Civil society coalition clashes over Mutharika’s fitness to govern

A fierce battle is raging within Malawi’s civil society over whether an 86-year-old President Peter Mutharika is fit to govern — with one of the country’s biggest advocacy coalitions now stepping in to defend his right to rule, sparking a bitter clash with fellow campaigners.

The National Advocacy Platform (NAP), a powerful coalition representing more than 80 civil society organisations, NGOs and faith groups, has thrown its weight firmly behind Mutharika — dismissing mounting calls for medical disclosures as nothing more than “mammering and street debates.”

NAP’s blunt message to those questioning the President’s capacity is simple: the ballot box, not social media pressure, is the only legitimate test of fitness to rule.

“Elections are the supreme test of fitness. On 16th September 2025, Malawians went to the ballot and made their choice. That decision stands until the next constitutional cycle,” the coalition declared.

Crucially, NAP is standing on solid legal ground. Malawi’s 1995 Constitution sets no upper age limit for the presidency — candidates simply need to be over 35, a citizen by birth, and meet standard nomination requirements.

Age-related incapacity, on its own, is not grounds for removal from office.

The coalition insists that if genuine concerns exist over the President’s capacity, they must be channelled through Parliament, Cabinet or the Medical Board — not fought out through public campaigns and viral WhatsApp messages demanding he prove his fitness.

But not everyone is buying it. A rival group of campaigners insists this isn’t really about legal technicalities at all — it’s about the harsh reality of governing a country in crisis.

Critics point out that Mutharika will be in his late 80s for much of this term, at a time when tackling economic recovery, soaring youth unemployment and regional security threats demands sharp thinking and high energy.

They’re calling for medical transparency and greater parliamentary oversight, arguing Malawians deserve reassurance that the man holding executive power can actually do the job — pointing to a growing global trend of citizens demanding to know the truth about their leaders’ health.

For NAP, though, the stakes go far beyond one man’s medical records. The coalition warns that allowing public pressure campaigns to effectively overturn an election result would set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent — one that could be turned against any future president, of any party.

Instead, NAP is urging the country to redirect its energy toward delivery on the promises made during last year’s election — job creation, food security and national unity — rather than obsessing over who, precisely, is sitting in State House.

Legally, at least, NAP appears to hold the stronger hand. With no constitutional age ceiling in place, and neither impeachment proceedings nor a formal declaration of incapacity having been triggered, the September 16, 2025 election result remains the sole legitimate source of Mutharika’s authority — like it or not — until 2030.

But the battle is far from over. Should CSOs formalise their concerns and successfully lobby MPs, the row could yet explode into Parliament itself, forcing lawmakers to decide whether they’re prepared to open what many are calling a political Pandora’s box.

For now, though, one thing remains crystal clear: the only document that matters for Mutharika’s grip on power isn’t a medical report — it’s the ballot paper Malawians marked on September 16 last year.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :