CIVICUS discusses post-election violence in Mozambique with Zenaida Machado, senior researcher and human rights defender at Human Rights Watch.

Protests against alleged fraud in Mozambique’s 9 October election erupted when early results gave victory to the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO) party, in power since 1975. In response, opposition presidential candidate Venancio Mondlane called for nationwide protests. Mondlane also accused security forces of ambushing and killing his lawyer as he prepared to challenge the results. The European Union (EU) Election Observation Mission reported numerous irregularities that favoured FRELIMO, including ballot stuffing and inflated voter numbers. Police used teargas and live ammunition to disperse protesters in the capital, Maputo.

How free and fair was the 9 October election?

There were anomalies that undermined the credibility of the process, which Human Rights Watch and others had warned about before the election.

Daniel Chapo, the ruling party’s presidential candidate, won with over 70 per cent of the vote – but reports highlighted irregularities such as vote buying, ballot stuffing and discrepancies in vote counts. For example, the number of votes in the presidential election didn’t match the number of votes in the parliamentary election, suggesting that in many cases people may have voted for parliament but not for president.

Media freedom and access to information are key to free and fair elections. However, journalists and independent media were harassed and violently attacked. This limited media coverage and prevented voters from making a fully informed choice.

Election observers are also crucial to ensuring transparency, but many were denied accreditation, limiting their ability to monitor the process.

Was there ever a chance FRELIMO would be defeated at the polls?

Not really – Mozambique’s political system remains heavily skewed in favour of the ruling party, making genuine competition difficult. International observers from organisations such as the African Union and the EU have pointed to structural inequalities that give FRELIMO an undeniable advantage.

Media coverage is supposed to be regulated by law, but this was not respected. FRELIMO benefited disproportionately from constant exposure. It also used its access to state resources for its campaign. The president, for example, actively campaigned for his party’s candidate using the presidential jet. Opposition groups simply can’t match this kind of resource.

Nevertheless, an upstart party, the Optimist Party for the Development of Mozambique, did pretty well in this election, showing that even under difficult conditions, support for alternative voices is growing.

How are the authorities responding to allegations of fraud and protests?

While the Electoral Commission is responsible for counting the votes and announcing the results, the Constitutional Council, a high court, reviews formal disputes. At present, the Council is investigating complaints of irregularities and has asked the Electoral Commission to provide original voting records to help identify any procedural problems.

But this is not enough. During the vote, many observers and opposition representatives were denied accreditation or barred from polling stations, leading to unchecked ballot stuffing. Law enforcement did little to prevent or address these problems in real time. They should have allowed full access to observers and party representatives, and any allegations of wrongdoing should have been investigated swiftly and transparently.

The police tend to act as protectors of the ruling party’s interests rather than as impartial defenders of public order. When post-election protests erupted, protesters faced numerous restrictions, including limited access to public spaces and intimidation. Security forces indiscriminately used teargas and fired live ammunition against them. Over the course of two days, they reportedly killed over 10 protesters and injured dozens.

Civil society simply wants a peaceful resolution to the current political tensions. Rather than encouraging violent opposition, it promotes lawful protests and calls for transparency in the electoral process. Unfortunately, the violent crackdown has only escalated tensions. Human rights groups continue to urge security forces to respect the right to peaceful protest and to avoid any unnecessary confrontation or escalation.

What’s needed for Mozambique to move towards real democracy?

We need a number of fundamental reforms. First, we need an impartial and professional electoral commission, free from political influence. Election officials should be selected on the basis of integrity and impartiality to restore public trust in the system.

The police also need comprehensive reform to ensure they act as guardians of the constitution rather than as enforcers of political agendas. A comprehensive training programme, possibly with international support, could help instil respect for human rights within the security forces and create a culture of accountability. Excessive force should never be tolerated, particularly against peaceful protests, and any violations by security personnel must be prosecuted.

Political parties must compete on a level playing field without benefiting from public funds or state assets. The international community must continue to monitor the situation in Mozambique and help facilitate a fair political process, while holding those responsible for human rights abuses to account.

As it moves forward, Mozambique is at a crossroads. A younger generation, less connected to the independence era, is increasingly vocal about its democratic aspirations. The next president must listen to this emerging voice, build trust in institutions and prioritise the popular will over narrow political interests.