Justice Minister Msaka warns Parliament of setting ‘a dangerous precedence’

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Bright Msaka SC, has issued a stern warning to the National Assembly to ensure separation of powers in its operations, saying rushing to courts to seek injunctions on matters deliberated in the august House can negatively affect business of the legislature.

Msaka: No lawlessness society

Msaka said this after the motion for Acting Inspector General Duncan Mwapasa’s confirmation has been halted following a court injunction obtained by Malawi Congress Party (MCP) legislator for Lilongwe Mpenu, Eisenhower Mkaka.

He obtained the injunction on Tuesday asking the High Court to interpret whether Parliament can confirm another Police chief when Rodney Jose is holding the same position while on leave pending retirement.

But Msaka said obtaining an injunction when the matter is in the floor in the House could be setting a wrong precedent.

“If the matter is on the floor and the court issues an injunction, this House will never debate anything,” said Msaka.

He continued: “One day there will be a private members bill and the government side goes to the court to stop that bill from being discussed. We are setting a dangerous precedent.

Previously, there have been some court orders served on Parliament on several issues, including Section 65 and impeachment, among others.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
Follow us in Twitter

17 replies on “Justice Minister Msaka warns Parliament of setting ‘a dangerous precedence’”

  1. A MSAKA NDIMADABWATU KUTI KODI U VICE PRESIDENT UDAWAPHONYA BWANJI AKULUWA SINCE HE WAS MY BEST COUNSEL??DID NOT KNOW KUTI NDINU DI MBULI THAN CHIMULIRENJI

  2. Courts will always be there to interprete …When Boris Johnson Suspended Parliament the Lower Court Agreed with Him …However Upon Appeal the Higher Court Anatolamula kuti Analakwisa…Ndiye Ntchito yama Khothika

  3. There have been many issues in the past that MPs have taken to court and this is not the first one. precedent was already set. When MPs were expelled from parliament for crossing the flow they rushed to the courts. In fact parliament make laws which unfortunately the law makers themselves don’t follow or understand. The court has to interpret

    1. Well said. The court is there to interpret the law. In this case, DPP wants to do things in a hurry. Mwapasa should remain acting IG until Jose leaves office. You can’t have to IGs. It does not make any sense and is against the law.

  4. No separation of powers the courts are there for interpretation of the law if you fools think you will do what you doing to police, The AG stunts and Mark Bottomani the JCE MPs think again!! People are more awake than ever now!! Thanks to his Tipexellecy!

  5. SIMUNGATHE KULEMBA OSANYOZA ENA? The article is just stating the fact. So wina kumati yavi yavi kumalalata bwanji? Chilope eti?

  6. kathyali psipsoti uyu tamuonani. ndipsi oyi nde yatidyelatu. ku UK ma dhilu aja waowala?????? ku ma graduation a ma 1st degree aana ake.

    dzuloso waocha nyumba so great renovation can happen. thats how these fools are doing..

    1. If you see no problem with what Mkaka has done then you are the fool. Malawi will never progress when it’s people look at everything through the lens of their party.

      1. What has he done, to ask the court to interpret a piece of legistration which lawmakers seem not to understand or agree on?

    2. Goliati, you are a daft person, you can not compare yourself with Bright Msaka. What he is saying is very correct, why should a country like Malawi be run by the Courts, why should the destiny of operations be at the mercy of Judges? Look at what is happening in Parliament, we have a partisan Speaker who doesnt know what she is doing.. Chumulilenji si Mbuli, Mbuli ndiweyo. You may be a Lawyer but I am telling you, you are far much behind Chimulilenji and you will not reach his standard shupit

      1. Because dpp wants to govern with impunity, we seek courts interpretation. Nothing wrong and that’s the essence of democracy we voted for in 1993 referendum

Comments are closed.