Questions mount over APM Christmas amnesty

By Michael Martin//MALAWI

● Lule case continues to haunt Malawi

President Prof. Peter Mutharika’s decision to pardon 222 prisoners during the Christmas and New Year festive season has sparked intense public debate.

The presidential amnesty that was announced as a gesture of mercy and reform was meant to ease pressure on overcrowded prison system in Malawi.

Instead, it has reopened unresolved questions about justice, political influence and police accountability.

At the centre of the controversy is the lingering shadow of the Buleya Lule case, one of most notorious custodial deaths.

The Ministry of Homeland Security said the pardon targeted inmates who had served at least half of their sentences.

Officials said priority was given to elderly prisoners, the chronically ill and female inmates who demonstrated good behaviour.

Authorities also applied a general nine month sentence reduction to qualifying prisoners.

Government spokespersons framed the move as both humanitarian and administrative. But public reaction has been mixed.

Civil society groups, lawyers, and commentators have questioned the timing of the amnesty.

Others have raised concerns about who exactly benefited from the president’s clemency.

Official guidelines state that inmates convicted of serious crimes are excluded.

These crimes include murder, rape, armed robbery, human trafficking and offences against persons with disabilities or albinism.

Despite these assurances, reports soon surfaced suggesting that at least one high profile violent offender may have been pardoned.

The case in question involves Pika Manondo, convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder.

Media reports indicated that Manondo’s name appeared on a list of released inmates. Prison authorities initially struggled to provide clear confirmation or denial.

The uncertainty intensified public suspicion. Legal analysts say any deviation from published pardon criteria would raise serious constitutional and ethical questions.

They warn that perceived selectivity undermines public trust in the justice system. Critics argue that executive clemency must be exercised transparently and consistently.

The controversy has revived broader concerns about inequality before the law.

These concerns are particularly sharp when compared to how cases of police violence are handled.

Few cases illustrate this contrast more starkly than the death of Buleya Lule.

Lule was arrested in February 2019 in Dedza District. He was suspected of involvement in the abduction of a 14-year-old boy with albinism.

At the time, Malawi was facing a wave of violent crimes targeting persons with albinism.

Public fear and anger were already high. Lule never made it to court. While in police custody, he was subjected to severe physical abuse.

Investigations later found that he died from electrocution and extensive injuries. The Malawi Human Rights Commission documented evidence consistent with torture. The findings triggered national outrage.

Human rights groups demanded accountability and police reform. For years, progress in the case was slow.

Court proceedings were repeatedly delayed. Families of victims and activists accused authorities of dragging their feet. It was not until 2024 that the High Court delivered a landmark judgment.

Six police officers were convicted of Lule’s murder. They were sentenced to between 15 and 20 years in prison. The convictions were widely seen as a rare breakthrough.

However, not all officers implicated in the case were held responsible. Several suspects were acquitted or had charges dropped.

Human rights observers described the outcome as incomplete justice. Parallel to the criminal case, Lule’s family pursued compensation from the state.

Negotiations stretched over several years. The family initially demanded substantial damages. A settlement was eventually reached.

However, reports suggest the final amount was lower than expected. Advocates say the compensation process highlighted the power imbalance between victims and the state.

Against this background, the Christmas amnesty has taken on heightened political significance. Human rights organisations say the contrast is troubling.

Amnesty International and other groups have repeatedly warned about systemic police abuse in Malawi. They cite torture, custodial deaths, and institutional impunity as ongoing problems.

The Lule case is often referenced as a defining example. For many Malawians, the issue goes beyond the release of prisoners.

It touches on deeper questions of governance. Why are pardons being issued while victims of state violence wait years for justice? Why does accountability appear uneven when perpetrators are state agents? What message does clemency send to vulnerable communities?

Advocacy groups for persons with albinism say trust in law enforcement remains fragile. Legal scholars warn that selective mercy can weaken the rule of law.

They argue that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. As the debate continues, pressure is mounting on government to clarify the pardon process.

Calls for transparency have grown louder. So too have demands for comprehensive police reform. For now, the Christmas amnesty remains a symbol of a deeper national reckoning.