An investigative research and political analysis
The 2019 demonstrations organised by the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) remain one of the most politically consequential and controversial episodes in Malawi’s recent democratic history, exposing deep divisions over electoral accountability, public security, political freedoms and the protection of ordinary citizens.
What began as a campaign demanding accountability following the disputed 21 May 2019 Tripartite Elections gradually developed into a prolonged period of political confrontation, accompanied by incidents of vandalism, looting, road blockades, attacks and clashes involving demonstrators, political supporters and security personnel.
Although the right to peaceful assembly is protected under Section 38 of Malawi’s Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully and unarmed, the events of 2019 raised important questions about the responsibility of demonstration organisers, political actors and law enforcement agencies to protect the public.
The central issue is not whether Malawians had the right to demonstrate, but how democratic freedoms could be exercised without exposing innocent citizens to violence, intimidation, economic disruption and psychological distress.
First, an electoral dispute that transformed into a national political confrontation
Following the 2019 Tripartite Elections, HRDC organised demonstrations demanding the resignation of Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) Chairperson Justice Dr Jane Ansah over allegations of electoral mismanagement.
The demonstrations attracted thousands of participants, including civil society activists, opposition political supporters and ordinary citizens who wanted accountability over the electoral process.
The United States Department of State’s 2019 Human Rights Report records several major HRDC-led demonstrations, including those held on 20 June, 4 and 5 July, 25 July, 5 August and 18 September 2019.
The campaign subsequently expanded beyond the original electoral dispute as political tensions intensified and demonstrators raised wider social and economic grievances.
Afrobarometer’s April 2020 analysis by Joseph J. Chunga provides important evidence about public attitudes towards the demonstrations.
The survey found that 77 per cent of Malawians interviewed were aware of the post-election demonstrations, while 60 per cent of those aware considered them justified.
Additionally, 53 per cent supported the demand for the MEC Chairperson’s resignation over the management of the election.
However, 51 per cent supported government authority to limit demonstrations when necessary to protect public peace and security.
The same research found that the proportion of Malawians who had experienced violence at protests or political rallies during the preceding two years had doubled to 16 per cent compared with 2017.
These findings demonstrate the complexity of public opinion, reflecting support for electoral accountability alongside concerns about the conduct and security implications of political demonstrations.
Second, when some demonstrations became a source of public intimidation
One of the most disturbing developments during the 2019 demonstrations was the outbreak of violence in several locations, particularly during the July protests.
On 5 July 2019, The Times reported incidents of looting, vandalism and destruction of public infrastructure in Mzuzu and Karonga.
Among the affected structures were the Mzuzu Prison building and Karonga District Commissioner’s office.
In Mzuzu, government offices were reportedly stoned and set on fire, prompting police to deploy tear gas before Malawi Defence Force personnel intervened.
In Karonga, protesters reportedly set fire to the District Commissioner’s office after the district commissioner was unavailable to receive their petition.
In Blantyre, political tensions developed between demonstrators and youths associated with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party.
The Times reported that a woman passing near Chichiri Shopping Mall was attacked after being mistaken for a protester because she was wearing a red shirt.
In Zomba, protesters reportedly vandalised political billboards and blocked the M3 road connecting Zomba and Mangochi districts by burning tyres.
These incidents demonstrate how political confrontation can extend beyond the intended targets of demonstrations and affect innocent members of the public.
For business owners, commuters, students, parents and public servants, aggressive crowds, burning tyres, blocked roads and reports of property destruction can create genuine concerns about personal safety.
People may respond by changing their travel arrangements, closing businesses earlier, avoiding certain locations or keeping children away from areas considered dangerous.
When ordinary citizens begin organising their daily activities around the possibility of political violence, fear becomes an additional burden on society.
However, it is important not to attribute every violent incident to HRDC leadership or assume that all demonstrators participated in unlawful conduct.
The available reporting establishes that violence occurred during some demonstrations, but individual responsibility must be determined through evidence rather than political association.
Third, the hidden psychological burden of political violence
The psychological consequences of violent demonstrations deserve greater attention in Malawi’s national conversation.
Exposure to threatening crowds, physical confrontations, destruction of property, tear gas and reports of attacks can create distressing experiences, particularly for people who feel unable to protect themselves.
