Governance Platform back Mutharika’s rejection of electoral bills

March 19, 2020 Watipaso Mzungu -Nyasa Times 36 Comments

The Joint Civil Society Platform on Good Governance (JCSPGG) has thrown its weight behind President Peter Mutharika’s refusal t to assent the Electoral Law Bills, arguing the bills were politically motivated and in conflict with the constitutional provisions.

Chodzi: There is no justification of amending an Act of Parliament which is in direct conflict with the Constitution

JCSPGG national director Fryson Chodzi says in a statement issued on Thursday that contrary assertions by some quarters, the President is within his constitutional mandate and is upholding the Constitution by not assenting to the bills.

“The law gives the President power to either assent or withhold his assent and what the President did is lawful. We further question the claims by some quarters that the President is in contempt of the courts by not assenting to the stated bills, when the law is very clear on the processes including Section 73 (2) which allows the President to return a bill with notification of reasons to the Speaker of National Assembly for further debate,” says Chodzi.

He adds that it is their considered opinion that the Constitutional Court direction to Parliament to enact necessary electoral laws did not necessarily mean that the lawful procedures in amending and enacting laws should be violated.

“We further note the intimidation and undue pressure, which has been exerted on Parliament, Judiciary and the Executive with great concern. This is a violation of the Constitution of Malawi. For the first time in Malawi, parliament has been held at political ransom which led to passing bills that were in conflict with the constitution of Malawi.

“Members of Parliament have been intimidated, insulted and forced to vote for a certain political agenda which is unfortunate. Sadly, we have allowed non – elected but self-appointed individuals and groups without any Constitutional mandate to dictate how MPs must work,” claims Chodzi in the statement.

He says the Platform is of the strong view of the need to amend the constitution electoral laws to ensure parity than what Malawi witnessed in the just ended parliament where shortcuts were adopted just to fulfil a political agenda.

“There is no justification of amending an Act of Parliament which is in direct conflict with the Constitution, and that defeats the entire spirit of both the Ruling of the ConCourt and framers of the Constitution,” he charges.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
Follow us in Twitter

36 replies on “Governance Platform back Mutharika’s rejection of electoral bills”

  1. Iwe cadet, Fryson Chodzi asakukudziwa ndani kuti ukati wadya umadalira DPP? Every time ntchito yako ndikuikira kumbuyo DPP and Peter. So don’t cheat us that you are running an organization worthy called governance organization.

  3. GOVERNANCE YAKE ITI KUNAMIZA ANTHU BASI GOOD GOVERNANCE BEGINS WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.SO SOMEONE PEDDLING OFF ELECTIONS LAWS YOU CALL THAT ELECTIONS.

  4. JCSPGG is right. MPs can’t just change an Act. They need two-thirds majority which they failed to get. Concourt judges must be having sleepless nights because their judgement is wholly flawed because it can’t stand on two legs.

  6. Can’t remember any positive contribution by fryson on any issues articulated by the opposition. Uteleku amufumbatitsa.

  9. Kodi mukuti ili mu conflict ndi section iti ya constitution?? Please clarify in detail which sections are in conflict? Don’t just say things in vain

    1. Did the opposition manage to change the constitution? They failed to get 2/3 majority so any bill they passed is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

  10. The opposition need to realise that their failure to get a two-thirds majority rendered the bills illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court needs to understand that Concourt erred in making a judgement that is subject to politics. The courts are going to be humiliated in the end because they cannot control political processes and outcomes.

  11. Well spoken. First, courts should not give judgements which are supposed to be fulfilled by creating laws because law making is done through a political process which courts cannot control. This therefore is what exposes ConCourt ruling as myopic and the judges as the most foolish.

    2. Which new government are you talking about? Do you think warlords like Chakwera and Chilima can form government in Malawi? Maloto a chumba. Over my dead body.

  15. Its like watching Malawi holding khala lamoto and refusing to let it go… JCSPGG if this battle is not won now our kids will have to start from scratch.

  17. only a court of law is competent to declare any piece of legislation to be in conflict with the constitution and not just individuals including the president and institutions.

    1. Musiyeni ndi mbuli abale munthuyu sakudziwa chomwe akunena mwatimwati ndi Fyson Chodzi kkkkkkk

    2. @guest you are spot on. Only the court can declare any legislation to be in conflict with the constitution. Who gave the president powers to interpret the law instead of formulating policies?

  18. Inunso a Chodzi muti chani. Nkhope ngati mfiti. Olo muyankhule chotani, change is still coming. 50+1 is knocking on the door whether you like it or not otherwise Mutharika will be the President of Southern region.

    1. Does the opposition have 2/3 majority? They failed already to change the constitution and as stupid as they are, they went on to change an Act – they did not realise that is illegal and unconstitutional.

    3. 50 plus 1 system which in other words you can call it proportional representation has its demerits:
      1. After elections Governments are returned with either a very small majority of seats or a minority of overall seats in the legislature.
      2.As a result, minority parties with few seats and relatively small electorate support may hold disproportional amount of power (power which is not matching to their electoral support)
      Forming government will depend upon demands and wishes of minority parties in order to implement their legislative programmes.
      3. The ramification of such dependence on minority parties to form government as a coalition, such government is at risk of defeats on motions of no confidence. This leads to political insecurity and potential frequent general elections.
      4. Take note that the Actual Government will be formed after elections are over and depending on which parties form a coalition , the voter does not know what he/she is getting in terms of policies and proposals for legislation until after elections.

      5. The possibility that government will be formed by a coalition of parties , voters will be far less certain of the policies which they are voting for, if they will be actually be pursued after elections.
      6 When parties form a coalition, possibilities that each party will make demands to the other party and vice versa to abandon what they promised to the electorate is often a real threat . If those demands are not met , chances for that coalition to take off the ground are slim.
      7. Cabinet has collective responsibility, and must speak in one voice to win confidence of voters. In a coalition government such unity can be out of the window and it will prove difficult to sustain.

      REMEMBER SOME PARTIES THEy WILL TELL PEOPLE , WHAT PEOPLE THEMSELVES WANT TO HEAR. Will they actually do it after you put them in power? That is for you to ponder.

Comments are closed.