Malawi: A deepening crisis in wildlife and human trafficking driven and enabled by corruption
Malawi has long featured as a key player in the global wildlife trafficking scene.
As far back as 2002, Malawian wildlife trafficking networks were heavily implicated when Singaporean officials intercepted 6.2 tonnes of ivory in what was then the largest ivory smuggling case detected since the introduction of the 1989 ban on international trade in ivory.
Investigations confirmed that the shipment had originated in Malawi but that the ivory was largely sourced from Zambia; while there were two arrests, no significant convictions followed – despite EIA investigations showing that the network had likely been involved in 19 previous shipments dating back to 1995.
From the 1990s, Malawi’s wildlife trafficking network was run by two Chinese Malaysian brothers, the Wangs, but was later taken over by the now-convicted wildlife trafficker Yunhua Lin.
Yunhua Lin, left, at the court in Malawi, September 2021 (c) EIA
Lin was prosecuted following an intense investigation by Malawian authorities, resulting in he and his network being arrested in 2019 in possession of pangolin scales, rhino horns, and ivory products from both elephants and hippos. In total, 13 people were arrested and Lin himself was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Were he to serve his full sentence, Lin would not be eligible for release until 2030s – but in a perverse development in July this year, he received a presidential pardon for his wildlife trafficking convictions. While he remains in custody under another charge, corruption, some believe it will not be long before that also disappears.
This pardon – extraordinary as it may seem – is even more shocking given the clear evidence of the extent of corruption throughout Lin’s criminal career. It is insidious and involves the payment of bribes to corrupt law enforcement officials who were part of the trafficking network he led. Even while in custody, Lin was reportedly allowed special privileges which enabled him to attend meetings with high-level contacts outside of prison.
The case and the extent of the involvement of Lin and his network are well documented, most recently in an article by Rachel Nuwer in The Economist, The School for Wildlife Traffickers, which raises serious questions that need to be further investigated concerning the involvement of a Malawian orphanage, the Amitofo Care Centre, and the children in its care.
Nuwer’s investigation, during which she went undercover, reveals that students from this institution were widely exploited to provide transportation services to Lin’s network, with clear indications that could constitute an offence of human trafficking.
The UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which includes the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (the Palermo Protocol) defines trafficking in persons as: “The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat, use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”
In the case of anyone under the age of 18, the law is stricter and the “means” element is not required. Therefore “Any recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation automatically constitutes child trafficking, even if no threat, deception, or coercion was used.”
Malawi is a signatory to the Convention and national laws in Malawi also recognise the offence of trafficking in people.
Elephants in Malawi (c) EIA
If, as the article implies, Amitofo staff – notably Brandson Njunga – recruited or directed children to perform tasks that ultimately supplied Lin’s wildlife trafficking network, this would surely warrant a full investigation by Malawian authorities, during which Lin should not be at large to commit further offences.
But what’s the point if, despite the commendable efforts of many organisations – including EIA, which has monitored this network for more than 20 years – and the excellent work by investigators and prosecutors who brought Lin to justice and secured his conviction, those efforts are continually undermined by ongoing corruption?
This corruption may extend to the highest levels of authority within Malawi. Justice against wildlife traffickers relies upon the integrity of the country’s criminal justice system and its ability to operate without interference from corrupt officials. Yet Nuwer’s article indicates that this is precisely what is not happening.
Lin remains incredibly well connected, connections which have enabled the operation of his criminal network and continue to ensure that he escapes justice in Malawi.
But there is some hope. Malawi recently re-elected former President Peter Mutharika in a landslide victory. During his last tenure in office, aside from bringing inflation down to below 10 per cent, he was also a vocal champion against wildlife crime.
Now that he is back in post with a new administration in place, EIA urges the Government of Malawi to step up and stamp out the corruption that has taken hold since he was last in power and ensure that Lin, his network and all those associated with the crimes of wildlife trafficking, human trafficking and corruption are thoroughly investigated and brought to justice.
It is time for Malawi to reclaim its leadership in the fight against wildlife crime and corruption.
The world is watching.
