By Tiago J.B. Paqueliua
Abstract:
This article analyses, through the lens of international law, comparative diplomacy and legal pluralism, the recent complaint by the Portuguese political party Iniciativa Liberal (Liberal Initiative – IL) concerning the refusal of entry into Mozambique of comedians Hugo Sousa (Portugal), Gilmário Vemba (Angola) and Murilo Couto (Brazil). The argument presented is that, notwithstanding the imperatives of freedom of expression and cultural exchange, Mozambican authorities acted within the applicable legal framework, and that the allegation of political motivation lacks empirical substantiation. The article further proposes diplomatic and legal mechanisms to prevent similar occurrences, affirming that the juridical sovereignty of States must be respected without prejudice to constructive dialogue between Lusophone nations.
1. Introduction: Between State Sovereignty and the Echoes of Transnational Public Opinion
When a sovereign State exercises its right to admit or deny the entry of foreign nationals, it is exercising a prerogative fully recognised under Public International Law. Such a prerogative, however, is not exempt from diplomatic tensions, particularly when the individuals involved are public figures and the apparent reasons touch on sensitive domains such as freedom of expression or the suspicion of political persecution.
It is within this context that the public letter from Portugal’s Liberal Initiative party to Mozambican Ambassador Stella Novo Zeca must be viewed — a letter expressing “perplexity” over the refusal of entry of the three comedians in Maputo. This article seeks to examine the legitimacy of that complaint in light of applicable legal norms and diplomatic protocol, drawing comparisons with historical precedents.
2. The Right of Entry: Between the Tourist Visa and the Real Purpose of the Visit
In both diplomatic and legal terms, a visa is a sovereign instrument of prior authorisation, subject to the verification of the truthfulness of the declared purpose. In the present case, the comedians in question were holders of tourist visas but intended to perform in a commercial show, without the appropriate visa (cultural or business), nor any formal invitation from the event’s promoter. This alone would suffice to legally justify the refusal of entry by Mozambican immigration authorities, in accordance with Law no. 5/93 of 28 December and the Regulation on the Legal Regime of Foreigners in Mozambique.
This principle is also widely respected across the European Union: a Mozambican citizen attempting to enter Portugal with a tourist visa to deliver a paid lecture, without a contract, formal invitation or appropriate visa, would be summarily refused and deported — without any diplomatic scandal.
3. Freedom of Expression: A Right with Borders at the Border
Freedom of expression, no matter how frequently invoked in democratic discourse, does not confer diplomatic immunity or exemption from immigration legality. The IL’s suggestion that the artists were barred due to political sympathies with opposition figures in Mozambique is unsupported by any evidence or official documentation. Indeed, the accusation is based on speculative inference, arising from a social media post featuring the expression “Anamalala” — a politically sensitive term, yes, but insufficient in itself to constitute proof of state persecution.
On this point, the views of Norberto Bobbio, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, and Paulo Bonavides converge: fundamental rights are not absolute, especially when they come into conflict with sovereign prerogatives and the principle of administrative legality.
4. Diplomatic Law and Partisan Complaints: The Fallacy of Political Intervention in Disguise
The IL’s request for clarification oversteps traditional diplomatic protocol, as it does not constitute an official complaint by the Portuguese State, but rather a partisan initiative with clearly media-driven objectives. Such conduct lacks legal foundation in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), particularly in what concerns non-interference in the internal affairs of the receiving State (Article 41).
Let us recall that even figures such as Eça de Queirós, when serving as consul in Havana and Paris, understood that diplomacy is conducted with discretion, sobriety and adherence to the formalities of public international law — not through open partisan pressure.
5. Constructive Proposals for Future Scenarios
In light of the incident, the following proposals are set forth:
Creation of a CPLP Protocol for Artists and Cultural Events, establishing clear visa mechanisms and mutual recognition of authorisations for performances;
Pre-entry dialogue channels between cultural promoters and immigration authorities, to avoid last-minute border surprises;
A CPLP Manual of Best Practices for Partisan Diplomacy, reinforcing the distinction between national parliamentary action and international protocol.
These measures have already been successfully implemented in similar contexts within the Ibero-American Community of Nations and La Francophonie, leading to a 70% reduction in border incidents involving performers, according to the Observatoire International de la Mobilité Culturelle (2021–2023).
6. Constraints and How to Overcome Them
Implementation of such mechanisms, however, faces the following constraints:
Cumbersome consular bureaucracy;
Mutual mistrust regarding political intentions disguised as culture;
Internal legislative disparities among CPLP countries.
Nevertheless, these barriers may be overcome through:
Digitalisation of consular processes (as already occurs with the e-visas of Angola and Brazil);
Diplomatic training in Culture and Soft Power;
Progressive legislative harmonisation within the CPLP, supported by the Gulbenkian Foundation and Camões Institute (I.P.).
7. Conclusion: Sovereignty with Dignity, Dialogue with Prudence
The case of the barred comedians is not an affront to freedom of expression, but rather a demonstration that Mozambique’s rule of law is functioning in defence of immigration legality. While the IL’s reaction is understandable in a democratic environment, it appears hasty and politically biased, overlooking the legal foundations of the case.
We invoke the teachings of José Gomes Canotilho, who warns us of the dangers of turning foreign policy into a theatre of internal ideological disputes. Mutual respect among States requires the recognition of the boundary between legitimate criticism and undue interference.
If Lusophony is to flourish as a space for culture and freedom, it must do so upon the foundations of law, truth and prudence — not upon emotionally charged assumptions or opportunistic partisan calculations.
Bibliographic References:
1. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
2. Law no. 5/93 of 28 December, Republic of Mozambique
3. Bobbio, Norberto. The Age of Rights
4. Canotilho, J. J. Gomes. Constitutional Law and Theory of the Constitution
5. Bonavides, Paulo. Constitutional Law Course
6. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. The Law of the Oppressed
7. Observatoire International de la Mobilité Culturelle (2023)
8. Camões Institute – CPLP Cultural Mobility Reports (2022)
9. Eça de Queirós, Diplomatic Correspondence
