The loud reaction to the Malawi Electoral Commission’s decision to go to court has been wildly exaggerated — and it is important to be clear about where that noise is coming from. This is not a public reaction. It is largely the reaction of ruling DPP zealots, self-appointed defenders of the regime who behave as if they own everything, including the law.
As Onjezani Kenani observed on social media, listening to some of the noise, one would think the Chairperson of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC), Justice Annabel Mtalimanja, has committed a serious crime on live television. The outrage, the theatrics, the chest-thumping — all because MEC has done the most ordinary, lawful, and democratic thing imaginable: it has gone to court.
One of the main arguments from these zealots is this: “Chakwera moved institutions to Lilongwe, so why can’t Peter Mutharika move them back?” To them, the discussion begins and ends there. Peter is the President, they argue, and therefore he can do as he pleases.
That argument is wrong — factually, legally, and historically.
First, the obsession with President Chakwera must stop. It was not Lazarus Chakwera who moved MEC to Lilongwe. MEC moved itself. The decision was made by the Commissioners, not by a politician. In fact, the plan to relocate MEC dates as far back as 1998, long before Chakwera entered State House. The implementation of that plan began around 2017 — a period when the DPP was in power, not MCP.
To blame Chakwera for a decision that was planned decades earlier and executed under a DPP government is either dishonest or ignorant.
Even more worrying is another false claim making the rounds: that MEC Chief Elections Officer Andrew Mpesi personally decided to move MEC and is therefore defying President Mutharika’s orders. That is simply not true. Mpesi does not make policy decisions for MEC. MEC decisions are made collectively by the Commissioners, not by the Secretariat.
And for those who seem to have forgotten, the composition of MEC includes both DPP-appointed and MCP-appointed Commissioners. These Commissioners agreed on the relocation as part of an institutional strategy. This was not a partisan plot. It was an institutional decision.
Which brings us to the real issue: MEC is an independent constitutional body. It is not a ministry. It does not operate under presidential command. Its independence exists for one reason — it runs elections, including elections that produce presidents. An electoral body that can be ordered around by the executive cannot be trusted to deliver free and fair elections.
As Professor Kamchedzera has argued, the Executive Order directing MEC to relocate appears ultra vires — beyond presidential authority — as far as MEC is concerned. Power in a constitutional democracy is not about titles; it is about limits. Going to court to test those limits is not defiance. It is responsibility.
Ironically, this exposes a deeper problem. Peter Mutharika often presents himself as a constitutional expert. Yet time and again, when it comes to Malawi’s Constitution, he appears off-point and off-tangent. Studying law elsewhere does not automatically translate into mastery of Malawi’s constitutional order — especially one built deliberately to restrain executive power.
Instead of engaging with the law, DPP supporters have chosen anger over analysis. But Malawi is not governed by party loyalty or political noise. It is governed by law. Courts exist precisely to settle disputes of this nature.
MEC has done the right thing. If the court rules that MEC must relocate to Blantyre, it should comply. If the court rules otherwise, it should remain in Lilongwe. Either way, democracy is strengthened because the law — not political emotion — will have spoken.
Malawians should remember this: across the region, countries like Uganda hold elections that are little more than rituals. Malawi’s elections matter because institutions like MEC and the judiciary have remained strong and independent. Weakening them would weaken democracy itself.
So no, Justice Annabel Mtalimanja has not committed any offence. MEC has not misbehaved. It has simply done its duty — defended its independence and asked the courts to decide.
That is not rebellion.
That is democracy.
