The Malawi Law Society (MLS) is facing accusations of political bias after its criticism of President Peter Mutharika over the suspension of Parliament triggered questions about its consistency in handling similar decisions by previous administrations.
Counsel Tupochele Mponda has accused the professional body of applying double standards, arguing that it has remained silent when former presidents made similar decisions but has now chosen to challenge Mutharika.
In a strongly worded commentary titled “The Gown That Lost Its Balance: When Malawi Law Society Became an Opposition Party in Wigs,” Mponda questioned the society’s impartiality and challenged it to explain why the current administration is being treated differently.
Speaking to Malawi24, she defended Mutharika’s decision, arguing that he acted within his constitutional powers under Section 59 (1) and (2), which provides for presidential authority over the summoning, proroguing and dissolution of Parliament.
Mponda cited the late Bingu wa Mutharika’s decisions to prorogue Parliament in 2010 and 2011, arguing that they did not attract similar public criticism from the MLS.
She also claimed that former president Lazarus Chakwera prorogued or suspended parliamentary sessions several times between 2020 and 2025 without receiving comparable condemnation from the society.
“What has changed? Is it the law, or is it the man at State House?” she questioned.
The lawyer challenged the MLS to identify specific constitutional provisions and judicial precedents supporting its position that Mutharika acted unconstitutionally, arguing that a professional legal body must uphold the rule of law without political favouritism.
She further suggested that if the society believes the President violated the Constitution, it should seek judicial intervention rather than relying mainly on public statements.
Mponda warned that what she described as selective criticism could undermine public confidence in the society’s independence, impartiality and credibility.
Her remarks come amid growing debate over the suspension of the 52nd Session of Parliament and the constitutional limits of presidential powers.
