Mutharika outlines 5 grounds to form basis of appeal: ‘Why MPs vote acceptable yet from same electoral process?’
President Peter Mutharika has outlined what will form the basis of appeal grounds in rejecting Monday’s ruling by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) which annulled the results of last year’s election, saying among others the ConCourt acted outside its jurisdiction and made determinations on matters that were not before it.
State House spokesman Mgeme Kalilani confirmed that there are five grounds that will form the basis for appeal grounds.
The said ConCourt misdirected itself on how the law applies to the facts of the case.
He also said the five judges’ panel made determinations on matters that were not before it.
“There was an incoherent and inconsistent application of the rationale and basis for the nullification of the presidential results,” said Kaliani citing one of the basis for appeal.
He also said there was “selective justice” in the same that the court treated the presidential results as unacceptable while the Parliamentary results as acceptable “when both results came from the same process which they faulted and admonished .”
The President also argues that the ConCourt acted outside is jurisdiction and against the principle of separation of powers by ordering Parliament to amend some laws to agree with its judgement .
“The court acted against jurisprudence principals by purporting to overturn a Supreme Court decision on the definition of majority in the Malawi electoral process to accommodate their judgement,” said Kalilani.
Reading the judgement, Healy Potani who chaired the panel of judges, said: “We are satisfied that the petitioners’ complaint alleging undue return has been made out both qualitatively and quantitatively. Consequently, we hold that the first respondent [Mutharika] was not duly elected as President of Malawi. As a result, we hereby order nullification of the elections.”
Mutharika, a lawyer by profession, with expertise in international economic law, international law and comparative constitutional law, said alongside his legal team he had “serious reservations with the judgement.”
In his special address to the nation on Wednesday, Mutharika pointed out that he and his legal team has noticed fundamental errors in the judgement that cannot go unchallenged.
While he noted that the ConCourt clearly did not claim rigging, t he ConCourt judgment if not cured, represents a “flawed precedence” for all the elections in all future elections in the country.
Lawyer Frank Mbeta who represented Mutharika in the petition case has confirmed to have received “ instructions from our client to appeal.”
Mbeta said they are formulating the grounds of appeal and will be filed with the court.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
Hahahahaha i wish you folks can see both sides of the coin! The guy is whatever you think he is to you……..and now look at his arguments for appealing, they are legit!……..mmemo waguru anagudura kale aChilima ndianzawooo mu 2019 mommuja. Apapa basi lets serve ukaidi oyendera omwewu. Otherwise awaso ali ndimodusa mwawo, nawoso simakape. ENAWO SIANAKASUMA, ASIYENISO AWA APANGE APPEAL….MUMAONA NGATI DEMOCRACY NDIMASEWERA, NDIIMENEYI! osamangolubwalubwa!
KKKKKKKK AMBWIYE ZIDIKILANI MILANDU NDI ANZANU,MWAZUNZA AMALAWI NTHAWI YOKWANILA.KUMENEKO KUMVA MPANDO KUKOMA????? ZOOPSYA NDIPO DPP MWAONETSA SHOW KU MALAWI HEHEHEHEHEH!!!!!!
I think this is a good opportunity for the clueless and intellectually-challenged Mutharika to expose his ignorance of the law! The ruling is what the PPE Act Section100(4) prescribes when non-compliance has been established and the orders are to ensure the ruling is effectively implemented. That clueless and intellectually challenged Mutharika and his lawyers do not understand this underscores and vindicates what some of us have always known: Mutharika is intellectually-challenged and do not be fooled by the titles he wears on his forehead or sleeves!!!! More importantly, we should not have a cabinet at a time we are preparing… Read more »
Intellectually challenged is the apt description.
mchisala, you are so politically dull and pitifully wicked that you can vomit such pathetic vituperation against a learnt professor of law, APM, the Queen’s. Counsel – a secondary school dropout like you. Million tons of shame on you!
Just go to court, why making news out of it? Perhaps seeking sympathy? The court will analyse your appeal and provide remedy as is deserved
Ngati ma MP oluza sanakasume zawo zimenezo
That is not the point. The point is the REASON for nullification. If the ConCourt had found that APM rigged the election i.e. he had stolen the votes, then the issue would have been the presidential election only. But the ConCourt faulted MEC processes hence all MEC elections that were determined by the same MEC irregularities should be nullified. Chakwera is a tippex MP so why is it OK? APM will presumably not ask the supreme court to nullify the other elections, he is likely to argue that the ConCourt recognised MPs hence it should also recognise his victory since… Read more »
Akulu ngati ma MP sanakasume that is their choice. The question was on Presidential vote. Actually this is the very reason that shows clearly that the Presidential vote was stolen. The parliamentary vote had no tipex
Unfortunately, no single person came up with evidence to show that the parliamentary results were fraudulent. If I remember very well even when the issue of MPs surfaced it was set aside because the petitioners’ case was on presidential results.
Inu a lawyer a Mbeta mungofuna Magazi ku mtundu wa a Malawi. What exactly are you looking for? Chilungamo chiposete yapa. Musawapusitse a president Pitala because you want money no. Even if you win the appeal people will want referendum, kapena ndiye mungazamvetsetde.
Ma kandideti omwe amaona kuti chilungamo chabvuta ku constituency adapita ku khoti kukadandaula. Tisayiwale kuti ena zidawayendera monda olemekezeka a Vuwa Kaunda pamene wena zidawabvuta. tikumbukenso kuti okadandaula ku Concourt adali ma kandideti a chisankho cha pulezidenti osati u MP.
The grounds made by Mgeme are not coming from Mgeme himself but a certain crooked lawyer who wants to milk the old nyapapi. Imagine, from the layman like me, I know the issue which was brought before the concourt was the presidential case and not concerning the parliamentarians. So you mean the judges could make a ruling on a case which was not brought before them? What a judge says becomes a law (un written law), ask the labour guys. A Mbeta ikokeni nkhaniyi chemwali anga akudikira ndalama yomweyo atakupatseni Nyapapi kuti nyumba ija ithe.
well sounds good dismiss the Mps too and u will see how many dpp mps benefited from the rigging shooting themselves in the foot
Mtima oti nsapite ndekha. Let him appeal. Mlamu unali wa Presidential polls apanga bwanji appeal on parliamentary basis?