allow the judiciary to be transformed into an arena of political revenge by other means. When politics fails to resolve its conflicts through dialogue, elections, and representative institutions, there is always the temptation to shift the battle to the courts. And when the courts come to be perceived as instruments for eliminating adversaries, democracy begins to lose its institutional foundation. The Supreme Court must seize the opportunity to demonstrate that it can judge a politically powerful figure without fear of opposition and without submission to power. It can demonstrate that Justice does not need to be defended by partisan speeches, because a legally sound decision speaks for itself. And this credibility will not be won by the force of the robe, the authority of the office, or the weight of the institution. It will be won by the quality of the evidence, the impartiality of the judgment, the transparency of the process, and the ability to demonstrate that, before the law, the powerful and the opposition, the ruler and the ordinary citizen, are judged by the same principle.

In the case of Venâncio Mondlane, the challenge is particularly delicate because the judicial process is associated with political events of enormous magnitude. The post-election demonstrations were not simply police incidents. They were an expression of a profound crisis of political, electoral, and institutional confidence. There were protests, confrontations, deaths, destruction of property, and a social mobilization that surpassed the traditional structures of the opposition. But popularity is not proof of guilt. There are interpretations according to which the process could have consequences for Mondlane's political future. DW, for example, spoke to a political leader who interprets the trial as an attempt to prevent a future candidacy. Although this is a political interpretation, not an established judicial fact, its existence demonstrates the degree of distrust surrounding the process. That is why a possible conviction cannot be celebrated simply as a victory for the State against a political adversary. Similarly, a possible acquittal should not be automatically presented as proof that Mondlane was right in all his political positions. The court must judge facts and crimes, not political projects. Justice cannot be used to confirm political prejudices. Therefore, it would be a mistake to transform Mondlane's trial into a battle between fanaticisms. On one side, those who will consider any accusation against him as political persecution. On the other, those who will consider any conviction as proof that the State has finally managed to control an inconvenient adversary. The greater the political polarization, the greater the serenity of the magistrates must be.

2025/12/3