The High Court in Lilongwe says Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) president Peter Mutharika’s decision to shift Grezelder Jeffrey Kondwani Nankhumwa, and Cecilia Chazama to other positions in the party did not violate the political rights of the three DPP politicians.
The court has dismissed an application by the three who wanted an injunction against Mutharika’s decision.
Nankhumwa was moved from the position of DPP Vice President for the South to being advisor for DPP leader Mutharika.
Mutharika also appointed Jeffrey as Vice President for the Central after removing her from the position of DPP Secretary General. Chazama used to be DPP director of women before she was re-assigned by Mutharika.
The three were elected to their previous positions at the DPP convention in 2018 but Mutharika argued that the DPP constitution gives him power to re-assign any member of the DPP National Governing Council (NGC) to another position. Mutharika’s spokesperson Shadric Namalomba has also been claiming that three have been promoted to more senior positions than the ones they were holding.
However, Nankhumwa, Chazama and Jeffrey applied for an injunction to stop Mutharika from re-assigning them.
In a ruling which we have seen, High Court judge Howard Pemba ha thrown out the application saying the three have failed to demonstrate that they have a good and arguable claim to the right they seek to protect.
“There is no demonstration of a serious question to be tried as there is no any political right of theirs which has been violated by the 1st Defendant’s decisions of assigning them to different positions from those they were initially holding.
“There being no loss substantially shown to this Court to be suffered by the Claimants due to the 1st Defendant’s decisions, adequacy of damages does not arise at all. On account of the reasons above, I am of the strong view that the balance of justice and convenience militates against the grant of the order of the interlocutory injunction sought by the Claimants. The Claimants’ application is accordingly dismissed with costs,” reads part of the ruling.
Pemba also said that it is evident enough that the three have just been reshuffled and moved from the positions they were initially holding to other positions and according to the party Constitution, this is not a removal from a position and it is erroneous by the claimants to suggest that what has happened herein is a removal.
On claimants’ arguments that the party leader does not have powers to remove an elected position as this defeats the essence of democracy, the court says the defendants argued that the meaning of the words ‘political office’ in Article 10 of the party Constitution which has been relied by the Defendants, does not apply to the position within the party but carters for a situation where the party is in government.
“I have already made my finding that the Claimants herein have not been removed from their positions nor from the party. They are still members of the 3rd Defendant political party (DPP). What has happened according to the wording of Article 10 is that they have been assigned different positions from the ones they were holding in the NGC of the 3rd Defendant. There is nothing substantial either showing that what has happened is a demotion as the Claimants want this Court to believe,” said Pemba in the ruling.
Meanwhile, the trio are yet to comment on the court outcomes.
In the DPP, there are two camps; one camp led by Nankhumwa and another led by Mutharika. The two are expected to contest for the presidential position at the DPP convention next year.
