Mutharika could still have won Malawi presidential race, MEC insists

December 5, 2019 Zawadi Chilunga - Nyasa Times 58 Comments

Day 58 of the presidential elections case, saw the Malawi Electoral Commission  (MEC) continue building its case during a re-examination of one of the commission’s witness, Henzily Munkhondya, who is director of electoral services, that President Peter  Mutharika  of Democrtaic Progressive Party (DPP) was the legitimate winner of the May 21 2019  presidential elections.

Mutharika: Malawi needs peace
Henzily Munkhondya, who is director of electoral services, says Mutharika could still have won the elections

The re-examination was preceded by a brief cross-examination of Munkhondya by President Mutharika’s lawyer, Frank Mbeta who focused on recording of results in the tally sheets and the record results book.

Mbeta had 30 minutes but only utilized half of that.

Bit and bit, Munkhondya built a case that even if the votes which the petitioners presented as irregular were given to Malawi Congress Party  (MCP) presidential candidate, Dr Lazarus Chakwera he could not have been a winner.

The petitioners had presented a case at Kaviwale school on stream 6 whose votes from the stream were different from the computer generated.

“Without admission of irregularity, even if we get the 582 votes from that stream and give to each of first and second petitioner, they would not have won,” he explained

The same was repeated on a case regarding the blank log book.

Munkhondya said there 11,095 streams and without admitting irregularity, if all the 610 votes for the centre with the blank record book were given to Chakwera, Mutharika could still have won.

Chokotho took Munkhondya to read a paragraph from his sworn statement where he said “the elections were held in full compliance of the law and the petitioners had no merit and ought to be dismissed. There were no irregularities that could have affected the outcome of the elections” and asked him to explain it.

Munkhondya firmly explained that conducting elections is a complex undertaking that as much as the MEC strived to attain 100 percent perfection, there might be one or two issue that might not go according to our plans.

“When those ones occur they may not affect the outcome of the election,” he said.

Munkhondya explained that the Commission took a rigourous process in dealing with alternations to ascertain that there was no mischief.

“At the constituency tally centre there were auditors and so too at the national tally centre. We scrutinized every vote and having convinced that these results were true reflections of the will of the people, the Commission proceeded to announce the results,” he said.

Munkhondya also tackled on the evidence presented in court by MCP lawyers that at some centres the results on from 66 were different from those captured in the record log book for the centre.

He said the tally sheets had signatures of monitors which meant they agreed with them.

“The tally sheets were the ones sent to the main tally centre and not the record log book. Seeing the form signed by the monitors of the petitioner there no no reason to have an inquiry to compare the tally sheet against what was in the log book,” he explained.

Munkhondya also debunked a case by the petitioners at one centre where the manual sheet had six streams but the computer generated result showed five streams.

He explained that there are established centres and non-established centres called satellite centres. All prisons are regarded as satellite centres.

“When voting is done, prisoners vote in prisons when it comes to counting we don’t count votes for the prison as a stream we add them to a stream at the existing centre. In Ntcheu, stream 6 on manual tally sheet, the details were added to stream five. we don’t announce results for such centres as standalone is to maintain secrecy of the ballot and this applies to all districts where there are prisons,” he explained.

Chokotho also picked a number of sheets which had alterations and asked Munkhondya to add up the stream results which gave the sum as put after Tippex which proved that the correction fluid was used to correct a mistake.

Meanwhile, one witness for MEC remains to be cross examined with the court being determined to wrap up hearing on Friday December 6, stressing that if push comes to shove the court will sit on Saturday December 7 to conclude the case.

In the case where President Peter Mutharika of Democratic Progressive Party, the declared winner, is the first respondent, Chilima and Malawi Congress Party (MCP) presidential hopeful Lazarus Chakwera are challenging the results of the presidential race citing irregularities, especially in the results management system.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
Follow us in Twitter

58 replies on “Mutharika could still have won Malawi presidential race, MEC insists”

  1. Zaziiiih zopasana makwacha basi akanawina zichani poti mwakufunakwani alamulabe zaka 5 munamuikapozo ndalama zimabisa uchimo

  2. Ine oloko sina khaleko in any political party koma boma ili lokhali ayi mwationjeza we are not moving on we are stack,imagine ka salary kuza pasa lero pa 7 kumundaku anthu akufuna kena kake, koma chosecho abwana anthu bwana president aku kabwezedwa ku komwe ku Spain awononga zingati paja amayenda ngati mbalame ziji timati mazungulu kuli bwanji akanango khala okha amziwa kuti iwo kuno nkhani zili mu court basi kuma jijilika kumapita uko nkuka bwezedwako eish.

