The Centre for Public Integrity (CIP), a Mozambican non-governmental organization (NGO), believes that the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP) is selectively prosecuting electoral crimes and related acts.

In a publication released today (25), the NGO warns that in the current electoral process, there has often been selective action by the Public Prosecutor's Office, in violation of the principle of legality to which it is bound by the Constitution of the Republic (CRM). CIP's analysis also takes the view that the Public Prosecutor's Office turns a "blind eye" to various situations of illegality, pointing out cases in which the Public Prosecutor's Office has acted in omission of its duties to defend legality.

"In the current electoral process, the electoral management bodies have acted erratically, namely the National Electoral Commission (CNE) and the Technical Secretariat for Electoral Administration (STAE). This action is seriously compromising the truth and fairness of the electoral process," reads the publication to which the MZNews had access to.

The CIP goes on to say that while the Mozambican Public Prosecutor's Office should act in accordance with the principle/criterion of legality, the facts show otherwise. "In the current electoral process, there has been an action by the Public Prosecutor's Office that has all the elements to be bound by the principle of opportunity, which is foreign to the exercise of criminal action," emphasizes the document, recalling that the principle of legality of initiative, relating to the promotion of criminal proceedings, means that the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP), in addition to holding (as a rule) the monopoly on the opening of criminal proceedings (principle of officiality), is bound to act procedurally whenever it acquires news of a crime.

The CIP also points out that the Public Prosecutor's Office, instead of following the principle of legality, which is covered by the Constitution of the Republic (CRM), has been applying the "principle of opportunity", acting selectively.

"It is for violating the law, applying the principle of expediency in the pursuit of criminal prosecution, that the Public Prosecutor's Office initially ordered an opposition candidate to refrain from certain allegedly improper conduct, and subsequently brought two criminal cases against him, in which he is seeking compensation from the state in the amounts of 32 million and 105 million, respectively, and also had his bank accounts blocked. This is a real "ad hominem" persecution. We must therefore question the motive behind this course of action," he reiterates.

However, the NGO also argues that the Public Prosecutor's Office cannot act vigorously in some cases, when it suits it and in defense of interests outside the law, and be more lenient in others. "This body must comply with the provisions of the CRM, applying the law whenever it becomes aware that an act has been carried out in violation of the law. It must also notify all entities and citizens per se equally, in this case, when there is a question of electoral offenses or other related situations," he concluded.