Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi’s dialogue initiative to resolve a month-long political crisis has faltered due to the absence of presidential candidate Venâncio Mondlane.
Mozambique has been rocked by protests against the outcome of 9 October presidential and general elections organised by Mondlane, who claims that he won the poll, amidst allegations of serious fraud to benefit the ruling Frelimo party and its presidential candidate, Daniel Chapo.
Last week, during a live address to the nation, Nyusi called on all four presidential candidates for a dialogue. Subsequently, the President’s office sent invitation to the presidential candidates, including Mondlane, to a meeting to the Nyusi’s office on 26 November, to discuss the post-election crisis.
Mondlane sent an agenda proposal with 20 points, arguing that “the meeting should’ve an agenda.” Crucially, he asked to be present virtually as his whereabouts are unknown, having fled the country fearing for his life.
Furthermore, Mondlane is a wanted man in Mozambique, and he fears he might be arrested as son as he enters the country. The Attorney-General’s Office has accused him of a crime against state security, alleging that he intended to seize power through unconstitutional means, and it has demanded that he pays the state about $500 million to cover for damage caused during the protests, as well as freezing Mondlane’s bank accounts.
Eventually, only three presidential candidates were present at the Presidency with no signs of Mondlane. Hence, the meeting was called off when the three presidential candidates said that no dialogue was possible without Mondlane, who “has been at the centre of the protests,” said the leader of Renamo, Ossufo Momade.
Comment
Mondlane’s absence raises critical questions about the intentions and inclusiveness of the dialogue process. If the aim is genuine reconciliation and discussion, accommodating a virtual presence for a candidate expressing legitimate fears for his safety should have been straightforward. The lack of effort suggests either an oversight or a deliberate exclusion, undermining the credibility of the initiative.
In a country where political tensions have been high and opposition figures have faced violence—evidenced by the recent killing of two opposition leaders and subsequent protests—it is not unreasonable for Mondlane to demand safety assurances. Furthermore, Nyusi did not seem to understand that not addressing the issue of the charges against Mondlane would likely derail his initiative
Without any guarantees, expecting Mondlane’s physical presence feels more like coercion than a genuine invitation to dialogue. Enabling his virtual participation could have sent a powerful signal of goodwill and a willingness to adapt to unusual circumstances.
Observers have pointed out that Nyusi is not interested in a meaningful dialogue, but has orchastrated a move for appearance’s sake: he can then tell the nation and the international community that it is Mondlane who is against peace. It did not help that Chapo released a statement saying that he was very open for dialogue and that nobody should be above the nation’s interests, meaning that Mondlane is not.
Nyusi has also been telling who will listen that he has been meeting with civil society members but such meetings have never been televised or even announced, driving the narrative that he is either not being truthful or if he has met any civil members, there must be those uncritical of his governance, and all this to make Mozambicans and the international community believe he is committed to building bridges in order to put an end to the political crisis.
Meanwhile, today’s exclusion of Mondlane seems to be a missed opportunity for Nyusi, the dialogue convener, to show his commitment to ending the current political crisis, waiting instead for state institutions to ensure Mondlane is sidelined.
@2025, Mozambique Insights. All Rights Reserved
