"MINT hearing on DECIDE's noble accusation, fair and impartial treatment?"

Paulo Vilanculo"

Following the initial hearings held between July 7th and 10th, 2025, the Attorney General's Office (PGR) held a procedural hearing on February 17th at 10:00 AM, scheduled by the Public Prosecutor's Office as part of process no. 09/PGR/2024, submitted on November 21st, 2024 by the DECIDE platform, an organization led by activist Wilker Dias. Behind the scenes, a flurry of questions and concerns are being raised: Will there be institutional courage to transform hearings into formal accusations, or will the process serve only as a mechanism for social appeasement? Can an accusation emerging from the state apparatus itself, directly or indirectly associated with the events, be considered truly noble, just, and impartial? Is this a genuine exercise of institutional responsibility or a carefully managed procedural charade? Is this a swift process committed to the truth, or is it a case of managing a politically sensitive situation with kid gloves?

The post-election crisis of 2024-2025 left deep scars on Mozambican society. Police repression, widely denounced by human rights organizations, brought to the forefront the discussion about the excessive use of force and the militarization of the state's response to civil demands. The principle of command responsibility, recognized in international law, requires that superior officers be held accountable when there is evidence of excessive use of force, control failures, or deliberate omission. This implies that superior officers can be held responsible for acts committed by forces under their authority, especially when failures in prevention or punishment are demonstrated. A noble accusation against the Ministry of the Interior, based on a formal complaint against the former Minister of the Interior, Pascoal Ronda, and the former Commander-General of the PRM (Police of the Republic of Mozambique), Bernardino Rafael, places the accountability of these two leaders at the center of the debate.from MINTbecause of the deaths, torture, and other human rights violations during the post-election demonstrations that took place between 2024 and 2025, which reveals a deep tension between civic ethics and the power and justice structures of Mozambique.Calling the accusation "noble" doesn't just mean recognizing that it originates from civil society and is based on the demand for accountability for alleged excesses committed under state tutelage.The nobility, in this case, will not lie in the act of summoning top figures for a hearing, but in the system's ability to transform that gesture into concrete justice. Therefore, speaking of a "noble accusation" implies questioning whether there is, in fact, a genuine institutional commitment to the truth or merely a strategic response to mitigate internal and external pressures.

In a political environment where institutions are intertwined and where the hierarchy of power often conditions strategic decisions, impartiality ceases to be merely a legal principle and becomes an ethical imperative.The impartiality of any process begins with the independence of the institutions that conduct it. The Ministry of the Interior (MINT), as the body responsible for overseeing the police forces, was also the entity under whose jurisdiction the alleged excesses occurred during the post-election demonstrations of 2024-2025. However, applying this principle in a domestic context where institutional structures politically intertwine constitutes a true test of the State's maturity. The Public Prosecutor's Office is part of the state system itself, and where power structures are frequently politically interconnected, public perception becomes a determining factor. The boundary between justice and institutional self-protection is, in this case, tenuous. For many citizens, the idea that the system will rigorously investigate those who led it sounds contradictory.Here, the justice system finds itself at a crossroads: either asserting its independence and consolidating public trust, or perpetuating the idea that there are invisible boundaries that the law dares not cross.For many citizens, the idea that the system will rigorously investigate those who led it sounds contradictory.There is a clear risk that the hearing will become a mere formality, intended to demonstrate apparent institutional openness without practical consequences. There is a clear risk that the process will be administered as an instrument of social containment, an institutional response to alleviate tensions and demonstrate apparent commitment to the rule of law.

Justice and impartiality are not merely legal matters; they are profoundly ethical. However, the focus of the debate is now shifting to the quality of judicial treatment.The succession of hearings and proceedings raises legitimate doubts..The fact that the process is still in the investigation phase, several months later, can be interpreted from two different perspectives: either as a sign of investigative prudence, or as a symptom of institutional hesitation regarding the possibility of holding top figures in the state security system accountable. The visible answer depends on the effective independence of the Public Prosecutor's Office and its ability to investigate without political constraints. Hearing from former top public security officials is not mere procedural formality, but a test of the State's consistency with the principles it claims to defend.In reality, far from being a matter of law and justice, legal proceedings involving high-ranking state figures require institutional courage to overcome potential political pressures.Ultimately, what is at stake is not only the legal fate of Bernardino Rafael and Pascoal Ronda, but the institutional maturity of the State in restoring citizens' trust in Mozambican justice. Hearing from the former leaders could represent a historic milestone if it results in a rigorous investigation, supported by evidence, effective cross-examination, and eventual formal charges should responsibilities be confirmed.

However, a hearing can become merely a symbolic gesture if the process is diluted by formalities, postponements, and inconclusive decisions. A hearing will only be fair and impartial if there are no untouchable zones, if the victims are heard with the same weight as the leaders, and if the outcome is not predetermined by power balances.If the investigation is superficial or drags on indefinitely, it will reinforce the perception of selectivity in law enforcement. If the hearing is limited to a formal procedure without practical consequences, it will reinforce the perception of structural impunity when it comes to high-ranking figures in the state apparatus. On the other hand, if it results in a rigorous analysis based on solid evidence and respect for due process, if it results in transparent action and eventual accountability based on evidence, it could signal democratic maturity and a break with practices of impunity, and represent a milestone in consolidating a culture of accountability in Mozambique. If the hearing produces effective justice, the noble accusation will be legitimized by history.

At issue is the actions of the security forces under the supervision of the then Minister of the Interior, Pascoal Ronda, and the command of the former Commander-General of the PRM (Police of the Republic of Mozambique), Bernardino Rafael. According to data provided by civic organizations, more than 300 citizens lost their lives and hundreds were injured during the police repression.during the post-election demonstrations that took place between 2024 and 2025These figures, if confirmed, would represent one of the most serious human rights crises in the country's recent history.If the prosecution is conducted with transparency, solid evidence is produced, and effective accountability is achieved should wrongdoing be confirmed, it could represent a historic milestone in the fight against impunity in Mozambique. The country is watching closely.Public trust will depend on the transparency of procedural acts, freedom in the production of evidence, and equal treatment between accusers and the accused. Civil society demands that the principle of accountability be upheld.at the top of the chain of commandDon't be selective or symbolic.effective accountabilityCivil society expects that the principle of command accountability will not remain a dead letter. The families of the victims await not only hearings, but also formal speeches.Not legal protocols, but rather, they await recognition, truth, and reparation.

In truth, the nobility of the accusation will be validated, or undermined, by the outcome of the trial. The hearing will only be fair and impartial if there are no untouchable zones, if the evidence is rigorously evaluated, and if the result is not conditioned by power balances. Justice is not measured by the simple act of hearing the accused, but by the depth of the investigation, the production of robust evidence, and the courage to decide against vested interests, if the facts so demand.The outcome of this case will be crucial for the credibility of the Attorney General's Office and for Mozambique's international image regarding respect for human rights. A formal indictment could signal democratic maturity and institutional autonomy; however, a dismissal without convincing explanations could consolidate the perception of structural impunity when it comes to high-ranking figures in the state apparatus. Otherwise, the proclaimed nobility becomes mere rhetoric, and impartiality transforms into permanent doubt.

2025/12/3