High Court Reserves Ruling in Explosive MEC–Mutharika Headquarters Battle
The High Court in Lilongwe has reserved its ruling in a politically sensitive legal battle in which the Malawi Electoral Commission is challenging a presidential directive ordering the relocation of its headquarters from Lilongwe to Blantyre.
The case pits the electoral body against former president Peter Mutharika, whose Executive Order No. 1 of 2025 directed several government institutions to relocate to southern Malawi.
During proceedings before Semion Mdeza, the court heard preliminary applications from lawyers representing MEC as well as strong objections from the state, represented by Attorney General Frank Mbeta.
Government raises procedural objection
At the centre of the courtroom confrontation is a technical but decisive legal argument: timing.
According to court documents, MEC filed its application on January 27, 2026, challenging the directive issued on October 10, 2025.
Mbeta told the court that the filing was 18 days outside the mandatory three-month limit required under Order 19 Rule 20(5) of the Courts Rules, arguing that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
“Because the decision was made on the 10th of October 2025, but they have only come to court on the 7th of January, which is outside the limits of the judicial review,” Mbeta told Nation Online after the closed-door hearing.
He further argued that MEC had not applied for an extension of time, which he said makes the application procedurally defective.
MEC pushes multiple applications
Lawyer Andy Kaonga, representing MEC, made several applications before the court in an attempt to keep the challenge alive.
These included requests for:
•more time to pursue judicial review
•the hearing of the substantive matter
•technical clarifications on the case
•and referral of the issue to the Malawi Judiciary’s Chief Justice for certification.
However, Mbeta said he opposed all the applications, insisting that the case cannot proceed because it was filed outside the legally prescribed time frame.
State defends presidential authority
Beyond the procedural dispute, the Attorney General also defended the legality of the presidential directive itself.
In his sworn statement, Mbeta argued that the executive order is a policy decision, not a matter for judicial interference.
He maintained that relocating MEC’s headquarters is an administrative decision, separate from the commission’s constitutional independence in conducting elections.
According to the AG, the president acted within powers granted under Section 89(5) of the Constitution, which allows the head of state to exercise executive authority in directing government administration.
Mbeta also pointed out that MEC previously relocated its headquarters from Blantyre to Lilongwe in June 2023, a move that also involved financial costs that the commission accepted.
Wider relocation order
The contested directive did not only target MEC.
The October executive order instructed:
•the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority
•and the Malawi Housing Corporation
to relocate their headquarters back to Blantyre, while the Malawi Prison Service was ordered to return to Zomba.
Government has defended the relocations as necessary for effective governance, equitable regional development, and administrative balance.
Court decision pending
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Mdeza reserved his ruling on the preliminary applications, a decision that could determine whether the court proceeds to hear the substantive constitutional challenge.
The ruling is expected to clarify whether the judiciary can examine the legality of the presidential directive — or whether the case collapses on procedural grounds before the constitutional questions are even addressed.
Kaonga declined to comment after the hearing, saying the electoral commission would be better placed to respond.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :