As a matter of background, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was founded in February 2005 by Bingu wa Mutharika, a brother to Prof. Peter Mutharika, the incumbent DPP party president.
It seems like dust is refusing to settle down in DPP since the time the party lost the 2020 fresh presidential election.
Facts on the ground are that the former President Peter Mutharika is facing a lot of pressure from all angles of attacks including from DPP presidential aspirants and the ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP).
What has triggered the recent colossal pandemonium in Malawi’s political landscape are reports that Peter Mutharika has registered his interest to stand again as a presidential candidate on DPP ticket in 2025.
Truth be told, Prof. Peter Mutharika’s bid to stand again is a big threat to both State President Chakwera and all DPP presidential aspirants.
It is therefore logically conclusive that the trio, Fredrick Malata, Ken Msonda and Thomas Nyirongo who have dragged Prof. Peter Mutharika to court may be paid mercenaries of either Chakwera’s camp or the DPP presidential aspirants’ gang or both.
Our million dollar question we want to answer is, does the DPP Constitution bar Prof. Peter Mutharika from standing again as DPP’s torchbearer in 2025?
To objectively answer this question, we need to critically dissect the DPP constitution.
It is of paramount importance for the reader to appreciate various approaches of interpreting the Constitution.
First, we can interpret the constitution by finding the literal meaning of the text used. This method is called textualism.
Second, we can go further to discover the original objective of the framers of the constitution for inserting a particular clause in the constitution. This approach is known as originalism.
Third, pragmatism analyses the impact of possible interpretations and chooses the most practical and relevant one at hand.
It is also significant to appreciate that these constitutional approaches are not exhaustive.
Our current analysis is therefore based on a hybrid of these three methods vis a vis textualism, originalism and pragmatism.
Most importantly, the discretion of preferring one approach to another lies on the appointed judge who is formally assigned to preside over a particular court case.
Holistically, the DPP constitution was framed to mimic the Malawi Constitution.
Other pertinent questions we can ask, Is Prof Peter Mutharika no longer fit to continue as the President of DPP? If so, can an interim president be appointed to replace him?
These questions can best be answered by the DPP Constitution itself.
Article 6 clause 1(IV) of DPP Constitution stipulates that “A holder of a party leadership shall cease to hold such position if convicted of any crime”.
For Prof. Peter Mutharika to relinquish his position, there must be evidence that he has been convicted of any crime by a competent court of law.
What crime has Prof. Mutharika committed? If there was any, did the Party’s Disciplinary Committee deliver their verdict on the same?
Much as the composition of the Central Committee and the National Governing Council (NGC) has been faulted by the high court, the DPP Constitution gives power to party president to call for any meetings in accordance with article 9 (6) of the party’s Constitution.
What does the Constitution say if the President is suspected of breaching the party’s constitution? Was Prof Mutharika heard by a duly constituted Disciplinary Committee?
Article 6 clause 1(vii) and (ix) of the DPP constitution protects the dignity of the office of the party president saying “No member shall disrespect the leadership of the party”.
It smacks of total disrespect of the party’s leadership to insinuate that he must discontinue from discharging his duties when no court has convicted him of any crime.
This takes us now to the crux of the matter, does the DPP constitution bar Prof. Peter Mutharika from standing as a presidential torchbearer of the party?
Article 10 (5) of the DPP Constitution stipulates that “Whereas the President of the party has been elected as the President of the Republic of Malawi, that person shall remain the President of the party till he completes his second term as president…”.
Admittedly, there could be various forms of interpreting this clause.
For the time being, we will use a hybrid of textualism, originality and pragmatism as approaches to interpreting the 2018 DPP Constitution.
First, in terms of textualism or literal translation, the phrase ‘has been elected as’ is very significant. It conveys a different meaning from ‘is elected as’.
In truth, Prof. Mutharika ‘has been elected’ once as the President of the Republic of Malawi in 2014. He is yet to serve his second term if he is elected again in 2025.
Second, let us go into the minds of the DPP Constitution framers by employing originalism as another approach to interpreting the Constitution.
It sounds logical to conclude that the framers of DPP Constitution had to insert article 10 (5) so that the DPP Constitution must align with the Malawi Constitution.
In fact, they avoided a situation where the Party’s constitution bars a presidential candidate from standing while the supreme Malawi Constitution permits him so.
Lastly but not least, pragmatism as an approach to interpreting the Constitution requires us to vet out the practical implications of various interpretations of the Constitution.
Will it make sense if the party constitution bars the former President of the Republic of Malawi, Prof. Peter Mutharika from standing as a presidential candidate when the Supreme Malawi Constitution allows him to do so?
In fact, Section 5 of the Malawi Constitution invalidates any law or act or statutes that contradicts its provisions.
Will it make sense if Prof. Peter Mutharika who once won presidential race in 2014 on a DPP ticket stands as an independent presidential candidate in 2025 because the DPP party constitution bars him?
In view of the above prevailing discussions, it sounds logical to conclude that the DPP Constitution allows Prof. Peter Mutharika to stand again as the DPP torchbearer in 2025.
