Malawi leader accuses judges of pushing for regime change

President Peter Mutharika says Supreme Court judges chose to be part of the push for regime change by upholding the Constitutional Court ruling that nullified the 2019 presidential elections.

Mutharika made the remarks in Talk to the President programme broadcast on Malawi Broadcasting Corporation on Friday.

On May 8, the seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court upheld the February 3 ruling of the Constitutional Court which nullified the 2019 elections.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that the polls were marred by serious and troubling irregularities that undermined the results of the elections.

But Mutharika said the Supreme Court ruling has set a very bad precedent that every election will be nullified even with a small irregularity that does not have an impact on the final result.

“Rulings by the courts to nullify the election were a travesty of justice and a judicial coup d’etat to get rid of government.

“The judiciary did not follow evidence, setting standards that every election will be nullified. I feel sorry for the future of this country. It’s really a big shame and a tragedy,” said Mutharika.

He, however, said he is ready for the court sanctioned fresh presidential elections in which he is seeking a second term. The Malawi leader urged Malawians to vote for leaders who want to develop the country and not destroy.

In the fresh elections, Mutharika’s main challenger is Lazarus Chakwera who is representing the Tonse Alliance.

Chakwera and UTM leader Saulos Chilima (now Chakwera’s runningmate) were candidates in the 2019 elections and challenged the outcome of the polls.

The Constitutional Court on February 3 nullified the polls and ruled that the winner in presidential elections should get 50 percent plus one of the votes cast.

Mutharika and the Malawi Electoral Commission appealed, with Mutharika describing the ruling as a travesty of justice and hoping the Supreme Court will cure the errors.

On May 8, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling.