Court overturns ban on thin plastics in Malawi
High Court in Blantyre has lifted the a ban on the production, distribution and importation of thin plastics after Aero Plastics Industries, Rainbow Plastic and 12 other companies successfully challenged the dismissal of a judicial review on the ban.
In June 2015, the government effected a ban on thin plastics of less than 60 microns, arguing that they pose a threat to the environment due to their delayed rate of decomposition.
But in January 2016, some 12 companies, obtained an injunction through theor lawyer Frank Mbeta against the implementation of the ban, arguing it infringed on their business rights.
They were also against the closing down of their factories and imposing fines on suspicion that they were manufacturing, distributing and or selling thin plastics.
The companies sought judicial review challenging the ban however the court upheld the ban on June 14, 2018.
However, in his determination on October 4, Justice Healey Potani said he weighed the companies’ right to seek reliegf pending appeal and thought the respondent through State Counsel dwelled too much on the merits if the previos ruling than on defending why the stay execution should not be grangted.
The government effected the ban on plastics using the 1999 Environmental Regulation Act on the management and disposal of wastes.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
These courts are useless. THis ban wasnt suppossed to be challenged in any way. It was for the health of the Nation. Agalu inu simudzamva ndithu
Can our court just do one good ruling, to Malawians pliz, The country is becoming crazy with your crazy rulings, whats wrong with our guys, a u rotten to core that you not see that you are harming this nation
Cso s where are you.this is worthy a country wide demo..please source money for this demo.am game on this one.tizayende from Lilongwe to Blantyre high court
Speechless
Do we continue we environmental degradation? Some of the judgments leave a lot to be desired. We need lawyers who understand science. Education doesn’t end and we have a stupid judgment here. This is a shithole country. The executive is shithole. The judiciary is shithole. The legislature is shithole. The churches……… The bishops……. The fathers of Catholics kill albinos.
This ruling is a manifestation of how rotten the judiciary of this country has become.
The judiciary in Malawi are not just a mockery of justice, it is a laughing stock in this African sub-region.
Look, it’s the same judiciary that ruled that one crooked party with only about dubious 450,000 votes had won 2014 controversial elections. Now ndi awa akutizunza ndi corruption, nepotism.
The same judiciary used fake documents to exonerate one “stealer” in a maizegate scam, the list endless
The nation must abolish the following institutions on grounds of incompetence,bureau of standards,environmental ministry,inspectorate of factories , the Town’s health department and do away with the judiciary,amangolandila ndalama zaulere,Sam a Gabi Zola kuti ana tiwasiyila dziko lotani. Am sure these institutions don’t read or listen to the world news on the environment and the effect plastic has worldwide.
I was going to Malawi passing through Doha in Qatar I was not allowed to carry anything in plastic bag. Similarly in Kenya plastics are banned. Only in Malawi kkkkkkkk. We have no Shepherd. No wonder thieves are fighting tooth and nail for apm to be president. My president leadership 0 better Muluzi
Even a layman like me can see the stupidity of this judgment. He must have pocketed something. Our judicial system is just as corrupt. So judge feels the destruction of Malawi is the way to go. What nonsense.!!!!!
We are doom
If we needed a y proof that the justice system is corrupt to the core, then this is it. Theresa global campaign against production, distribution and use of plastics due to the environmental degradation and damage. More and more Afri an countries are joining the campaign andvuet you have Malawi justice system that encourages the very opposite. It’s either we have very uneducated lawyers and/or judges or are heavily corrupt.
I think this is a stupid judgement, if the environment is not protected the same drunken Judges will blame government. My advice to government is: this judgement is worthy no respect. It’s worthless.
It is up to us to pressure these 12 companies to produce products that strengthen it, not ruin it. And we need to pressure the judge to put Malawi first. The judge is destroying Malawi for selfish gains.
Aero Plastic Industries [API] Chilima do you get that full name? By the way i’m trying to say the company got me where i am today with its good salary back then, i love it. Thank you Mr judge!
Thinkless head. Its not abt high salary or whatsover. Its about the future of the country and the world at large. Its high time we started talking abt this issue. These companies would have gradually upgraded their machines by now. As simple as that.
The same government overturning itself, money is killing our judiciary. We can not see the mess and danger of these plastic sheets all over the country ? Go to Nyungwe in Karonga just after the bus stage to Karonga it is an eye sore, chonde a Potani kondani dziko lanu.
These so called judges are really smoking strong weeds.
They can’t even sense themselves the dangers of these thin plastics.
Am afraid , this country has indeed gone to Indians. We are foreigners in our own country that we can not make laws to govern this country in the presence of Indias.
Malawi is for sale, really. Why are we allowing such nosense to thrive?
This only happens in a government led by a fool.
Judges in Malawi are smoking some very strong weed.
Sometimes I wonder if we as a country have the right people in right positions. I always see that those in decision making positions make wrong decisions and judgement. We can see our neighbours making strides in different sectors of development by putting in place good policies and implementing them. We need a very powerful environmental movement to lobby for the judges to effect the ban. By the way who is supposed to defend an Act of parliament?