  3. The so called president Peter mutharika could not be on that thrown today without irregularities Well done jane maemu ansah and mec for the dirty money given to you

  4. If you already knew he would win they why vote? That is why this organisation should have a complete overhaul

  5. read the election law in malawi. the law accepts that in an election . iregularies can happen considering is a huge exercise. what matters is the magnitude of the iregularies., the theory that these two sides are trying to prove is the same. only that one side is sayng the iregularity is so huge and the other side says yes iregularities were thier but not enough to change the outcome. now what the court will be looking according to my view is to see whether the magnitude is so huge or not. if huge that can indeed change the results then rerun can be considered in not huge then the court will say yes iregularites were therir but not huge and dismiss ther case. this is my little knowledge in law. i have tries to be nutural with facts

    1. Kuba n’kololedwa as long as anaba pang’ono, uhuuuuuuuu I need to be schooled on this one.

  8. THE PURPOSE OF RE EXAMINATION IS TO TO COUNTER WHAT THE OTHER SIDE ACHIEVED THIS WITNESS HERE IS AS GOOD AS GOOD FOR THE ADVERSARIAL SIDE.IN THE RE EXAMINATION NOTHING TO SHOT DOWN THAT MILLIONS OF VOTES WERE AFFECTED HAS HE SAID NO FAKE OR EXTRA MATERIAL WERE NOT USED HAS HE ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WERE NO RESULT SHEETS THAT WERE NOT SIGNED BY MONITORS THEN WHAT HAVE YOU ACHIEVED IN THIS CROSS EXAMINATION NOTHING.

  9. ZERO PA 10 NOTHING THIS IF WEIGHTED AGAINST THE CROSS EXAMINATION WHICH IS KEY TO EVIDENCE THE CASE IS OVER BECAUSE THE CROSS EXAMINATION REVEALED NUMBER OF VOTES AFFECTED WHICH THE WITNESS AGREE.

  11. What I am hearing the witness say is, that DPP could have won despite rigging? That doesn’t make any sense.

      1. Kuwina ndikuphangila nziwiri zosiyana madala pitala anaphangila unyakwawa kupanda zopangapakazi kusokoneza zenizeni zinavotedwa ata sakanakhalapo yapo wanthu wodavota moganizila zamawa is a time izi zilipozi sidzitisunga izi. Akuluakulu onse odyera odathotholedwa kuphatikiza you pitala

  13. I believe the issue here is whether or not they were irregularities and the answer is a BIG YES. There isn’t nor here nor there.

  14. these are the last kicks of the dying horse if what you are saying is true why are you afraid of another fresh election? you have to speak like a man do not waste our time guys, enough is enough your time is over. leave the statehouse we want the of all Malawians to stay there.

  15. The court will base their final determination on facts not suppositions such as “may have, could have, maybe etc”. The witness was just wasting time. In any case, irregularities have already been established and these throws into the dustbin APM’s boring song that he won the election fair and square. His claim that EU, SADC, USA, the Commonwealth etc certified the results as free, fair and credible falls on deaf ears.

    My view is that DPP and APM lawyers are only justifying their presence, otherwise even they know very well that ‘ madzi achita katondo’. The DPP camp must be restless.

  16. Kaphale and Mbeta are missing the point and are attempting to mislead the Court. The issue is about constitutionality of the whole electoral process. The arguments being advanced by the two learned people cannot even be expected from a first year law student. The arguments are as stupid as a motorist arguing with traffic police that though he has been caught overspeeding he should not be fined because he has not caused an accident. My foot!! Equally conspiracy to murder is ac rime under our law. One can get jailed for conspiracy to murder and not necessarily that s/he has murdered!!

    1. read elections law pliz to understand these lawyers otherwise u will be commenting on things u dont know. these two sides are have differnt theories to prove thier theory. The winning side is saying thier was no major iregularies that can lead to rerun and this is what they are doing. thier basis is that the law as designed in malawi accepts that iregularities can happen considering that the exercise is too huge. what matters is the magnitude of the iregularity. both sides are trying to prove based on this theory and the complainant is trying too to show that indeed these iregularities are too huge that can affect results . ie if corrected the second candicate can have chance to win election. that how i understand these issues. this is what i observe with my little knowledge in law

    2. Ukulotatu iwe chigalu thyolo ndidera koma Malawi ndi modzi ayima nji pa chilungamo mpaka mu America yu atabwelela kumene anachokera achoke adzipita

  19. That’s true because mcp/utm have suspicions + greed with no evidence. mavoti ngati alembedwa pa duplicate basi atayidwe without further investigation? apm anawina anawina basi tilekezele pamenepo

    3. What is scribbled/written on an original sheet portrays or is copied on a duplicate, replicate etc. In a nutshell the information on all the copies is identical, period.

