High court rebuffs government on injunction

9

The high court in Mzuzu has rebuffed Malawi government’s application to vacate an injunction restraining the swearing in of new Clerk of Parliament Fiona Kalemba saying that it must wait for judgment on the case.

After government appointed Kalemba, four legislators namely Kamlepo Kalua, Enock Chihana, Peter Chakwantha and Harry Mkandawire disapproved the idea by getting an injunction restraining the move.

Kamlepo Kalua

Kalua: Standing against the new CoP

The four, through their lawyer Wesley Mwafulirwa of Tenson associates, argued that the appointment was unlawful because Kalemba had failed the interviews conducted by the Parliamentary Service Commission.

They went on to claim that information they have indicates that Kalemba came third amongst the successful interviewees thus didn’t deserve the post.

However, government through the attorney general challenged the injunction on the basis that the applicants were not concerned parties in the affairs to do with the appointment of Kalemba.

Through lawyer Apoche Itimu, the state pressed the high court in Mzuzu to vacate the injunction and pave way for the swearing in of Kalemba.

On the other hand, defence lawyer Wesley Mwafulirwa said government’s argument on the issue was specious because the four applicants are very much concerned with any affair happening in the country or at Parliament.

In his ruling on Friday, Judge Dingiswayo Madise said he was unwilling to vacate the injunction.

He instead scheduled 15 December as the next day the case will be heard and said he will pass his judgment on 18th December.

This means that Kalemba will not be sworn in until the judgment is passed by the court.

The current government has always been blamed for its appointment criteria which some people feel is influenced by the spirit of nepotism and appeasement.

Share.

9 Comments

  1. IF THE GOVERMENT KNEW THAT THEY HAD SOMEONE FOR THE POST THEN WAS TAX WASTED IN CALLING FOR INTERVIEW.CHILUNGAMO CHIYENDE NGATI MADZI YAPA.

  2. The Judge has no legal reason to play with the Executives as they do not influence them. Three names were sent to the President to choose among the three. Why are those tumbukas whining?

    • Apa chakula ndi moyo wa tsankho. Kodi why atumbuka okhaokha are interested in this case. Inuyo ndiye mumaziona ngati anthu mdziko lonseli. In any organisation it is not necessary to appoint some one because s/he was first in interviews, employers check other things apart from interview results. Ask those people in HR. Ma savage inu bwanji mukufuna muzingosokoneza dziko?

      • the tumbukas are NOT whining! It’s those people who don’twant to employ tumbukas that are whining, as simple as abc. Interviews were held, someone came first, then why go for a poor third? Are we that cheap?

    • You tribalist, what does that to do wth tumbukas? is Peter Chakhwantha also a tumbuka? merit demands that the top perfomer be given the post simple..osati kukatenga munthj who came thirds. u r foolish wamva

%d bloggers like this: