The recent public call by Robert Mkwezalamba, Chairperson of the Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC), urging High Court Judge Mzonde Mvula to expeditiously deliver a ruling on the bail application involving Richard Chimwendo Banda raises serious constitutional, ethical, and moral concerns.
At the heart of this debate is not merely the fate of one individual, but the broader principles of judicial independence, equality before the law, and the credibility of civil society advocacy in Malawi.
First and foremost, it is important to remind Mkwezalamba and the HRCC that Malawi’s judiciary operates independently, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Judges are bound by law, procedure, and conscience not by public pressure from activists, politicians, or civil society leaders.
When a prominent human rights figure publicly urges a specific judge to hasten a ruling in a named case, such conduct risks being interpreted as an attempt to exert undue influence or intimidation, whether intended or not.
Actions of this nature, even when framed as concern for human rights, undermine public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the courts.Judicial independence is not a technical detail; it is a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law.
Once society normalizes public pressure on judges to decide cases quickly or in a particular direction, the judiciary becomes vulnerable to manipulation.
Today it may be pressure to “expedite” a ruling; tomorrow it could be pressure to deliver a predetermined outcome.
Human rights defenders, of all people, should be at the forefront of protecting the judiciary from such encroachments.
Secondly, the selective nature of HRCC’s advocacy in this matter raises troubling questions.
Malawi’s prisons are filled with remanded suspects, many of whom have languished in custody for months or even years awaiting trial or judicial rulings.
These individuals are largely poor, unknown, and politically unconnected.If HRCC’s concern is genuinely about delayed justice and prolonged pre-trial detention, a principled and consistent approach would have been to call for the expedited handling of all outstanding cases, or at the very least to highlight the systemic problem of delayed justice affecting thousands of Malawians.
By singling out one high-profile individual, HRCC creates the perception that its voice is loudest when the affected person is politically influential or well-connected.
Such an approach undermines the very essence of human rights, which are universal, indivisible, and applicable to all, regardless of status, wealth, or political influence.
Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done fairly and consistently.It is also necessary to recall precedent.
Malawi has witnessed several high-profile individuals being held in custody for extended periods without attracting similar public advocacy from HRCC.
A notable example is businessperson Thom Mpinganjira, who spent a considerable amount of time at Maula Prison during his legal battles.
During that period, HRCC did not mount a comparable public campaign demanding expedited rulings.
This inconsistency invites legitimate questions: why now, and why this particular individual?The rule of law demands that no one is above the law, just as no one should be beneath its protection.
Malawi’s laws were not designed to punish the poor while shielding the powerful. Richard Chimwendo Banda, like any other citizen, is subject to the same legal processes.
Being influential, politically connected, or well-known does not entitle one to preferential treatment whether from the courts or from civil society organizations.
Based on HRCC’s conduct in this matter, it is difficult to escape the perception that the organization may be advancing the interests of certain individuals rather than championing universal human rights and justice.
This is a dangerous path for any human rights body. Civil society derives its moral authority from impartiality, consistency, and a principled stand against injustice in all its forms.
Once that authority is compromised by selective advocacy, public trust inevitably erodes.In conclusion, HRCC and its leadership should reflect deeply on the implications of their actions.
Defending human rights does not mean pressuring judges or selectively advocating for the powerful.
It means standing firm for due process, judicial independence, and equality before the law for the unnamed prisoner as much as for the influential politician.
Anything less weakens not only the judiciary, but also the credibility of the human rights movement itself.