Depending on an individual’s exposure and personal circumstances, such experiences may contribute to anxiety, persistent fear, sleep disturbances and heightened sensitivity to confrontational situations.
Children who witness violence may also develop negative perceptions of public gatherings, political disagreements and personal safety.
Elderly people, people with disabilities and families living near frequently affected locations may experience additional vulnerability.
Small-scale traders whose businesses are threatened or disrupted may experience both financial uncertainty and emotional pressure.
Nevertheless, psychological distress must be distinguished from clinically diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.
There is no established nationwide clinical assessment demonstrating how many Malawians developed PTSD specifically because of the 2019 HRDC demonstrations.
The documented incidents nevertheless provide legitimate grounds for examining the possible psychological consequences of political violence on affected communities.
The absence of a nationwide clinical assessment should not be interpreted as proof that ordinary citizens experienced no emotional or psychological distress.
Fourth, the economic consequences that intensified public anxiety
The 2019 demonstrations also exposed the relationship between political instability and household economic security.
When roads are blocked, businesses close, public transport is disrupted and commercial activities become vulnerable to destruction, the consequences extend to people who have no involvement in political disputes.
On 12 July 2019, The Times reported that the Economics Association of Malawi, through its then president Chikumbutso Kalilombe, had warned that the country’s relatively small economy was vulnerable to disruption caused by demonstrations.
Kalilombe called for a quick resolution of the political situation to restore economic certainty, while cautioning against describing the country as perpetually politically unstable.
For a market vendor, missing a day’s business could mean losing money needed to support a family.
For a minibus operator, road closures could translate into lost income, while employees might worry about travelling safely to their workplaces.
These pressures can create a situation in which economic uncertainty reinforces psychological distress.
Consequently, the cost of political unrest should not be measured only through damaged buildings and destroyed property, but also through interrupted livelihoods, lost business opportunities and the insecurity experienced by ordinary households.
Fifth, demonstrators and human rights defenders also faced intimidation
A balanced assessment must recognise that HRDC leaders, activists and demonstrators were themselves subjected to threats, attacks and other forms of intimidation.
Amnesty International’s review of human rights in Malawi during 2019 documented attacks against human rights defenders and activists associated with the demonstrations.
On 25 September 2019, activist Billy Mayaya and several other activists were attacked in Blantyre, with Mayaya sustaining serious head injuries.
Front Line Defenders also documented threats against HRDC Chairperson Timothy Mtambo, including a petrol-bomb attack on his house and vehicle on 15 August 2019.
The organisation further reported that on 10 October 2019, unidentified assailants fired six shots at Mtambo’s vehicle near Mtandire Bridge in Lilongwe.
Mtambo escaped without injury.
These incidents demonstrate that intimidation was not confined to ordinary citizens or individuals opposed to the demonstrations.
Activists and people involved in organising protests also faced serious threats to their personal safety.
The United Nations Human Rights Office, in its statement of 11 October 2019, expressed concern about increasing violence during the demonstrations and allegations of excessive force by security personnel.
The UN reported that a police officer had been stoned to death during a spontaneous demonstration on 8 October, while also raising concerns about violence against protesters and alleged excessive use of force by security agencies.
It called on both demonstrators and authorities to respect human rights, avoid violence and pursue meaningful dialogue.
These developments underline the importance of examining the period from multiple perspectives rather than attributing every incident to one political or social group.
Sixth, security agencies and the challenge of restoring public confidence
The conduct of security agencies became another significant issue during the 2019 demonstrations.
The United States Department of State’s 2019 Human Rights Report documented allegations of excessive force, unlawful killings and other abuses involving security personnel.
One particularly serious case involved Justin Phiri, who died in custody in Mzuzu on 24 September 2019 after being arrested in connection with the unrest surrounding demonstrations in Karonga.
The report stated that Phiri had been among individuals beaten by soldiers and that investigations into his death were pending at the time.
Contemporary reporting by Nation Online also described concerns surrounding his treatment and death while in custody.
Another serious issue involved allegations of sexual violence against women and teenage girls in Nsundwe, M’bwatalika and Mpingu.
