Mbeta fights to throw out MEC relocation case, says MCP MPs have no legal standing

Attorney General Frank Mbeta has launched a strong legal challenge against a court case that temporarily halted the relocation of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) headquarters from Lilongwe to Blantyre, arguing that the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and three of its Members of Parliament have no legal right to be before the court in the first place.

In court documents filed before the High Court in Lilongwe, Mbeta is asking the court to dismiss the entire case and lift the injunction that stopped the implementation of President Peter Mutharika’s directive to relocate the electoral body’s headquarters.

At the heart of Mbeta’s argument is a simple but crucial question: What direct interest do MCP and the three legislators have in MEC’s internal administrative affairs?

According to the Attorney General, the answer is none.

Mbeta argues that MCP lawmakers Emmanuel Chambulanyina Jere, Abraham Mwakhwawa and Daniel Chitonya Mwanyongo are neither employees, commissioners nor members of MEC. As such, he says, they have failed to demonstrate how they have personally been affected by decisions concerning the electoral body’s relocation.

“None of the claimants is a member or employee of the Malawi Electoral Commission,” Mbeta states in his sworn affidavit.

The Attorney General contends that the decisions being challenged were directed specifically to MEC and not to MCP or the three legislators. He says the claimants are attempting to challenge administrative decisions that were never addressed to them and which do not directly affect their legal rights.

Mbeta further argues that MEC itself has already taken legal action over the same matter and is pursuing its own case in court against the implementation of Executive Order Number One of 2025.

In essence, he says there is already a directly affected party before the courts and there is no justification for a separate challenge by individuals who have not shown any personal injury arising from the relocation.

The Attorney General is also relying on previous court decisions to support his position.

He cites an earlier High Court case involving activist Limbani Phiri and others, where the court ruled that the applicants lacked sufficient interest because they failed to prove that they had suffered harm different from that experienced by the general public.

Mbeta argues that the MCP lawmakers are in a similar position.

He says their concerns are no different from those of ordinary citizens and that they have not demonstrated any unique legal injury that would entitle them to seek judicial intervention.

“The claimants have failed to show any specific injury arising from the decisions they are challenging,” Mbeta argues.

The Attorney General has also taken issue with the decision to refer the matter to Chief Justice Rizine Mzikamanda for certification as a constitutional case.

According to Mbeta, the claimants relied on the wrong legal provisions and have attempted to elevate what is essentially an administrative dispute into a constitutional battle.

He argues that the case does not require the interpretation of the Constitution because the claimants are not challenging the legality of the Executive Order itself. Instead, they are contesting administrative decisions made in implementing the order.

As such, Mbeta believes there is no constitutional question that warrants referral to the Chief Justice.

The Attorney General is therefore asking the court to overturn the leave granted by Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda on June 5, 2026, which allowed the claimants to commence judicial review proceedings and obtain an interlocutory injunction.

He is also seeking to have the referral for constitutional review set aside.

The dispute stems from a February 27, 2026 directive issued by Secretary to the President and Cabinet Justin Saidi, instructing the implementation of Executive Order Number One of 2025, through which President Peter Mutharika ordered the relocation of MEC’s headquarters from Lilongwe to Blantyre.

The claimants are also challenging a decision by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development not to renew the tenancy agreement for the premises currently occupied by MEC in Lilongwe.

Saidi and Minister of Lands Chimwemwe Chipungu were named as defendants in the matter.

Earlier this month, Justice Nyirenda granted MCP and the three legislators leave to pursue both judicial review and constitutional review proceedings. He also issued an injunction restraining the Executive from taking further steps to implement the relocation until the court determines the matter.

That ruling temporarily froze government’s plans and set the stage for what has become one of the most closely watched legal and political battles in recent months.

Now, with Mbeta seeking to have the entire case thrown out before it proceeds further, the High Court faces the task of determining whether the claimants have sufficient legal standing to challenge the relocation or whether the case should end before the substantive issues are ever heard.

The matter remains before Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda, whose next ruling could determine not only the future location of MEC headquarters but also who has the legal right to challenge decisions involving one of Malawi’s most important democratic institutions.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :