The recent Citizen for Credible Election (CfCE) demonstrations in Malawi have reignited serious concerns about the role and responsibilities of security forces during public protests.
Eyewitness accounts and media reports indicate that both the Malawi Police Service and the Malawi Defence Force (MDF) were visibly present at the scene, yet failed to intervene to prevent the outbreak of violence.
Demonstrators reportedly clashed with counter-protesters and were met with threats, injuries, and destruction of property, all while uniformed officers stood by without taking preventive or protective action.
This apparent non-intervention raises fundamental legal and constitutional questions about the duties of security personnel in democratic societies, particularly when the right to assemble and protest is at stake.
Under Section 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi, every person has the right to assemble and demonstrate with others peacefully and unarmed.
Additionally, Section 153 of the Constitution establishes the Malawi Police Service as a body tasked with the protection of public safety, the rights of individuals, and the maintenance of law and order.
Furthermore, Section 4 of the Police Act (Chapter 13:01 of the Laws of Malawi) mandates the police to prevent and detect crime, protect life and property, and preserve peace.
In the case of the MDF, the Defence Force Act and Section 160 of the Constitution provide that the military’s role, even in internal deployments, must be to assist civilian authorities in maintaining public order under lawful instructions.
Internationally, Malawi is a signatory to various human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom of assembly and obliges states to ensure the safety of those exercising this right.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials emphasize that security officers must, at all times, protect life and prevent violence, even during civil unrest.
The visible failure of both police and military personnel to act during the protests, therefore, appears to contradict both domestic and international legal obligations.
Inaction in such contexts can be interpreted as tacit approval of violence, and in some cases, may amount to a dereliction of duty or complicity by omission.
Moreover, the presence of security forces without intervention creates a dangerous perception of partisanship or selective enforcement of the law, especially when victims of violence are protesters critical of state-related decisions.
It becomes critical to question whether the inaction was a result of political instructions, operational paralysis, or failure within Malawi’s security establishment.
The judiciary and oversight institutions like the Malawi Human Rights Commission must now investigate these incidents thoroughly and impartially to restore public confidence.
Beyond investigations, there is a need for comprehensive reforms in protest policing, starting with clearer protocols on the role of military support during civil demonstrations.
Civil society organizations and legal practitioners must continue to demand accountability and transparency from security agencies to safeguard democracy and human rights.
As Malawi heads towards another election cycle, the conduct of security forces during protests will remain under scrutiny, and their neutrality will be key in upholding democratic values.
The violence and inaction during the demonstrations serve as a grim reminder of the delicate balance between power, responsibility, and the rule of law in times of civil dissent.