According to the United States Department of State’s report, the alleged incidents occurred on 16 October 2019 and were reportedly acts of retaliation following the killing of police officer Usuman Imedi by an angry mob in Nsundwe on 8 October.
The Malawi Human Rights Commission opened an independent inquiry into the allegations, alongside a police investigation.
These incidents illustrate the serious human rights and public security challenges that emerged during the period.
When citizens fear violent crowds as well as possible abuses by security personnel, public confidence in institutions responsible for maintaining law and order can weaken.
A 2022 University of the Witwatersrand master’s dissertation by Faith Chavula, examining police brutality during demonstrations in Malawi between 2010 and 2020, identified political influence, perceived police partisanship and militarisation as factors affecting public trust in the Malawi Police Service.
Although the study covered a broader period than 2019 and involved a limited qualitative sample, it provides useful academic context for understanding the relationship between confrontational policing and public confidence.
Seventh, the danger of turning political mobilisation into a culture of fear
The 2019 experience offers an important warning against normalising intimidation as a means of political mobilisation.
Demonstrations should provide citizens with an opportunity to express grievances, demand accountability and influence national decision-making.
However, when political mobilisation becomes associated with threats, destruction, physical confrontation and attacks against people holding different opinions, democratic participation risks becoming an instrument of fear.
No Malawian should have to fear wearing a particular political colour, opening a business, travelling on a public road or expressing a political opinion.
Equally, no demonstrator should fear arbitrary detention, assault or excessive force from security personnel.
The responsibility for preventing political violence rests with demonstration organisers, political parties, civil society organisations, government institutions, security agencies and individual participants.
Organisers must communicate clear expectations of peaceful conduct and publicly condemn violence regardless of the political identity of those responsible.
Authorities, on the other hand, must facilitate lawful demonstrations, protect participants and investigate allegations of abuse impartially.
Eighth, lessons Malawi must carry forward
The experience of 2019 demonstrates the need for a stronger national commitment to protecting democratic freedoms while safeguarding public security.
The right to demonstrate must remain protected, but peaceful assembly should never be used to justify looting, intimidation, assaults or destruction of property.
Political organisations and civil society movements should promote accountability among their supporters and discourage individuals who seek to exploit demonstrations for violence.
Security agencies require appropriate training in crowd management, human rights protection and conflict de-escalation.
Independent investigations into allegations of violence by demonstrators and security personnel must also be pursued without political interference.
Most importantly, Malawi should recognise that political violence can leave consequences extending beyond the immediate confrontation.
There is a need for more systematic research into the experiences of children, families, traders, public servants and other communities affected by the 2019 demonstrations.
Community-based psychological support should also be considered for individuals who experienced serious distress.
Conclusion: Democracy should protect citizens, not frighten them
Looking back at the 2019 HRDC demonstrations provides an opportunity to reflect on both the democratic significance and the painful consequences of Malawi’s political journey.
The protests demonstrated that citizens can mobilise around electoral accountability and demand institutional responsibility.
However, the violence and intimidation associated with some demonstrations also exposed the vulnerability of ordinary people whose daily lives were disrupted by political confrontation.
The experiences of citizens who feared attacks, lost property or suffered economic disruption deserve recognition, just as the experiences of activists and demonstrators who faced threats and security-related abuses must not be ignored.
Democratic rights and public safety are not opposing principles but mutually reinforcing foundations of a functioning democracy.
Political leaders, activists and security institutions must understand that political disagreements are temporary, governments change, and electoral disputes eventually become part of history.
However, fear, insecurity and the possible psychological consequences experienced by affected families and communities can extend beyond the immediate political confrontation.
Malawi’s democratic progress should therefore be measured not simply by the ability of citizens to assemble and protest, but also by whether they can exercise their freedoms, express disagreement and conduct their daily activities without intimidation or violence.
Research perspective: This analysis draws on Afrobarometer, Amnesty International, the United Nations, the United States Department of State, Front Line Defenders, contemporary Malawian media reporting and academic research.
Research qualification: The psychological effects discussed are evidence-informed possibilities and should not be interpreted as proof that every Malawian experienced trauma or that a nationwide clinical assessment established PTSD arising from the demonstrations.
Feedback and contributions
Readers are invited to share their experiences, perspectives and additional evidence relating to the 2019 demonstrations.
Leave a Reply