UDF denies plot to impeach Speaker: Gets court order on Sec 65

United Democratic Front (UDF) has denied any involvement in the purported impeachment plot against Speaker of National Assembly, Richard Msowoya.

Ndanga: We have decided to pursue this matter through the court

Ndanga: We have decided to pursue this matter through the court

Msowoya faces impeachment over his alleged bias in the handling of the petition by a civil society leader to declare vacant seats of 11 UDF members of Parliament (MPs) who moved to the government benches in Parliament.

But UDF spokesman Ken Ndanga told Nyasa Times on Saturday that his party has never discussed any plan to impeach the Speaker.

“What the party has done as regards the issue of Section 65 is to obtain a stay order from the court which the Supreme Court granted in Thursday and was served on the Speaker last Friday,” said Ndanga.

The impeachment issue is said to have been discussed at the two caucuses DPP held jointly UDF in Lilongwe this month.

But the UDF spokesman said they are simply questioning the impartiality of the Speaker on the matter of Section 65 after a petition signed by Malawi Congress Party (MCP) MP Jessie Kabwila.

“The petitioner is the publicity secretary if the MCP, a party where the Speaker himself is still serving as its vice president. The way he has been handling the matter so far raises some serious questions about his independence,” said Ndanga.

“At the moment we have decided to pursue this matter through the court and we are fighting this matter as UDF party,” he added.

Leader of Government in the House Francis Kasaila has since warned that the impeachment couldn’t be ruled out “if the Speaker steps on people’s toes”.

He issued a stern warning to the Speaker on his decisions.

“The Speaker should tread carefully in coming up with decisions or rulings on matters pertaining to the National Assembly,” said Kasaila as quoted by Weekend Nation.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :

Please share this Article if you like Email This Post Email This Post

More From Nyasatimes

More From the World

28 thoughts on “UDF denies plot to impeach Speaker: Gets court order on Sec 65”

  1. Chindele says:

    No 12 defends like a good lawyer.If You are then u are the pple that are spoiling this country.We can not have a constitution and deliberately twist it because of dyera.Vindele

  2. Moni says:

    At No. 22, please understand this issue from the beginning and re-read our section 65 with open mind. Firstly, the Speaker didn’t allow MPs to do anything, but granted UDF’s request of moving its MPs to government side. They’re two different issues here. The first issue is when the speaker is informed about the members decision of voluntarily leaving party A and joining party B. The speaker moves to implement section 65 when/if party A petition the speaker for its member’s decision to leave it whilst he/she used its (party’s) symbol and manifesto on election. On this scenario, it was the UDF party which “requested,” (not informing) the speaker to allow it (the UDF party) take its MPs and sit where its coalition partner’s MPs are sitting. No UDF MP wrote the speaker about the move, but it was the UDF party that requested.

    As we all know, it took some months from the UDF’s request, to the time that request was granted. In his pronouncement to the chamber, the speaker sighted one or two reasons why he delayed in coming up with the decision. The main reason among those reasons was that, he was consulting lawyers including judges on the implication of the move. He assured the UDF party that according to the lawyers and judges including the Attorney’s office, there was no breach of any law, therefore the UDF party can take its MPs to sit on the government benches. Now with all these noise coming mainly from MCP members and supporters, the question one might have is; Did the Hon. Speaker really sought advice on the issue or he granted UDF’s request with a hidden agenda? Why is it that every motion that hurts UDF’s stand in parliament comes from MCP, a party where the Speaker is its vice president? What did MCP agree in its NEC meeting regarding the issue before the speaker permitted UDF’s request? These questions can also apply to the request Hon. Lucius Banda did. Was the granting of Hon. Banda’s request without even consulting as he did with UDF’s a ploy? Because it seems that Hon Banda’s staying back, is the reason why the other 11 MPs are deemed to have crossed the floor. At least that’s what the MCP and its supporters sight as the most valid reason.

    According to section 65, a party moving its MPs to government side isn’t crossing the floor. Section 65 was drafted into our constitution to protect parties, that members of parliament shouldn’t use a party then later dump it and join another party which didn’t sponsor him/her. Some people use a clause which says; “joins organization or association which is political in nature” to apply on UDF MPs. This clause is talking about an MP who has resigned from h/her party, says h/she is now independent, but is seeing associating with the above. It didn’t mean association of parties like it is with this association of UDF party, and DPP party. There’s no law which bars parties working together, be it with government or with opposition. Therefore, I still maintain that if anyone has a query, h/she should query the Hon. Speaker for the mess parliament is in. Don’t unjustly punish UDF MPs for the deeds of the Speaker. Those MPs followed what the speaker pronounced in the Chamber, and I repeat, “no UDF MP wrote the speaker to move to government benches.” It was a communication between the Speaker and the UDF party.

  3. SAMUEL. MGUNDA says:

    Zipitili osati poti zili kumeneko

  4. Mashall says:



  5. Dan says:

    You either respect the constitution or get the chop under any cisrcumsatances, Dyera lanulo mumve nalo madzi basi. The die is cast and it will grind whoever satnds its way to cleanse your ego and self centredness. Bravooooo

  6. Ndatero ine says:

    UDF kutha ngati ma curtain shaa chairs prophesy coming true

  7. Amutchona says:

    No. 12, if I read you well you are saying that the fact that the Speaker allowed some UDF MPs to move to the government’s side he cannot turn around and say they have crossed the floor. Furthermore by allowing Lucius to stay on the opposition side it is the Speaker who has caused confusion? Is this what you are saying?

    The Speaker is not a legal advisor of any party. It is up to each party to seek legal opinion on any of its actions. The Speaker cannot stop any party from “crossing” the floor.

    The question to ask is: Does moving to the government’s side amount to crossing the floor although one has not resigned from a party he/she belonged to at the time of being elected as MP? It seems the Attorney General thinks what UDF did does not give rise to crossing the floor. Unfortunately there are cases in some parts of the world where a similar thing happened and it was ruled as having crossed the floor. Our Constitution in section 65(2) does permit a member to vote against it own party without being regarded as having crossed the floor. Furthermore siding with the government does not mean crossing the floor. Simply put UDF could have supported the government whilst still seating on the opposition side the way Lucius is doing. It is the physical movement that has alarmed people to begin to imagine that perhaps there is more. I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts indeed ruled that UDF has crossed the floor.

    Do not blame the Speaker but UDF.

  8. Kodi a Ndanga mazenera mwavalawo ndi a maso?

  9. Zoonazake says:

    Udf ua kuba dpp yakuba ndiye nkuphatikizana shaa!!! My 9.3 billion yapita apa

  10. DOBO says:

    To say the truth Malawi is a failed state. Many things are below standard. Even courts are below standard. Law Society of Malawi has lost direction long time ago. Politicians are just doing things at will. The results of General Elections is supposed to give us a guide. The results provide floor line between the ruling and opposition divisions. It also provide floor lines between various political parties entering the Parliament. Section 65 guard these floor lines in Parliament. Section 65 is supposed to apply whenever these lines are violated. Another thing is that Malawi Parliament is not independent at all. How can it be independent with Atoner General who is appointed by the President has influence on Speaker? There many discrepancies that hold Malawi to a stand still.

  11. Rat says:

    Its up to you

  12. musova says:

    Impeach him zoona munthu wanzeru ungamavere zonena Kabwira

  13. kenkkk says:

    Udf and dpp are just cry babies. The speaker didn’t make any decision on the matter,he just referred it to supreme court for a final check as different interpretations were just confusing the issue.

    Udf decision to go to court is the appropriate approach,not the dpp thugs impeachment approach. Once a thug,always a thug.

    At least now udf you are coming out with something different from dpp crazy leaders by denying the impeachment proposal from dpp.

    After all who is going to gain if udf mps face by elections,it will be dpp or independents at the expense of udf not mcp. Mcp can’t win there. So the speaker is actually not biased because his party can’t win in udf areas. But more independents mps can be created by the by-elections and join the opposition or dpp buying them to join the govt side.

