By Suleman Chitera
Lilongwe, Malawi — The Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) has publicly dismissed claims linking it to the Malawi Congress Party (MCP), but its resurfacing on the national stage has triggered a wave of public debate, suspicion, and political interpretation.
Speaking at a presser in Lilongwe, HRDC chairperson Michael Kaiyatsa insisted that the coalition remains independent, neutral, and guided purely by rights-based principles, not partisan loyalty. However, critics argue that HRDC’s tone, timing, and visibility raise legitimate questions, especially considering its silence during certain controversial periods of the previous administration.
Why the Allegations Are Sticking
Public doubt did not arise by accident — it is built on perceived inconsistency and selective activism, a challenge faced by many civil society organisations in politically charged environments.
Several Malawians online argue that HRDC was strikingly less confrontational when Lazarus Chakwera and MCP were in power, despite widespread complaints of economic strain, unemployment, governance frustrations, and rising public mistrust at the time.
Now, with Arthur Peter Mutharika and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) back in power, HRDC’s return to public advocacy is viewed by some as suspiciously timed — prompting speculation that HRDC may be aligned more with political change than with permanent democratic guardianship.
This perception does not automatically prove political capture — but it highlights the trust deficit between civil society and citizens.
Kaiyatsa’s Counter-Argument: Mission Over Politics
In response, Kaiyatsa emphasised that HRDC remains committed regardless of who occupies State House, asserting that “human rights work is not seasonal, emotional, or political — it is guided by evidence and clear violations.”
He further pointed out that misinformation campaigns circulating online aim to weaken HRDC’s legitimacy and discourage civic engagement.
New Protection Programme: Strategy or Rebranding?
HRDC unveiled a new protection and support programme targeting human rights defenders facing security risks, intimidation, or legal threats.
While the initiative appears noble, analysts argue that the success of the programme will depend on HRDC’s credibility, transparency, and non-partisan consistency going forward.
The Bigger Question Malawi Must Ask
The core issue is not whether HRDC is MCP-aligned or DPP-critical — the real test is whether HRDC can:
- Speak boldly regardless of who is in power
- Maintain equal pressure on all administrations
- Remain visible beyond election cycles
- Balance activism with fact-driven accountability
A rights organisation loses its moral authority the moment it is seen as a political sword instead of a civic shield.
Conclusion: HRDC At A Crossroads
HRDC’s latest stance shows determination to reclaim public relevance — but trust must be earned, not demanded.
Its future impact will depend not on press conferences, but on consistent, fearless, and evidence-based activism even when it is politically inconvenient.
If HRDC proves itself government-neutral and citizen-loyal, Malawians may once again regard it as the democratic watchdog they need — not a political extension they fear.
