Will there be justice for Evison Matafale?
Compiled by Paliani Chinguwo (PhD).
*Introduction*
On 4 December 2001, President Bakili Muluzi appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the death of Malawi’s reggae king Evison Matafale, who died in police custody on 27 November 2001. Although the Presidential Commission’s inquiry report is not available in the public domain, a parallel inquiry—conducted by the Human Rights Committee comprising representatives drawn from the Malawi Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Prisons Inspectorate—published its findings in March 2002. This inquiry committee included Mr. Charles Malunga (Chairperson), Mr. Sylvester Kalembera, Mr. Tobias Nowa, Mr. Jarvis Matiya, Mr. Stephen Kafumba, and Mr. Grant Kankhulungo.
This short paper re-examines one of the Inquiry’s central conclusions: that there was “no strong evidence” to suggest that police assaulted Evison Matafale. The core argument advanced here is that this conclusion is logically incompatible with the Inquiry’s own acknowledgement that Evison Matafale suffered internal bleeding in the skull due to external pressure. Drawing on the forensic testimony of Dr Charles Patrick Dzamalala (pathologist), which was presented during the inquiry, this critique demonstrates that the medical findings were highly suggestive of trauma requiring external force. By downplaying this aspect, and by applying an inappropriately high evidentiary threshold—while simultaneously privileging the narrative of illness over the indications of possible assault—the Inquiry failed to meet established forensic and human-rights investigative standards.
*Critical Assessment of the Inquiry’s Interpretation of Medical Evidence*
The Human Rights Committee Inquiry acknowledged the presence of injuries consistent with trauma, yet ultimately dismissed their implications. On page 14, the Committee states:
“Although there is medical evidence that the late Matafale had internal bleeding in the skull due to external pressure, this inquiry did not find strong evidence to suggest that the Police either in Blantyre or Lilongwe beat him.”
This sentence alone reveals a profound contradiction: the Inquiry concedes that trauma caused by external pressure existed, yet refuses to recognise this as meaningful evidence of possible assault in custody.
*1. Contradiction Between Evidence Acknowledged and Conclusion Reached*
Dr Dzamalala’s forensic testimony on the cause of Evison Matafale’s death is unequivocal. He presented to the Human Rights Committee of inquiry as follows:
“There must be some form of impact.”
“The force should be from the sides and not vertical.”
“Impact must be on both sides to have bleeding on both sides.”
These are not ambiguous findings. Dr Dzamalala confirmed that bilateral subdural haemorrhage with lateral force is a classic pattern of blunt force trauma, not spontaneous illness. The Inquiry thus possessed direct medical evidence requiring explanation, yet concluded otherwise.
*2. How the Inquiry Discounted Testimonies Suggesting Torture*
To bolster its dismissal, the Inquiry relied on a numerical comparison of witness statements. The report asserts on page 14:
“There is strong evidence that Matafale was very ill. At least there are 37 responses that state that Matafale was at the material time very ill. This is against 2 responses that report that the Police beat the deceased. In fact the latter are very loose statements with very high level of inference.”
This reasoning is flawed for several reasons:
a. Illness does not negate the possibility of torture.
A detainee can be both ill and subjected to assault. The Inquiry seemed to have presented these as mutually exclusive categories.
b. Numerical majority does not invalidate trauma evidence.
Human-rights investigations do not rely on the popularity of opinion but on forensic indicators, consistency, and the plausibility of unexplained injuries.
c. The Inquiry discredits the minority testimonies without analysis.
Describing allegations of assault as “very loose statements with a high level of inference” dismisses them without examining credibility, context, or fear of reprisals, which are common in custodial cases.
d. The existence of 37 statements about illness is irrelevant to explaining trauma.
Illness cannot account for a bilateral subdural haemorrhage caused by external pressure. The Inquiry uses illness testimonies to overshadow trauma findings—a methodologically inappropriate approach.
*3. Misuse of the Term “Strong Evidence”*
By requiring “strong” evidence, the Inquiry applies a standard akin to criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt—a threshold that is impossible to meet when the suspected perpetrators control the environment, the body, and the narrative of the deceased.
International norms, including the UN Minnesota Protocol, require that:
Any injury in custody is treated as prima facie evidence of possible ill-treatment unless the State provides a verifiable alternative explanation.
*Conclusion*
The Inquiry’s reasoning—acknowledging trauma yet dismissing it on the grounds of numerical witness imbalance—results in a logically inconsistent and insufficient conclusion. The quotations from page 14 reveal an inquiry that:
1. Accepted medical evidence of trauma,
2. Claimed insufficient testimonial support,
3. Privileged illness over injury without justification,
4. And ultimately shielded custodial authorities from further scrutiny.
The medical findings constituted substantive evidence requiring further investigation, not dismissal. The Inquiry’s conclusion of “no strong evidence” is therefore analytically untenable, and its treatment of both the medical and testimonial evidence fails to meet the standards required for an impartial investigation into a death in custody.
+++++
Footnote:
This analysis is based on ongoing research by the Lost History Foundation (LHF) on the life, death, and legacy of Evison Matafale, conducted as part of its project on Malawi’s cultural history. The research draws on consultations with key experts, including medical professionals, legal practitioners, and human rights advocates.
For Feedback/comments, please email: p.chinguwo@historyofmalawi.com
WhatsApp: +27 64 731 9254
