A month has now passed since Mountaga Tall, a prominent lawyer, former minister, and staunch advocate for democracy in Mali, was taken into custody by State Security forces. He remains held incommunicado, outside any recognized legal framework. His son has suffered the same fate, alongside numerous other pro-democracy activists, military personnel, and religious leaders. These arbitrary detentions intensified following the significant attacks on April 25, carried out by jihadists from the Jnim and separatists from the FLA.
Mamadou Ismaïla Konaté, himself a distinguished lawyer and former Malian Minister of Justice, as well as a vocal opponent of the military regime that has governed for six years without elections, recently shared his insights. He addressed the plight of Mountaga Tall, the perceived weaponization of the anti-terror campaign, and the apparent subservience of the Malian judiciary. Konaté reaffirmed his deep aversion to jihadist terrorism, underscored the transitional government’s accountability, and clarified his reasons for not joining the Coalition of Forces for the Republic (CFR), the opposition bloc led by Imam Dicko.
On is now a full month since Mountaga Tall’s abduction, with his detention by State Security at an undisclosed location. His family, legal representatives, and the International Conference of Bar Associations have repeatedly called for his release or presentation before a judge, demanding respect for legal rights. Do you believe the transitional authorities are heeding these appeals?
Konaté: While I remain personally skeptical, these authorities must ultimately bow to reason and law. They need to recognize that no individual should be deprived of liberty outside legal bounds. Even if we are not currently operating in a true rule of law environment, it is crucial to remind these authorities that the measure of a state’s commitment to justice is reflected in how it treats its opponents, critics, and legal professionals. It is simply unacceptable for a citizen—a politician, yes, but fundamentally a lawyer—to be denied visits from doctors, let alone legal counsel or even the President of the Bar Association. Following a strongly worded statement from the Bar President himself, the military authorities in Mali responded by apprehending Mountaga Tall’s son. This represents an intolerable escalation.
Indeed, after Mountaga Tall, his son, along with other political opponents, military personnel, and religious leaders, faced similar detentions. Military justice is reportedly investigating suspicions of complicity with armed groups during the April 25 attacks. No official link has been established between this inquiry and the abductions, yet the implicit strategy of the authorities, amplified by their supporters, is to justify these actions as part of the anti-terror fight. Does this narrative resonate with a segment of the Malian population?
It is imperative to explain to the Malian people that the struggle against terrorism cannot, and must not, justify legal insecurity. A military camp is not a judicial court. Lawful detention requires proof; arbitrary detention, by its nature, seeks concealment. We are witnessing a climate of complete arbitrariness. Today it is Mountaga Tall; tomorrow, it could be countless others. This is precisely why, even within the context of combating terrorism, it is vital to uphold the legal framework and ensure that justice presides from beginning to end.
Beyond this specific case, we observe that Malian justice sentenced former Prime Minister Moussa Mara to a year in prison for a tweet—where he expressed hope for “day” to follow “night”—while supporters of the Transition openly call for lynching pro-democracy activists or burning shops owned by Mauritanians. Does this suggest the Malian justice system is either compromised or subservient to the transitional authorities?
Undoubtedly, this justice system, which should safeguard public order and security, appears submissive and compromised today. This judiciary must grasp that it serves the State, the nation, and its people, not merely a regime, regardless of whether it is military. Judges must never lose sight of this fundamental principle.
But do judges truly have a choice? Are they not also operating under duress?
The law provides judges with the option to recuse themselves. Yet, beyond any claims of fear, judges today are allowing themselves to engage in a role that is detrimental to them and to the very essence of justice. From this perspective, they must simply realize that while today is today, justice will ultimately prevail tomorrow.
Following the April 25 attacks, the death of Minister Sadio Camara, and the capture of Kidal, some believed the military rulers in Mali were weakened. However, the regime doesn’t seem to be faltering significantly?
It is faltering! Naturally, terrorism has no place in society; it represents the very antithesis of the social contract, law, and civil peace. However, it has become increasingly difficult to disregard the responsibility of a government that itself seized power through force and maintains it through force and terror. The country’s growing exposure to escalating dangers cannot be disassociated from the decisions made by those who have governed for six years.
You are an opponent of Mali’s transitional authorities, that is clear, but you have not joined the CFR (Coalition of Forces for the Republic), Imam Dicko’s coalition. Why not?
For the simple reason that, today, we are caught between the ‘military cap’ and the ‘chechia’ (religious headwear). The ‘military cap’ signifies the seizure of power by force and its authoritarian exercise. Facing them, we have the ‘chechias,’ and it is important to recall that 2012 passed through here. 2012, after all, involved amputations in the northern regions of Mali…
During the period of occupation by jihadist groups…
Precisely. Those amputations are still vivid in people’s minds. While I fully support national unity and dialogue aimed at restoring national cohesion, for me, there are absolute prerequisites. We cannot emerge from a battlefield, armed and ready, to then sit at a table and simply erase everything that has transpired. Just as I vehemently oppose this military regime, which violates all rights and freedoms, in the same way, I cannot genuinely endorse acts of terror or terrorists. There is an absolute prerequisite: we must address 2012. We must discuss that malevolent convergence between the FLA and the Jnim. Today, there must be fundamental conditions for adhering to absolute principles and values that, in my view, form the bedrock of the Republic, democracy, and justice.
The AES regimes, in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, consistently assert that opposing them is tantamount to opposing the sovereignty of these three nations, aligning with enemies of the state, terrorists, external interference, and media warfare. As a Malian, what is your perspective, and how do you respond?
No one can strip me of my identity as a Malian, a patriot, and a committed citizen. What troubles these incumbent regimes, which themselves originated from illegality and deception, is their inability to tolerate being reminded of the law. They cannot bear to be reminded of their own statements and commitments. But the true anti-patriots are those who starve their citizens, who pervert freedoms, and who annihilate the rule of law.
