The Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and three of its legislators have discontinued contempt of court proceedings against Chief Secretary to the Government Justin Saidi and Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development Chimwemwe Chipungu.
The decision means the two government officials will no longer face the contempt proceedings that were scheduled for hearing on August 17, 2026, at the High Court in Lilongwe.
The case arose from allegations that Saidi and Chipungu had deliberately failed to facilitate the payment of rentals for properties occupied by the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC), including a warehouse at Njewa and premises owned by Capital Development Limited.
MCP lawyer George Kadzipatike formally notified the High Court of the withdrawal in a notice dated August 14, 2026, which was filed before Judge Kenyatta Nyirenda.Kadzipatike confirmed the development, saying the decision followed instructions from the party to discontinue the proceedings.
“I can confirm that I received instructions from the Party to withdraw the contempt of court proceedings against the Secretary to the President and the Minister. I have accordingly filed the notice of withdrawal in the High Court and have already served it on the Attorney General,” he said.
However, the withdrawal does not bring the wider legal dispute surrounding the proposed relocation of MEC to Blantyre to an end.Kadzipatike said an existing injunction restraining the relocation of MEC to Blantyre remains in force and must be complied with.
“However, the injunction restraining relocation of MEC to Blantyre remains in force. We think it is all up to Government to act in compliance with the injunction or not; they have a capable Attorney General who will guide them on this matter,” he said.
The development effectively separates the two legal matters.
While MCP and the three legislators have withdrawn the contempt proceedings against Saidi and Chipungu, the court order restraining MEC’s relocation to Blantyre remains in force.
The dispute is part of broader disagreements surrounding the administration of MEC and plans for its relocation, with MCP and its legislators challenging actions they argue may be inconsistent with existing court orders.
With the contempt proceedings withdrawn, the hearing scheduled for August 17 will no longer proceed against the two government officials.
However, the injunction restraining MEC’s relocation remains a live legal matter, leaving the government and relevant authorities responsible for ensuring that any further action complies with the court order.
The Attorney General’s office is expected to advise the government and relevant authorities on the way forward regarding compliance with the injunction.

MCP involvement in MEC in what capacity? What interest do they hold?