In a case that could set a defining precedent for political accountability within Malawi’s ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP), lawyer Khumbo Soko has come out swinging—accusing the party of engineering a fraudulent primary election in Mzimba Central Constituency through what he describes as an “imposed and bogus Electoral College.”
Lawyer Khumbo Soko
Representing Vitumbiko Mumba, a parliamentary hopeful whose candidacy was effectively derailed by the outcome of the disputed primaries, Soko has declared that the legal challenge has firm and logical grounding, and that MCP must answer for what he calls “an election run by one of the contenders.”
“You cannot have a primary election which is pretty much being organized by a contender in that same election,” Soko argued. “It’s not how it works.”
At the heart of the legal challenge is the composition of the Electoral College—the internal party body entrusted to vote in primary elections. According to Soko, the Electoral College used in Mzimba Central was unilaterally imposed by a regional chairperson with no consultation, oversight, or verification by local constituency structures who, by party norms, are the custodians of voter records.
“When the constituency leaders scrutinized the list, they discovered glaring irregularities. They went back to the Regional Chair to raise the alarm, but instead of returning to the constituency to resolve the matter, he ran to the NEC [National Executive Committee],” Soko explained. “That’s not transparency. That’s manipulation.”
Soko alleges that the electoral body was effectively hijacked by one of the candidates, who allegedly orchestrated the voting list to suit their political ambitions—a move that, if true, not only undercuts party democracy but casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of the entire process.
“This is not how credible institutions conduct elections,” Soko fumed. “A party must act like an independent electoral commission—impartial, independent, and credible.”
The Violence Smokescreen
Adding fuel to the fire, Soko dismissed claims that Mumba was behind any acts of violence that marred the primary process, describing them as “loud, unsubstantiated accusations” designed to deflect from the real issue: a compromised election.
“They scream the loudest, accuse without proof—but there is not a shred of evidence that Hon. Mumba sponsored any violence,” Soko said. “If there was, where are the police reports? Where are the investigations?”
He insisted that if violence disrupted the election, the solution should have been a rerun under tighter, more credible conditions—not rushing ahead with a flawed process in the name of expediency.
A Test Case for Internal Party Democracy
This case is more than a constituency dispute—it is shaping up to be a referendum on how seriously the MCP takes its own internal democratic values. Can a party that governs a nation fail to uphold electoral fairness within its own ranks?
Soko believes the case presents a rare opportunity for justice and reform.
“This isn’t just about Mumba. It’s about whether political parties in Malawi can continue to conduct sham elections in the dark or be held accountable to the light of fairness,” he declared.
With court proceedings set to continue, all eyes will be on how the judiciary interprets this volatile mix of alleged manipulation, procedural breach, and internal party politics. But one thing is already clear: the battle for Mzimba Central has ignited a much bigger debate about integrity, democracy, and the future of political accountability in Malawi.
