Kamudoni’s case dismissed as court sides with AG Mbeta on DPP Maele’s appointment

The High Court of Malawi in Lilongwe has dismissed a case in which Senior Counsel Kamudoni Nyasulu and a group of senior lawyers challenged the termination of their consultancy agreement with government, as well as the constitutionality of Fostino Maele’s appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Justice Anneline Kanthambi’s ruling means the applicants’ request to have the matter certified as a constitutional issue by the Chief Justice, and subsequently heard by a panel of no fewer than three judges, now falls away entirely.

The ruling also means the applicants’ bid to secure a stay on government’s decision to terminate their consultancy agreement has failed, while their separate attempt to challenge Maele’s decisions to discontinue various criminal cases since his appointment in November 2025 was similarly dismissed by the court.

Nyasulu served as the applicant in Judicial Review Case No. 1 of 2026, suing the Solicitor General and Secretary for Justice, the DPP, and Attorney General Frank Mbeta as first, second, third and fourth defendants respectively.

Represented by Counsel George Liwimbi, Nyasulu argued that when President Peter Mutharika appointed Maele as DPP on November 26, 2025, the office was not actually vacant, since Masauko Chamkakala, appointed on January 30, 2023, still held a running term in the role.

Nyasulu had asked the court to determine whether the President had acted ultra vires Section 101(1) of the Constitution, and whether Parliament’s Public Appointments Committee (PAC) had similarly overstepped its authority by confirming a second DPP while the first remained lawfully in office.

The case also touched on the alleged unfair termination of contracts held by Nyasulu, Liwimbi and Enock Chibwana, who had separate agreements with the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs to prosecute criminal matters, before those contracts were abruptly terminated.

However, AG Mbeta, assisted by two lawyers from his Chambers, countered that the dispute was fundamentally contractual in nature and properly fell within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court, rather than being suitable for judicial review, among several other legal grounds raised in defence.

The court ultimately agreed with Mbeta’s position, leading to the dismissal of the case in its entirety.