Terrorists versus Rebels: The Strategic Use of Implicit Amnesty in the Peace Process in Mali

Abstract Why do governments block efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable, including against actors linked to proscribed groups? This article explores the Malian government’s decisions to support or suspend accountability efforts against prominent individuals during the peace negotiations between 2012 and 2017, including those with links to jihadist groups. By tracing the micro-processes determining how and why certain individuals faced justice for crimes and not others, the article shows how Malian authorities used implicit amnesty measures as a tool of strategic legitimation for certain rebel leaders. This helped constitute certain actors as part of the legitimate opposition and gloss over both their alleged responsibility for human rights abuses and their involvement in jihadist groups excluded from the talks. This article presents a framework that demonstrates how elite bargaining around accountability follows four political rationales and shows how a government’s selective approach to justice can enable actors to use peace processes as a means of impunity and political rehabilitation. This reveals the political significance of implicit amnesty measures, which achieve similar aims as formal amnesties yet without crossing the red line of providing formal amnesty for international crimes and serious human rights violations.