|
|
|
|
| Opinion |
| Editorial |
|
by
Editor, 12 April 2007
-
10:48:44
|
Police order subject of more confusion
Last time the Police and the Army got involved in stopping a political rally in Mulanje, the two institutions came out with bruised images. There was a mixed outcry.
The dust stirred has not yet settled and general consensus on the issue has not yet emerged. However, the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, still remains clear: that anyone or group is free to assemble to advance their cause peacefully. And as far as we are concerned, no peace or public order has been breached by political parties that are now busy campaigning.
Which brings into question yesterday’s Malawi Police Service order stopping the United Democratic Front (UDF) from peacefully congregating in Nsanje this weekend. There are many thoughts to this, like the coincidence between the UDF and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rallies being too artificial? It could also be argued that the reasons the Police are advancing are also not different from the ones they cited last time, when the Army had to be brought in after the law-enforcers were slapped with an injunction.
The issue here is also not about UDF or DPP, but rather the constitutionality of the stoppages. Whether peace is broken or not, that is another matter, because the Constitution ought to be supreme. In other words, the Police will have to cross the bridge when they get to the river; because there have been earlier incidents, as the UDF are correctly saying, when rallies have taken place in same consituencies without peace being breached.
In any case, was it not the UDF who made an earlier public announcement the other day that they would go to Blantyre, Mulanje, the Lower Shire, Zomba, Mangochi, etc, in their 2009 campaign bid? In addition, if the DPP were given preference last time, why not rotate the opportunity this time to allow the UDF start the show in the Lower Shire?
These, and possibly many other questions, will trail the latest Police order. The bottomline is that the decision is subject to further confusion on a political landscape whose temperature is already volatile. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