    I think the matter is now closed but it has made udf think.

  14. NANA says:

    Dont Blame the speaker rather blame the dpp/ udf For a big bias

    So what if the courts will say you have crossed the floor ??

    Dont blame the speaker blame udf mps for being money hungry

  15. guta says:

    We do not need this section 65.Remove it from the constitution please

  16. captain says:

    Mr Moni as u said , i can see u missing how a speaker works, did u expect the speaker to refuse DPP from crossing the floor? That could not be his duty . Its the duty of each and every MP to know wat is and not allowed to do. Same with police or court cant refuse anyone to steal but when court u LL be arrested coz u already know that stealing is prohibited. So don’t get lost. Speaker is not biased if u followed parliamentary proceedings he even told Chakwera to withdraw un parliamentary language when he said the president lied

  17. Moni says:

    It’s unfortunate that our Speaker is showing his bias without shame, but the way forward isn’t impeachment. Just advise him of his role as a parent of the August house. He isn’t supposed to do his job out of fear from anybody but the law. His actions in the house has shown his true colours why he refused to resign as MCP vice president after assuming the Speaker’s seat, like what his predecessors did. He is in the house promoting MCP’s agenda, rather than looking after the well fair of each party in the house. He shouldn’t work or apply laws according to what activists or PAC say, but according to what the law says. E.g., when Kabwira said she has appended to the petition because UDF is in both sides in the house, the speaker would’ve not entertained it knowing fully well that it was he, (the Speaker) himself who allowed that to happen. He granted the UDF party’s request to move its MP’s to government side, and it’s him, (the Speaker) who granted Balaka North member of parliament not to follow/accept his party’s wish of going to sit at the ruling side. If today we’ve UDF in both sides of the house, it’s because the Speaker allowed that to happen. No one should be blamed or kicked out of the house because of the makings of the Speaker of Parliament. He had the powers to deny UDF its request, or deny Lucius his request, but because of lack of understanding of what he was creating, or with ill motive, he granted both requests. He, the speaker can resolve this mistake by reversing one of decision between granting Lucius’s request or UDF’s request. It’s only him (The Speaker) who can solve this mess he created. All blame should fall on his shoulders, and no constituent should suffer to be without its member because of the speakers pronouncements. THAT WILL BE UNFAIR AND INJUSTICE.

  18. Chinthumwananga says:

    What the Fuck is going on in my beloved party?

  19. Professor Seyani says:

    Foolish Lazarus Kasaila

  20. Africa says:

    when did this section 65 start to work? Each and everytime when speaker want to apply section 65 court entervin

  21. kanyika dk says:

    mr speaker sir gwirani job ur protected by malawians.i love u

  22. The Truthful One from the West says:

    As UDF have obtained a stay order from the Supreme Court this is the end of the matter. The Speaker cannot hire a lawyer as the Govt lawyer is the Attorney General who already advised the Speaker not to apply sec 65 on UDF MPs.

  23. Thomson Phenduka mwandira says:

    Zaziii,impeachment ya chani anthu akuvutika kunjaku?Mmalo mot mukambilane zanzeru muli bzy kukambilana zazii zoti sizingatithandize a Malawife!Kodi impeach yanuyo tingadye?zaziiii

  24. muthu muoneke says:

    UDF imale ngati AFORD

  25. Zamtsogolo sanena says:

    Section 65 mwati!!anangoyiikapo mwaumboni,iribe ntchito.Zinali choncho pa dzana lija musaiwale.

  26. MOG says:

    That’s the way to go by. Impeachment is just a waste of time and energy. It can’t materialise in the current parliament, considering its composition. Mr Speaker, Sir, don’t get threatened by the so called leader of the house’s out bursts. You are well covered.

  27. JB says:

    speaker is the vice president of chakwera he want to act on UDF mps,so the govt should also revenge through this way of impechment tit for tat

  28. Gift Kayipa says:

    Iiiiiii koma ndale.kod UDF ikusowa chan?

Comments are closed.