Question: It has been precisely one month since Maître Mountaga Tall was abducted and is being held in an undisclosed location by State Security. His family, legal counsel, and the International Conference of Bar Associations have repeatedly called for his release or presentation before a judge, demanding respect for due process. Do you believe the transitional authorities are heeding these appeals?

Maître Konaté: While I remain personally skeptical, these authorities must ultimately adhere to reason and the law. They need to recognize that no individual should be deprived of their freedom outside legal parameters. Even if we currently operate outside a true rule of law, it is crucial to remind these authorities that a state’s commitment to the rule of law is often judged by how it treats its opponents, critics, and legal professionals. It is unacceptable that a citizen, who is a political figure but also a lawyer, has not been visited by doctors, let alone by his own lawyers or the President of the Bar Association. Following a strongly worded statement from the President of the Bar himself, the Malian military authorities responded by abducting Mountaga Tall’s son. This represents an intolerable escalation.

Question: Indeed, after Mountaga Tall, his son and other political opponents, along with military personnel and religious leaders, have suffered the same fate. Military justice is reportedly investigating suspicions of complicity with armed groups during the April 25 attacks. No official link has been established between this investigation and the abductions, yet the implicit strategy of the authorities, echoed by their supporters, is to justify these actions through the lens of counter-terrorism. Does this narrative resonate with a segment of the Malian population?

Maître Konaté: It is imperative to explain to these Malians that the fight against terrorism cannot justify legal insecurity. A military camp is not a court of law. Legitimate detention is demonstrable, whereas arbitrary detention is concealed, and we are currently witnessing a climate of complete arbitrariness. Today, it concerns Mountaga Tall, but tomorrow it will affect many others. This is precisely why, even within the context of combating terrorism, it is vital that the legal framework is upheld, ensuring justice is present from beginning to end.

Question: Beyond this specific case, we observe that Malian justice has sentenced former Prime Minister Moussa Mara to a year in prison for a tweet—where he expressed hope that “day” would succeed “night”—while supporters of the Transition can openly call for the lynching of pro-democracy activists or the burning of shops owned by Mauritanians. Is the Malian justice system compromised or simply subservient to the transitional authorities?

Maître Konaté: Undoubtedly, this justice system, which is meant to uphold public order and security, now appears to be yielding and largely subservient. This judiciary must realize that it serves the State, the nation, and its people, not merely a regime, military or otherwise. Judges must not lose sight of this fundamental principle.

Question: But do judges truly have a choice? Are they not also operating under fear?

Maître Konaté: The law provides judges with the option to recuse themselves. Beyond all else, under the guise of fear, judges today are allowing themselves to play a role that is detrimental to them and to the very concept of justice. From this perspective, they simply need to recognize that while today is today, justice will ultimately prevail tomorrow.

Question: Following the April 25 attacks, the death of Minister Sadio Camara, and the fall of Kidal, some believed the military authorities in Mali were weakened. Yet, the power doesn’t seem to be faltering significantly?

Maître Konaté: It is faltering! Naturally, terrorism has no place in society; it represents the very negation of the social contract, of law, and of civil peace. However, it has become increasingly difficult to ignore the responsibility of a power that itself originated from force and maintains itself through force and terror. The escalating dangers facing the country and its citizens cannot be separated from the decisions made by those who have governed for six years.

Question: You are an opponent, as we understand, of the Malian transitional authorities, but you have not joined the CFR (Coalition des forces pour la République), Imam Dicko’s coalition. Why not?

Maître Konaté: For the simple reason that today, we find ourselves caught between the ‘képi’ (military cap) and the ‘chéchia’ (traditional cap). The ‘képi’ represents the seizure of power by force and its authoritarian exercise. Facing them, we have the ‘chéchias,’ and it is important to recall that 2012 has left its mark. 2012 saw hands and feet amputated in the northern regions of Mali…

Question: During the period of occupation by jihadist groups?

Maître Konaté: Exactly. Those amputations remain vivid in people’s minds. So, while I fully support the idea of national unity and dialogue, bringing everyone together with the ultimate goal of restoring national cohesion, for me, there are absolute prerequisites. One cannot emerge from a battlefield, armed and ready, to then sit at a table and simply erase everything that has happened. Just as I vigorously oppose this military regime, which violates all rights and freedoms, I cannot genuinely endorse acts of terror or terrorists. There is an absolute prerequisite: we must address 2012. We must discuss that malevolent alliance between the FLA and Jnim. There must be foundational commitments to absolute principles and values that, for me, define the Republic, democracy, and justice.

Question: The regimes of the AES (Alliance of Sahel States) in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso consistently assert that opposing them is tantamount to opposing the sovereignty of these three nations, aligning with national enemies, terrorists, external interference, and media warfare. As a Malian, what are your thoughts, and how do you respond?

Maître Konaté: No one can strip me of the label of Malian, patriot, and engaged citizen. What troubles these incumbent regimes, which themselves are born of illegality and deception, is their inability to tolerate being reminded of the law. They cannot stand being reminded of their own statements and commitments. But the true anti-patriots are those who starve citizens, pervert liberties, and annihilate fundamental rights.