Reading time: 1 minutes
This dilemma crystallizes a tension that millions of Africans live in silence: that between moral consciousness and reason for survival. This is not an abstract question. — This is a daily equation in states where the impunity of the powerful is structural.
Justice as a contractual fiction
In a solid rule of law, testimony is a protected civic act. The law guarantees anonymity, the safety of witnesses, the sanction of pressure. But in a context where the judiciary is permeable to political power, testimony becomes a unilateral sacrifice: everything is given without guarantee of nothing.
The question is therefore not « Is it brave to testify? » — Yes, certainly. It is: « Can we demand courage where the state has not fulfilled its part of the social contract? »
Silence as passive complicity
To remain silent, however, is not neutral. It's allowing impunity to happen again. It is sending a signal to all those who hold power: acts have different consequences according to who commits them. This normalization of injustice is one of the most profound mechanisms of African institutional collapse.
The third way: to testify differently
Between frontal testimony before a vulnerable court and complicit silence, there are other ways: to contact investigative journalists, to pass on evidence to human rights organisations, to ensure international protection before speaking. Resistance is not always frontal.
This dilemma reminds us that justice is not just a matter for the courts. It begins with the decision of every witness who refuses to let the truth die with the victim.