  20. If he could still have won then why would you then apply all these nasty clandestine movements? didi you fear he will not then? Then its you who have messed up his victory to nullification you have a case to answer if Mthalika would sue you for all the damages he incurred.

  22. There is no way this Madala can bring and build up this case ! We have seen there weakness and lies on their eyes. You can see how eager they are trying all corners to snush the case but nothing works and the guy with big ugly face he is trying to speak front of judges with small voice Like 5 year boy so the judges can believe him nothing works Mr Kaphale you are just old fool like your bosd that animal you call Peter Mutharika. Try harder but you will gain nothing DPP and Mec include you Kaphale your devils.

  23. They are missing the point. Its like saying yes the police raped the girls but they are still alive so lets all just move on.

    1. No its like I passing the exam although using improvised answer sheets!
      Look you guys the concourt has literary carried you on its back to reach this stage by waiving a lot of court and practice procedures which the court admitted itself in its first progress judgement. It said in the interest of justice the case had to continue although the applications were late and bla bla bla. Some documents were brought before the court in late June and July way after the stipulated period in the constitution. Some of the complaints went straight to con court before MEC had a say. Malamulo athu amatero?
      So now its our time for the court to waive the so called elections act’s dos and don’ts and use valid vote court. Chilungamo chioneke osati kubisalira kutipex, manually altered tally sheets and use duplicate/manual tally sheets ayi. Mwiniwake wachinthu akati ichi nchanga iwe ungamukanize kuti ayi? MEC adopted those documents, end of story.

    3. *DEC 4 CONCOURT UPDATE FOR SEGMENT*

      By way of analogy, MEC is like a bank which printed genuine bank notes with water marked security features; then said that these security features would distinguish the true notes from the fake ones, then told all of its tellers to only accept genuine bank notes when transacting deposits and withdrawals. During one particular week of transactions, the auditors at bank branches found that one third of the bank tellers had accepted counterfeit bank notes, and the auditors refused to let these bank notes be included in calculating how much money the bank had received, but the bank managers wrote to the auditors to tell them to back off and let the tellers include all the bank notes as long as they are the right color, currency, size, and have the right amount on the note. Then when the bank was later sued for fraud, the managers of the bank insisted that the bank notes the auditors rejected and which the managers insisted on accepting were not in fact counterfeit, because if a bank note is the right color, has the right amount in the right currency, and is the right size, then that means it is as valid as the ones the bank itself prints with multiple security features. And when a fake bank note is pulled out from the bank vault that has the wrong color, wrong currency, and wrong amount, the bank managers simply insist that those disparities were resolved by the bank “at some point” and “in some way”, with no evidence or explanation of how this was resolved and no explanation for why these fake bank notes are still included in the final reconciliation if the irregularity was indeed resolved.

      That may sound like a mad man’s defence, but that is essentially the MEC line of defence, for better or worse.

      _S. Kampondeni_

  29. The thing is that the case is not looking for a number which could make somebody to win but rather the procedure,compliances and administration followed by MEC to retrieve the correct figure that could make one to win.I think Mbeta is totally offside.

    1. Go and read the electoral act. It actually accepts irregularities. They only lead to a nullification. when you can give empirical evidence that a specified number of people were denied their chance to vote. be through actual physical denying or manipulating votes. Unfortunately the petitioners are yet to say which votes were stolen. they mention tippex etc but fail o grab the bull by its horns. a TRAGEDY

  30. Mcp and UTM you have been hit under the belt. This is a well balanced report though y don’t take dudes in pokiticsy. With the previous violence caused by mcp and UTM. Peter will get more votes than before

    1. The issue is mutharika won the elections based on all the factors and prevailing circumtances then. Vuto la chakwera udindo anaufuna uwu and chilima thinks he is the best all the time. Chilima learn to be patient, you are still on good side of age. You are not the jfk or macron, zelensky or tradeau of nyasaland. Komabe simunataye mohamvu kwambiri chifukwa mumayesa zida chifukwa 2024 ndiyachiponyeponye manyuwani okhaokha. Dpp nyowani, mcp nyowani, pp nyowani, freedom party novice myself, udf kaya idzapanga bwanji? Wakale udzakha wekha skc. Koma chaka chino wauponda.

      1. Inunso a mbwiye mwangosowa chonena. Mavuto onse apezeka aja simunawamve? zoti Ben Phiri, Chimkango , Alufandika ndi Munkhondiya anavomereza atalephera kufotokoza simuziwa? Vomerani kuti Muthalika anthu amukana komanso Mulungu wamukana basi. Simukuwona ngozi, kuukirana, etc

Comments are closed.