Mali: UN Experts Say Mali Should Not Hinder Or Suspend The Activities Of Political Parties
GENEVA (8 May 2025) – The adoption of a bill repealing basic protections to political participation by the Council of Ministers on 30 April 2025 and the signature of a decree on 7 May 2025 suspending the activities of political parties until further notice are a direct violation of basic human rights, a group of independent human rights experts* warned today.
'This decree suspending political activities must be immediately repealed. In addition, if passed into law, the 30 April bill will place Mali in contravention of its human rights obligations, notably on freedoms of association and expression,' the experts stressed.
The Government of Mali has argued that the repeal of existing laws did not call into question the existence of political parties and that the Government only sought to "stop the proliferation of political parties" in the country.
However, the experts pointed out that the proliferation of parties is easier to reduce with legitimate electoral rules, including those that make registration conditional to previous electoral performance. 'Instead, the recently adopted bill will make the registration of a party and candidacies conditional to onerous financial deposits, restricting the right to political participation to sectors with high economic capacity,' they warned.
'The government argues that these are direct proposals from national dialogues: the 2021 'Assises Nationales de la Refondation' and consultations on the review of the Charter of Political Parties held in April 2025. However, no genuine consultation is possible in the current climate of suppression of the civic space, where opponents and independent journalists have reasons to fear that free expression will be punished,' the experts said.
Several political parties boycotted the April 2025 consultations because they were reasonably concerned, as the current events demonstrate that the Malian Transitional authorities were using the process as a tool to eventually dissolve political parties or ban their activities.
Mali's Council of Ministers also noted other recommendations from the April 2025 consultations, including naming the current head of state, Gen. Assimi Goita as president, without elections, for a renewable period of five years to be counted from 2025. The bill, as well as the favourable reception of such alarming proposals by the Council of Ministers, would betray national and international commitments made by the Malian authorities, the experts said.
They recalled that Gen. Assimi Goïta himself, at the Council of Ministers meeting on 27 November 2024, called on the Government to 'create the conditions necessary for the organisation of transparent and peaceful elections which should put an end to the transition.' Mali had also accepted specific recommendations to protect freedoms of association and expression during the Universal Periodic Review of 2023: the current actions would call into question the credibility of Malian authorities.
The bill will now be presented to the National Transitional Council, presided by Gen. Malick Diaw, for approval.
'We urge the National Transitional Council to refrain from approving this draft legislation,' the experts said. 'We stand ready to assist the Government to revise the Amendment Bill to ensure compliance with international human rights norms and standards,' they added.
Following the adoption of the bill, political parties have called on protests and public activities on 3 and 4 May. However, they have alleged that individuals claiming to support the transitional authorities violently disrupted their gatherings. Further, the political parties have called on new public gatherings on 9 May.
'The right to peacefully assembly is essential to the health of a vibrant political community,' the experts said. 'The Malian Transitional authorities must scrupulously respect it and abstain from acts of intimidation and repression that risk the physical integrity and the rights of demonstrators.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns
Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity
Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for
Newsroom
10 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
