By A Correspondent | ZimEye | The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has come under fire for issuing a statement that falsely characterizes the situation in Mozambique as one of “hostilities” and “tension” destroying property and infrastructure. Contrary to these claims, multiple live videos have surfaced showing that the destruction of property and looting of businesses are being orchestrated solely by the Frelimo government. These acts of sabotage are reportedly intended to falsely implicate civilians and the opposition.
Observers have criticized SADC’s narrative as a deliberate distortion of facts. The “tension” narrative being pushed by SADC appears eerily similar to tactics advised by the Daddy character Zimbabwean journalist Hopewell Chin’ono, who previously suggested that the Zimbabwean army accuse opposition leader Nelson Chamisa and civil society of creating “tension” as a pretext for silencing them permanently. Critics argue that this script has been imported into Mozambique to justify Frelimo’s repressive actions and deflect accountability.
SADC’s failure to acknowledge the clear evidence of Frelimo’s agents destroying infrastructure and staging these events has cast doubt on the regional bloc’s neutrality. The statement calling for the “cessation of hostilities” and “dialogue” is seen by many as an attempt to mask the government-sponsored terror that has been documented extensively.
Community Comments
The statement has sparked outrage among the public, with many accusing SADC of complicity and aiding Frelimo’s propaganda campaign.
• Manuel Luacute Manuel (@Manuel…):
“SADC thought they could sell this same story here as in other places, but Mozambicans are not buying it. Frelimo has been exposed!”
• Wilker Dias (@wilkerDias13):
“✊🏿 This shows how far they’ll go to silence the truth. Stand strong, Mozambicans!”
• Chris Navio (@Biggblazo):
“How can SADC talk about hostilities when it’s obvious it’s Frelimo destroying the country? Crooked and biased!”
As Mozambicans continue to call for accountability, regional and international observers are closely watching SADC’s next moves. Many demand that the bloc address the real perpetrators of violence rather than perpetuating a narrative designed to shield Frelimo from scrutiny. The focus now shifts to whether SADC will amend its stance or double down on its questionable framing of the crisis.
Structured Language Analysis: The Dangerous Legal Position Imposed by the SADC Chairperson
The language used in the SADC statement regarding Mozambique raises significant concerns about its legal and moral implications. The analysis below highlights the inherent dangers in the narrative crafted by SADC Chairperson Dr. Samia Suluhu Hassan and its potential repercussions.
- Framing of “Hostilities”
SADC Statement:
“We are deeply concerned by the continued loss of lives, injuries, destruction of private property and public infrastructure.”
Analysis:
The use of the phrase “continued loss of lives” and “destruction of property” assumes and implies widespread, ongoing hostilities involving multiple parties. However, evidence points to a singular actor—the Frelimo government—engaging in acts of destruction and violence. By omitting the identification of perpetrators, SADC creates a false equivalency that shifts responsibility away from the government and potentially implicates innocent civilians or opposition groups.
Dangerous Legal Implication:
This broad framing could justify future state-sponsored violence under the guise of “containing hostilities” or “restoring order.” It also exposes civilians and opposition groups to baseless legal accusations, escalating human rights violations without accountability for the true perpetrators.
- Call for Restraint from “All Parties”
SADC Statement:
“SADC calls upon all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from actions that escalate violence and unrest.”
Analysis:
The call for “all parties” to exercise restraint implies the existence of multiple conflicting groups contributing to the violence. However, live video evidence and eyewitness reports show that the destruction is orchestrated exclusively by Frelimo government agents. This language falsely distributes blame and dilutes accountability.
Dangerous Legal Implication:
By framing the situation as involving “all parties,” the opposition and civilians could be wrongfully targeted for actions they did not commit. This narrative provides legal cover for the government to justify further repression under the pretext of responding to “escalation.”
- Failure to Verify Claims
SADC Inaction:
The statement makes no reference to verified evidence, nor does it mention any on-the-ground investigations, such as video calls or consultations with eyewitnesses.
Analysis:
Despite the availability of live video footage showing Frelimo agents destroying property, SADC failed to independently verify the situation. This omission discredits the statement’s neutrality and reliability, as it is based on unsubstantiated claims rather than observable facts.
Dangerous Legal Implication:
The lack of verification creates a legal vacuum where false narratives can flourish. This negligence could embolden Frelimo to escalate its actions, knowing that regional organizations like SADC will not investigate or challenge their claims.
- The Narrative of “Tension”
SADC Statement:
“The current situation has caused significant economic challenges on the nation, disrupted cross-border trade, and hindered the free movement of people.”
Analysis:
By emphasizing “tension” without attributing its cause, SADC mirrors tactics previously used in Zimbabwe, where journalist Hopewell Chin’ono advised authorities to frame opposition and civil society as instigators of unrest. This language obscures the deliberate role of the government in manufacturing these conditions.
Dangerous Legal Implication:
This framing legitimizes crackdowns on opposition groups and civil society under the pretext of maintaining stability. It further enables the government to suppress dissent while claiming to act in the interest of economic and social order.
- Legal and Moral Abdication
Omission of Responsibility:
SADC refrains from naming the Frelimo government as the primary actor responsible for the violence and destruction, despite overwhelming evidence.
Analysis:
This omission represents a failure to hold the Mozambican government accountable. Instead, it creates a moral and legal shield for the perpetrators while discrediting civilians and opposition groups.
Dangerous Legal Implication:
This abdication of responsibility may lead to impunity for government agents involved in violence and destruction. It also undermines the legal recourse for victims, as SADC’s framing denies the existence of a clear perpetrator.
Conclusion
The SADC statement’s ambiguous language and failure to verify facts pose severe legal and ethical risks. By framing the situation as involving “hostilities” and “all parties,” SADC enables the Mozambican government to exploit this narrative for further repression. Its omissions and generalizations create a dangerous precedent where state violence can be justified and victims left without legal protection.
To address this, SADC must:
1. Publicly acknowledge the evidence of government-orchestrated violence.
2. Refrain from generalized language that shifts blame to innocent parties.
3. Conduct transparent investigations into the events, ensuring accountability for the true perpetrators.
Failing this, SADC risks complicity in perpetuating violence and undermining regional stability.